Drunk Driving
Drunk driving (also commonly known as driving under the influence (DUI), operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL), operating while intoxicated (OWI), operating while visibly impaired (OWVI)) has become a highly-regulated area of the law, as victim advocacy groups lobby for tough laws to curb drunk driving and politicians yield to public pressure to “get tough” on drunk driving. Because drunk driving has become a political issue, in addition to a public safety to issue, there is an ever-increasing number of laws designed to “get tough” on drunk driving. As these laws proliferate, more rules and protocols are spawned to bolster drunk-driving prosecutions.
The police are expected to follow all of these new laws, rules and protocols, in addition to adhering to the constitution. The more rules there are to follow, the more difficult it is for the police to comply with all the rules. Thus, it is not uncommon for mistakes to be made and the results of a drunk-driving investigation to be called into question.
Your attorney should know all of the latest laws, rules, and protocols related to drunk-driving investigations. The attorneys at Springstead & Bartish stay on top of the law to ensure you get good advice and a knowledgeable attorney who can navigate the facts and law in your case, maximize your chances of a favorable outcome, and challenge the integrity of drunk-driving (OWI, OWVI, DUI, OUIL) prosecutions in West Michigan. This includes carefully analyzing the following parts of the case:
Did the Police have a Valid Legal Basis for the Traffic Stop?
The police generally can stop you for one of two reasons:
Civil Infraction — the police suspect that you have committed a civil infraction, e.g., speeding, failing to stop or use a turn signal, swerving outside of your lane, defective equipment like a burned out headlight or taillight.
Crime — The police can stop you or detain you if they have a sufficient legal basis (reasonable suspicion or probable cause) to believe that a crime has been or is being committed, i.e., drunk-driving.
If the police do not have a valid legal basis for a traffic stop, the traffic stop or seizure may be unlawful and violate your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable (or unlawful) seizures. U.S. Const. Amend IV, Michigan Const., Art. 1, Sec. 11. Evidence seized as a result of an unconstitutional search or seizure may be suppressed or inadmissible in court, as courts, generally speaking, do not want to reward unlawful behavior.
The Reason for and Length of the Detention After the Traffic Stop
Assuming the police have conducted a valid traffic stop and can articulate a specific reason or reasons to suspect you have or are committing a crime, the law allows the police to detain a suspect for a reasonable amount of time to confirm or dispel their suspicions. In drunk-driving investigations, in my experience, the police usually rely on their observations of or conversations with the driver to justify launching a criminal drunk-driving investigation and detaining the driver further, e.g., admissions of drinking, slurred speech, the “odor of alcohol,” red-bloodshot eyes, poor dexterity (fumbling for wallet).
What Evidence did the Police Gather
In addition to the above indications that somebody has been drinking, the police try to gather evidence of the driver’s intoxication by having them perform field sobriety tests (alphabet, number count, finger touch, walk and turn (W.A.T.), one-legged stand (O.L.S.), horizontal gaze nystagmus (H.G.N.)) and seizing/testing a sample of their breath using a roadside breath test, also known as a preliminary breath test (P.B.T.). The police ostensibly use these field sobriety “tests” to determine whether a suspect is intoxicated or not. Whether these tests can actually and reliably differentiate between somebody who has been drinking but is not legally intoxicated and somebody who is legally intoxicated is a much more complex question. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (N.H.T.S.A.) has commissioned studies to prove that these “tests” are scientifically valid to bolster drunk-driving prosecutions, the results of these studies are underwhelming. It appears few, if any, of these “tests” can reliably determine who is legally intoxicated and who is not. As such, this type of evidence has a limited value, though the police and courts routinely rely on it.
Probably because these field sobriety “tests” cannot reliably determine whether a suspect is legally intoxicated, the police usually rely heavily on the results of P.B.T. in deciding whether to arrest a suspect. However, the P.B.T. are not admissible at trial, except in limited circumstances. It can, however, be used to support probable cause to arrest someone suspected of drunk driving.
Is the Evidence Legal Admissibility
In order to be admissible in court and used in a criminal prosecution, evidence must be deemed legally admissible under the rules of evidence and otherwise admissible. For some evidence, i.e., scientific evidence, this means that it must meet certain scientific and legal standards before it can be admitted. Other evidence must have a proper foundation, be relevant to an issue in the case, and be more probative than prejudicial, among other requirements, in order to be admissible.
Is the Legally Admissible Evidence Sufficient to Support a Warrantless Arrest
Even if evidence is admitted in court, there still has to be sufficient evidence to justify a warrantless arrest—probable cause to believe a crime was or is being committing, that is, reasonably trustworthy information based on a specific and articulable facts. This is a fact-specific inquiry decided on a case-by-case basis.
Would the Evidence Presented at Trial Rise to the Level of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard than probable cause. In fact, it is the highest standard in the law. A logical extension of these two different standards is that, just because the police or the court found there was probable cause to believe a crime was being committed, it does not follow that a judge or jury at trial will find that the same evidence constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are There any Factual or Legal Defenses at Trial?
Rarely does the prosecution have an airtight case. Questions often arise about a suspect’s driving (i.e., whether their driving was impaired by alcohol) or whether the suspect was, in fact, driving or intoxicated at the time alleged. Additionally, other questions may arise about the evidence itself, such as whether it is trustworthy and reliable.
Because trials present myriad questions of law and fact, you should hire an experienced, knowledgeable, and dedicated professional to review the facts of your case.
Call the attorneys at Springstead & Bartish Law, P.L.L.C., for a free case consultation today at (231) 924-8700 or (616) 458-5500.
