Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
While everyone worries about staying out of jail and losing their driver’s license for a High BAC charge (technically called OWI with a BAC of .17 or Greater), there is another key concern often overlooked, or that even goes unnoticed, by a person scrambling to avoid the legal penalties in such a case; the perception that he or she has some kind of troubled relationship to alcohol. Anyone arrested for a High BAC is very much at risk to be seen within the court system as having an alcohol problem, and it is important to understand why that’s the case, in order to be able to do something about it.
In order to keep this article of manageable length and on point, we won’t get into some big, general examination of High BAC cases, but rather why the very term “High BAC” generates an extra-negative perception, and what can be done to counter that. It is important to begin by noting that even though the main component of a High BAC charge is the elevated BAC result itself, that’s really just “the icing on the cake,” so to speak, because it builds upon the long-established fact that, as a group, DUI drivers have a higher rate of drinking problems than the population at large, meaning people who don’t get a DUI.
This ties into something so important, I recently completed an 8-part examination of it, and have even dedicated an entire topic section on this blog: the alcohol bias. We won’t re-examine it in much detail here, but the foundation of the bias is based upon that statistical reality that DUI drivers do, in fact, have a higher incidence of troublesome drinking than everyone else. This means that anyone walking into court for a DUI charge is seen as a member of that at-risk group. This is only exacerbated when you add a BAC result that practically screams “big drinker!”
This means that finding the “best” DUI lawyer is really about getting the best person for your case, more than anything else. This, in turn, is dependent on things like the facts of the case, where it’s located, and how well the lawyer and the client “fit” and work together. Some people get along better with the kind of legal “buzzsaw” who, taking a shotgun approach, challenges everybody and everything within a case, while most others do better with a more thoughtful approach. And as much as someone might prefer one personality type over another, the lawyer has to be the right fit for the case itself, as well.
What, if anything, is the upshot of this? What are the implications for anyone with a pending DUI? Does this mean there is some way to “undo” the conviction for someone previously convicted of a DUI? While the answers to those questions are evolving, there are a few things we can take from this right away, not the least of which is that from this point forward, until things are resolved, the MSP, as noted above, is recommending that suspected DUI driver’s undergo a blood, rather than a breath test.
Instead, as I tried to make clear, beyond having rather strict reporting requirements, the big risk for anyone with a professional license is that the licensing agency will require him or her to be “evaluated” to determine if they have any kind of substance abuse problem, and then required to complete any treatment deemed necessary as a result of that evaluation. As we’ll see in the coming paragraphs, the problem is that this takes place in an environment that, instead of being any kind of level playing field, is tilted far for toward the “better safe than sorry” side of things.
My team and I have, quite literally, handled thousands of DUI cases. Short of a professional lion-tamer, I can’t think of a profession we haven’t represented. We’ve taken care of DUI charges (including 2nd offense cases) for more medical and other professionals than I could count, and absolutely none of them have lost their licenses, or their jobs. In almost every case, with some skillful planning that accounts for the legal, employment and licensure implications of an OWI charge, everything can be worked out just fine.
Educating the client isn’t merely about preparing him or her for things that will or might happen. Sometimes, it’s more about dispelling a person’s fears and misconceptions, as much as anything else. The issue of jail (or, really, the lack of it) serves as a good example for what I mean: I am undoubtedly the most vocal lawyer out there about the fact that, almost without exception, you won’t go to jail for a 1st offense DUI in the Metro-Detroit (meaning Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties). I make that clear on both my website and in many of the more than 425-plus DUI articles (to date) I’ve written and published here, on this blog.
A DUI case IS a big deal. From a purely legal point of view, it’s all in a day’s work for us, as DUI lawyers, to help our clients avoid most of the negative consequences from an OWI charge. However, because of our experience handling DUI cases day-in and day-out, and the things we know, we feel morally obligated to do better than just that, and do more than just damage control. Handling the legal aspects of a DUI is really the bare minimum a person should expect from a lawyer, in the same way that closing up a cut is the bare minimum a patient should expect from an emergency room doctor.
The fact that this “other side” can be examined in a piece about 10 times smaller than the larger examination of of the alcohol bias says something, to be sure. Even so, the courts do have some genuinely valid concerns. For as much as there is to dispute the basis of the alcohol bias in the court system, we should, in all fairness, consider the things that support it, as well. For example, as much as the alcohol bias is subconscious, every Judge is always aware that, when sentencing someone for a DUI charge, instead of ordering any kind of counseling or treatment, they can just send the person to jail.
We left off, in part 1, by noting that the alcohol bias makes people in the court system “see” an alcohol problem even where there isn’t one, and to magnify any risk factors or actual problems that do exist so that they’re perceived as worse than they actually are. This, in turn, gives rise to the “better safe than sorry” mindset that is pervasive within the court system. Although it’s not a big deal to send ever 1st offender for some kind of preventative education, the alcohol bias has consequences well beyond just that.
The bias generally operates beneath the consciousness of everyone working in the courts, even though it really is a controlling factor in how DUI cases are processed. The implication of the alcohol bias is the idea that most DUI drivers are risky drinkers, and should be treated as such. This notion is strongly supported by studies consistently showing that DUI drivers, as a group, have a statistically higher incidence of alcohol problems than the population at large. As true as that may be, the other implication, too often overlooked, is that plenty of people showing up for a 1st offense DUI case DO NOT have a drinking problem.