Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

February 10, 2022

Michigan DUI Expungement Law Change

For years, a DUI was one of the only convictions you could not expunge in Michigan. Manslaughter, for example, could be expunged, but not DUI. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Michigan lawmakers agreed. Effective February 19, 2022, the law was changed to allow for expungement of a first offense DUI. The new law covers most garden variety DUI offenses, including operating while visibly impaired, operating while intoxicated, operating with the presence of a controlled substance, operating with a high BAC (“Superdrunk”), and minor with a BAC (“Zero tolerance”). But more serious DUI offenses cannot be expunged even if they were a first offense. This includes operating a commercial vehicle while intoxicated, operating while intoxicated with a child (“Child endangerment”), operating while intoxicated causing serious impairment of a bodily function, and operating while intoxicated causing death.

Only a first DUI conviction can be expunged. Any second- or third- offense convictions cannot be expunged. And you can only ever have one DUI expunged. So, for example, if you were convicted of DUI, got it expunged, and then picked up another DUI, the second DUI (although treated as a “first” offense for other purposes) cannot be expunged.

July 17, 2021

Michigan Supreme Court Reinforces Application of Terry v. Ohio in Ruling

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

A woman was charged with operating while intoxicated with a child as a passenger and open container in a vehicle after a police officer pulled her over. The main issue in this case is how the police officer came to pull the woman over in the first place. A police officer was informed by dispatch that a 911 call was made regarding a woman who was being loud and obnoxious. The caller stated that the woman appeared to be intoxicated and was yelling at her children. The caller gave the vehicle’s make, model, color, as well as license plate number.

Within 30 minutes of the call, the officer saw a vehicle that matched the description given over the phone. The officer followed the vehicle for a bit and did not observe any illegal activity or driving infractions but pulled the vehicle over anyways. He did this “based strictly on the information” received from the 911 call. The woman was subsequently arrested and charged. She moved for a dismissal stating that the stop was unlawful.

July 9, 2021

Michigan Supreme Court Reinforces Warrant Requirement to Search a Cell Phone a Second Time for Different Activity

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

The defendant in this case was convicted at trial of armed robbery. This conviction occurred after two previous trials that both ended in mistrials due to hung juries. According to court records, in early August 2016, a man went for a walk and met a woman on the street. They talked and he invited her back to his house. At the house, the woman offered to perform sexual acts on the man for $50. The man agreed and opened a safe containing $4,200 in cash and other valuables and pulled out a $50 for the woman, telling her he would give it to her after the night was over. The woman then called a drug dealer to come over and sell her and the man drugs. The defendant then allegedly came over later and sold them crack cocaine and left. Later, the defendant allegedly returned with a gun and stole the man’s safe.

About a week after this, a detective got a warrant to search the defendant’s property for evidence related to separate criminal allegations of drug trafficking. Upon executing the warrant, the police seized the defendant’s phone. The phone’s data was extracted and categorized, resulting in a 600-page report on the defendant’s phone. Evidence related to drug trafficking was searched. The phone was later searched again when the prosecutor in the armed robbery case asked the police to search the report using different search terms related only to the armed robbery case. Using information gained from the search of the phone information, the prosecutor was able to get a conviction at the third trial. This resulted in a sentence of 25-60 years in prison.

March 29, 2021

Michigan Court of Appeals Rules That Judges Cannot Prevent Medical Marijuana Patients from Using Marijuana During Probation

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Information

This case originally started as an assault & battery case charged against the defendant, Michael Thue. The apparent story is that Thue committed his crime in an act of road rage. Thue pled guilty to assault and battery and was sentenced to one year of probation by a Traverse City District Court judge. One of the conditions of Thue’s probation was that he does not use marijuana, including medical marijuana. Because of an accident in his youth, Thue has a rod inserted in his arm that causes him pain. To alleviate this pain, Thue became a registered patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) prior to his current assault & battery case. As a registered MMMA patient, Thue is entitled to certain protections from police, prosecutors, and courts. The protections that registered MMMA patients are entitled to relating to the possession and use of medical marijuana include:

• Protection from arrest,

March 22, 2021

Michigan House of Representatives Approves Bipartisan Bill Allowing DUI Expungements

by Grabel & Associates

The Current Law on DUI Expungements

Currently, in the state of Michigan, you cannot get a DUI conviction expunged from your criminal record. So, while the title of this article does give a reason for hope, it is still only a step towards the potential of DUI convictions being included in the list of convictions that you or someone you love may be able to finally expunge from a criminal record. Under current Michigan law, there are a few main categories of convictions that are not eligible for expungement, they include:

• DUI and other traffic convictions

December 18, 2020

The Speedy Trial Factors: How COVID-19 is Affecting Jury Trials

by Grabel & Associates

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that the criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial. Without this right, criminal defendants could be held indefinitely under a cloud of unproven criminal accusations. The right to a speedy trial also is crucial to ensuring that a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. If too much time elapses between the charge and the trial, witnesses may die or leave the area, their memories may fade, and physical evidence may be lost. When our founding fathers came up with this concept, it is safe to say that they did not anticipate a national pandemic such as COVID-19. The battle of judicial economy and the factors of a speedy trial are on a collision course. The four factors that a court will examine when examining if the right to a speedy trial include: The length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant bringing the assertion of the delay, and the defendant’s prejudice. To discuss these factors, we spoke to several of the top criminal defense lawyers in the state of Michigan and gathered their insight.

Scott Grabel is the founder of Grabel and Associates, which is known as the top criminal defense firm in Michigan. Grabel spoke of the length of delay when he said, “The jail can only hold a defendant in their facility for 180 days. If we are following this rule by the book, the 180 days can work to the defendant’s favor, but the rule is not always black and white.”

Joe Brugnoli is a Senior Associate for Grabel and Associates and is known as the top criminal defense attorney in Kent County, Michigan. Brugnoli spoke of the reason for the delay, which is factor number two. Brugnoli stated, “As a defense counsel, you cannot have adjournments attributed to the defendant and then argue for a speedy trial. It would help if you strategized about this when you have a client charged with a capital case and cannot afford or has been denied a bond. Denial of bond does not mean the case is not winnable. The politics of bond arguments can play a large factor.”

December 12, 2020

Will Corporate Prosecutions be the Wave of the Future?

by Grabel & Associates

In the field of criminal defense, especially that of theft crimes, we find individuals facing prosecutions at an alarming rate. A question that many people wonder is why aren’t there more corporate prosecutions? Do the likes of companies such as “Enron” and “WorldCom” get somehow of a free pass while those charged with Retail Fraud (shoplifting) face continual prosecutions? To discuss this matter in greater detail, we spoke to 3 of the top criminal defense lawyers in the state of Michigan to gain their insight.

Scott Grabel is the founder of Grabel and Associates and is known to have the top criminal defense team across the state of Michigan. When asked about criminal prosecutions, Grabel stated, “We really do not see a lot of this and the reality is that when a corporation is facing criminal charges they tend to engage a big named civil defense firm which is confusing. It is almost as if the corporate defendants’ stay with firms that they work with as opposed to engaging a firm that specializes in criminal law. It can truly set the defendant up for failure.”

William Amadeo is a Partner for McManus and Amadeo in Washtenaw County and a Senior Associate for Grabel and Associates in Ingham and Shiawassee County, Michigan. Amadeo, who is known as the top criminal defense lawyer in Washtenaw County added his insight when he said, “Different judges have different hotspots. Many times when dealing with theft there is a lot of confusion. Quite often, we see Presentence Investigation Reports that make the case seem far worse than it is. The reality is that where we stand in the criminal justice system, if you steal $1 million you get the benefit of the doubt but if you steal groceries from “Meijer” you face stiff prosecution. It’s a bizarre system that we need to fix. If you want to prosecute go after the true criminal, not the single mother trying to feed her family.”

December 3, 2020

Detroit City Council Approves Recreational Marijuana Sales

by Grabel & Associates

Timeline of Recreational Marijuana in Detroit Since State Legalization

In the two years since marijuana was legalized at the state level by popular vote in the 2018 elections, the introduction into the mainstream marketplace has seen its challenges. While an overwhelming majority of Michiganders voted to legalize marijuana in 2018, many local cities have chosen to exclude recreational marijuana retailers as a way to “keep marijuana out of their cities.” There are more than 1,400 municipalities who have blocked recreational marijuana businesses from opening in their areas. Since legalization, adult-use retail sales have eclipsed $375 million, with a very limited number of retail stores in Michigan. This number is expected to significantly increase with the long-awaited introduction of the city of Detroit into the legal recreational marijuana marketplace. Detroit City Council recently voted on a measure to allow recreational marijuana sales, along with a number of other licenses and permits related to the recreational industry.

Detroit City Council Ordinance Allowing Recreational Sales

November 16, 2020

Former Macomb County Prosecutor Plea Delayed Due to COVID-19 Diagnosis

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

Our blog has covered the multiple corruption charges and cases relating to former Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith since its inception, and as of this writing, the federal case against him is still pending an official plea. Smith was originally arrested and charged with 10 different state public corruption charges as discussed in a previous blog here. He was later charged federally with a single count of obstruction of justice. His federal obstruction of justice charge is related to the allegations that Smith set up an illegal kickback scheme to funnel $70,000 from his reelection campaign account. The federal and state charges are unrelated and operate independently of one another. Back in September, Smith agreed to plead guilty to the count of obstruction of justice. The actual in-court plea has not happened yet and is being delayed due to Smith being diagnosed with COVID-19. It has been reported that Smith was released from the hospital on November 9th and remains quarantined in his home. He is reportedly still suffering extreme symptoms related to the virus. As such, his attorneys submitted a motion to the court asking for the plea date to be moved due to Smith’s COVID-19 diagnosis and continued health concerns.

Pending Plea

November 2, 2020

When Are You Allowed to Make a Citizen’s Arrest?

by Grabel & Associates

The Michigan Citizen’s Arrest Law Explained

A number of cases have arisen recently in the state of Michigan that have raised questions about the existence and legitimacy of the ability for private citizens to be able to make a “citizen’s arrest.” In general, private citizens are not allowed to act like police and arrest people they believe need to be arrested. Michigan law, does however allow for a private citizen to make a citizen’s arrest in certain circumstances, they include:

• The ability to make an arrest for a felony committed in the person’s presence;