How Law to Help Cops Arrest Drugged Drivers Went Terribly Wrong

Michigan lawmakers wanted to give law enforcement officers the same arrest powers in suspected drugged driving cases as they have in suspected drunken driving cases. A snafu has resulted in cases being dismissed before they ever reach a jury. (Photo via Wikimedia/Creative Commons)

» Get Patch’s daily newsletter and alerts by e-mail.

Drugged drivers in Michigan have unwittingly been dealt a get-out-of-jail-free card by the state Legislature.

The legislative snafu has led to judges kicking field sobriety test results in some counties. In others, defense attorneys are complaining when they don’t, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The whole mess resulted from well-intentioned legislation last month meant to make iteasier for police to arrest drugged drivers by giving them the same arrest powers they had used for drunken drivers.

The Jan. 15 amendment allows for a preliminary roadside assessment tests to determine if a person’s demeanor and driving suggested they were impaired by alcohol or drugs.

The problem is, the Legislature never defined what was meant by roadside assessment tests, giving defense attorneys a legal challenge before cases ever reach a jury.

Also on Patch:

• Religious Freedom Bills Back Before Michigan Legislature
• Snyder Signs Suspicion-Based Drug Testing Bill

“Ironically, lawmakers were amending the statute to pave the way for future drugged driving arrests, but the bottom line is it is a poorly written law and lawmakers missed it,” Birmingham attorney Patrick Barone told The Detroit News.

“It’s giving prosecutors fits,” he said. “They see arrests and cases, which in the past may have been slam dunks, now with a low likelihood of conviction. It has made it more difficult to prosecute.”

Prosecutor: “Tweak the Law”

The tests are still being accepted by Livingston County County Circuit Judge Carol Sue Reader, who allowed roadside test evidence in two recent cases. Field sobriety tests can include requiring suspects to recite the alphabet, place a finger on their nose, count backward, walk a straight line or take a breath test.

Livingston County Prosecutor William Vailliencourt argued judges have discretion to look at the language of the amendment and determine what the Legislature intended

“I don’t think anyone seriously believes the Legislature intended to make all effects of a person’s intoxication inadmissible,” Vailliencourt said, urging legislators to “tweak the law” to clearly spell out their legislative intent.

Corrective legislation is on a fast track. Rep. Dan Lauwers, R-St. Clair County, who sponsored the original amendment.

“We’re hoping to have something in place by the end of March,” he said.