Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – Second Offense

Operating Under the Influence (OUI) is a serious offense in Michigan. If someone is caught driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they can face severe penalties. When it comes to a second offense, the consequences are even more severe.

Understanding OUI

OUI, often called DUI (Driving Under the Influence) in other states, means that a person is driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher. It can also mean that the driver is under the influence of drugs or any other substances that impair their ability to drive safely.

Second Offense: What It Means

A second offense OUI in Michigan occurs if someone is caught driving under the influence within seven years of their first offense. The state takes this very seriously because it shows a pattern of dangerous behavior.

Legal Consequences

If someone is convicted of a second OUI offense in Michigan, they face the following consequences:

• Fines and Costs: The fines for a second OUI can range from $200 to $1,000. Additionally, the court may order the person to pay other costs related to their arrest, court proceedings, and probation.
• Jail Time: A second OUI offense carries a mandatory jail sentence of 5 days to 1 year. This time could be extended depending on the circumstances of the arrest, such as if there was a child in the car or if the driver caused an accident.
• Community Service: In addition to jail time, the court may require the person to complete 30 to 90 days of community service.
• License Suspension: For a second OUI, the driver’s license will be suspended for at least one year. After the suspension, the driver may have to install an ignition interlock device (IID) in their car, which requires them to pass a breath test before the car will start.
• Probation: The individual will likely be placed on probation for up to two years, during which they must follow strict guidelines, such as attending alcohol or drug education programs and regular testing for substance use.
• Vehicle Immobilization: The court can order the offender’s vehicle to be immobilized or even forfeited for up to 90 days.

Long-Term Consequences

A second OUI conviction can have long-term impacts on a person’s life. It can make it difficult to find or keep a job, especially if the job requires driving. Insurance rates will likely skyrocket, and it can take years for them to decrease. Additionally, having a criminal record can affect personal relationships and limit opportunities in the future.

Legal Resources

For detailed information on Michigan’s DUI laws, you can refer to the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) directly. Here are some pertinent links:

• Michigan Vehicle Code – Chapter 257, Section 625 – This section outlines the laws pertaining to operating while intoxicated.
• Michigan Vehicle Code – Chapter 257, Section 626 – Covers the penalties and sanctions for driving under the influence.

Legal Help

If you’re facing charges for a 1st offense DUI in Michigan, it’s essential to seek legal counsel immediately. A trained and experienced DUI attorney can provide guidance potentially helping to mitigate penalties or even challenge the charges.

Legal defense Attorney Michael Komorn is trained and certified in Field Sobriety Tests (FST), Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and the infamous breathalyzer and has been representing clients charged with DUI and alleged crimes since 1993. Call Komorn Law 248-357-2550 when you’re ready to challenge DUI or any alleged criminal charges.

Simply put: Your going to need a lawyer to sort out all the blah blah blah the government comes up with and throws against the wall to see what sticks.

Recent

Other Articles

Federal charges against a non-violent, cannabis-using gun owner were unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court panel upheld a lower court’s ruling on Wednesday, declaring that federal charges against a non-violent, cannabis-using gun owner were unconstitutional.

“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” the court wrote in the new opinion, “but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”

Mental Defectives?

Judges have also contested assertions made by Department of Justice attorneys that individuals who use cannabis pose a greater danger than their fellow Americans.

“Nor, contrary to what the government contends, do restrictions on the mentally ill or more generalized traditions of disarming ‘dangerous’ persons apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users when of sound mind.”

The DOJ has contended in this and other recent legal proceedings that the federal prohibition on gun and ammunition possession by individuals who use marijuana aligns with historical limitations on gun ownership, including those applied to individuals deemed mentally defective and others whose firearm possession poses a risk to public safety.

The Fifth Circuit panel disagreed.

“We must ask: why was severe mental illness a reason the Founders disarmed people, and is that ‘why’ ‘relevantly similar’ to § 922(g)(3)?”

Referring to the legal provisions that prohibit individuals who engage in the use of illegal drugs from owning firearms.

Judges also said the government failed to demonstrate that lawful restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers or the mentally ill were sufficiently similar to its law against firearm possession by drug users.

“Marijuana user or not,” opined the court, “Paola is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, § 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.”

“Laws designed to disarm the severely mentally ill do not justify depriving those of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the court wrote. “The analogy stands only if someone is so intoxicated as to be in a state comparable to ‘lunacy.’”

DOJ has made similar arguments in a case in a separate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.

Meanwhile back at the ranch…

The Biden administration, meanwhile, argues that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”

Probably until October 2024

Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was found guilty by a federal jury of breaching the law by purchasing and possessing a firearm while actively using crack cocaine.

Cases

The case, U.S. v. Connelly, is one of a handful of federal court cases.

Paola Connelly is a non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner. El Paso police came to her house in response to a “shots fired” call. When they arrived, they saw John, Paola’s husband, standing at their neighbor’s door firing a shotgun. After arresting him, they spoke with Paola, who indicated that she would at times smoke marijuana as a sleep aid and for anxiety. A sweep revealed that the Connellys’ home contained drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including firearms owned by Paola. There was no indication that Paola was intoxicated at the time.

Read the rest here US Court of Appeals – 5th District US v Conelly – Non Violent Cannabis User and Firearms

Other Cases

• US v Daniels
• U.S. v. Rahimi (Supreme Court)
• CPL – Prohibited Premises
• US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

Recent

Other Articles