I would strongly encourage you to have an experienced DUI lawyer attend this hearing with you. If the implied consent is upheld, you will have 6 points added to your license and your license will be suspended for a year.
The officer will show up and testify, you will have the opportunity to cross-exam them. You will have the chance to testify, and the officer can cross-exam you - if you have a lawyer, your lawyer would do the questioning and help prepare you.
Here are the four issues which can be explored at this hearing. You oly need to win on one to win the hearing. Anytime a client finds themselves in this position we file the hearing request and prepare to win. Unfortunately many clients contact me when it’s too late, and do not realize the consequences of the situation.
(a) Whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had committed a crime described in [MCL 257.625c(1)].
(b) Whether the person was placed under arrest for a crime described in [MCL 257.625c(1)].
(c) If the person refused to submit to the test upon the request of the officer, whether the refusal was reasonable.
(d) Whether the person was advised of the rights under [MCL 257.625a(6)].
Part (a) means the cop can't arrest you for a DUI based on a hunch; they need probable facts and observations such as driving operation of the vehicle, some sign of intoxication or impairment, usually officer observations, field sobriety tests, incriminating statements and PBT test.
Part (b) means the cop can't arrest you for possession of marijuana, resisting arrest or any other non-DUI offense, because the implied consent would not be triggered for those offenses.
Part (c) means the person arrested said something other than "YES" to taking the chemical test - wishy-washy responses, delays, unclear responses are all considered refusals by every hearing officer that I've appeared before in Michigan
Part (d) means the chemical test rights were read by the officer usually off a standard form.
In my experience, I've found part (a) to be the most fruitful for taking testimony, while part (b) is fruitful for tricking the cop when multiple charges are part of the case. Parts (c) and (d) are tricky to win because cops have been trained to stick with the standard protocol and don't deviate from the standard operation.
The officer will show up and testify, you will have the opportunity to cross-exam them. You will have the chance to testify, and the officer can cross-exam you - if you have a lawyer, your lawyer would do the questioning and help prepare you.
Here are the four issues which can be explored at this hearing. You oly need to win on one to win the hearing. Anytime a client finds themselves in this position we file the hearing request and prepare to win. Unfortunately many clients contact me when it’s too late, and do not realize the consequences of the situation.
(a) Whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had committed a crime described in [MCL 257.625c(1)].
(b) Whether the person was placed under arrest for a crime described in [MCL 257.625c(1)].
(c) If the person refused to submit to the test upon the request of the officer, whether the refusal was reasonable.
(d) Whether the person was advised of the rights under [MCL 257.625a(6)].
Part (a) means the cop can't arrest you for a DUI based on a hunch; they need probable facts and observations such as driving operation of the vehicle, some sign of intoxication or impairment, usually officer observations, field sobriety tests, incriminating statements and PBT test.
Part (b) means the cop can't arrest you for possession of marijuana, resisting arrest or any other non-DUI offense, because the implied consent would not be triggered for those offenses.
Part (c) means the person arrested said something other than "YES" to taking the chemical test - wishy-washy responses, delays, unclear responses are all considered refusals by every hearing officer that I've appeared before in Michigan
Part (d) means the chemical test rights were read by the officer usually off a standard form.
In my experience, I've found part (a) to be the most fruitful for taking testimony, while part (b) is fruitful for tricking the cop when multiple charges are part of the case. Parts (c) and (d) are tricky to win because cops have been trained to stick with the standard protocol and don't deviate from the standard operation.
