If you have been arrested for OWI, there may be additional sanctions from the Michigan Secretary of State if you refused to take a chemical test to determine your BAC. If the police have alleged that you refused to take a chemical test, you should consult with an attorney to understand your rights and your options in the matter. Below is a summary of the potential consequences from the secretary of state: Michigan's Law If arrested for drunk driving in Michigan, you will

Both possession and intent to deliver may be proved by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. People v. Ferguson, 94 Mich. App. 137, 151, 288 N.W.2d 587, 594. Intent to deliver may be inferred from the amount of controlled substance possessed by an accused. Id, citing People v Abrego, 72 Mich App 176, 181; 249 NW2d 345 (1976). Below is the jury instruction used when a Defendant is charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver: M Crim JI 12.3 Unl

People v Joe, COA No. 323515 Issues: Search & seizure; Motion to suppress cocaine evidence; Alleged illegal seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; People v. Henry (After Remand); People v. Chambers; “Plain view”; People v. Gonzalez Summary: Rejecting the defendant’s claim that the length of the traffic stop and the continued police questioning were unreasonable, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the cocaine evidence. The court conclu

People v. Zablocki, COA 328152 Issues: Suppression of the defendant’s blood test results in connection with charges of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with an occupant under age 16 (MCL 257.625(7)(a)(i)) & operating a motor vehicle while having a controlled substance in his body (MCL 257.625(8)); Motion to suppress on the basis neither a licensed physician nor an individual operating under the delegation of a licensed physician drew the blood; MCL 257

People v Muhammad, COA No. 317054 Issues: The habitual offender notice; The prosecution’s failure to timely notify the defendant of its intent to enhance his sentencing; In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond; MCL 769.13(1) Summary: On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing his habitual offender notice when the prosecution did not timely notify defendant of its intent to enhance his sentencing. Initially, the court reversed the

People v Simmons, COA No. 320216 (unpublished) Issues: Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; Whether the police had a “reasonably articulable suspicion” to conduct an investigatory stop; People v. Beuschlein; Terry v. Ohio; People v. Champion; People v. LoCicero; Distinguishing Reid v. Georgia; United States v. Sokolow; United States v. Cortez Summary: Holding that under the totality of the circumstances, the police had a reasonably articulable suspicion to conduct a

People v. Tomasik, SC Docket No. 149372 On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE in part the April 22, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court for a new trial. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the recording of the defendant’s interrogation. See People v Musser, 494 Mich 337 (2013). Because nothing

From Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707, 710, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4194, *1 (D. Ala. 1956): Procedural Posture Plaintiffs, four black citizens, brought a class action lawsuit against defendants, city commissioners, chief of police, public service commission, common carrier, and drivers, to test the constitutionality of laws that require the segregation of the white and colored races on city motor buses. Overview City and state laws required the segregation of the white and c

A recent Court of Appeals decision succinctly explained the defense of entrapment as follows: “Entrapment is a criminal defense, and the defendant bears the burden of establishing entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. The purpose of this defense is to deter abuse of authority by precluding criminal liability for acts that were instigated by the police and committed by those not predisposed to such acts.” People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752; 825 NW2d 688 (2012) (

People v. Carruthers In this medical marijuana action, the trial court’s erroneous ruling, which dismissed this case against defendants on the grounds of “entrapment,” conflicts with the black letter law of entrapment and the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (“MMMA”),1 MCL 333.26421 et seq. 1 The MMMA uses an outdated spelling, “marihuana.” Throughout the opinion, we use the current and common spelling “marijuana” unless quoting from the MMMA or cases that use the older spellin