Understanding DUI Arrests in Missaukee County: The Roles of Honorable Melissa J. Ransom and Chief Judge Audrey D. Van Alst
If you or a loved one have recently been charged with a drunk driving offense in Missaukee County, Michigan, it is crucial to understand the processes that follow, including arraignment, bond setting, and testing methods for alcohol. In these scenarios, you'll likely be interacting with one of the judges presiding over such cases, such as the Honorable Melissa J. Ransom, a probate/district judge, or Chief Judge Audrey D. Van Alst, who presides over the 84th District Court.
In Michigan, those accused of DUI can either be pre-arraignment or post-arraignment. Regardless, you can expect to appear before a judge unless an attorney waives your appearance, and this varies from court to court. You may find yourself standing before Judge Ransom or Chief Judge Van Alst, depending on your case.
At this stage, my counsel is to act proactively. If the client hasn't been arraigned yet, we often put some bond conditions in place ourselves, demonstrating good faith to the judge. If the client has been arraigned already, we discuss adherence to these conditions and even consider adding more proactive elements.
When Judges Ransom or Van Alst set a bond in a drunk driving case, Michigan law necessitates consideration of the risk of flight and potential harm to the public. This evaluation involves multiple factors, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, substance abuse history, mental condition, seriousness of the offense, employment status, and ties to the community, among others. Most DUI clients do not pose a flight risk, but the risk of repeated offense, especially while out on bond, is a serious concern for these judges.
Most bonds in DUI cases require the defendant to abstain from drugs or alcohol, monitored via routine testing. This practice alleviates concerns about public safety and is instrumental in justifying a personal or nominal bond when flight risk is minimal. To anticipate and address these concerns, I often advise my clients to start proactive alcohol testing if it hasn't been ordered already. This approach not only impresses key case players but also demonstrates an earnest commitment to sobriety.
In terms of testing methods, there are several available, including Preliminary Breath Tests (PBTs), transdermal alcohol tethers, in-home breathalyzers, ignition interlock devices, and EtG or EtS alcohol testing. The choice of testing method is dependent on factors such as cost, the individual's schedule, and the severity of the charge.
For many of my professional clients, alternative testing methods that better fit their schedules are preferred. For instance, transdermal alcohol tethers or in-home breathalyzers might provide a more convenient alternative than daily visits to a testing facility, while still meeting or exceeding the expectations of Judges Ransom and Van Alst.
Navigating a DUI charge can be a challenging process, but understanding these processes, the potential bond conditions, and testing options can make the journey more manageable. By showing proactivity, commitment to sobriety, and respect for the judges' expectations, you can create a positive impression and potentially improve the outcome of your case.
In Michigan, those accused of DUI can either be pre-arraignment or post-arraignment. Regardless, you can expect to appear before a judge unless an attorney waives your appearance, and this varies from court to court. You may find yourself standing before Judge Ransom or Chief Judge Van Alst, depending on your case.
At this stage, my counsel is to act proactively. If the client hasn't been arraigned yet, we often put some bond conditions in place ourselves, demonstrating good faith to the judge. If the client has been arraigned already, we discuss adherence to these conditions and even consider adding more proactive elements.
When Judges Ransom or Van Alst set a bond in a drunk driving case, Michigan law necessitates consideration of the risk of flight and potential harm to the public. This evaluation involves multiple factors, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, substance abuse history, mental condition, seriousness of the offense, employment status, and ties to the community, among others. Most DUI clients do not pose a flight risk, but the risk of repeated offense, especially while out on bond, is a serious concern for these judges.
Most bonds in DUI cases require the defendant to abstain from drugs or alcohol, monitored via routine testing. This practice alleviates concerns about public safety and is instrumental in justifying a personal or nominal bond when flight risk is minimal. To anticipate and address these concerns, I often advise my clients to start proactive alcohol testing if it hasn't been ordered already. This approach not only impresses key case players but also demonstrates an earnest commitment to sobriety.
In terms of testing methods, there are several available, including Preliminary Breath Tests (PBTs), transdermal alcohol tethers, in-home breathalyzers, ignition interlock devices, and EtG or EtS alcohol testing. The choice of testing method is dependent on factors such as cost, the individual's schedule, and the severity of the charge.
For many of my professional clients, alternative testing methods that better fit their schedules are preferred. For instance, transdermal alcohol tethers or in-home breathalyzers might provide a more convenient alternative than daily visits to a testing facility, while still meeting or exceeding the expectations of Judges Ransom and Van Alst.
Navigating a DUI charge can be a challenging process, but understanding these processes, the potential bond conditions, and testing options can make the journey more manageable. By showing proactivity, commitment to sobriety, and respect for the judges' expectations, you can create a positive impression and potentially improve the outcome of your case.
