Michigan Personal Protection Orders Explained

A Michigan Personal Protection Order (PPO) cannot be limited to any particular situation or set of circumstances. Michigan Personal Protection Orders are involved and issued in a variety of circumstances ranging from domestic violence situations to situations where the victim (or petitioner) does not even know the aggressor or accused. Michigan has three types of Michigan Personal Protection Orders:

  1. Domestic Relationship PPO—for victims of certain assaultive and threatening behavior and a domestic relationship does or did exist. MCL 600.2950
  2. Nondomestic Relationship PPO [aka a Stalker PPO]—for victims not in a dating relationship with the accused and two or more of the stalking acts have been found. MCL 600.2950a
  3. Sexual Assault PPO—for victims of a sexual assault. MCL 600.2950a

The domestic relationship Michigan personal protection order is very general and straightforward. One will be issued when there has been assaultive behavior or threatened harm has occurred so long as there is reasonable cause to believe a harmful act will occur. The court must find or the petitioner must show a specific incident of assault or threatened harm.

However, the stalking Michigan personal protection order will be issued if a reasonable person would feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed and actually causes such feeling for the victim. There must be a finding of two or more separate incidents of acts amounting to stalking as identified within the statute. These particular Michigan personal protection orders can be issued ex parte, meaning without the accused being present in court.

A sexual assault Michigan personal protection order can be issued who was convicted of a sexual assault involving the victim or against a person who has threatened the victim with a sexual assault. This type of PPO can also be issued for providing obscene material to a minor victim (or petitioner). MCL 750.142. The type of Michigan personal protection order may also be issued involving two individuals who are not in a dating relationship and two or more separate acts have not occurred.

A court’s power to limit or control an accused individual varies between the three Michigan Personal protection Orders. Moreover, the procedure for each PPO will also vary, which means that certain circumstances, facts and issues may and will control which Michigan Personal protection Order a court can or will order. Josh Jones can assist you if you are served with a Michigan personal protection order. He always has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Resisting Obstructing Assaulting Officer – A Minor Act With Huge Consequences

A very common crime that is charged when an individual is arrested is resisting obstructing assaulting officer. The one issue involved with resisting obstructing assaulting officer is that in order to be convicted very little action is needed. MCL § 750.479 (resisting obstructing assaulting officer) reads as follows: “A person shall not knowingly and willfully do any of the following [a]ssault, batter, wound, obstruct, or endanger” a police officer “acting in the performance of his or her [lawful] duties.”

Therefore, any intentional force, touching, pulling, or otherwise resisting a police officer’s attempt to arrest and/or detain an individual could be charged with resisting obstructing assaulting officer. Not only are the facts usually against an individual defendant in such a case, but so is the potential punishment. An individual convicted of resisting obstructing assaulting officer will have a felony on his or her record and can face up to 2 years in jail and/or a $2,000.00 fine. Moreover, probation will be ordered and a court, while on probation, will likely order other requirements.

Not only are the punishments for resisting obstructing assaulting officer fairly steep, but the statute also does not limit the prosecution from tacking on other crimes that were involved in the incident. Furthermore, if the incident involves bodily injury, serious impairment, or death the possible punishment increases, ranging from 5 years to a possible 20 years in jail respectfully.

Many courts take resisting obstructing assaulting officer seriously, along with the prosecution or the State. Make sure you have the right representation on your side whenever you are charged with resisting obstructing or assaulting officer. Josh Jones always has your back and is your Michigan Criminal Attorney.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Michigan Self Defense Act – Act 306 of 200

The Michigan Self Defense Act provides individuals two options when raising the self defense within a criminal trial. The Michigan Self Defense Act statutory identifies that “[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies: (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual[; or] (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.” MCL 780.972.

Furthermore, the legislature has also statutory identified under the Michigan Self Defense Act that “[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.” MCL 780.972.

The Michigan Self Defense Act continues on in MCL 780.972 that the affirmative defense of self defense found within common law is not eliminated, and thus pursuant to statutory codification an individual defense is allowed to forms of self defense under the Michigan Self Defense Act (that explained above and common law self defense). See MCL 780.973 & 780.974. The major differenced between the statutory version and the common law version of self defense rests on procedural grounds. Furthermore, the common law version specifically states there is no duty to retreat within an individual’s home or the curtilage of that home. See People v Riddle, 467 Mich 116 (2002).

Whenever someone is thinking of raising a self defense issue it is imperative to consider both the common law defense and the Michigan Self Defense Act. This makes it even more imperative to contact a criminal defense attorney whenever charged with a crime involving self defense. An attorney can make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Josh Jones is your Michigan criminal defense lawyer and understand the Michigan Self Defense Act, so whenever you are in need of a criminal attorney contact him today. He always has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

 

Defining Drying Usable Marihuana – People v Randall

The Michigan Court of Appeals in January 2015 wrote an opinion involving the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and the definition of drying usable marihuana, which provides insight on whether an individual would be drying usable marihuana after he or she had just harvested or was harvesting marihuana plants. See People v Randall, Docket No. 318740, Unpublished Opin. (Mich. App. 2015) This unpublished opinion provides insight into what is considered usable marihuana.

In many instances police officers will weigh or attempt to contribute drying usable marihuana within the overall weight for calculating whether the defendant is within his or her weight restrictions as required by MCL 333.26424. The court heard testimony from the officer that explaining that usable marijuana could include wet marijuana; however, it was not usable for purposes of the MMMA. Furthermore, it stated that dried is the past participle or tense of the verb “dry.”

The Court of Appeals explained that the trial court erred when it held that a certain amount of drying marijuana was usable, and thus that amount used in the calculation of usable marijuana should be decreased to a more logical and statutory amount. The Court also explained that the trimmings taken from marijuana plants in question were again calculated in the total amount of weight in error. The trimmings must be taken from the usable marijuana in order for it to become usable. It finally stated that the drying stems and leaves were to be considered under the any marihuana language found within MCL 333.26424.

In the end this opinion assists in moving the medical marihuana industry forward by outlining what is and what is not considered drying usable marihuana and thus what is and what is not usable marihuana as defined by the MMMA. This understanding assists both patients and caregivers in identifying what they can and cannot possess as drying usable marihuana. Whenever you are involved or possibly involved in medical marihuana activities and criminal charges you need to contact a Michigan Marihuana Lawyer.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Studies Say Stoned Drivers Are Safer Than Drunk Drivers

Recently on Feb. 11, 2015 in a news article published by 9 news it was reported that stoned drivers are safer than drunk drivers according to new studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One of the studies reveals that “drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 are 400 percent more likely to get into a car crash than a sober driver.” However, “[d]rivers testing positive for THC are about 25 percent more likely to crash. But, when you factor in demographic information like age and gender, that number drops to about five percent.”

It is obvious from some of these results that the impact THC has on the individual while operating a motor vehicle could potentially be vastly different than an individual with alcohol in his or her system. Even lawmakers are pointing out the possible flaws in evaluating an individual on THC. They believe that the level of THC in an individual’s blood may only be one factor in determining whether the individual is actually stoned. Again, this points to the fact that stoned drivers are safer than drunk drivers according to these studies.

The State of Colorado currently has a statutory level of intoxication for individual using marijuana, which is set at a level of 5 ng of THC per milliliter of blood. However, this too may be difficult to prove whether an individual is stoned or sober. Here in the State of Michigan, the law on driving with THC in an individual’s system is fairly black and white. This statement stands true when discussing recreational marijuana; however, this is not so when speaking to medical marihuana users.

Whenever you are charged with driving while “high” you need a criminal defense lawyer who understands the law and the process. Josh Jones is your Michigan Marihuana Lawyer and specializes in marihuana defense. He always has your back, especially in the days where stoned drivers are safer than drunk drivers, according to recent studies.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Criminal Trespassing – MCL 750.552

Here in the State of Michigan it is a misdemeanor if an individual is convicted of criminal trespassing. Criminal Trespassing is a 30-day misdemeanor if convicted, meaning the individual could spend 30 days in the county jail and/or be fined $250.00. MCL 750.552. This may not be the most severe criminal charges; however, criminal trespassing is still nonetheless a crime here in Michigan. This means that an individual, if convicted, will have a criminal record.

In order to be convicted of criminal trespassing, MCL 750.552, the state or prosecutor must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the individual charged had

  1. Entered the lands or premises of another without lawful authority and after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant;
  2. Remained without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant; or
  3. Entered or remained without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. It is important to note that the factual basis for a criminal trespassing charge under this specific provision does not require a request to leave the premises nor  does it not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

Again, as it becomes apparent after a careful reading of the above statutory requirements to prove a criminal trespass charge, an individual prosecutor does not require much in order to obtain a conviction under a criminal trespass charge. Essentially, the individual must have entered the land of another and been told to leave or provided with a lack of authority to enter in the first place. This is the crux of a criminal trespassing charge, meaning that simply entering a land of another does not fulfill criminal trespassing. Something more needs to be included, which is the rejection of authority to enter either before or after the entry has occurred. It will be at that time that a criminal trespasings charge can maintain water within a criminal court of law.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Decriminalization Charter – City of Grand Rapids

Michigan in recent years has become a marijuana friendly state, or so it seems. There have been numerous cities, municipalities, and towns that have passed local laws decriminalizing or legalizing the use and possession of recreational marijuana. These laws are separate and apart from those controlling the use, possession and delivery of medical marihuana here in the state. The City of Grand Rapids, through an amendment of its City Charter, has decriminalized marijuana throughout the city, creating a decriminalization charter.

Shortly after the amendment became effective, and officially modified the city charter, the Kent County Prosecutor filed a suit against the city in an attempt to stop the use and enforcement of the new decriminalization charter found with Grand Rapids. The prosecutor’s main argument regarding the decriminalization charter involved state preemption, meaning that a city could not create a law that would directly conflict with an overriding state law. The change in the city charter was very similar to that language used within the City of Ann Arbor, which has decriminalized marijuana for over twenty years.

The prosecutor lost at the Circuit Court level, and then filed an appeal. That appeal eventually create a ruling by the Court of Appeals, which brought about an unpublished written opinion. The opinion by the Court of Appeals was very straight forwarded and outlined the numerous arguments presented by the Kent County Prosecutor. The Court ultimately held that the amendment to the city charter was not unconstitutional nor did it conflict with preexisting state law. The new decriminalization charter did not stop, hinder, or otherwise interfere with the enforcement of the state law criminalizing marijuana. The court further noted that if the amendment would have been a new ordinance rather than modifying the city charter then the outcome of the case could have ended differently. It also explained that the decriminalization charter does not prohibit a local city officer from enforcing state law, but rather provides for discretion when performing his or her duties and whether the duties will involve enforcing state law.

What the Court of Appeals’ opinion does for those in the City of Grand Rapids is allow them to “have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law.” Preemption will only occur when there is a direct conflict between local and state law; however, and again, the charter does not make the state law ineffective or hindered in any way. State law enforcement are able to enforce, just as they did prior to decriminalization charter, state law as it is written. This means that at the state level and when confronted by a non-City police officer, within the City of Grand Rapids, an individual can and will still be charged for the illegal possession of marijuana, unless other circumstances and defenses apply. But in the end, when an individual is found within the City of Grand Rapids with marijuana they can be charged with a civil infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor.

Remember, these situations require certain acts within certain areas, and this is still true even though the City of Grand Rapids has decriminalized marijuana within its borders. Only Grand Rapids City officers will be enforcing this amendment and new decriminalization charter. If you are interested in understanding the limitations and possible consequences with marijuana inside Cities or Towns with decriminalized law, please refer to the explanation and article on Marijuana Decriminalization. Josh Jones available 7-days a week, and he handles all criminal matters (felonies and misdemeanors) and specialized in marijuana defense.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Purchasing A Pistol In Michigan

Those individuals purchasing a pistol in Michigan should read the following:

The State of Michigan requires that a person shall not purchase, carry, or transport a pistol without first obtaining a license for such pistol. These licenses can be obtained at the local police department or the sheriff’s department. However, there is an exception to the general rule requiring a license for purchasing a pistol in Michigan.

Those individuals who already have a concealed weapon permit or are a federally licensed firearms dealer are not required to obtain a license prior to purchasing a pistol in Michigan. This exception can be seen as being pre-registered. Meaning, they have already obtained clearance to carry and possess this type of firearm.

Individuals who are not residents of Michigan may not have to obtain a license if all of the following apply:

The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol; the individual is the owner of the pistol he or she possesses, carries, or transports; the individual has in his or her possession the license from the other state, as discussed above; the individual possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as defined by MCL 750.231a; and the individual is in this state for a period of 180 days or less and does not intend to establish residency in Michigan.

If there is a showing, through probable cause, that the applicant is a threat to him- or her-self or another individual then he or she will not be granted a license for purchasing a pistol in Michigan. This is looking at protecting those individual who may have an outburst in the future. Even though Michigan is one of the more liberal state here in America when it comes to firearms and firearm possession, Michigan is still concerned with protecting its citizens from individuals who should not possess or own a firearm.

Moreover, the following will also bar an individual from purchasing a pistol in Michigan or obtaining a license to purchase such a firearm:

  • Under indictment for or have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
  • Fugitive of justice
  • Unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance (convicted, of possession within last year, multiple arrests for possession within the past five years if most recent arrest occurred within the past year, or positive drug test within last year)
  • Adjudicated as mental defective or been committed to any mental institution
; Alien and is illegally or unlawfully in the U.S. (alien without permanent residence status) Dishonorably discharged from the military
Formally renounced U.S. citizenship
  • Subject to a court order prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening of an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

If you are charged with a criminal misdemeanor or felony involving a firearm or any other circumstance contact Josh Jones today for your free consultation. He is available 7-days a week and handles all criminal matters and specializes in marijuana defense. Know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Permitting Another To Drive Drunk (OWI)

Here in the State of Michigan it is illegal and a criminal misdemeanor, generally, if an individual is convicted or found guilty of permitting another to drive drunk. See MCL 257.625(10)(a). This means that an individual convicted of permitting another to drive drunk could face 93-days in jail and/or a fine of up to $500.00 plus other probation terms, conditions and requirements.

Furthermore, there are statutory enhancements if the individual driving the motor vehicle injuries or kills another individual. Of course, the individual driving must be intoxicated beyond the legal limit; however, the individual who is being charged with permitting another to drive drunk and an injury or death occurs from the incident the owner faces a felony (two or five years maximum in jail) and has statutory fines and costs ranging from $1,000 and $10,000.00. See MCL 257.625(10)(b-c).

The positive side of a conviction under permitting another to drive drunk is that licensing sanctions do not attach to an individual convicted of such a crime, whether injury or death was involved or the individual was simply intoxicated. Furthermore, a conviction of permitting another to drive drunk does not count towards or contribute to an enhancement under the traditional Michigan drunk driving or OWI statute. For more on traditional drunk driving law read our Overview of Michigan Drunk Driving.

It is important to note and mentioned that in 2013 the statute was updated and modified to include, into the element of intoxication of the crime, other intoxicating substance. Therefore, this allows the prosecuting official to incorporate or charge based upon other substances, such as marijuana, prescriptions, and the like.

Whenever you are facing a drunk driving charge or a charge of permitting another to drive drunk, you should contact a criminal defense lawyer. Josh Jones handles all drunk driving matters, including permitting another to drive drunk. He is available 7-days a week and handles matters in Metro-Detroit (Macomb, Wayne & Oakland Counties), Genesee County, Livingston County, Washtenaw County, and Lapeer County.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Improperly Passing Police Officer Or Emergency Vehicle

Improperly passing police officer or an emergency vehicle is a criminal misdemeanor here in the State of Michigan. When an individual is driving on roadways within the state and there is an emergency vehicle (i.e. police officer, fire department, etc.) stopped or parked on the side of the they must take caution when they are approaching or passing said emergency vehicle. MCL 257.653a(1) states that “[u]pon approaching and passing a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is giving a visual signal by means of flashing, rotating, or oscillating red, blue, or white lights as permitted by MCL 257.698, the driver of an approaching vehicle shall exhibit due care and caution.” Otherwise this would be considered improperly passing police officer or emergency vehicle.

Due care and caution has been statutorily explained, therefore, when an individual is “[o]n any public roadway with at least 2 adjacent lanes proceeding in the same direction of the . . . emergency vehicle, the driver . . . shall proceed with caution and yield the right‐of‐way by moving into a lane at least 1 moving lane or 2 vehicle widths apart from the stationary authorized emergency vehicle, unless directed otherwise by a police officer.” MCL 257.653a. However, “[i]f movement to an adjacent lane or 2 vehicle widths apart is not possible due to weather, road conditions, or the immediate presence of vehicular or pedestrian traffic in parallel moving lanes, the driver of the approaching vehicle shall . . . reduce and maintain a safe speed for weather, road conditions, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic and proceed with due care and caution, or as directed by a police officer.” MCL 257.653a. Again, if found to be violating this statute it would be considered improperly passing police officer or an emergency vehicle.

LEGAL NOTE: There are multiple statutory driving requirements regarded as right-of-way, such as improperly passing police officer or an emergency vehicle. The possible punishments, fines, and sanctions for each crime can and will vary among the variety of traffic infractions.

When looking whether an individual is found to be guitly of improperly passing police officer or emergency vehicle, the elements must be shown in order for a conviction can occur:

(1) Defendant drove a vehicle;

(2) Defendant approached a signaling emergency response vehicle; and

(3) while on a two‐lane public roadway,

(a) defendant did not approach the emergency vehicle with caution and yield the right‐of‐way by moving into a lane at least one moving lane or two vehicle widths apart from the emergency vehicle; or

(b) without at least two adjacent lanes proceeding in the same direction as the emergency vehicle, or if the movement by the driver of the vehicle into an adjacent lane or two vehicle widths apart is not possible, the defendant failed to reduce and maintain a safe speed and proceed with due care and caution.

Under MCL 257.653a(2), if convicted, an individual faces the possibility of imprisonment for not more than 90-days and/or a fine of not more than $500.00. Furthermore, four points will be placed on an individual’s driving record, which also reportable to the secretary of state. MCL 257.320a(1)(k). It should be noted that if any individual causes death while violating MCL 257.653a the possible punishment increases to a 15-year felony and $7,500 fine.

It is important always follow the rules of the road, not only for your own safety and the safety of others, but to also protect your driving and criminal records. Contact Josh Jones today for your free consultation. He always has your back when you are facing criminal matters (all misdemeanors and felonies), all marijuana matters (medical and non-medical), traffic citations, expungements, and drivers license restorations.