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

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.

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.

Traffic FAQs-Golf Carts-Mini Motorcycles-ATVs-Electric Scooters

Traffic FAQs-Golf Carts-Mini Motorcycles-ATVs-Electric Scooters

May 15, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

Traffic FAQs – Golf Carts – Mini Motorcycles – ATVs  – Electric Scooters

  • 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.

Question: We recently got “Bird” scooters (electric skateboards) in our town. Are they considered a motor vehicle? Can I be arrested for drunk driving on an electric skateboard?

Answer: Public Act 204 of 2018 amended the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC) by adding MCL 257.13f to define “electric skateboard” as a wheeled device with a floorboard to stand on that is not more than 60 inches long and 18 inches wide and is designed for only one person at a time. To be an electric skateboard, the device must have an electrical propulsion system that does not exceed 2,500 watts and a maximum speed on a paved level surface that does not exceed 25 mph. An electric skateboard may be designed to be powered by human propulsion, in addition to the electric propulsion system.

An electric skateboard is exempted from the definition of “motor vehicle” under MCL 257.33, but a person riding an electric skateboard “has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.” MCL 257.657.  Questions regarding an arrest for a violation of MCL 257.625 (Operating While Intoxicated) on an electric skateboard/horse, should generally be referred to your city attorney or local prosecutor.

Question: My husband saw on the news last night that golf carts were allowed on the county roads in the state of Michigan. Is this true?

Answer: MCL 257.657a authorizes a village or city of fewer than 30,000 people to allow the operation of golf carts on the streets of that village or city by resolution, and sets forth the requirements and restrictions in doing so.  Similarly, a township of fewer than 30,000 people is also authorized to allow this under certain circumstances unless disapproved by the county board of commissioners.

Previously, it was possible to equip, register and insure your golf cart to be road legal as a low speed vehicle.  However, the Michigan Department of State (MDOS) has announced that it will no longer process assembled vehicle title applications for vehicles manufactured as a golf cart and has requested law enforcement personnel to refuse or deny any request to complete a TR-54 Vehicle Number and On-Road Equipment Inspection for a golf cart.  Additional information may be found on the MDOS website.

Golf carts that are currently titled and registered for on-road use will retain its current title and registration.

If the golf cart is not currently titled, registered, and insured for on-road use, and is not within one of the cities, villages or townships that has allowed on road use, it may only be operated on a highway under very limited circumstances if it meets the definition of an ORV as provided in MCL 324.81101 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.  The limited circumstances, such as crossing a street or highway at a right angle for the purpose of getting from one area to another, can be found in MCL 324.81122.  Additionally, MCL 324.81131 authorizes local municipalities to pass an ordinance allowing the operation of ORV’s on streets within the municipality and sets forth the requirements and restrictions in doing so.

Question:  I have a Polaris Ranger and want to know if I can operate it on the road? 

Answer: As noted on the SOS website, certain off-road vehicles (ORVs), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and off-road dune buggies can be titled as an assembled vehicle for on-road use.

If this type of ORV is not currently titled, registered and insured for on-road use, it may only be operated on a highway under very limited circumstances if it meets the definition of an ORV as provided in MCL 324.81101 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.  The limited circumstances, such as crossing a street or highway at a right angle for the purpose of getting from one area to another, can be found in MCL 324.81122.

Additionally, MCL 324.81131 authorizes local municipalities to pass an ordinance allowing the operation of ORV’s on streets within the municipality and sets forth the requirements and restrictions in doing so.

Question: Where can I legally ride a goped?

Answer: A goped, while not specifically defined in the Michigan Vehicle Code, does fall under the definition of a moped  (MCL.257.32b) . Mopeds are required to have certain equipment such as; a headlight, brake light, seat, horn, muffler, and brakes on each wheel, in order to be legally operated on the roadway. In addition, the operator of a moped must be at least 15 years of age, have a moped license or an operator/chauffeur license, and the vehicle must be registered with the Department of State and display a valid registration plate. Finally, a person operating a moped must wear an approved crash helmet if they are under 19 years of age.

Because gopeds are not equipped with the required equipment they cannot be legally driven on the roadway. Also, by definition they are a motor vehicle and therefore cannot be driven on a sidewalk constructed for use by pedestrians.

Question: Can someone tell me what the laws in Michigan are for riding pocket bikes?

Answer: If the “pocket bike” has an engine displacement of 50cc’s or less, produces 2.0 brake horsepower or less, is capable of a top speed of no more than 30 mph, and the operator is not required/allowed to shift gears, then it may be legally classified as a moped. The document titled “Moped Requirements” lists the operational and equipment requirements for such motor vehicles. Most “pocket bikes” will not meet those requirements and therefore will not be street legal.

If the “pocket bike” has an engine displacement greater than 50cc’s then it is classified as a motorcycle and must meet the requirements applicable to that type of vehicle.  Again, most “pocket bikes” will not meet these requirements.

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

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

RED ALERT

Distracted driving law now in effect:

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a bill making it illegal to manually use a cell phone or other mobile electronic device while operating a vehicle on Michigan roads. Under the law, a driver cannot hold or support a phone or other device with any part of their hands, arms, or shoulders.

Even if a cell phone or other device is mounted on your dashboard or connected to your vehicle’s built-in system, you cannot use your hands to operate it beyond a single touch.

As a result, you cannot manually do any of the following on a cell phone or other electronic device while driving:

  • Make or answer a telephone or video call.
  • Send or read a text or email message.
  • Watch, record, or send a video.
  • Access, read, or post to social media.
  • Browse or use the Internet.
  • Enter information into GPS or a navigation system.

Hands-free Law Guide

Michigan State Police Legal Update

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

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

May 10, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

A Victory for Cannabis Farming as Agriculture in Michigan

In a landmark case that underscores the evolving landscape of cannabis regulation and taxation in agricultural contexts, HRP Cassopolis, LLC v LaGrange Township Assessor in Cass County, Michigan, has set a precedent that significantly benefits cannabis farming operations.

The case not only highlights the challenges faced by cannabis cultivators but also emphasizes the importance of legal clarity in defining cannabis cultivation as an agricultural activity.

At the heart of the matter is the interpretation of Michigan’s tax laws, particularly MCL 211.34c(2)(a), which outlines the criteria for classifying a property as an agricultural operation for property tax purposes.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

The statute defines an agricultural operation as land “used for agricultural purposes, including, but not limited to, the production of field crops, livestock, poultry, fruit, and nursery stock.”

Historically, the Michigan State Tax Commission has argued that growing cannabis does not fall within the scope of agricultural operations under this statute.

HRP Cassopolis, LLC, a cannabis cultivation facility, challenged this interpretation, asserting that their activities align with the definition of agriculture outlined in MCL 211.34c(2)(a). The crux of their argument rested on the premise that cannabis cultivation involves the production of a crop, akin to other agricultural endeavors like growing fruits or vegetables.

In the initial proceedings, the Michigan State Tax Commission contended that cannabis cultivation should not be considered agricultural because it is federally illegal and does not have the same historical precedent as traditional agricultural practices. However, HRP Cassopolis, LLC countered by highlighting the state’s legalization of medical and recreational cannabis, arguing that its cultivation should be treated similarly to other lawful agricultural activities.

The case went through several stages of appeals, with each level of the judicial system scrutinizing the interpretation of Michigan’s tax laws in the context of cannabis cultivation.

Ultimately, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HRP Cassopolis, LLC, asserting that cannabis farming qualifies as an agricultural operation under MCL 211.34c(2)(a).

The court’s decision represents a significant victory for cannabis farmers in Michigan. By officially recognizing cannabis cultivation as agriculture, the ruling provides these businesses with access to important tax benefits and protections afforded to traditional agricultural operations. This includes favorable property tax assessments, which are crucial for the economic viability of cannabis farms in the state.

Moreover, the ruling brings much-needed clarity to the legal status of cannabis farming in Michigan. As the cannabis industry continues to grow and evolve, establishing clear guidelines for regulatory and tax purposes is essential for ensuring compliance and facilitating the industry’s responsible expansion.

HRP Cassopolis, LLC v LaGrange Township Assessor marks a pivotal moment for cannabis farming in Michigan. By affirming that cannabis cultivation qualifies as agriculture under state tax laws, the ruling not only benefits cannabis businesses but also contributes to the normalization and legitimization of the cannabis industry as a whole.

Moving forward, it is essential for policymakers to continue refining and updating regulations to support the growth of this burgeoning sector while ensuring accountability and responsible stewardship of agricultural resources.

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