Michigan’s Implied Consent Law

We have filed several Motions lately challenging blood tests on standard run of the mill Operating While Intoxicated stops. The reason is that the taking of blood is very invasive. The government is sticking a needle into your arm and drawing blood. Your blood might show an alcohol level but it also reveals so much more. For example, your blood contains all of your genetic information as well as treasure trove of health information. If there is a need for blood the Government should demonstrate that need with a search warrant. Without a search warrant, Michigan’s Implied Consent Law essentially coerces people into allowing the blood draw or face the consequences. In Michigan, those consequences are losing your license to drive for a year and 6 points added to your driving record. Most people need to drive for their livelihood and day to day living. It is a serious consequence to lose your driving privileges. This consent is not voluntary which is the standard. Our argument has been there is a much less invasive way to determine bodily alcohol level and that is a breath test. In Michigan, if you drive you impliedly consent to give up your bodily alcohol level upon an officer’s reasonable suspicion or belief that you are under the influence of alcohol.  This should be the much less invasive breath test, not a blood draw.

We have had success with this argument in the Trial Courts. However, there is a case that just came out [People v. Stricklin – 340614 – April 18, 2019].

Stricklin reaffirms Michigan’s Implied Consent Law applies to breath and blood. However, this case is being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court so we will keep on pressing the issue as long as the legality of blood draws remains undecided by our highest court.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.