No DUI for Man Driving in his Driveway
Case: People v. Rea Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Published Opinion ) Judges: Gleicher and Shapiro; Dissent – Jansen Issues: Operating while intoxicated (MCL 257.625); Whether the defendant was operating his vehicle in an area generally accessible to motor vehicles; Requirements to bind a defendant over for trial; People v. Yamat; Whether dismissal was appropriate; People v. Yost; Statutory interpretation; “Generally” defined; Principle that a residential driveway is pri
Elements of the Crime: OWI - High BAC
High BAC Offenses Beginning Oct. 31, 2010, a new Operating While Intoxicated offense, more commonly referred to as a High BAC offense, has been created for individuals convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of .17 grams or more. High BAC is a misdemeanor and carries the following penalties: Up to 180 days in jail. A fine of at least $200 but not more than $700. Up to 360 hours of community service. One year license suspension. The Secretary of State may issue a res
Judge Ignores Sentencing Agreement, Defendant Not Given Chance to Withdraw Plea.
Case: People v. Ream Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Judges: Per Curiam - Gleicher and Shapiro; Concurrence - Jansen Issues: Sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement; People v. Cobbs; MCR 6.310(B)(2)(b), (C), & (D); People v. Armisted; Order mandating the repayment of attorney fees; People v. Jackson; MCL 769.1l Summary: The court concluded that the trial court did not comply with the requirements of MCR 6.310(B)(2)(b) when it sentenced the defendant c
6th Circuit Court Says Certain Cell Phone Records do not Require Search Warrants
Case: United States v. Carpenter Court: U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit ( Published Opinion ) Judges: Kethledge and Guy; Concurrence – Stranch Issues: Whether the government was required to obtain a search warrant to receive the defendants’ wireless carriers’ business records; U.S. Const. amend. IV; United States v. Jones; Katz v. United States; Ex parte Jackson; United States v. Warshak; Whether there was an “expectation of privacy”; Smith v. Maryland; United States v. P
6th U.S. Circuit Court Finds Probable Cause for Traffic Stop
The traffic stop and subsequent search of defendant-Collazo’s van did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights because the officer had probable cause to stop the van for following too closely behind another vehicle. Further, the officers did not unconstitutionally prolong the stop, and they had probable cause for the search.Collazo challenged the traffic stop and sought to suppress the drug evidence seized. When determining the legality of the traffic stop, the court applied t
