Trials and Tribulations 0.19 BLOOD DRAW = NOT GUILTY Posted on: Nov. 03 2007,15:06 by William Maze Even though it's tremendously easy to add updates to this portion of the website, I almost never take the time.  It’s terrible of me, but some of my biggest victories never get posted to the website because I don’t take the time to commit these cases to writing.  Because of this, I’m often times asked how often do I actually go to trial.  This answer is a lot! During the week of October 22-26, 2007, I had three jury trials scheduled plus an evidentiary hearing, plus a couple of pretrials and a sentencing.  There was nothing unusual about that particular week, but the three jury trials provide different perspectives of DUI cases.  The first case was combined alcohol and marijuana blood draw case.  The client was adamant that he was not guilty, and blood testing confirmed that he was only 0.04.  Unfortunately, Michigan’s new OWPD law prohibits any amount of marijuana.   Trace amounts of marijuana metabolite appeared in the client’s blood, so the prosecutors assumed the case would be an easy victory for the prosecution.  (The fact that no active marijuana was found in the blood showed that the client was not under the influence of marijuana, but these are the draconian laws that have foisted onto Michigan’s citizens.) Unfortunately for the prosecution, the state lab analyst failed to appear for trial.  As we started to pick a jury, the prosecutor offered to lower the charge to a reckless.  The client, to his credit, was as stubborn as I am, and he said absolutely not.  He wanted a dismissal and an apology!  Well, he didn’t get the apology, but the prosecutor threw in the towel and offered a careless driving, which is only a civil infraction similar to a speeding ticket.  With an offer that good, we couldn’t press on any more, and we called it a day. On the second jury trial case, we had already been to trial on two or three occasions.  The court continued to haul us back into court several times, but we never got to see a jury.  We continued to say “ready for trial, your honor” over and over and over.  And we kept getting put off to another date.  Eventually, this wore the client down.  Although she only an 0.07 with a “failure” of only one of the field sobriety tests (which was absolute nonsense), the client insisted on taking an impaired.  It made me sick, but she would not go to trial.  I had pulled several “0.08" posters, with slogans such as “Lower Limit Tougher Law,” and I was prepared to tear the officer up on his stupid field sobriety tests, but, alas, I can’t force a client to go to trial. On the third case, the client’s options were very limited.  Because she was from another state, she would have lost her license if we entered any type of plea agreement.  Regardless, the prosecutor wasn’t offering much because the police officer took the case personally (having stopped her for “failing to yield for emergency vehicle”), and a blood draw supposedly revealed a 0.19 alcohol level.  Our own independent lab had reevaluated the blood measuring 0.22 with bacteria present in the sample.  Unfortunately, the lab said it was a non-fermenting bacteria, but it’s hard to imagine two different labs coming up with such different results.  The client decided not to have our own lab people testify at trial.  I focused on the lack of bad driving and adequate performance of the field sobriety tests, and I cross-examined the state toxicologist on various conditions that would taint the lab results.  The jury deliberated for six hours and returned a stunning two word verdict of not guilty on the drunk driving charge finding her responsible only for the failure to yield charge.

NOT GUILTY! 34th District Court Romulus Posted on: Sep. 07 2006,13:35 by William Maze On Friday, August 25th, the case of MZ went to a jury trial.  The prosecuting attorney was Raymond Guzall, and the officer, a Wayne County Sheriff, was R. Close.  The district court judge, David M. Parrot, had denied most of the preliminary motions filed in the case, discouraging Mr. Z. Mr. Z felt that the case was futile.  He had been stopped for "weaving" (which we disputed), but the driving, stop, and field sobriety tests were not videotaped by the officer.  He had provided a breath sample of .10 on a datamaster following the arrest.   We knew that the datamaster breath results were not accurate.  Mr. Z suffered from GERD (Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease), and we believed that the breath results were higher than they should have been on the breath test. We focused on the inadequate investigation by the officer in this case.  The "bad" driving was not recorded, and the field sobriety tests were simply unfair and improperly graded by the officer.   Mr. Z testified and was absolutely clear that he was not intoxicated.  He was concerned, however, that the judge was allowing evidence into the trial that should not be admitted.   The judge wanted the case completed in one day, which simply was not possible.  The government had four witnesses, and we had five witnesses.  At 5:00 p.m., an hour after the court had closed, the prosecution finally completed its case.  As a result of the late hour, I moved to adjourn.  We did not have our breath test expert or Mr. Z's medical doctor available after 5:00 p.m.  The court ordered that the case proceed without the expert or the medical doctor. Although we believe that this would have been reversed on appeal, no appeal was necessary.  The jury returned a not guilty verdict even after 45 minutes of deliberation without the expert and the doctor!

Reckless in Westland A Very Long Battle! Posted on: June 10 2006,11:55 by William Maze Our client was stopped after leaving a bar called Malarkys in Westland. Video evidence revealed that the officer immediately u-turned to follow our client after watching the vehicle leave the establishment. The officer claimed that the driver failed to come to a complete stop at a blinking red at a left turn intersection. No bad driving was viewed whatsoever, and we initially challenged the stop, which was denied by the judge. We also challenged the arrest because the client passed all field sobriety tests. That was also denied. While reviewing the case further, it was discovered that the officers used portable radios during breath testing. Radio waves from the portable radios can cause artificially high results, and the administrative rules prohibit using radios in the Datamaster testing area. Yet another motion was filed and denied. But, at this point, the judge observed that all these facts could be brought out at trial and might undermine the prosecutor's case. With trial fees and expert witness fees, the client did not want to go to trial. Nonetheless, the prosecutor was unaware of this fact and offered a reckless. (Although you may notice that we get a number of cases reduced to reckless, it is not exactly the desired outcome since it carries six points and suspends the license for 90 days. Nonetheless, prosecutors do not frequently offer reckless, a distinct change from ten years ago, and the result defeats the allegation of drunk driving because it is a non-alcohol related offense.) While it wasn't the result that I wanted, the client was satisfied with the result.  But, I was ready for trial with guns blazing, and I felt deprived of the not guilty verdict that the jury would have returned.   William Maze

No Jail Before Judge Small? Attorney Shannon Stevens Posted on: Mar. 22 2006,18:20 by William Maze On a case where an OWI was reduced to operating while visibly impaired, Shannon Stevens was successful today in convincing Judge Kimberly F. Small of the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Michigan not to order a period of incarceration.  Surprisingly, it’s true: occasionally we do accept plea agreements at the Maze Legal Group!  (As to the prosecutor’s that frequently review our site, please don’t get excited.  This isn’t a trend.) Judge Small is notorious amongst the criminal defense bar in Oakland County, with a reputation of automatic jail on any drunk driving conviction.  Typically, this is ordered to dissuade drivers from future wrongdoing and--quite candidly, in Judge Small’s own words--to punish the convicted driver.  Avoiding incarceration is the most frequent concern for accused motorists, and this is a very realistic fear before Judge Small. But in rare circumstances, Judge Small can be convinced to forego a jail sentence.  And Shannon Stevens succeeded against the odds today!

SOS - DLAD Hearing Dazzle Them With Meaningful Cross Posted on: Mar. 21 2006,22:39 by William Maze I apologize that I haven’t updated this section in so long.  I can’t believe it’s been so long since I posted a new case!  Shannon and I have won several cases that I’ll try to give a brief description of during the next few weeks as time permits. Today’s victory, however, was at the DLAD, where I employed a new style of cross-examination that I’ve been adopting to my cases.  At a DLAD hearing for an implied consent violation, the driver is alleged to have refused the police officer’s request for a chemical test after a valid arrest.  Typically, this means that a driver was arrested for OWI based upon probable cause and refused the breath test. At a DLAD implied consent hearing, the driver “appeals” the automatic one year suspension for refusing the chemical test.  According to the Secretary of State: “MCL 257.625f limits the issues appealable at a hearing ONLY to the following: 1. Whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that you committed a crime described in MCL 257.625c(1). 2. Whether you were placed under arrest for a crime described in MCL 257.625c(1). 3. If you refused to submit to a chemical test upon the request of the officer, whether the refusal was reasonable. 4. Whether you were advised of your rights under MCL 257.625a.” An attorney that understands the provisions of MCL 257.625c(1) will challenge all the issues, as was done in today’s case.  Using the newly developed style of cross-examination that I’ve been working on during the last couple of months, I asked a long series of short, looped questions designed to culminate in a point that favors the desired outcome.  These questions were specifically formulated prior to the hearing.  Culminating on the biggest most critical point, it was revealed that the officer had improperly advised the driver on the impact of a breath test refusal. In closing argument, most of the base questions were waived in favor of the critical points.  The focus on the critical points illuminated those points.  The focus on the critical points made the issues obvious. And the focus on the critical points translated to a victory.   The critical points were illuminated, obvious and equaled a victory.   And that too, is part of the new style of cross-examination that I’ve been developing to represent clients more effectively at hearings, at motions and at trial.

Two Felony Drunk Driving Cases - NO JAIL OWI 3rd Pled Down to OWI 2nd Posted on: Dec. 31 2005,17:39 by William Maze During the last couple of weeks, we have been able to obtain favorable results for clients on felony drunk driving charges.  In both cases, the clients were charged with third-time drunk driving offenses within 10 years--felonies that typically result in jail terms of no less than 30 days and often times upwards of one year.   Based upon our arguments, motions, and discovery requests, the prosecutors in each case agreed to dismiss the felony enhancement and agreed to a term of no jail. Potential clients are forewarned, however:  These results (and the fact that we were able to get them TWICE within a couple of weeks) are NOT typical.  We were recently contacted by a potential client represented by another law firm.  That person was being offered only a one-year cap on the jail term.   Perhaps more importantly, anyone charged with felony drunk driving needs to understand that it takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to obtain these results.  Because we focus on drunk driving defense, we have the skills, and we're willing to put in the effort, but our time is priced at a premium.  We charge more than attorneys in this field because we have a proven track record of success!

OWI Down to Careless West Coast of Michigan Posted on: Dec. 31 2005,17:28 by William Maze On Thursday, December 29, 2005, we were able to procure a dismissal of drunk driving charges against our client in exchange for a plea to careless driving, a civil infraction carrying a fine of $135.00. The case was particularly weak for the prosecution with a very low blood alcohol report, but the police officer in charge of the case described very bad driving and poor performance on field sobriety tests.  Rather than taking the case to trial (where an expert witness would have been necessary), the client opted for the careless driving charge.

Three Victories in One Day! December 22, 2005 Posted on: Dec. 22 2005,17:53 by William Maze Three different cases in two different courts resulted in a wonderful holiday season string of victories today. Case No. 1:  In the first case, attorney Shannon Stevens was able to get an OWI case dismissed.  In that case, the accused was picking up a passenger at Detroit Metro Airport.  Officers approached the vehicle because it was in an area where vehicles were not allowed to wait to pick-up passengers.  Officers noticed an open can of beer in the vehicle.  After a brief investigation, the driver was arrested. A breath machine established that the BrAC was .17, but our firm challenged the testing procedure. Ms. Stevens requested access to discovery, including videos and audio tapes.  Although the Metro Airport police and the prosecutors cooperated fully with Ms. Stevens, the police agency in charge of the breath machine refused to provide access to many materials, including videos.   After filing motions and providing several additional opportunities for the police to produce the requested materials, the Court granted Ms. Stevens' motion for dismissal.  Ms. Stevens and her client were compelled to go to court many times over several months, and patience and perseverance paid off.   Case No. 2: Our client was charged with OWI 2nd and Driving While License Suspended.  The BrAC was low, the driving was fine, and the field sobriety tests were performed improperly by the officer.  Despite improper performance of the field sobriety tests, our client performed those tasks exceptionally well.  The breath results were challenged because the officer failed to properly observe the accused for 15 minutes prior to taking the breath sample.  (In this case, videotapes revealed an observation period of less than 11 minutes.)   After reviewing the videotapes and the motions filed by Mr. Maze, the prosecuting attorney offered to dismiss the drunk driving charges as well as the driving while license suspended charge in exchange for a plea to reckless driving.  Many years ago, reducing drunk driving charges to reckless driving was common practice.  Nowadays, it is virtually nonexistent, and prosecutors routinely reject efforts to resolve drunk driving cases in this manner.  Although reckless driving carries significant fines, points, and a mandatory suspension period, the client was very happy with the result and will not face mandatory license revocation for habitual drunk driving.. Case No. 3:  The same prosecutor as in Case No. 2 stipulated to suppression of the breath test results as well as suppression of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  (This particular prosecutor, incidentally, is very thorough and meticulous and almost never yields on arguments or permits pleas to non-alcohol related charges.) Videotapes in this case showed that the officer did not engage in the proper observation of the accused.  As to the HGN test, the officer failed to properly perform this eye evaluation, deviating dramatically from the standardized procedure.   Because the driving was not erratic and performance of physical field sobriety tests strongly suggest that the accused was not impaired by alcohol, this case may ultimately result in a dismissal or a not guilty verdict.

OWI DISMISSED following Implied Consent Victory!!! Hands down across the board success! Posted on: Dec. 09 2005,19:03 by William Maze Client was charged with OWI following a traffic stop after a Tiger’s game.  Client refused to provide Datamaster breath test.  Police did not obtain search warrant to force blood draw. No videos existed of the driving, the stop, or the field sobriety tests, and no video existed at the police department.  Officers provided client with notice of suspension for refusing Datamaster test.   We challenged the implied consent suspension at the DLAD.  The officers failed to appear, and we won the implied consent hearing. In the criminal court, we appeared several times, but the prosecutor only offered a plea to "impaired," despite the lack of evidence.  We set the matter for trial. On the day of trial, the officers failed to appear again (although they had appeared at prior hearings), and the case was dismissed.

OWI Dismissed Mistrial then Dismissal Posted on: Dec. 09 2005,18:51 by William Maze The details are a bit muddled... but... The case was scheduled for jury trial a few weeks ago.  Police officer erred during testimony, and the jury was dismissed and a mistrial was declared.  Case was reset for December 1, 2005. On December 1, 2005, a variety of conflicts and unintentional errors resulted in a dismissal of the OWI charges!

OWI Dismissal Another client victory! Posted on: Nov. 23 2005,11:55 by William Maze On November 22, 2005, we were able to procure a dismissal of an OWI charge for one of our clients.  The police officer and our client crossed paths while making opposing left turns out of parking lots across the street from one another.  As such, the police vehicle was forced to stop in order to avoid a collision, and the police officer effectuated a traffic stop. Our client had an open beer in the car, but field sobriety tests showed that he was capable and coherent.  Unfortunately, our client blew over the legal limit. Based upon the questionable nature of the probable cause for the police officer to stop the other vehicle, the prosecutor and our firm were able to negotiate a dismissal of the OWI charge, and the client accepted a plea to the open intoxicant in a motor vehicle, which carries virtually no penalties compared to the more serious drunk driving offense.

New E-Newsletter! Subscribe today to our newsletter Posted on: Nov. 23 2005,11:48 by William Maze We have recently added an e-newsletter as a new feature to our site!  This allows easier communication than the current OWI Defense Law Forum, since we can directly contact interested members directly via email with news, op-ed pieces, updates to our page, and DUI case updates. Your information will be kept confidential and you will never receive spam from our organization, so subscribe to the new e-newsletter today!  To subscribe, simply submit your email address on any one of our pages and click the icon "subscribe to our e-newsletter."

Nollo prosequi Trials and Case Updates Posted on: Oct. 29 2005,10:09 by William Maze During the last week, we've had two OWI 3rd cases reduced from felony charges to misdemeanors during the pretrial phase.  In another case, an OWVI 1st charge was reduced to a civil infraction due to a low breath score of 0.06.   The most impressive cases this week, however, are trial victories.  In two related cases on the date that the jury was being selected, the prosecutor dismissed the matters through an order of nollo prosequi.  The phrase "ready for trial" produces tangible results! On another front, we are still battling the Holland, Michigan 0.03 case.  Last week, the trial court cancelled motion hearings due to a scheduling error.  The trial is scheduled to begin November 4, 2005. William Maze

Long Overdue Updates October 20, 2005 Posted on: Oct. 20 2005,18:36 by William Maze We apologize that there haven’t been many updates lately.  With summer winding down, most courts have put off jury trials until after most Michiganders are done with their vacations. Thus, we’re entering our busy season, with trials stacked upon trials week after week. With the jury trial season beginning, we have beaten one 0.14 breath test in Kalkaska, Michigan, on October 14, 2005.  But that case is ultimately unexciting, since the jury– while rejecting the breath test– returned a verdict of “impaired driving.”  Under Michigan’s current laws, “impaired driving” is not well-defined, and it invites juries to compromise on a verdict.  Unfortunately, the so-called infraction of “impaired driving” is hardly less serious than a conviction to the supposedly more serious offense of “operating while intoxicated.”  In the Kalkaska case, the jury was unwilling to acquit on all charges, even though the police admitted to literally dozens of errors.  While juries try to do justice, the law is stacked in favor the police and prosecutors. We were able to successfully argue several motions in the Kalkaska case, and we have preserved errors that may result in a reversal in that case. With the Kalkaska case in mind and the shoddy work that the Legislature has done with our so-called impaired statute, and considering the shocking news out of Washington, D.C. about the attorney accused of DUI at 0.03, far below the legal limit, we have circulated an editorial regarding Michigan’s impaired driving laws.  The article will be posted on this web site after the Michigan newspapers have had an opportunity to circulate that article.  We hope that as a result of the editorial that at least one or two members of our Legislature will do something to correct the uneven playing field. The news for today, however, is a bit more optimistic.  In the 52nd District Court in Novi, Michigan, we were able to obtain a mistrial.  Although this does not ultimately procure a victory in the case, the process was halted by prosecutorial errors.  In the meanwhile, our firm will be able to address evidentiary issues that would have occurred during the trial process through appeals.   As F. Lee Bailey’s book states, “The Defense Never Rests.” William Maze

OWI DUI Rights Cards are in Stock! Distribution Sites Pending Posted on: Sep. 19 2005,20:40 by William Maze What do you do if you're stopped by the police?  Should you try to do the police officer's tests?  Should you give a PBT breath sample?  What if you refuse?  What about a breath sample at the police station?  Do you want to get your blood drawn instead of providing a breath sample?  When do you get to call an attorney? All these questions and more are answered by our new DUI Rights Police Stop Card.  We've just received our first installment of 10,000 cards and the cards are absolutely free! Currently, we are attempting to distribute these cards in connection with 101.1 WRIF gatherings as well as 97.1 WKRK, but... all things take time.  Until then, you can call our office at 888.941.1122 for free copies of the DUI Rights Card or download your own copy of the card here at owidefenselaw.com

Fri. Aug. 19, 2005 OWI Case Victory Posted on: Aug. 21 2005,17:51 by William Maze DW was charged with OWI.  On a snowy night, our client's car went into a ditch.  He walked approximately four miles through the snow attempting to get a ride or to use a telephone, but he was unsuccessful in the rural area where his car was stuck. A passing county snow vehicle radioed police regarding the stranded car.  Michigan State Police responded and inspected the car.  Following footprints in the snow, the MSP troopers drove the four miles that our client had walked and found him. After a brief investigation, our client admitted that he had been drinking but passed all sobriety tests.  The police officer place DW in the back of their car and performed one additional field sobriety test, the “horizontal gaze nystagmus” test or HGN test.   The HGN test is a test where a police officer asks the suspect motorist to watch the tip of a pen or a fingertip, following that focal point with their eyes.  The test attempts to determine whether there is involuntary jerking present in the eye movements, that jerking being also known as “nystagmus.” The trooper conducting the test indicated that DW had failed the test with “six out six clues present,” and they arrested DW. Later at the police station, DW submitted to a breath test, where his breath measured 0.10. At an evidentiary hearing, the trooper testified that he had been trained in the HGN test, but he could not identify the source of his training except to say that it was sponsored by the MSP.  He testified that he had properly conducted the test, but his testimony revealed that his testing methods deviated wildly from the standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Further, the trooper admitted that he had never been taught to conduct the HGN test in his patrol car.   The prosecutor failed to introduce scientific evidence or the testing methods.  The judge, holding that the results would be admissible at trial, indicated that, “based upon my limited understanding of the test, the officer conducted the test properly.”   After we filed an extensive motion for reconsideration relying upon out-of-state cases where judges had made similar rulings in the absence of expert testimony, we announced that we were ready for trial. On the eve of trial, but before the court was compelled to reconsider its HGN ruling, the prosecutor agreed to conditionally reduce the charges to careless driving and disorderly conduct.

Thurs. Aug. 18, 2005 DLAD Hearing Posted on: Aug. 21 2005,16:21 by William Maze Implied consent hearing resulted in dismissal.  Police officer failed to appear.

Berrien County St. Joseph Case Hon. Dennis M. Wiley Posted on: Aug. 17 2005,12:15 by William Maze Our client WJK was charged with OWI.  Police videos from the patrol car showed that our client was driving fine, but the officer claimed that WJK was "driving in both lanes of traffic."  The officer's claim was absolute nonsense.  The officer later testified under oath that "driving in both lanes of traffic" included touching a lane marker, but even that was not clearly evident on the videotape.  Additionally, the officer claimed he could see poor driving better than his video equipment.   Despite the officer's keen ability to see things more accurately than videotapes and following a motion hearing at which the trial court judge held that the stop was lawful, we were able to procure a plea agreement to a non-alcohol related offense after filing extensive motions and retaining a Datamaster expert in anticipation of trial. The trial court judge sentenced our client to fines and costs only, with no probation.

New Article on OWIDefenseLaw.com PBT vs. Datamaster: Breath Test Refus Posted on: Aug. 17 2005,08:02 by William Maze A person called our office yesterday asking questions about the penalties for PBT refusal.  The caller had refused a roadside PBT after passing field sobriety tests and was worried that there might be a licensing sanction.  (The police officer in this particular case lacked probable cause to arrest because the driver refused the PBT.)   Interestingly, the caller had contacted the local district court to find out the penalties, and court personnel were unsure.  They referred the caller to the local police!  No one should ever seek legal advice from the police. Following the discussion, we published a new article here on OWIDefenseLaw.com to explain in detail the different types of breath test refusals.  The new article is available at PBT vs. Datamaster: Breath Test Refusals.

DLAD Implied Consent Victory Recent Maze Legal Group Case Posted on: Aug. 10 2005,13:04 by William Maze On August 10, 2005, we represented our client, JAM, at an implied consent hearing at the DLAD.  Although we had prepared a brief that guaranteed denial of the police officer's petition to suspend our client's license for failing to submit to the Datamaster, the brief proved unnecessary because the police officer failed to appear within 20 minutes of the scheduled time. When a police officer fails to timely appear for a DLAD implied consent hearing, the license remains valid and no suspension or points are incurred by the driver for failing to provide a breath sample.

DLAD Victory Recent Maze Legal Group Case Posted on: Aug. 02 2005,15:27 by William Maze On July 28, 2005, our client EM had a hearing at the Driver's License Appeal Division (DLAD) of the Secretary of State for an implied consent revocation.  The police officer claimed that EM had refused to provide a breath sample on the Datamaster device, and the officer sought to have EM's driving privileges suspended for a year.   Despite numerous discovery requests, including subpoenas and freedom of information act requests, the police department refused to provide access to even the most rudimentary information necessary in the case. After preparing extensive arguments based upon the regulations contained in the Michigan Breath Test Operator Training Manual, we discovered at the hearing that our client had actually provided a valid breath sample!  Contrary to the rules, the police officer had reported that our client refused to provide a breath sample because the officer was only able to obtain one breath sample and subsequently performed a blood draw pursuant to a search warrant.   Obviously, this uninformed officer's inexperience cost our client a great deal of time and stress, and the officer's report could have resulted in a suspension our client's driving privileges.  All's well that ends well, however, because the initial breath score of .08 could have formed the basis for a drunk driving conviction ... had the forced blood draw not uncovered that the Datamaster score was improper.  Our client's actual blood alcohol was only .05 according to the blood draw, which is considered far more accurate than a breath sample.   As a result, our client's driving privileges will not be suspended, and the prosecutor will not be able to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this case.

Free Press Letter Michigan Drunk Driving Money Posted on: July 09 2005,13:50 by William Maze The following letter appeared in the Detroit Free Press on July 2, 2005, in response to a series of articles published by the Free Press on June 29, 2005.  The original unedited version of the op-ed is available by clicking here. Protect rights No one claims that driving drunk is good. Any unnecessary roadway deaths caused by drunks are too many. But it is legal to drink and drive, and we need to fiercely guard against neo-prohibitionists and those who stand to profit from criminalizing alcohol before they are permitted to dictate how we should all live as our constitutional rights are eroded away. Unfortunately, the truth is that organizations such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and SADD no longer focus on drunken driving. Instead, these organizations have become anti-alcohol. SADD, formerly known as "Students Against Drunk Driving," has changed its name to "Students Against Destructive Decisions." The bottom-line: Drinking is bad, whether or not you're driving and whether or not you're drunk. William Maze Maze Legal Group Romulus

Chewing Tobacco in Mouth Datamaster Testing Errors Posted on: July 06 2005,19:13 by William Maze We are pleased to announce a huge victory for one of our clients in Oakland County. Our client had provided a breath sample, but he had chewing tobacco in his mouth at the time.  We argued that the administrative rules prohibited this and the failure of the officer to ensure that the client did not "eat, drink, smoke or place anything in his mouth" prior to testing required suppression of the Datamaster.  The prosecutor was unconvinced. At a hearing on the matter, copies of the Michigan Breath Test Operator Manual (2003) were introduced.  The Operator Manual specifies the procedure that breath test operators should (and often times must) follow to ensure accurate results.  One provision in that book states that the officer shall "Check mouth of subject for blood, food, gum, tobacco, or any other foreign substances.  Observe subject for at least 15 minutes.  Record observation start on Evidence Ticket.  Use the time displayed on the instrument panel only." Following an extensive hearing, the prosecutor concluded that the breath test result might ultimately be suppressed by the court.  As a result of the issues raised in the evidentiary hearing, we were able to successfully negotiate a plea to the non-alcohol offense civil infraction of “careless driving.”

"Costs of Prosecution" MCL 769.1f Posted on: July 06 2005,18:34 by William Maze We are wrapping up oral argument in opposition to a prosecutor's unprecedented attempt to assess nearly $6,000.00 in attorney fees against a drunk driving defendant.   Although the statute at issue in the case, MCL 769.1f, has arguably permitted this type of punitive attack on all drunk driving defendants, the problem boils down quite simply to whether a person maintains the right to challenge the state's case.   With hefty attorney fees and police costs hanging over a person’s head who has been merely accused of drunk driving, many people might not risk the possibility of losing a motion hearing or at trial, since any plea or conviction could result in attorney fee sanctions against the accused. Every person is guaranteed a right to a vigorous defense and a jury trial.  It is high time to put a stop to the government's encroachment upon these rights.  We have asked the court to strike the provisions of MCL 769.1f as unconstitutional, and we have provided the Hon. J. Cedric Simpson with 120 years of cases showing that this capricious attack by the prosecuting attorney is unfounded in our country’s legal history.