Source: https://www.rudoilaw.com/2013/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:03:16+00:00

Document:
Michigan drunk driving arrests increased in 2012, but executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police says overall trend is positive.
According to the Drunk Driving Audit, released Tuesday, the number of drunk and drug-related driving arrests in Michigan increased in 2012, in addition to the number of fatalities and injuries.
Officers throughout the state made 37,182 alcohol-and-drug-related driving arrests in 2012.
The number of deaths resulting from drug and alcohol-induced crashed increased 7.2 percent, from 319 in 2011 to 341 in 2012. Injuries saw an increase as well, jumping from 6,086 to 6,177.
Men, compared to female drivers were close to three times as likely to be arrested for impaired driving: 27,606 men were arrested last year compared to 9,576 women.
Despite the 2012 increases in impaired driving deaths and injuries, Col. Kristie Kibbey Etue, director of the Michigan State Police, believes the overall trend in Michigan is a positive one.
The number of traffic deaths involving alcohol or drugs has decreased by 9.8 percent over the past five years. Alcohol crash deaths have fallen 11.4 percent; drug-involved deaths 3.6 percent.
“I think you might see that the trend has hit a flat spot,” Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, said.
On July 11, 2013 the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the case of People v. Carruthers. The case involved the issue of whether marijuana edibles made from marijuana extract are protected under Section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Defendant was charged and convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Among the marijuana Defendant was found in possession of were brownies that were individually labeled as weighing 3.1 ounces and containing 2 grams of marijuana. However, the brownies did not actually contain marijuana but contained “Cannabutter” or rather butter that was used to extract THC and other chemicals that marijuana contains.
The Court in People v. Carruthers ruled that the definition of Usable Marijuana contained in the MMMA is narrower than the definition found in the Public Health Code. Specifically, “Marijuana” under the Public Health Code includes all parts of the cannabis plant as well as the resin extracted from any part of the plant as well as any every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. However, the definition of “usable marihuana under the MMMA does not include all parts of the cannabis plant, nor does it include the resin extracted from the plant or every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.
Carruthers argued that marijuana extract is a mixture or preperation of the Marijuana flower and leaves and therefore should be considered usable marijuana within the definition contained in the MMMA section 3. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that because the definition of “usable marihuana”as contained in the MMMA section 3 specifically omits any reference to the resin extracted from the plant that it must have meant to exclude the resin extracted from the plant and therefore any preperation of the resin extracted from the plant cannot be considered ‘usable marihuana”.
The court also reasoned that the voters did not intend for marijuana extracts to be protected under the MMMA because of the strong potency and the fact that extract in an edible cannot be measured. The problem is that this is not true, marijuana extract in an edible can be measued the but the state lab is just currently incapable. Further, the potency of the extract serves the health and wellfare because it allows patients to maximize THC intake and minimize intake of other harmful chemicals. For these reasons I believe that the Michigan Court of Appeals incorrectly decided this case!
Marijuana Edibles are still protected under Section 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act but they must be made with the actual leaves and flowers and not from extract. All resins and extracts of Marijuana are currently not protected under Section 4 of the MMMA but may still be defendable under the MMMA Section 8 Affirmative Defense. At Rudoi Law we are Medical Marijuana experts and can help you to learn your rights and protections under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and its connected case law.
Police drug bust results in major seizure of marijuana plants, processed marijuana, weapons and arrests.
After a seven-month investigation by federal, county and local police agencies, 22 raids took place July 8th on sites involved with alleged marijuana trafficking.
According to Michigan State Police officials, the raids occurred in Wayne, Oakland, Washtenaw and Jackson counties.
Of the 22 locations raided, private businesses, home and four warehouses were included. Police seized more than 500 marijuana plants, a significant amount of processed marijuana and several weapons. Several arrests were also made by police.
One man was injured when a home in Ypsilanti Township was raided Sunday. A woman and child escaped unharmed.
At least one of the warehouses was in Detroit on the 6430 block of Epworth Street in an area east of Livernois Avenue and south of Tireman Street.
A number of agencies joined forces with the Michigan State Police in the drug bust, including the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI and the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department.
Other agencies involved in the effort were the Livonia Police Department, the Northville, Canton, Plymouth township police departments and the Western Wayne Special Operations Team.
Salinas v. Texas ruling will have major implications for criminal prosecutions.
Salinas v. Texas Supreme Court Ruling will have major implications.
If you wish to utilize your constitutional right to remain silent, you better speak up.
A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court held that remaining silent does not guarantee American citizens from self-incrimination. Although it has avoided the media’s spotlight, the decision will play a significant role in future criminal prosecutions.
The ruling dropped on June 17 in Salinas v. Texas, which involved the nature of a police questioning in a 20-year-old murder investigation which eventually led to the conviction of a Houston man.
Genovevo Salinas was subject to police questioning in January, 1993, regarding the murder of two brothers. At the scene, police discovered shotgun shell casings where Salinas was neither arrested nor read his Miranda rights — he agreed to allow the police to inspect his shotgun. The police asked if the shells would match his shotgun, but Salinas did not answer the question, and remained silent.
Salinas was later arrested on an unrelated traffic warrant, when police decided there was sufficient evidence to charge him with the previous murders. Salinas did not testify, but his response to police questioning — the fidgeting, lip-biting, etc. — was provided as evidence against him. Salinas’ silence was used against him; he believed his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated.
Salinas was convicted and sentence to 20 years in prison. He protested to the Court of Appeals of Texas in direct appeal that the prosecutor had unconstitutionally used his silence as evidence in the case against him, but the court rejected that argument. After reaching the United States Supreme Court, a 5-4 decision was made ruling that Salina’s self-incrimination privilege had not been violated, because he failed to say, “I’m invoking my right to remain silent.” Even despite the reality that Salinas wasn’t under arrest when he was questioned, and wasn’t read his Miranda rights as a result.
Previously, the Supreme Court held that silence on its own is not enough for a suspect to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The difference here is that Salinas was not a suspect at the time he went silent; he was simply a witness brought in for questioning.
Alito was joined in his opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. While the ruling has been overshadowed by this week’s Supreme Court’s decisions on affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8, it’s received its share of criticism in both journalistic and legal circles.
Read the full syllabus for Salinas v Texas here.
Located in Royal Oak, Michigan, Rudoi Law serves clients in Auburn Hills, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Detroit, Ferndale, Pontiac, Rochester, Troy, and West Bloomfield, as well as all other residents of Oakland County, Macomb County and elsewhere in the great State of Michigan.
People v. Jones: Medical marijuana immunity to be decided by trial judge.
It remains to be seen whether the COA’s opinion would preclude an immediate appeal from being filed, prior to trial, if a judge determines that a person is not entitled to a dismissal of criminal charges under the MMMA’s Section 4 immunity provisions.
DUI crash proves fatal, but defendant evades strict sentencing.
Twenty-year-old former University of Miami student, Ivanna Villanueva, who killed a woman in a devastating DUI crash two years ago has evaded the harshest sentencing.
During a hearing Wednesday, Villanueva was lead away in handcuffs to begin three years in a youthful offender facility as part of a deal worked out with prosecutors — a deal that was anything but certain.
Villanueva turned herself in Tuesday to start serving her time for the fatal DUI, at the facility. There, she was required to take a drug test, but was unable to complete the first test. After taking the second test, she produced positive results for amphetamines.
“It would’ve been a violation had they been illegal drugs but they were not. These were prescribed medications under healthcare and under doctors orders,” said Villanueva’s attorney.
The judge was presented with a full analysis of the test result along with a note from Villanueva’s doctor which stated that he prescribed her the medication for ADHD. In the event Villanueva had failed to pass the drug test, she would have been facing 15 years in jail.
As an additional part of her deal, Villanueva will serve 15 years of probation and perform a thousand hours of community service for the fatal 2011 accident which took the life of Eyder Ayala. Furthermore, she will be required to make a donation to Mothers Against Drunk Driving on the anniversary of Ayala’s death.
The accident occurred at the intersection of LeJeune Road and Majorca Avenue. Villanueva was speeding when she slammed into the rear Ayala’s car. The impact from the crash was so severe that Ayala’s trunk was compact into the front seat. Ayala, a mother to five and grandmother to seven, died at the scene.
Toxicology tests revealed that Villanueva’s blood alcohol content was .231, nearly triple the legal limit of .08.
Ayala’s family has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Villanueva and her father, saying he is liable for her conduct. The multi-million dollar lawsuit claims Villanueva was “speeding, negligent and reckless” on the night of the accident.
At Rudoi Law, we know how to discredit a super drunk designation on OWI (DUI) charges. Questioning the timing of the arrest and testing, the reliability of the equipment used, and the technician’s experience are all proven, winnable defense tactics.
If your case requires it, we also have access to leaders in the toxicology field to examine your specific case and to testify to the latest findings in the field. Furthermore, at Rudoi Law we know to how cross-examine state experts to expose the potential weakness of their equipment, personnel, and findings.
Repeat DUI Offender Avoids Felony Charge After Error DUI Related Traffic Deaths Deterred by MDOT’s New Effort Holmes Youthful Training Act (HYTA) What Are the Penalties for a DUI Conviction? Tacoma City Councilman Avoids DUI Charge What to do: Police Knock And Talk at Your House/Grow facility?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.