Ann Arbor Criminal Defense Blog

Today is the 100th anniversary of the Drunkenness on Trains or Interurban Cars law.

This law makes it illegal to be on a train while “in an offensive state of intoxication.” A conductor can arrest a drunk passenger and deliver him or her to a police officer at the nearest station.

Although passengers may not bring their own booze on a train they can purchase it on board. The conductor may take any alcohol brought on the train. The conductor must, however, provide a receipt and the passenger can reclaim the alcohol within ten days.

Earlier this month, several defendants were sentenced to federal prison as a result of the largest ever methamphetamine seizure in Michigan. The police seized about 20 pounds of pure meth stashed in hidden compartments in the defendants’ vehicle during a traffic stop in the town of Paw Paw. The meth was estimated to have a street value of half a million dollars. 

The use of methamphetamine, also known as meth, crystal meth, or ice, has increased dramatically over the last decade in Michigan, particularly in the four southwestern counties of Allegan, Kalamazoo, Van Buren, and St. Joseph. 

Meth is a schedule 2 substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act and Michigan law, meaning it is considered to have a high potential for abuse and dependence and a limited medical use. Using meth can induce a rush of euphoria, wakefulness, and physical activity, but users can soon become addicted. 

When you see the flashing red and blue lights in the rear-view mirror that means it’s time to pull over to the side of the road at the earliest opportunity. Increasing your speed, turning off your lights, or otherwise trying to escape a police or conservation officer lawfully directing you to stop is a felony in Michigan. This law applies to boats as well as motor vehicles.

Read: Information on Criminal Charges in Michigan

There are four degrees of the of crime of Fleeing and Eluding, with increasing levels of consequences. MCL 750.479a.

A look at a criminal court docket in Michigan will show at least several defendants charged with the crime of uttering & publishing. But what does this odd sounding crime involve?

Uttering and publishing means to falsify a document in order to cheat someone. Often times this involves the passing of bad checks. The ‘intent’ to injure or defraud is a crucial element in the case against the defendant. This may be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uttering and publishing can involve different types of documents, such as public records, financial devices, and real estate documents.

Today the Michigan State Police released its annual report of drunk driving statistics in Michigan. Here is a list of drunk driving arrests by county in 2012:

Wayne: 5,203

Oakland: 4,776

Macomb: 2,376

Kent: 2,187

Genesee: 1,493

Ingham: 1,218

Kalamazoo: 1,087

Ottawa: 941

Jackson: 907

Saginaw: 812

Washtenaw: 774

Berrien: 720

Livingston: 706

Calhoun: 693

Allegan: 613

Muskegon 588

Saint Clair 582

Lapeer 539

Van Buren 526

Monroe 457

Lenawee 455

Bay 449

Statewide Average 448

Isabella 428

Grand Traverse 394

Newaygo 359

Clinton 355

Marquette 329

Eaton 299

Emmet 271

Shiawasse 253

Midland 237

Tuscola 218

Barry 214

Delta 209

Saint Joseph 201

Mecosta 200

Antrim 199

Chippewa 195

Ionia 195

Roscommon 190

Sanilac 184

Iosco 172

Wexford 172

Gratiot 169

Dickinson 168

Gladwin 164

Montcalm 153

Houghton 152

Oceana 149

Branch 143

Clare 140

Huron 136

Hillsdale 131

Manistee 131

Cass 128

Kalkaska 125

Otsego 122

Arenac 120

Alpena 114

Gogebic 114

Ogemaw 114

Cheboygan 105

Mason 101

Menominee 101

Charlevoix 99

Leelanau 96

Crawford 91

Osceola 80

Alcona 73

Mackinac 65

Missaukee 62

Benzie 61

Iron 60

Alger 52

Oscoda 49

Presque Isle 46

Lake 45

Baraga 43

Ontonagon 30

Montmorency 28

Luce 26

Keweenaw 14

Schoolcraft 6

Source: Michigan State Police Annual Drunk Driving Audit

Contact ArborYpsi Law at 734-883-9584 or at bernstein@arborypsilaw.com to speak with attorney Sam Bernstein

Legal Disclaimer

Michigan Fireworks Law

July 4th is almost here and that means it’s time for fireworks. Last year the Michigan legislature legalized the sale of fireworks in the Michigan Fireworks Safety Act. The law originally did not allow cities to ban the use of fireworks the day before, the day of, and the day after a national holiday, such as the Fourth of July. After last summer’s heavy use of fireworks, however, the legislature updated the law to enable cities to enact regulations regarding fireworks use during certain times around holidays. The changes to the Michigan fireworks law will have a big impact on the local economy, but there are some legal requirements you must follow if you plan to purchase and use fireworks in Michigan.

What does the New Law Say?

Here’s what the new law says:

A city with over 50,000 people or a city within a county of over 750,000 people may regulate the use of fireworks between 12 midnight and 8 a.m., and between 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. on New Year’s Day. A smaller city may only regulate the use of fireworks between the hours of 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. The penalty for a violation of a city ordinance under this law is a maximum $500 fine. Check with your local government to see if an ordinance regulating fireworks is in place.

The Supreme Court in Maryland v. King ruled that taking DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious crimes does not violate the Fourth Amendment, reasoning that the procedure was no different than photographing and fingerprinting.

Justice Scalia authored a scathing dissent, writing that, “Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

King was a Maryland resident arrested for assault. King’s DNA was taken at his arrest and matched with DNA from an unsolved 2003 rape, for which he was tried and convicted.

The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Koon ruled that medical marijuana patients cannot be convicted of a zero-tolerance law that prohibits drivers from having any amount of marijuana in their blood stream.

For a medical marijuana patient to be convicted of an operating while impaired offense involving marijuana the prosecution must now prove that the driver was actually under the influence of marijuana while driving.

“While we need not set the exact parameters of when a person is ‘under the influence,’ we conclude that it contemplates something more than having any amount of marijuana in one’s system and requires some effect on the person,” wrote the Court in a per curiam opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Moncrieffe v. Holder today ruled that a marijuana distribution crime is no longer an offense that will lead to automatic deportation for noncitizens. Before today’s ruling such crimes were considered “aggravated felonies,” a class of offenses that foreclose the opportunity for noncitizens to obtain discretionary relief from deportation.

For a marijuana distribution crime to be an aggravated felony now it must be established that the defendant either distributed the marijuana for payment or possessed more than a small amount.

“Sharing a small amount of marijuana for no renumeration, let alone possession with intent to do so, does not fit easily into everyday understanding of trafficking, which ordinarily means some sort of commercial dealing,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In Missouri v. McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to adopt a rule that would permit police officers to draw a drunk driving suspect’s blood without a warrant under any circumstance.

McNeely was pulled over by a highway patrol officer at about two in the morning. The officer observed that McNeely had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol.  McNeely performed poorly on several field-sobriety tests and declined a breath test. He was arrested and taken to the police station where he again refused a breath test.

At this point, the officer took McNeely to the local hospital for a blood test. No attempt was made to secure a warrant for the test. The officer read McNeely the implied consent rules, which like in Michigan, mean that a refusal to take a chemical test can result in license revocation for one year. McNeely still refused the test and his blood was drawn, with his blood alcohol content measuring at .15, about twice the legal limit of .08. He was ultimately charged with operating while intoxicated.