WHAT IS MICHIGAN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR ASSAULT?

Assaultive crimes can come in various forms and degrees, meaning that one act can encapsulate numerous assaultive crimes. Within this umbrella of assaultive crimes lies the crime known as Michigan domestic violence  or assault and applies when a person is in a dating relationship with the individual assaulter.

Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault, as mentioned above, must fall under the definition of a “dating relationship” in order for the Michigan domestic violence or assault statute to be applicable. The definition covers more relationships than the direct “dating reltionship;” however, in many instance Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault will occur between individuals dating or have dated one another. The actual definition covers an individual who commits an assault or assault and battery on his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of the same household then he or she is in a “dating relationship.” See MCL § 750.81a(3).

If convicted under Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault statute an individual faces a 1-year misdemeanor and/or $1,000.00 fine. Those convicted previously of an assaultive crimes will face a 2-year felony with a possible $2,500.00 fine. Any subsequent conviction used for enhancing the sentence for a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault crime will also include general assaultive crimes. It is imperative, if not essential, to contact a criminal defense attorney when an individual faces a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault crime because these conviction can and will have a life-long impact.

Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault Deferral

Those individuals facing a Domestic Violence charge and/or conviction for the first time can obtain by statute a deferral for that particular charge. In order to qualify for this deferral for Michigan Domestic Violence an individual cannot have a prior conviction of an assaultive crime (including Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault). If granted and qualifying an individual can receive an automatic expungement of the Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault charge upon successfully completing probation and all ordered terms.

MCL 769.4a specifically states and authorizes the use of this deferral by the court, without entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused and of the prosecuting attorney in consultation with the victim, to defer further proceedings in an assault and battery case when an individual who has not been convicted previously of an assaultive crime pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, assault and battery under MCL 750.81 AND 81A.

Remember, to qualify the victim of the assault must be the offender’s spouse or former spouse, an individual who has a child in common with the offender, an individual who has or has had a dating relationship with the offender, or an individual residing in the same household as the offender, and thus be a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault. Also REMEMBER THIS DEFERRAL can be utilized only if the accused has no prior assaultive conviction. For law enforcement purposes, although a judgment of guilt is not entered, the arrest and the disposition by utilization of the deferral statue will appear on the criminal record of the defendant.

Whenever you are faced with a Michigan Domestic Violence or Assault crime or any other Michigan criminal misdemeanor or felony contact Josh Jones today. He maintains a full-service Criminal Defense Law Firm 7-days a week, so he always has your back. REMEMBER NEVER RELY ON ANY COMMENTS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED HERE OR ON ANY OTHER WEBSITE WHEN ATTEMPTING OR TRYING TO REPRESENT OR DEFEND YOURSELF IN A COURT OF LAW. ALWAYS CONTACT AND HIRE COUNSEL. LAWYER-UP.

Warrantless Home Search By Law Enforcement Can Happen 

Generally, Law Enforcement (or Police) are not allowed to enter your home without a warrant; however, some circumstances can allow for them to perform a warrantless home search (meaning without a warrant or your consent). Those instances allowing for a warrantless home search are referred to as exigent circumstances.

Emergency Situations (i.e. Exigent Circumstances) allow for warrantless home searches. 

When an exigent circumstance exists an exception to the warrant requirement will be present and law enforcement can enter an individuals home. The issue can later be argued in court; however, if shown to exist the warrantless home search will stand and any incriminating evidence obtained from that search will continue to be admissible (unless another reason is present for its exclusion). So what are the exigent circumstances allowing for a warrantless home search?

One exigent circumstance bringing about a warrantless home search is known as the hot-pursuit exception. This exception applies to fleeing felons or individual’s fleeing after the comission of a felony. The key piece of information to take away from this exception is a showing that the individual needs to be immediately arrested, and thus society needs to be protected from possible danger. The interest in justice outweighs the privacy concerns when police are involved in a hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. However, this exception does not nor would apply when the criminal charge involves a misdemeanor.

Other exigent circumstances bringing about a warrantless home search will involve the possible destruction of evidence or physical and immediate injury to an individual within the home. For example, a domestic violence call and reasonable belief of its occurence may allow for the warrantless home search or entry by law enforcement. This is another policy exception that involves the protection of individuals from danger and bodily harm.

Important Note

These comments regarding a warrantless home search show never sway your judgement when denying consent to an officer to perform a search of you, your home or other property. These exceptions are being discussed to enlighten and inform the public of possible pitfalls and avenues found within the criminal justice system.

An individual always has the right, and should exercise the right, to deny consent to a search. If the officer has the ability to perform a warrantless home search or other warrantless search then they do. However, if they do not and they perform one anyways, an attorney could and should have an amazing argument.

That being said, know the law, maintain your rights and lawyer-up. Josh Jones is here 7-days a week to answer your questions and concerns by phone, text, email or instant message—specializing in Criminal Defense and Marihuana Defense (medical and non-medical).

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. 

Remember, Josh Jones provides his services in Genesee County, Metro-Detroit (Wayne, Oakland & Macomb Counties), Livingston County, Lapeer County, and Washtenaw County.

What is Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a?

Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a explains that “[a] person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another.” If an individual is found guilty of Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a then he or she “is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.”

Moreover, “[i]f the person was fondling his or her genitals, pubic area, [or] buttocks” is guilty of a misdemeanor. However, the punishment could be 2-years of imprisonment or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a also applies to females who are found to be fondling their breasts.

In order to have the increase in charge, the individual must also be performing the underlying act of openly exposing him- or her-self or of another stated in Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a. The Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a can have serious repercussions because they would be become part of the individual’s criminal record if convicted.

So how could an individual be convicted of Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a? 

The key word in Michigan Indecent Exposure MCL 750.335a is “knowingly.” This means that the individual must perform an act with some kind of intent, and thus knowingly expose some part of his or her “privates” to the public. However, as noted, the act does not have to be performed to his or her own person, but can include the act of another. For example, if “Jason” runs up behind a girl and takes her bathing suit off, which inevitably reveals some part of her “private region(s),” then “Jason” could be found guilty of indecent exposure. A conviction would be placed a misdemeanor on “Jason’s” criminal record, if convicted, and he would face up to 1 year in jail and/or a $1,000.00 fine.

Moreover, if there is intentional fondling of the person’s private area this can and will increase the possible punishment, if the individual is convicted. The statute does not use the term private areas, but instead says no fondling of the genitals, buttock, pubic area, or breasts (if a female is involved).

So in the end, I suppose it is best to keep your clothes on while in public or in eye of the public. This type of crime can occur almost anywhere, even in your own back yard. So, before you decide to strip down, either by yourself or with someone, you may want to think about the possible consequences.

Whenever you are involved with the criminal justice system you need competent, hardworking and honest representation by your side. Contact Josh Jones 7-days a week at 734-355-0424 by phone, text, email or instant message. He is here for you and your criminal case.

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. 

What is Michigan 7411 Diversion?

Michigan 7411 diversion is a statutory law that allows for second chances for certain criminal acts committed within the State of Michigan, which means that certain crimes and convictions can be kept off an individual’s public criminal record. This only occurs if the individual satisfies the terms and conditions of their court ordered probation that will inevitably ensue upon pleading guilty to the specific crime and the court must first accept an individual to be placed on Michigan 7411 diversion

MCL 333.7411 outlines Michigan 7411 Diversion and is commonly referred to as “7411″

Michigan 7411 diversion allows an individual who has been charged with a non-major drug crime to simply walk away without a drug conviction, but only after successful completion of a probationary period. The period of probation can be up-to a year long. This includes all terms and conditions ordered for probation. However, Michigan 7411 diversion protects the individual’s license from Secretary of State sanctions, which occur during drug crimes convictions here in Michigan.

Essentially, Michigan 7411 Diversion never places a conviction on the individual’s criminal record and protects the record publicly the moment individual enters a plea under Michigan 7411 Diversion and continues to comply with court orders. It is important to note that if an individual is found or pleads guilty to drug charges he or she will have licensing sanctions, but only if there is an actual conviction. However, an individual placed on Michigan 7411 diversion is protected against these sanction, unless they lose the Michigan 7411 diversion status while on probation. If that occurs drivers license sanctions will ensue.

Non-major drug crimes generally include possession or use of controlled substances or drugs (including, but not limited to, marihuana, cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy. Major offenses that are not eligible for Michigan 7411 Diversion and are offenses that involve delivery or manufacture of drugs (including marihuana), possession with intent to deliver, and maintaining a drug house.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that Michigan 7411 diversion may only be used once in a lifetime. Also, a prior drug conviction precludes eligibility under Michigan 7411 diversion. There is no age requirement for Michigan 7411 diversion as compared to the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (aka HYTA). The consent of the prosecutor is not required for Michigan 7411 diversion.

It is imperative to know what will and will not happen to you and your life when involved with criminal charges, especially drug charges, such as marijuana. Therefore, know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up with Josh Jones. He has your back and is available 7-days a week by phone, text, email or instant message. He handles criminal matters in Genesee County, Metro Detroit, Washtenaw County, Lapeer County and Livingston 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.

Warrantless Cellphone Searches Constitutional?

Warrantless Cellphones Searches require a search warrant when performed after an individual is arrested or detained. See Riley v California, _ U.S. _ (June 25, 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  limited the ability of law enforcement to search an individual’s cellphone during or after an arrest. However, the Court did indicate that officers may in some circumstances perform warrantless cellphones searches.

First, SCOTUS focused its attention on the scope of when an individual and his or her belongings could and would be searched due to the long standing debate on the issue. The Court looked at multiple situations involved the extension and limitation of the search incident to arrest exception in order to compare to their issue of warrantless cellphone searches.

The Court even looked at the transition in technology and accessibility of information available to and stored within cellphones. This ultimately seemed to be the crux in the government’s argument with warantless cellphones searches and their allowance. The Court spoke of the intimacy and daily use of cellphones as compared to just a decade ago, which again weighed in favor of limiting the use of warrantless cellphone searches.

It is essential to understand that the Court, in this situation, used a balancing test for determing the legitmacy of warrantless cellphone searches. This means courts must balance the governmental interest at stake with the privacy interest at issue, and in Riley v California, _ U.S. _ (June 25, 2014), the government interest was criminal evidence and the privacy interest was the information contained within the cellphone that searched. Therefore, because of the advancement technology and our dependency on that technology warrantless cellphone searches will generally be unconstitutional if performed by the government or law enforcement. I believe this is the reason that the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts was joined by all but one of the remaining Justices.

The Court went as far to say and remind its readers that simply because individuals are placed into custody or arrested does not automatically diminish their right to privacy and warrantless searches, including cellphones. However, again it must also be remembered that the Court did not create a bright-line rule with its holding in Riley v California. This means that warrantless cellphone searches can happen in emergency situations. These situations are known as exigency circumstances and allow for warrantless cellphone searches because of the possibility of the destruction of evidence or safety of the public.

Make sure to always know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up no matter the criminal misdemeanor or felony. Josh Jones is here for you and is your Michigan Criminal & Marihuana Lawyer. But remember, NEVER rely on any information within this website or any other site on the internet when attempting or trying to represent yourself in a court of law or any other criminal fashion. You MUST ALWAYS consult with an experienced criminal defense lawyer before proceeding.

People v Tuttle Michigan Supreme Court Ordered Hearing

On June 11th, 2014, Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice, Michael F. Cavanagh, Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly, Brian K. Zahra, Bridget M. McCormack, David F. Viviano, Justices, provided the following order for the application of leave filed in People v Tuttle (Mich. COA 2014):

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., who makes unlawful sales of marijuana to another patient to whom he is not connected through the registration process, taints all aspects of his marijuana-related conduct, even that which is otherwise permitted under the act; (2) whether a defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification card establishes any presumption for purposes of § 4 or § 8; (3) if not, what is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; and (4) what role, if any, do the verification and confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing entitlement to immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8.

We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of this Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444).

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

It will be interesting to see what the Michigan Supreme Court does with People v Tuttle. The ruling in the Michigan Court of Appeals has drastically undercut the possible defenses available to individuals looking to qualify for a Section 8 Affirmative Defense. The decision will hopefully assist rather than hinder the Michigan Medical Marihuana community.

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. LAWYER-UP. 

UPDATED: Criminal Expungement or Set Aside – What Is It?

A criminal expungement or set aside is an action created by statute that can be used as many times as necessary SO LONG as the individual still meets the requirements of the Statute. The expungement law here in the State of Michigan is found with MCL 780.621 through 780.624, and MCL 712A.18e.

A criminal expungement or set aside can be one of two types: for adult convictions and another for juvenile adjudications.

In order to initially quality for an adult criminal expungement or set aside, the conviction (or release from incarceration) must have been at least 5 years ago; the crime cannot have been a crime that cases with it a possibility for life in prison; and the crime cannot have been a Criminal Sexual Conduct Crime in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Degree(s). Moreover, an individual must have only one felony conviction, two misdemeanors, or two minor misdemeanor convictions looking to be expunged or removed from his or her criminal record. UPDATE: There was a change in the criminal expungement statute in January 2015 that expanded the availability of applying for a criminal expungement. This means that if you believe you qualify for a criminal expungement contact Josh Jones today for your free consultation.

Furthermore, traffic offenses that amount to criminal sanctions do not qualify for a criminal expungement or set aside and will count against the individual when he or she is looking to have his or her record expunged. This means, for example, that an individual with a drunk driving on his or her record while also carrying, lets say, a retail fraud conviction on his or her record will be unable to the criminal expungement or set aside statute.

Expunging a Juvenile Adjudication is similar to the Adult Expungement process; however, the individual is not technically restricted to the 5-year rule. But instead, the individual can move for a criminal expungement or set aside when he or she is 24 years old or 5-years after the conviction or release from detention. It must be noted, and it is essential to understand that the judge and the court have the final determination and discretion to grant or deny the application to expunge or set aside the prior conviction.

It is important to know what can be done with the law, especially when it can affect your future and your life. A criminal expungement or set aside can allow for you to have a completely clean start when it comes to your criminal record. Contact Josh Jones today to move forward with a criminal expungement or set aside and clear your record today.

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.

GPS Tracking Devices In United States v Jones – United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court held that GPS tracking devices were not allowed to be attached an individual’s vehicle unless the government has first obtained a warrant to attach such a device. See United States v Jones. The defendant Jones was being investigated by the federal government, which included surveillance, cameras, and wiretaps of Jones’s phone. Using the information obtained from the investigation, the Federal Government applied for a warrant to use a GPS tracking device to track Jones’s movements, yet the government failed to attach the device prior to the ten-day deadline noted inside the warrant to use a GPS tracking device.

The Court began its analysis by looking at the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits an “unreasonable search and seizure.” In order to determine what is an unreasonable search or seizure the analysis hinges on the whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the area or thing being searched or seized. The Court noted previous holdings where it had to determine the legitimacy of a “beeper” GPS tracking device in the eyes of the Fourth Amendment. Those cases were different than in Jones because the item tagged with the “beeper” (or GPS tracking device) was owned by a third-party and not the individual defendant being investigated.

Even though the government is allowed to watch, follow, and tape an individual from a distance, the Court in Jones explained that attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle went too far. The need for a warrant is necessary due to the invisible line that is crossed when the government encroaches an individual’s personal property, even when using a GPS tracking device.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc. Always consult and/or retain a criminal or civil attorney when involved in any legal matter. Josh Jones handles all criminal and marijuana matters within the State of Michigan.

People v Carruthers Usable Marihuana Defined & Limited UPDATED

On Thursday, June 11, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied hearing the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case by order, which was on appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals. The People v Carruthers usable marihuana case when interpreted by Michigan Court of Appeal created many issues that Medical Marihuana Patients and Caregivers hoped to see settled by the Michigan Supreme Court. See People v Carruthers. However, the Michigan Supreme Court will not hear the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case; therefore, the opinion and legal analysis and statements by the Court of Appeals will remain in effect until there is a legislative modification.

What Did The Court of Appeals say in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case?

The court specially and repeatedly stated that resin (or THC extract) based brownies were not and are not considered “usable marihuana” as explained in Section 4 (Immunity). The court further explained that because resin brownies are not considered to be “usable” an individual in possession of such brownies does not qualify for Section 4. The court, in essence, found a loophole around qualifying an act for immunity even though it involves marijuana, and thus similarly as the Michigan Supreme Court in People v McQueen found, an individual in possession of resin brownies must rely on a Section 8 Affirmative Defense.

Usable Marihuana under the MMMA is defined as:

“dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.” MCL § 333.2642(3)(k).

The court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case interpreted this definition narrowly. Therefore, usable marihuana, as indicated in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case, does not include all parts of the marihuana plant, meaning the resins, nor does it include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” Marihuana, under general state law, on the other hand includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.

The court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case dealt with a resin based product known as “Cannabutter,” which contained THC extract. The THC extract can be taken from any part of the plant, and it would still, under the People v Carruthers usable marihuana opinion, not be considered “usable marihuana” under the MMMA.

So in the end, the court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case, explained that a substance must contain plant material in order to be considered  “usable” under Section 4 of the MMMA. It also went on to explain that Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) does not maintain a narrow definition for marihuana when compared to Section 4. Therefore, the court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case left open the possiblity for a Section 8 affirmative defense for issues involving resins based marihuana products.

The court, however, did note that the potency of resin brownies, under a Section 8 defense, would come into play when determining whether the individual possessed an amount reasonably necessary to alleviate or treat the medical condition. It also stated that “[g]iven the unmeasurable nature of the highly potent THC contained in such edibles, the health and welfare of Michigan citizens would be threatened, and prosecutions for possession and use of edibles containing higher-than-allowed quantities of THC would be systematically thwarted.”

It is always necessary to know the law, know your rights, and maintain your ability to fight, especially when dealing with the MMMA. This opinion has made Section 4 narrower and more specific on what you can and cannot do in order to qualify for Immunity. NEVER RELY ON ANY ARTICLE, INCLUDING THIS ONE, IF ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT OR DEFEND YOURSELF IN A COURT OF LAW. NOTHING ON THE INTERNET CAN COMPENSATE OR REPLACE LEGAL COUNSEL. LAWYER-UP.

Michigan Reckless Driving Law – What Exactly Is It?

An individual can be and will be convicted Michigan Reckless Driving law an individual will have a misdemeanor on his or her criminal and driving record. Michigan Reckless Driving law states that a person shall not drive their motor vehicle with a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of  other persons or property. A conviction under Michigan Reckless Driving law is a 93-day misdemeanor, meaning the maximum sentence allowable is 93-days in jail, and/or  a $500.00 fine. MCL 257.626. Moreover, there are mandatory drivers license sanctions, which are inflicted by the Secretary of State.

It is important to note that if convicted and entered on your criminal record the conviction under Michigan Reckless Driving law cannot be expunged, under Michigan’s criminal expungement statute. This is due to the Michigan Reckless Driving law being placed in the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, which are all precluded from a criminal expungement. All motor vehicle crimes are non-expugnable.

However, and at the end of the day, the state or prosecutor over seeing the case must still prove that you violated the Michigan Reckless Driving law beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict you of the crime. Therefore, they must show you drove recklessly, hence the phrase Michigan Reckless Driving law. And as noted earlier you must have driven your motor vehicle with a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property.

The Michigan Reckless Driving law defines “Willful or wanton disregard” as more than simple carelessness, but rather a knowing disregarding of the possible risks to the safety of people or property when involved with driving or operating a motor vehicle upon a road, highway or an area open to motor vehicles. Therefore, the prosecutor does not have to prove intent to cause harm, meaning there is a lower standard of proof than some crimes.

It is always essential to lawyer-up with a criminal defense attorney when charged under the Michigan Reckless Driving law, or with any other Michigan criminal crime (misdemeanor or felony). Josh Jones understands what is needed when facing such a charge under the Michigan Reckless Driving law and numerous others. Contact him 7-days a week by phone, text, email or instant message. He 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. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.