CASE LAW. Bullcoming v New Mexico, No. 09-10876 (United States Supreme Court, June 23, 2011).
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Bullcoming v New Mexico, No. 09-10876 (United States Supreme Court, June 23, 2011)
HELD: Defendant did not advise the arresting officer that he was a diabetic, although defendant was asked whether he had any medical conditions and whether he was taking any prescribed medications. Therefore, the officer had no reason to advise defendant that the implied consent statute did not apply to him.
Police officers may not rely on any authority granted them pursuant to MCL 436.1703(6).
MIP (MCL 436.1703)
A subject who refuses to submit to a chemical test given pursuant to a search warrant is subject to being charged with resisting or obstructing an officer (even if no active aggression was exhibited).
The dangling ornaments did not create reasonable suspicion for stopping a vehicle properly registered in another state.
administered at a peace officer’s request
as provided in this section shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to have a person
of his or her own choosing administer 1 of
the chemical tests described in this
subsection within a reasonable time after
his or her detention. MCL 257.625a(6)(d).
Operate means “actual physical” – power or
authority to guide or manage. Act of grabbing
steering wheel and causing car to veer
constitutes actual physical control.
A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles including an area designated for the parking of vehicles…..MCL 257.625(1).
The term “operate” must be defined in terms
of the danger the drunk driving statute was
meant to prevent; the collision of a vehicle with
other persons or property.
Even if suspect was not “operating” at moment
that police observed conduct (sleeping in a
parked car), can still be charged and convicted
if can prove circumstantially that suspect was
operating vehicle while intoxicated prior to the
Pit area of a speedway is
“generally accessible to motor vehicles”
even though there are age and waiver
requirements for admission.
What about private driveways?
Signaling a lane change is required by
the Michigan Vehicle Code and can be
the basis for a traffic stop.
“When you take these drugs, you are hijacking
the part of the brain important for many functions:
temperature control, food intake, perception,
memory and problem solving” – Dr. Huestis
Chief of Chemistry and Drug Metabolism
National Institute Drug Abuse
DEA would appreciate information related to LEO encounters, identification and abuse of Spice
Attn: Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section
8701 Morrissette Dr
Springfield, VA 22152
Diverted pharmaceutical drugs
Michigan drivers could become the first in nation subject to roadside drug testing under a bill recently introduced in the legislature.
The legislation would authorize police to administer a roadside saliva test for illegal drug use, just as they do breath tests for alcohol.
According to NHTSA, there is currently no accurate and reliable way to measure the level or degree of driving impairment associated with the use of drugs.
MCL 333.26427(e) reads that:
“All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided by this act.”
Although the Act prohibits the operation of any motor vehicle while under the influence of Marihuana; it does not make reference to Michigan’s current OUID Per Se Law.
The Circuit Court ruled that:
“The MMMA, which supersedes MCL 257.625, states that qualified patients are proscribed from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marihuana. Therefore, evidence of impairment is a necessary requirement.”
“Prior to the passage of the MMMA, Michigan law prohibited operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of marihuana in the body. MCL 257.625(8). The MMMA did not change the law.”
If any amount of a schedule one controlled substance (e.g. marihuana) or cocaine in body, the Prosecutor does not need to prove that suspect was under the influence or impaired. MCL 257.625(8). If it is not a schedule one or cocaine, the Prosecutor must prove operating under the influence or impaired. MCL 257.625(1).
11-Carboxy THC (“TCOOH”) is not a schedule 1 controlled substance -- the prosecution can not charge a defendant for OUID Per Se if the defendant only has 11-Carboxy THC (“TCOOH”) in his/her system. People v. Feezel, No. 138031 (Mich. Sup. Ct., June 8, 2010).
A closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient. MCL 333.26423(c).
Chain-link dog kennel behind the house, 6 feet tall, but had an open top and was not anchored to the ground.
Marihuana plants growing inside defendant’s unlocked living room closet.
Defendant charged with two counts of manufacturing marihuana.
Defendant asserted affirmative defense under Section 8 of the Act.
Prosecutor argued that the Defendant failed to comply with the Act because marihuana plants not in an enclosed, locked facility.
The Circuit Court agreed with the Defendant and dismissed the case.
The Shiawassee County Circuit Court ruled that “The Defendant was present at the time of the arrival of the police and he was there at the time the police searched the property. Therefore, the Defendant was acting as the security device by limiting access to the marihuana.”