Formal charges were filed against a school bus driver accused of operating a bus while under the influence of alcohol. Reportedly the driver became inebriated during a dinner break at a steakhouse and sports grille in Portage Michigan. Witnesses in the restaurant thought the driver was drunk, so they contacted the police. The driver managed to drive to a local mall and pick-up 36 eighth and ninth grade students and three teachers around 6:00 pm, at the end of an all-day field trip.

Jennifer Lynne Moore was charged with DUI in Michigan, child endangerment and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated with an occupant under the age of 16. Her blood alcohol content was .16%, more than 10 times the limit for a school bus operator.

Moore, 47, was hired by the Coloma School District in 2009. A school superintendent said a background check was performed, though it was recently learned that Moore had a prior conviction for Georgia DUI on her record. The school said it would review its hiring and employee background policy to avoid similar incidents.

Have you been arrested for a MI DUI and are looking for qualified Michigan DUI Attorney to handle your case?

A 30-year old Flint Michigan man admitted during his arrest for drunk driving that he had been drinking, and the reason was LeBron James' decision to play for the Miami Heat next season. The unidentified man said he was upset that James had turned down playing for the Boston Celtics. Lebron James had actually turned down the Cleveland Cavaliers, the team he played on for the past seven seasons. Boston was not in contention for the prized free agent basketball player.

After seeing the driver swerve, police conducted a Michigan DUI investigation. A breath test showed a blood alcohol content of 0.16%, twice the threshold for impairment and the man was cited for driving under the influence in Michigan.

Have you been arrested for a Michigan DUI?

According to the arrest report, Ellington registered a blood alcohol content of .29%, more than three times the legal limit for driving while intoxicated in Michigan. The Oakland County resident was booked on charges of drunk driving in MI while an officer took the child to school.

It is Ellington's first intoxication arrest. Police are considering elevated charges because the passenger was under 16-years old. If convicted, Ellington could face an additional six months in jail for having a minor in the vehicle.

Were you recently charged with OWI in MI?

Grady is the state’s all time leading high school rusher. His performance at UM has been less than stellar, and he missed the 2007 season with a torn ACL. Grady had expressed hope for a good upcoming season, following the graduation of starting tailback Mike Hart.

Rich Rodriguez, the new Wolverines football coach, issued a statement saying the school was aware of the incident and would be reviewing details before dealing internally with the DUI arrest.

If you have been charged with a DUI in Michigan, it is important that you hire a qualified Michigan DUI Lawyer to represent you on your drunk driving charge.

Isabella County Circuit Judge Paul Chamberlain ruled that prosecutors could not apply Heidi's Law retroactively. DUI cases filed before the law took effect on January 3, 2007 are subject to only ten years of look back for previous offenses. That look-back period was the amount of time allowed before Heidi's Law. The ruling prohibits prosecutors from seeking substantially increased penalties for certain repeat offender drunk driving cases. A drunk driving misdemeanor would result in a maximum of 93 days in jail and fines between $300-500, while a felony conviction would raise the jail term to a maximum of 5 years and the fine to $5,000.

Michigan DUI defense attorneys are pleased with the decision, and they hope counties around the state will impose similar restrictions. The Isabella County prosecutor has indicated he would appeal to the ruling.

By: Jamie Wagner - Staff Writer

For any Michigan Tech student the road and highway systems are a big part of every break, including the semester break coming up. As most of us prepare for the long automotive trek home for the holiday season, we are worried about the road conditions being snowy, icy, whiteout or just plain slow. What may not be common knowledge is that this is the worst time of year for losing your life on the road because of alcohol. Mothers Against Drunk Driving cite that in 1999, 1,610 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic fatalities between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day.

We have all heard the facts and numbers about drunk driving statistics, but one fact that can be found with any alcohol statistics is that every 33 minutes someone is killed in a drunk driving accident.

The percentage of drunk driving fatalities for Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are all above the national average of 38.4%. In the latest year that data is available, 1998, 536 people lost their lives in Michigan drunk driving accidents. 302 died in Wisconsin, and 280 in Minnesota. Nationwide, 15,935 people were killed by drunk drivers in 1998. In 1999 this number was slightly down to 15, 736 alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths.

The Blood Alcohol Content levels for Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota are all 0.1 BAC. A woman of average health that weighs 140 pounds is legally intoxicated after three drinks in one hour—though her impairment begins with the start of her second drink. For an average healthy man weighing 170 pounds with a full meal in his system, four drinks in one hour will put him at the legally intoxicated level.

To help prevent and combat drunk driving Congress signed a bill in October of 2000 to establish a .08 BAC as the national standard for impaired driving. States have until 2003 to adopt the .08 level and those that do not will have highway construction funds withheld from them every year with the penalty increasing each year. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century also created incentive grants for states enforcing the .08 BAC standard.

The reason that .08 BAC was chosen is from the results of years of research and studies. Over 80 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes had alcohol levels exceeding .08 BAC.

All states have strict laws for repeat drunk driving offenders including license and vehicle sanctions, alcohol assessment programs, and mandatory imprisonment or community service. But two thirds of all drunk drivers apprehended each year are first time offenders.

The state of Michigan has tough drunk driving laws to protect those out on the road. These laws have been advertised on radio and TV and in the news in the past year. These laws apply to those over the legal drinking age of 21. The first time a person is convicted of driving after drinking the driver's license will be suspended for 30 to 90 days and four points will be added to the driving record. Michigan's Zero Tolerance law for underage drunk drivers leaves an underage offender nearly defenseless in a court of law.

After being stopped for drunk driving several different charges can be brought against the offender. Operating While Impaired (OWI), means that because of alcohol or other drugs in the body, the ability to operate a motor vehicle was visibly impaired. For a first time offender, the driver's license will be suspended for 90 days and fines up to $300 can be imposed, and/or jail time community service, or vehicle immobilization. For a second offense of OWI, the license is revoked, license plates confiscated, and possible vehicle forfeit. Jail time and community service are also possibilities as well as more fines up to $1000.

The Operating Under the Influence of Liquor offence means that the alcohol in your body substantially affected your driving ability so that you could not operate a motor vehicle safely.

Charges for this are the same as charges for Operating With an Unlawful Bodily Alcohol Content (UBAC), which means at the time you were driving, your bodily alcohol content was 0.1 or more. First time offenders lose their license for six months and face 180 days of immobilization. Jail time and community service and/or $100 to $500 in fines can be levied. Repeat offenders face more serious jail time, revocation of their driver's license, plates and vehicle are almost certain.

If the drunk driving incident causes bodily harm to someone a five-year felony penalty is applied to the drinker. If someone is killed in the drunk driving incident a 15-year felony charge for that conviction is imposed.

When pulled over the police will ask the driver to take some sobriety tests, and refusing is not an option that should be exercised. A Preliminary Breathe Test is the roadside test that can be given immediately and refusal results in a civil infraction and fines up to $100. Under 21 year old drivers will automatically have two points added to their records. After arrest the chemical test is given to determine the BAC, and refusal of this test adds six points to the record, the destruction of the driver's license, and suspension of it for six months months.

John Bumgardner
9/15/2006

Undated - An end-of-summer effort aimed at catching drunk drivers resulted in more than 18,000 arrests in Michigan.

The statewide crackdown ran the last 2 weeks of August through the Labor Day weekend.

Besides catching drunk drivers state police near Detroit and Flint used grant money to go after people with outstanding warrants for alcohol-related convictions.

Those efforts resulted in nearly 259 arrests.

Police across the state also handed out more than 18,000 speeding tickets.

Source: http://www.wzzm13.com

A person simply sitting in the driver's seat of a parked, idling car cannot be charged with drunken driving, the state Supreme Court said today.

The court ruled that a Cross Plains woman found intoxicated at the wheel of her parked car was not guilty of drunken driving because there is no evidence she ever touched the controls of the car.

The case involves Kristin Haanstad, whom police found intoxicated in the driver's seat of her idling Chevrolet Cavalier in Baer Park in Cross Plains on May 26, 2003.

According to court records, Haanstad had been drinking at a bar for several hours when she handed her keys to a man she was with. The man drove Haanstad and a companion to Baer Park, where he had left his vehicle. The man parked Haanstad's car next to his vehicle and got out of the car, leaving Haanstad's car running with the lights on. He helped his companion into his vehicle and returned to Haanstad's car, where Haanstad had slid from the passenger seat to the driver's seat to let the man into the car so the two could discuss their relationship. She sat with her body and feet toward the man in the passenger seat, never touching the controls of the car.

At about 12:30 a.m., a Cross Plains officer approached the car, and despite the fact that Haanstad explained she had not driven the car, asked her to perform sobriety tests, then arrested her for drunken driving.

The case was thrown out by Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Nicks, but the state Appeals Court reversed Nicks' decision, ruling that Haanstad was in fact operating the vehicle and was guilty of drunken driving.

The Supreme Court today reversed the Appeals Court ruling because there was no evidence that Haanstad actually operated the car.

In a 6-0 decision - Justice Jon Wilcox didn't participate - Justice Louis Butler wrote that state statute specifically spells out what constitutes the operation of a motor vehicle.

The word "operate," the law reads, "means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion," Butler noted.

"The village does not dispute, and the Court of Appeals concluded, that Haanstad never physically manipulated or activated any of the vehicle's controls. ... Haanstad simply sat in the driver's seat with her feet and body pointed toward the passenger seat," Butler wrote.

Butler drew a sharp distinction between Haanstad's case and a case presented by the village as precedent. In that case a man was charged with drunken driving after he was found sleeping behind the wheel of his pickup truck on an interstate emergency ramp. The defendant admitted driving the truck to the spot where officers found him.

"In contrast, the evidence here is undisputed that Haanstad did not drive the car to the point where the officer found her behind the wheel," Butler wrote.

The village never claimed that Haanstad tried to drive the car or even touched the controls.

"As the Circuit Court judge so aptly stated, 'If she is guilty, she is guilty of sitting while intoxicated,' " Butler wrote.

Source:
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=72621&ntpid=0

Police in Center Line can't be sued for allowing a woman who claimed she was too drunk to drive to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, according to a ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals.

In a 3-0 decision Friday, the court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the family of Sami Koulta, of Madison Heights, who was killed in a 2002 crash involving Chrissy Lynn Lucero, of Shelby Township.

According to court records, police were called to a home on Sept. 13, 2002, to help remove an unwanted visitor. The officers encountered Lucero and ordered her to leave, which she did. Lucero said she told police she was too drunk to drive, the Detroit Free Press reported.

Minutes later, she ran a red light and smashed into Koulta's vehicle.

Lucero had a blood-alcohol level of 0.11 percent, considered drunk by state law, the newspaper said.

Source: http://www.lsj.com/

In both cases, authorities charged the defendants under the Michigan DUID law based on the presence of cannabis metabolites, an inert byproduct of the body's breakdown of THC, in their blood. The presence of metabolites does not indicate impairment or being "under the influence"; it only indicates that someone ingested THC at some time in the past, as the state Supreme Court acknowledged in its ruling. Both trial courts held that the metabolite was not "marijuana" and thus a controlled substance under state law, a position upheld on appeal.

Both a majority on the Supreme Court disagreed. Neither the DUID nor the controlled substances law "requires that a substance have pharmacological properties to constitute a schedule I controlled substance," the majority held. Neither does the DUID law "require that a defendant be impaired while driving. Rather, it punishes for the operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of schedule I controlled substance in the body."

Then, breathtakingly, Justice Corrigan wrote, "It is irrelevant that a person who is no longer 'under the influence' of marijuana could be prosecuted under the statute. If the Legislature had intended to prosecute only people who were under the influence while driving, it could have written the statute accordingly."

Now, any Michigan driver who has smoked marijuana in the last few days or, in the case of heavier smokers, up to three or four weeks, is subject to a DUID arrest based on the presence of inert leftover metabolites that do not actually indicate impairment. In a harsh dissent, Justice Michael Cavanaugh warned the court it would criminalize a huge class of people.

"Today's holding now makes criminals out of numerous Michigan citizens who, before today, were considered law-abiding, productive members of our community," he wrote. "Now, if a person has ever actively or passively ingested marijuana and drives, he is [unknowingly] breaking the law, because if any amount of [cannabis metabolites] can be detected -- no matter when [the marijuana] was previously ingested -- he is committing a crime. The majority's interpretation, which has no rational relationship to the Legislature's genuine concerns about operating a motor vehicle while impaired, violates the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution."

The ruling could have an impact beyond Michigan. Twelve other states have enacted laws making it a criminal offense to drive under the influence of drugs. They use standards similar to those upheld this week -- the presence of trace levels of drugs or metabolites -- to assume impairment. Unlike drunk driving laws, which assume a certain blood alcohol level after which one is considered impaired, the DUID laws assume that the presence of any metabolite or trace proves impairment.

Source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/