My client, a college student ready to graduate and start his career, was stopped for driving without his lights on shortly after leaving a club. Detroit officers performed field sobriety tests and a PBT within ten minutes of the stop based upon the police report. He was promptly transported to the local precinct where officer's required him to submit to the Datamaster test. From the time of the stop through the Datamaster testing, only 23 minutes had elapsed. There was not adequate time between the traffic stop and the Datamaster chemical test to ensure compliance with Michigan's so-called "15 minute rule." The Datamaster rules require that officers actually observe a suspect for at least 15 minutes before administering a breath test at the police station.
At the time of the stop, my client was smoking a cigarette, and I filed a motion pertaining to the the PBT, claiming it was not performed in conformity with the rules governing administration of those preliminary tests. The PBT rules are a little more relaxed. An officer must simply make a 15 minute determination as opposed to an observation. If the officer determines that the person has not ate, drank, smoked or regurgitated for 15 minutes, a PBT can be administered. Nonetheless, my goal was to actually beat the entire case. Winning a PBT motion hardly wins a case. I filed the motion, attempting to trap the officers in testimony that would prove that the Datamaster was not performed properly. I wanted the officers to claim that they had actually followed the PBT rule in order to shorten the amount of time that the client would have been observed before submitting to the Datamaster.
The Datamaster breath test revealed a .26. If I couldn't get the test suppressed, I had very little chance of winning this case before a jury.
At the motion hearing, my strategy worked, and eventually, I won the most important motion, suppressing the Datamaster result, the evidential breath test, for violation of the 15 minute rule. But that didn't end the case. The prosecutor's office continued with its case. A prosecutor can proceed to trial without a chemical test if they feel that the evidence can still convince a jury that the driver was materially and substantially effected by the amount of alcohol that had been consumed.
The matter was set for a jury trial, at which time one or more of the necessary officers failed to appear. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the case could be filed again if the prosecutor sought to bring the charges at a later date. I explained to the client that Detroit cases are frequently dismissed because officers fail to appear for hearings, and Detroit city attorneys almost never re-issue drunk driving charges. With the breath test suppressed, there was about zero percent chance of this case getting re-filed.
Three months later, the charges were re-filed, and the whole process started over again. Good lord.
Eventually, this case made its way to a jury trial. With the jury pool in the room, I was in the prosecutor's office trying to get the Chief City Attorney to agree to a reckless driving. A second offense for drunk driving would result in a revocation of my client's license, while a reckless would only suspend his license for 90 days. The risk of a loss, no matter how small, was too great. The APA and the officer were both on board with this deal, since my client had remained sober during the entire underlying process, and the case was crippled by the suppressed chemical test. But... the Chief City Attorney would not do it because of the high breath score.
The city attorney sent me back to the courtroom with no deal.
With the trial ready to start, the Detroit police officer told the assistant prosecutor that too much time had elapsed since the traffic stop. He had virtually no memory of the arrest and could not testify.
Case dismissed.
GOD BLESS THAT COP!