Defense Strategies
Common Defenses in Michigan OWI Cases
Every OWI case is built on a chain of evidence, and every link in that chain is subject to challenge. An experienced OWI defense attorney examines the entire sequence — from the initial reason for the traffic stop through the administration of field sobriety tests, the chemical test procedures, and the arrest itself — looking for errors, omissions, and constitutional violations that can weaken or defeat the prosecution's case.
Challenging the Traffic Stop
Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or criminal activity to initiate a traffic stop. Common pretextual reasons — weaving within a lane, driving slightly over or under the speed limit, or a minor equipment violation — are frequently challenged. If the court finds the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, all evidence obtained after the stop is suppressed, and the case is typically dismissed. Dashboard and body camera footage is critical evidence in these challenges.
Challenging Field Sobriety Tests
The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) — the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test — were developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Even under ideal conditions, NHTSA's own research found that these tests are only 77% to 91% accurate at identifying impairment at a BAC of 0.08% or higher. Their reliability decreases further when:
- The officer does not administer the tests in strict accordance with NHTSA protocols
- The tests are conducted on uneven surfaces, in poor lighting, or in inclement weather
- The subject has physical conditions affecting balance or coordination (inner ear problems, leg or back injuries, obesity, age)
- The subject is wearing footwear that affects balance
- The officer's scoring of "clues" is subjective or inconsistent with the recorded performance
We obtain and review the officer's SFST training records and certifications. Officers who are not currently certified or who deviate from the standardized protocol produce test results that are vulnerable to challenge.
Challenging Breathalyzer Results
Michigan uses the DataMaster DMT as its evidentiary breath testing instrument. The machine measures alcohol in a breath sample and uses a conversion ratio to estimate blood alcohol content. But the conversion ratio is a population average — individual variation means a given breath result may overstate or understate the actual BAC by a significant margin. Beyond the inherent limitations of the technology:
- Calibration and maintenance: The DataMaster must be calibrated and certified at regular intervals. If the machine's maintenance records show missed calibrations, failed accuracy checks, or unresolved error codes, the results are challengeable.
- Operator certification: The officer administering the test must hold a current DataMaster operator permit. Expired or improperly issued permits can render the test result inadmissible.
- Observation period: Michigan requires a 15-minute observation period before the breath test to ensure the subject does not burp, belch, vomit, or place anything in their mouth — all of which can introduce mouth alcohol and artificially elevate the result. Failure to observe this waiting period is one of the most common and effective challenges.
- Interfering substances: Certain medical conditions (GERD, acid reflux, diabetes) and substances (mouthwash, certain medications) can produce falsely elevated breath test results.
Challenging Blood Test Results
Blood tests are generally more accurate than breath tests, but they are also subject to challenge on multiple grounds. The blood draw must be performed by a qualified person (a physician, registered nurse, or licensed medical technician) using proper antiseptic technique — specifically, the skin must not be cleaned with an alcohol-based swab, which can contaminate the sample. The sample must be properly preserved with an anticoagulant and a preservative (sodium fluoride) to prevent fermentation, which can produce alcohol in the sample after collection.
Chain of custody is another fertile ground for challenge. The prosecution must establish that the blood sample tested in the laboratory is the same sample drawn from the defendant, that it was properly stored, and that it was not contaminated or degraded at any point. Any gap or irregularity in the chain of custody can render the result inadmissible or, at minimum, raise reasonable doubt about its reliability.
Rising Blood Alcohol Defense
Alcohol absorption is not instantaneous. After your last drink, your BAC continues to rise for 30 to 90 minutes depending on factors including body weight, food consumption, and the type and quantity of alcohol consumed. The rising blood alcohol defense argues that your BAC was below 0.08% at the time you were actually operating the vehicle but had risen above 0.08% by the time the chemical test was administered — sometimes 30 to 60 minutes or more after the stop. This defense is particularly relevant when the BAC result is close to 0.08% and there was a significant delay between the stop and the test.
Constitutional Violations
Beyond the traffic stop itself, other constitutional protections apply throughout the OWI investigation. Statements made during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings may be suppressed. Unreasonable delays in administering the chemical test can be challenged. Forced blood draws without a warrant (except in limited exigent circumstances) violate the Fourth Amendment under Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013). Each of these violations can result in suppression of critical evidence.