Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

May 17, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

  • Know the laws if you get pulled over.
  • Know who to call if you need legal defense if a violation turns into a DUI or worse. That would be us.

Traffic Crashes & Reports

Beginning in July 2005, the State of Michigan launched a new website dedicated to online purchasing of traffic crash reports.

Interested parties may be able to purchase a copy of a traffic crash report taken by any Michigan law enforcement agency.

Traffic Crash Purchasing System

Question: I was involved in a traffic crash in the past and need a copy of the report. Where can I obtain one?

Answer: Interested parties such as individuals involved in the crash and/or their attorney, and insurance companies should contact the Traffic Crash Purchasing System(TCPS) via the internet at the aforementioned link. If unable to do so you can contact the Michigan State Police Post that responded to the crash. A listing of state police posts is follows.

State Police Posts

Each post retains traffic crash reports for the current year plus two years. If the crash occurred prior to that you must request a copy of the report from the Criminal Justice Information Center using a Freedom of Information Request form.

In addition, if you are not an interested party as described above, you must complete a Freedom of Information Request to obtain a specific traffic crash report.

Complete the form with as much information as possible and mail to the address listed on the form.

FOI Request

If another agency other than the Michigan State Police responded and completed a crash report, you will need to contact that agency directly or utilize the TCP.

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

The Michigan Point System

Each traffic violation has a point value, which is set by law in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

Read about it here

Question:  What is a State of Michigan Traffic Crash Report (UD-10)?

Answer: The State of Michigan Traffic Crash Report (UD-10) is a form that must be completed by law (MCL 257.622) on all reportable crashes. The report is completed by all law enforcement agencies and is forwarded to the Michigan State Police for analysis for the purpose of furnishing statistical information and preparing compiled crash data.

Here’s the law

257.622 Report of accidents resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage; forms; analysis; use; retention.

Sec. 622.

     The driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident that injures or kills any person, or that damages property to an apparent extent totaling $1,000.00 or more, shall immediately report that accident at the nearest or most convenient police station, or to the nearest or most convenient police officer.
The officer receiving the report, or his or her commanding officer, shall immediately forward each report to the director of the department of state police on forms prescribed by the director of the department of state police.
The forms shall be completed in full by the investigating officer. The director of the department of state police shall analyze each report relative to the cause of the reported accident and shall prepare information compiled from reports filed under this section for public use.
A copy of the report under this section and copies of reports required under section 621 shall be retained for at least 3 years at the local police department, sheriff’s department, or local state police post making the report.

Disclaimer: This Frequently Asked Questions page is provided solely as a means of providing basic answers to questions about the Michigan Vehicle Code and is not designed or intended to provide a basis to contest a citation for a violation of the code. The positions stated are only those of the Michigan Department of State Police and are not binding on any other law enforcement agency or any Court. If our position is supported by case law then it will be enumerated within the answer provided. Source of Information – Traffic Laws FAQ

Justice Department Submits Proposal to Reschedule Marijuana

Justice Department Submits Proposal to Reschedule Marijuana

May 16, 2024 | USA news

Proposed Rule Seeks to Move Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, Emphasizing its Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States

The Justice Department announced today that the Attorney General has initiated a formal rulemaking process to consider reclassifying marijuana from a schedule I to schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

After all… it’s an election year.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Marijuana has been classified as a schedule I drug since Congress enacted the CSA in 1970. On Oct. 6, 2022, President Biden requested a scientific review of marijuana’s federal scheduling from the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

After receiving HHS’s recommendations last August, the Attorney General sought the legal advice of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on questions relevant to this rulemaking. Taking into consideration HHS’ medical and scientific determinations, as well as OLC’s legal advice, the Attorney General exercised his authority under the law to initiate the rulemaking process to transfer marijuana to schedule III.

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

Qualified lower-paid workers who earn a salary but work more than 40 hours in a week will soon be entitled to guaranteed time-and-a-half pay, thanks to a new labor rule announced by the Biden-Harris administration. This rule will raise the salary thresholds necessary...

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v WilliamsMichigan Court of AppealsNo 365299 (04/18/24) MCL 28.425f permits a police officer to ask a person observed to be carrying a concealed weapon to produce their concealed pistol license (CPL) at any time and for any reason. Makes possession of a...

The rescheduling of a controlled substance follows a formal rulemaking procedure that requires notice to the public, and an opportunity for comment and an administrative hearing.

Throughout this process, the Drug Enforcement Administration will gather and carefully consider input from the public to determine the appropriate schedule for marijuana. Until a final rule is published, marijuana will continue to be classified as a schedule I controlled substance.

The notice of proposed rulemaking submitted by the Department can be viewed here, and the OLC memorandum regarding questions related to the potential rescheduling of marijuana can be found here.

Learn more about the rulemaking process here

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

May 16, 2024 | Blog, Michigan News, USA news

JUSTICE.GOV

For Immediate Release

Office of Public Affairs

A federal jury convicted a Michigan doctor today for causing the submission of over $6.3 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary orthotic braces ordered through a telemarketing scheme.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Sophie Toya, M.D., 55, of Bloomfield Hills, signed thousands of prescriptions for orthotic braces for over 2,500 Medicare patients during a six-month period. Toya was not the treating physician for any of these patients and, instead, was connected with some of the patients over the telephone through a telemarketing scheme and spoke to the patients briefly before signing orthotic brace prescriptions for them. For other patients, Toya signed prescriptions without having any contact with them.

In one instance, Toya prescribed a lower back brace, right and left shoulder braces, a right wrist brace, right and left knee braces, and right and left ankle braces for a single Medicare patient. Toya also prescribed multiple braces for undercover agents posing as five different Medicare patients after speaking to each agent for less than a minute over the telephone.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law  (248) 357-2550

The evidence presented at trial showed that Toya could not possibly have diagnosed the patients or determined that the braces were medically necessary for them. Nonetheless, Toya signed medical records and prescriptions for braces that falsely represented that the braces were medically necessary and that she diagnosed the beneficiaries, had a plan of care for them, and recommended that they receive certain additional treatment.

Toya’s false prescriptions were used by brace supply companies to bill Medicare more than $6.3 million.

Toya was paid approximately $120,000 in exchange for signing the fraudulent prescriptions.

The jury convicted Toya of one count of health care fraud and five counts of false statements relating to health care matters. She is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 15 and faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for health care fraud and five years in prison on each of the false statements relating to health care matters counts.

A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Only 120k out of 6.3 million!! Looks like the scammer got scammed. But who really got scammed – You did…Once again. —> Punishment will probably be a good job in politics raising campaign funds.

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

Berkley state representative introduces bill to police noise from cars

Berkley state representative introduces bill to police noise from cars

May 15, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

A Michigan bill aims to crack down on excessive noise from vehicles with intentional modifications.

The Problem:

    • Loud vehicles are a nuisance for residents, especially along Woodward Avenue, a popular cruising destination.
    • The current law is unclear and difficult to enforce. It prohibits modifying vehicles to create excessive noise but also mentions decibel level limits, impractical for on-the-spot enforcement.

The Bill:

    • House Bill 5696, introduced by Rep. Natalie Price, targets vehicles intentionally modified to be loud.
    • It clarifies the law, making it clear that such modifications are illegal.
    • Penalties would increase:

        • First offense: $100 to $500
        • Subsequent offenses: $1,000

The Concerns:

    • Car enthusiasts are concerned about:

        • Law enforcement potentially targeting factory-made loud vehicles.
        • The need for officer education to differentiate between illegal modifications and stock loud engines.

The Bigger Picture:

    • While the bill focuses on Woodward Avenue, the issue is statewide.
    • Rep. Price hopes the bill will improve the situation for residents and acknowledges the positive aspects of car shows like the Dream Cruise.
    • The goal is to encourage responsible car ownership and respect for communities.

Read the introduced bill (PDF)

Or better yet start tonight and use the law that’s already there. Like this one…

Sec. 74-1. – Prohibition generally.

(a)  It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others, within the limits of the city.

(b) Each of the acts enumerated in this chapter is declared unlawful and prohibited, and violators shall be responsible for a municipal civil infraction, but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive.(Code 1981, § 17-1; Ord. No. O-13-19, § 5, 10-21-2019)

Link to Code

YOU TOO ROYAL OAK

Disorderly Conduct (Disturbing the Peace and Noise)
Ordinance at Section §278-35, First Reading

B. Makes unreasonable noise which tends to cause a public danger, alarm, disorder or nuisance;

P. Vehicle sound equipment noise and vibration. It shall be unlawful for any person to be in possession or control of a parked or moving vehicle with a stereo, disc player, cassette player, speakers, or other similar equipment that is producing sound on a street, driveway, publicly patrolled parking lot or public place at or with a level, volume, intensity, frequency, or other attribute that is perceptible at a distance of 50 feet or more, either by hearing the sound by the human ear or by feeling the sound in the form of vibrations associated therewith. This subsection shall not be applicable to sound emanating from emergency vehicles, vending vehicles, or publicly sponsored or permitted concerts, sporting events, activities, or gatherings. A violation of this subsection is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of $100.
[Added 7-25-2016 by Ord. No. 2016-09]

Q. Loud vehicles. The operation of any automobile, truck, motorcycle or other vehicle so out of repair or so loaded or constructed as to cause loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other unreasonable noise, including the noise resulting from exhaust, which is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the vehicle and unreasonably disturbing to the quiet, comfort or repose of other persons. A violation of this subsection is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of $100.
[Added 7-25-2016 by Ord. No. 2016-09]

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

May 15, 2024 | Blog, Supreme Court

SCOTUS: When police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading Alabama police to seek civil forfeiture of the cars.

Their vehicles were confiscated under an Alabama statute that empowers law enforcement to seize cars utilized in the commission or facilitation of drug-related offenses.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law  (248) 357-2550

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment mandates a timely forfeiture hearing in cases involving the seizure of personal property—however, it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.

CULLEY ET AL. v. MARSHALL, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF ALABAMA, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 22–585. Argued October 30, 2023—Decided May 9, 2024

Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of
marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was
stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine.

In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law that permitted seizure of a car “incident to an arrest” so long as the State then “promptly” initiated a forfeiture case. Ala. Code §20–2–93(b)(1), (c).

The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars just 10 and 13 days, respectively, after their seizure. While their forfeiture proceedings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported class-action complaints in federal court seeking money damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture process without holding preliminary hearings.

In a consolidated appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ claims, holding that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and that no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required.

Read the rest of the SCOTUS Opinion here

 

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.