Minnesota’s drug recognition evaluation or DRE program has been in effect since 1991.  However, allegations surfaced recently that one of the DRE officers had give a program participant some marijuana.  Naturally, these allegations were denied.

The police commissioner was forced to admit that the allegations were true after another officer admitted that he’s witnessed the transaction.

According to City Pages:

Dohman also announced the immediate suspension of the DRE program, which has been ongoing in Minnesota since 1991. The program is intended to provide officers with intoxication-recognition training so they can surmise what substances have been used by intoxicated people encountered in the line of duty.

“Training law enforcement officers to detect drug impairment helps to keep our roads safe, but we need to ensure that all participants follow guidelines and operate within the law,” Dohman said. “I have suspended the drug recognition evaluator training pending the outcome of these investigations and until we revisit and review the curriculum for the program.”

Michigan has just started training law enforcement to become DRE participants, and it is expected that drugged driving arrests will continue to rise once the newly trained “drug recognition experts” begin to assist in OWI arrests.

One can only imagine if abuses such as occurred in Minnesota would ever occur in Michigan.  In the meanwhile though, Michigan’s DRE program is rolling full steam ahead.  The way the program works is this: if a driver is pulled over and appeared in any way to be impaired, and the breath test indicates the impairment is not alcohol, then the driver will be arrested and taken to the station where a full 12-step DRE or drug recognition examination will take place.   If the DRE then believes that the impairment is due to any drug, legal or illegal, medication or street concoction, the person will be charged with OWI drugs.

If you are charged with OWI drugs, make sure you hire a lawyer who is trained in the DRE protocol.  The lawyers at the Barone Defense Firm will evaluate your case for FREE and let you know how we can help you.  Contact us today for your FREE drugged driving case evaluation.

Michigan’s newly enacted law[i] is a corollary to 18 USC 1001, which makes it a crime to lie to a federal officer about a material fact in an investigation.   This is what Martha Stewart actually went to prison for, not for insider trading.  As it applies to OWI in Michigan, first we must state that in many cases it will not apply.  Initially, to apply it must either be a “serious misdemeanor” or a misdemeanor or felony with over one year in jail.  Under MCL 780.811 a “serious misdemeanor” includes:

“A violation of section 625 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625, operating a vehicle while under the influence of or impaired by intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, or with an unlawful blood alcohol content, if the violation involves an accident resulting in damage to another individual’s property or physical injury or death to another individual.”[ii]

Therefore, since most first or second offense offenses do not involve damage to another’s property (or injury or death) the new law will not apply.  Further, there is a requirement that the officer inform the party that they are conducting a criminal investigation.  At this point, it is too early to speculate what will constitute the officer informing a subject that they are conducting a criminal investigation.

However, where there is damage to another’s property, or a felony OWI, then the new statute would apply if the officer indicates they are conducting a criminal investigation.  At that point, one cannot: “Knowingly and willfully make any statement to the peace officer that the person knows is false or misleading regarding a material fact in that criminal investigation.”  With that in mind, then any statement regarding the number of drinks consumed which is knowingly and willfully false, would be punishable.  This could be looked at from another angle depending upon the question as well.  If the officer asks if you have been drinking and you admit to “two drinks” that is not false even if you consumed more than a couple.  This is because two drinks were consumed, in addition to others.  It does become false, when stating “only two drinks,” which could be proven to be false.  Again stating that you only had two beers is not false, even if you had several shots of vodka.

As for a warrantless arrest, it still must be supported by probable cause that you are lying, which would include evidence that the statement you provided is false.  Obviously, in OWI understating alcohol consumption is common, but unless there is some evidence (field sobriety tests, PBT) that you consumed more and thus were lying, then you could not be arrested for lying.  If they can show probable cause that you had more than you claim, they can arrest for OWI.  This will possibly be an additional charge, but it is unlikely the new law will lead to further warrantless arrests, as the proof of lying will also support arrest for OWI.

If the new charge is added it will be a misdemeanor with either:

(1) 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, if there is property damage to another, or

(2) imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both, for an OWI 3^rd or causing injury or death.

For other types of crimes, other than drunk driving:

House Bill 5050 adds a new section to the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.479c). A person who is informed by a peace officer that the officer is conducting a criminal investigation would be prohibited from doing any of the following related to a criminal investigation:

• Intentionally concealing from the peace officer (by any trick, scheme, or device) any material fact.
• Intentionally making any statement to the peace officer that is false or misleading regarding a material fact.
• Intentionally issuing or providing any writing or document to the peace officer that the person knows is false or misleading regarding a material fact.

Penalties

The law creates a tiered-penalty structure for violations based on the underlying crime being investigated as detailed below:

1. For an investigation of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for less than one year, the penalty would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and/or a fine of not more than $500.
2. For an investigation of a misdemeanor punishable by more than one year imprisonment or a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to four years, the penalty would be a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year and/or a fine of not more than $2,500.
3. For an investigation of a felony punishable by imprisonment by four years or more, the penalty would be a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than four years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000.

The bill’s provisions do not prohibit an individual from invoking his or her Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution (the right to not incriminate oneself, protection from double jeopardy, and other due process rights) or similar rights under Section 17 of the State Constitution.

The above was written by Barone Defense Firm Associate Attorney Ryan Ramsayer.

The Federal Government is spending tens of Millions of dollars training Michigan law enforcement officers how to make more drugged driving arrests.   ABC News Radio has reported that 20 new Drug Recognition Experts have been added in Michigan.  Furthermore, that 14 law enforcement officers and five prosecutors recently completed an intense Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) course that will enable them to detect when drivers are under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. Last year, 15 officers and four prosecutors completed the DRE training course.

These so-called drug recognition experts claim that they are able to use a 12-step program to determine if a driver is under the influence of a drug and what category of drug they have used.  Although completely without sound scientific support, testimony by such an officer so trained can be pivotal in the State’s attempt to convict you of drugged driving.

The trouble is these officers are looking for “impairment” caused by any kind of drug or medication including prescription medications.  To help avoid being wrongfully arrested and/or convicted of drugged driving, the following are 10 suggestions for all law abiding Michigan drivers:

Top Ten Ways to Avoid a DRE Drugged Driving Arrest or Conviction:

1. If you are taking lawfully prescribed medication, avoid driving between 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.  This is when the police are most aggressively looking for impaired drivers.  By avoiding the road during these times you are avoiding placing yourself under the scrutiny of a biased DRE trained Michigan police officer.
2. Always obey all traffic codes and laws.  While it seems simple, this is one of the best ways to avoid police contact that could lead to a wrongful arrest.  Even though it is possible to be stopped under the pretense of a violation, or for no violation at all, the vast majority of police officers will not stop you unless they see an actual traffic violation.
3. Avoid distractions while driving.  Make no mistake about it, today’s high tech vehicles have many distractions within them.  If you take your eyes off the road, even for a few seconds, you might accidentally violate a traffic code, weave within or outside your lane, or worse, become involved in an accident.  God forbid, but if you were in an accident and caused death or serious injury and the police find drugs in your system, even lawfully prescribed medications, you can charged with a serious felony that could result in many many years in prison. Such a charge, OWI causing death or serious injury makes no distinction between medications and alcohol.
4. Avoid the areas where the bars are located.  It just makes sense.  The police know where the drinkers hang out, and brag about how making arrests in these high traffic areas is like “shooting fish in a barrel.”  Don’t be a fish!
5. Make sure all your vehicle equipment works!  Before you drive, do a quick survey of all the lights on your car, and make sure they work.  If they don’t, then don’t drive.  Make sure also that you don’t have a broken windshield, cracked mirrors, bald tires, or have failed to put your seat belt on.  In other words, don’t give the officer an opportunity to stop you.
6. Don’t carry any medications or pill bottles with you in your car.  If the police spot such a container or find medications on you then you run the risk of the officer putting two and two together and getting a wrong answer: namely that the medications have caused you to be impaired.
7. Don’t admit to taking any medications.  A typical DRE arrest begins with the roadside officer’s investigation.  Once the DRE gets called in he/she will ask the roadside officer if any admissions were made.  The DRE will also ask you once more if not twice more if you are taking any medications or drugs.  Just politely decline to answer this question.  You have no legal obligation to answer this question from any police officer.
8. Refuse to take any roadside tests and refuse also to participate in the DRE evaluation.  Again, the roadside officer will be asking you questions and asking you to submit to “field sobriety evaluations.”  Just politely say no.  You have no obligation legally to take these “tests.”  Also, refuse to submit to any tests back at the station from the DRE officer.  In other words, decline to submit to the DRE 12 step process.
9. After you’ve taken the breath test at the station, refuse to provide a blood sample.  A DRE evaluation requires that you be given an evidentiary breath test first..  This is the one at the station not the one at the side of the road.  After you’ve taken the station breath test (on the DataMaster) you can refuse any further testing without violating Michigan’s implied consent law or otherwise placing your license in jeopardy.  If you blow all zeros or a low number, the DRE will ask for a blood test to “confirm” his “opinion” about the drugs you’ve taken.  You can “just say no” to this request.
10. Find a DRE trained defense attorney.  If you follow the above advice and are arrested anyway, or don’t read this until after you’ve been arrested for drugged driving, make sure you find the best lawyer you can afford.  Only a very small number of Michigan DUI lawyers have DRE training.  If you’re charged with drugged driving, and don’t hire one of these lawyers, you’re chances of a favorable outcome will be significantly limited.

If you’ve been arrested for drugged driving, call the Barone Defense Firm today for your FREE case evaluation.

The Federal government has decided to spend hundreds of millions of dollars training ordinary police officers as “drug recognition experts.”  The claim is that our highways are unsafe due to drivers impaired by drugs, and this includes prescribed medications.  While the highway safety goal of removing impaired drivers is laudable, the reality is something much different.

The vast majority of the 12 step drug recognition evaluation is subjective, as is the definition of impairment.  And the definition of drug is so broad that anyone taking almost any kind of medication can potentially fall prey to an OWI arrest.

And these arrests are going to become increasingly common because each year Michigan is adding to the number of trained officers. In 2011 a total of 15 Michigan law enforcement officers and four prosecutors went through the DRE training; prior to this class, Michigan had only three DREs statewide.  This year many more police officers, judges and prosecutors are being trained. In 2013 the number of DRE trained officers will go up again, and it’s not stopping any time soon.  The Federal government has pledged 42 Million Dollars to the mid-west states for this DRE training.

According to the Michigan State Police web site:

DREs are trained to recognize signs of impairment in drivers under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol and to identify the category or categories of drugs causing the impairment. DREs conduct a 12- step evaluation process to make this determination.

There are many potential problems with this evaluation and program.  Perhaps the most important of them is that any person taking their lawfully prescribed medication can rather easily be arrested and wrongfully convicted of OWI or operating while intoxicated simply because their eyes didn’t look right and they could not walk a straight line to the satisfaction of the officer.  For more information regarding this 12 step evaluation see: Drug Recognition Experts in Michigan.

Being arrested and convicted for prescription drug impairment is identical to being arrested and convicted for drunk driving in Michigan.  The penalties are exactly the same!

If you have been arrested for drugged driving in Michigan then it is essential that you hire a well trained defense lawyers.  Very few Michigan lawyers have been trained in the DRE methods.  When looking for a DUI lawyer to help you be sure to ask him or her what specialized training they have.  Without such training your conviction a near certainty.

On March 10, 2012, a Nigerian man living in Michigan was disbarred for the unlawful practice of law.  What is particularly shocking about this story is how brazen this man was, even calling himself “one of the top drunk driving defense lawyers in Michigan.” (Detroit Free Press April 10, 2012).

Apparently, this man was able to dupe his clients, several Michigan judges and even the Michigan State Bar, as he handled 100’s of DUI cases without a law license.  According to the Free Press:

Anjorin was authorized under a special license from the State Bar of Michigan to give legal advice about Nigerian law. The limited license as a special legal consultant included what is called a “P number,” the five-digit identifier fully licensed Michigan lawyers all have.

Occupying a little-known niche, there have been just 14 special legal consultants in Michigan since 1988. And last year, Anjorin was one of just four in the state.

The limited license authorizes lawyers with foreign accreditation to give legal advice about their homeland to clients in Michigan. It does not make them lawyers approved to practice in Michigan courts — a limitation that was not part of the bar association online listing.

According to this article, Mr. Anjorin, with no formal training in the defense of drunk drivers, had this to say:

“There is no doubt of the fact that in the district court of the Wayne County, I’m one of the leading DUI lawyers.” He said he strayed from his own guidelines for taking only Michigan cases that paralleled Nigerian law because there is no DUI law in Nigeria.

Making matters worse, Mr. Anjorin is listed on a web site as a Detroit DUI attorney, and was even listed on AVVO a national directory of lawyers.  At least AVVO had the good sense to only award him 5.7 of a possible 10 points.

After learning of this case, the Michigan Bar disbarred him, and also changed the way the give P numbers to lawyers under this niche.

If you’ve been arrested in Michigan for drunk driving then it is essential that you find a licensed lawyer to represent you.  Cross check your sources and be sure that you’ve hired a true expert – not a charlatan from Nigeria who is only playing a role!

Earlier it was reported that Congress had set aside 10 Million Dollars for research for technology that would make cars inoperable if the driver was above the legal limit.  Congress has decided to up the ante by another 24 Million.

The idea is to have technology that can be installed by car manufacturers that drivers won’t even know exists.  Although workable technology is still 8-10 years off, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Enthusiasm for the potential of alcohol-detection technology is reflected in a proposed federal transportation bill. In it is a measure that would give the NHTSA’s alcohol-detector program $24 million over two years—a sum that could allow the agency by 2013 to equip a fleet of 100 or more cars with prototypes of two types of alcohol detectors. One would measure the alcohol in the driver’s breath. The other would use touch technology to take a reading from the driver’s skin, likely the fingertip used to activate a starter button.

The Journal reports further:

We’ve made more progress, faster, than we expected,” says Rob Strassburger, vice president for vehicle safety at the alliance. Contributing to advances is national-security research aimed at developing remote sensors that can detect biological or other chemical agents. Also, researchers say that fingertip sensors used in hospitals to monitor blood-sugar levels and other physical indicators are useful in detecting blood-alcohol levels, too.

The Los Angeles Times also reported on the issue as follows:

One point of the federal program is to find a technology that is unobtrusive. The two most promising technologies under study are tissue spectrometry, which would use a touchpad and lasers to detect alcohol in human tissue, and distant spectrometry, in which sensors installed throughout the cabin could sniff a driver’s breath automatically (apparently, the sensors can be placed in such as way as to ensure it’s the driver’s breath they’re sniffing, not passengers’).

So, drunk driving as we know it seems to be in a moribund state, or nearly so.  Long live drugged driving!

In Michigan a person is said to be drunk driving if their ability to operate is “substantially lessened.”  This is what is called the common law theory of drunk driving and the statute actually refers to being “under the influence” of alcohol (or drugs).

The common indicators cited by the police in a drunk driving investigation include things such as an inability to divide one’s attention.  In fact, field sobriety tests, or FSTs, are psychomotor tests that attempt to measure a person’s physical coordination and/or ability to perform more than one task at a time.  These tasks are often referred to as “divided attention” tests.

As it turns out, A.D.H.D. also impacts the brain’s ability to appropriately divide attention.  In fact, according to the New York Times, people with A.D.H.D. are four times more likely than drunk drivers to become involved in accidents.  On top of that, the crashes with people with A.D.H.D are usually worse and cause more damage because they are often speeding and are slow to apply the brakes.

As it turns out, those interviewed for the NYT article advocate more frequent use of medications such as stimulants, including Ritalin and Adderall. According to the article:

“Medication should not really be optional,” Dr. Barkley said. He recommends considering extended-release formulations that remain effective at night, when accidents are most common.

The problem with this “solution” as it relates to driving is that by taking such medications, and then being involved in the same accident, the driver has now placed him or herself in jeopardy of being arrested for driving under the influence of drugs!  This is because the Michigan drunk driving law specifically indicates:

The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance.

And therein lies the irony of all this.  If you have A.D.H.D you’re four times more likely to be involved an accident than a drunk driver, but if you are involved in an accident you won’t get charged with drunk driving.  On the other hand, if you take a controlled substance such as Ritalin and Adderall your chances of an accident might be less, but your chances of being charged with drunk driving are significantly greater!

Craft beer is all the rage these days in Michigan.  And, make no mistake about it, Michigan has some of the best craft brewers in the Country, including Founders, Bells and Shorts.  Now, an out-of-state interloper, Fat Tire Brewing Company, is going to start selling its beer within our borders.

Not that it’s needed.  According to Mlive:

Michigan’s total of more than 80 beermakers ranks fifth nationally; at least three more plan to open this year.

“The state has just blossomed,” said Scott Graham, executive director of the Michigan Brewers Guild, which has 81 members, a record high. “I’ve been saying I think we’ll be going through continued growth for a while, and that’s what you’re seeing.”

Nevertheless, Fat Tire has set their targets on Michigan.  According to the Oakland Press:

New Belgium Brewing Company of Fort Collins, CO recently announced that it will begin distribution in the State of Michigan in late August.

The Colorado-based brewery, most famous for its ‘Fat Tire Amber Ale,’ have inked deals with 22 Michigan distributors to carry its beer starting in August. The recent deal will in turn bring New Belgium’s distribution footprint to 29 states and the District of Columbia.

“We’re incredibly excited to start shipping beer to Michigan,” said New Belgium spokesman Bryan Simpson. “It’s a craft savvy state with a strong tradition of producing creative and innovative beers. We look forward to joining that community and helping to grow the fan base for craft beer.”

Craft beer, such as Fat Tire, tends to have higher alcohol content, meaning it takes fewer 12 oz bottles or drafts to be at or over the legal limit.  Have one too many Fat Tires, and you could end up on the wrong side of the Michigan’s drunk driving law.

Saugatuck Republican Bob Genetski was arrested for drunk driving earlier this year. Because he refused the breath test, a warrant was obtained, and the blood test result about 1.5 hours after the driving suggested that his bodily alcohol content was somewhere around .08 – Michigan’s “legal limit.” 

In thinking about this case it’s important to understand that it’s not unlawful to be over the legal limit at the time of the test.  What is unlawful is to be over the legal limit at the time of driving.  This means the big question in Representative Genetski’s case is whether or not it’s possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, if he was actually drunk while driving?

As part of an effort to answer this very question,  Mlive reporter Brandon Howell, called DUI attorney Mike Nichols, the Lansing area lawyer retained to help Representative Genetski.  Mr. Nichols declined to comment, but Michelle Glinn, former drug and toxicology program coordinator for the Michigan State Police, said Genetski’s blood-alcohol level at the time of his traffic stop was likely about .11.  But how would she know this?

As reported in the article written by Mr. Howell:

Glinn’s conclusions are based on a procedure called retrograde extrapolation, which estimates blood-alcohol content of a person at the time of driving by estimating the absorption and elimination of alcohol in one’s system in the intervening time between driving and blood test.

 The only way Glinn’s calculations could have “any degree of merit” would be if she knew Genetski’s height and weight, his body mass, when he had his last drink definitively that evening, what his drinking pattern was, whether and what he had eaten, what his previous exposure to alcohol had been for the past several months and other factors.

“All of those things impact the absorption, distribution and elimination of alcohol,” “So what she’s doing is she’s ignoring the individual variability and making a whole bunch of assumptions.

“And she’s doing it in a reckless way because someone could read that and that person could end up being a juror and have a belief that this so-called expert from the state lab has proffered this opinion and believe that opinion has some merit,” “Her opinion could end up causing this person to be wrongfully convicted.”

These comments essentially summarize what the courts have been struggling with for decades.  According to Defending Drinking Drivers:

One case addressing this issue is State v. Tischio[i].  Here the Court barred expert testimony concerning the extrapolation of a defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving from the time of testing.

The court held that proof that the test was given within a “reasonable time” after the arrest satisfied the requirements of the per se statute.

By so holding, the court deprived the defendant of the right to present exculpatory evidence that is both scientifically and legally relevant to his defense.

As a result, the New Jersey Supreme Court missed the entire point of the statutory scheme. Defendants whose blood alcohol concentration is below .10% at the time of driving, can still be prosecuted under the first provision of the law, which proscribes driving under the influence of alcohol.

The legislature can rely on breath test results to facilitate the state’s prosecution. The court cannot, however, as a matter of law preclude the defendant from presenting evidence that his particular blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was below .10%, absent a clear expression of such intent by the legislature.

The New Jersey Legislature could, as some legislatures have done, make it a crime to have a particular blood alcohol concentration at the time of testing or within a reasonable time after driving.

Absent such a clear expression of intent, however, it should be left to the trier of fact to accept or reject the extrapolation evidence presented by a defendant.

Numerous courts have allowed a defendant to present extrapolation evidence. First, in some jurisdictions, extrapolation evidence is permitted to rebut the prosecution’s blood alcohol test result.

Some cases have gone further, however, and not only allow the introduction of extrapolation evidence in an attempt to rebut the chemical test result, but also actually require that the state introduce sufficient evidence to enable the fact finder to extrapolate the defendant’s blood alcohol content from the time of testing to the time of driving to meet its burden of proof.

 In these cases the defense has argued that the BAC result is inadmissible at trial to prove a statutory per se violation unless the state also introduces evidence to relate the BAC back to the time of the arrest.[ii]

Without that evidence the test is only relevant to indicate that there was some amount of alcohol in the defendant’s blood.  Therefore, not only is extrapolation evidence relevant, it is absolutely necessary if the state is to meet its burden of proof on a per se violation.

The next question then is when and how such evidence may be entertained by the judge or jury. The Desmond [iii]court required that as part of its evidentiary foundation for the chemical test result, the state must introduce evidence relating the blood alcohol content at the time of test to the BAC that existed at the time of apprehension. Desmond also recognized many variables that may affect the results of a BAC test including:

1.  the type of testing machine used;
2. the driver’s weight;
3. the driver’s sex;
4. the driver’s physical condition;
5. any medication the driver might be taking;
6. the amount of food in the driver’s stomach; and
7. how long after driving the test was administered.

 The Desmond court also recognized that whether the driver’s BAC was rising or falling at the time of the test administered after an arrest was of critical importance.

 When evaluating a state expert’s opinion relative to retrograde extrapolation, the first question is always whether or not it is possible for the motorist to still be in the absorption phase at the time of the test.

 If the answer is “yes,” then the motorist’s BAC level may have actually been lower at the time of driving.

 An appropriate time line, using only the information available to the state, should be developed, and calculations should be run based on several different scenarios.

 Most of these defenses will center on the state’s lack of information, which might include such characteristics as weight and gender, typical drinking pattern and tolerance for alcohol, how much alcohol was actually consumed, the type of beverage consumed, the duration of the drinking spree, the time of the last drink, and the amount of food consumed and when.[iv]

“Detroit’s shrinking population, now at 713,777, is creating uncertainty in the restaurant community”[i] because a smaller population means fewer liquor licenses will be available.  The new rules also will result in longer waits for new or transferred licenses to be approved.[ii]

According to the liquor control commission, there are 599 liquor licenses in use in Detroit.  Because of its population decrease, Detroit loses 158 on-premise liquor licenses from its quota.[iii]

Fewer liquor licenses and longer waits to obtain one will presumably mean fewer places for the public to purchase alcohol.  In turn, this will likely mean that there will be fewer people driving drunk and fewer drunk driving arrests in Detroit.

On the other hand, there are new places to “wine and dine” in Detroit.  For example, some of Detroit’s most renowned restaurants have been recently resurrected, including Joe Muer Seafood and the London Chop House.  Texas de Brazil also opened in the last 12 months.[iv]

These old restaurant stalwarts might bring more people into the City looking for the best food and wine experience available.  If Detroit becomes more of a restaurant destination, then drunk driving arrests in the City could actually increase.

Of course it’s also worth noting that the Detroit Lions are expected to continue to contend in their division, and the Detroit Tigers are expected to at the top of theirs.  Add to this an always winning Red Wings team, and since all three teams now play in the City, there will be plenty of reasons to celebrate in Detroit in 2012.  The balance of the two factors may result in the number of drunk driving arrests in Detroit staying the same, or perhaps even increasing in 2012.

Of course the wild card is enforcement.  With there being more Detroit City officers on the road thanks to Mayor Bing’s reforms, and more state police patrolling the freeways thanks to Governor Snyder’s reforms, it would seem that the balance will actually tip in favor of a net gain in drunk driving arrests in Detroit for 2012.