Super Lawyers Badge
State Bar of Michigan Badge
Justia Lawyer Rating
The National Trial Lawyers Badge
Avvo Rating 10.0 - Top Attorney Badge
Martindale Hubber Badge
Macomb County Bar Association Badge
Bar Register - Preeminent Lawyer Badge
The National Trial Lawyers - Top 40 under 40

|

hot pursuit.jpgIn the second part of our 3 part series on searches, this blog will discuss the rules governing automobile searches. The following needs to be considered when a motorist is pulled over and subsequently searched;

Was the stop a traffic stop or a stop based on suspicion of criminal activity?
Was any search justified?
Was the scope of the search justified?

As alluded to in our prior post, being in an automobile affords individuals much less 4th Amendment protection than being in their home. Police can search a car without a warrant under the ‘automobile exception’. Such searches must be supported by probable cause. According to case law, the general population doesn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their automobile because it is operated upon public roadways and is highly regulated by the government. Thus, automobiles upon public roadways are subject to a much lower expectation of privacy than a private home – other drivers, and police officers, can see directly into the majority of traveling cars. It should also be noted warrantless searches may be conducted pursuant to a valid inventory search after the seizure of an automobile.

Police can stop a motorist either for violation of the motor vehicle code or based on the hunch of criminal activity. Where the officer actually observes a traffic violation they are allowed to make a stop. However, it is often a traffic stop that allows the police to make an arrest for a more serious crime. The police can run a background check during a traffic stop, if that check shows outstanding warrants the police may then arrest that individual and search their vehicle. Moreover, the police do not need a warrant in order to run a license check of a vehicle.

Police may expand the scope from a brief detention to issue a traffic ticket where there is a fair probability of contraband/evidence in the vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances. If a law enforcement official see’s, say for example a bloodied weapon, in plain sight during a traffic stop they may immediately seize that weapon. Another scenario, one that regularly plays out in this office, is where an officer smells alcohol or marijuana during a traffic stop. The smell of marijuana justifies a search of the motor vehicle. Similarly the odor of intoxicants allows the police to conduct roadside sobriety tests.

Where there is no traffic violation, law enforcement may make an investigative stop where they believe criminal activity is taking place. Where there is probable cause that a crime is being committed police may stop an automobile without a warrant (for example where a car is described as leaving the scene of a recently committed crime). Probable cause can be premised on as little as an anonymous tip. Depending what the probable cause is for (meaning a stolen vehicle versus a bag of drugs) will dictate the initial scope of the permissible search. Practically speaking, the police will likely find a way to search the entire car through one of the warrant exceptions. Further, probable cause will typically give pretty wide latitude in terms of what portions of the car can be searched absent a warrant. Police can, for example, open a container if they have reason to believe there is evidence of a crime in that container. However, the search needs to be somewhat logical. That’s to say that police likely do not have the authority to search a purse if they stop an automobile under suspicion that it’s harboring illegal immigrants.

Beneath is some case law regarding automobile searches.

– The police may not search an automobile if the stop was solely for the purpose of seeing the motorist’s license.
– The police may search a car incident to a custodial arrest.
– The police may not search a car where a ticket is issued for a traffic offense provided that’s the reason the car was stopped.
– Police may search a car made at the end of a hot pursuit of a crime scene.
– Police may search a car believed to be stolen.
– The police may allow a dog to sniff an automobile during a legitimate traffic stop.
Continue reading ›

|

child neglect pic.gifThis blog will explain the Michigan Child Neglect and Abuse laws and conclude with some of our legal strategies which are utilized to defend a client charged with child abuse or neglect. Our criminal defense attorneys approach child abuse and neglect cases with the utmost diligence and care. We invariably will recommend that a person who is investigated for child abuse or neglect refrain from discussing the case with anyone until a criminal defense lawyer is retained.

The Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) is the government entity that is responsible for investigating suspecting reports regarding child abuse and neglect. DHS then makes a recommendation to the Family Court as to whether they think you are guilty of child neglect and/or for possible termination of parental rights. In addition, these reports are turned in to the police for possible criminal charges of child abuse or neglect. Names of individuals are placed on the statewide abuse and neglect Central Registry if there is a preponderance of evidence that the individual has abused or neglected their child and the future risk to the child is high or intensive.

Child Neglect

Continue reading ›

|

Abdo Law Police Patdown.jpg

Oftentimes clients ask the following questions;

When the police searched me, was their search valid?
Were the police allowed to search me?
Did the police have the authority to search me?

Answer: It depends, this three part blog series will explore what types of searches are and are not valid.

The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no one should be subjected to an unreasonable search. Michigan’s standard for searches is not higher than that of the Federal Government.

The general rule is that a search without a valid warrant is unreasonable. Where there is no warrant it must be demonstrated that there was both probable cause and a valid exception.

Beneath are the recognized scenarios where law enforcement may conduct a warrantless search;

1) When incident to a lawful arrest,
2) Under the “plain view doctrine”,
3) Based on voluntary consent,
4) Pursuant to a custodial inventory search,
5) Pursuant to statute,
6) When presented with exigent circumstances,
7) Automobile searches,
8) And stop and frisk searches.

The Constitution affords the most protection to homes. Much less protection is extended to motorists and individuals. This post is devoted to what is required to search an individual without a warrant.

Terry Stops

Pursuant to the Terry v Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision, a police officer has the authority to stop a suspect when he/she has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Basically, the officer must be able to describe the situation and explain his actions based upon his experience as a police officer. This pertains only to whether or not an officer can stop an individual who is walking down the street.

Whether or not the officer can search the individual is dependent upon the circumstances of the encounter. Although the person has been stopped based upon the officer’s reasonable suspicion, the officer is limited in how he/she can search the individual’s person. When the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presently dangerous or is engaging in criminal conduct, they are entitled to search the individual. The frisk, as it’s known, is limited to a search for weapons by patting down only the outer clothing of the person. During this search if an item is immediately recognized as contraband it may be seized pursuant to the “plain feel” exception. However, an officer cannot, for example, manipulate an objected suspected to be contraband through the clothes or remove that object in order to determine that it is indeed contraband.

Both the search and the stop must be reasonable. This is determined through an objective test, which means that if the behavior meets a certain threshold, it’s reasonable. If not, the police behavior is unreasonable.

Courts have held the following –

1) It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a cop to stop and question an individual on the street.
2) While a person’s mere presence in a high crime area may not be enough to warrant a frisk, running from such an area is.
3) An officer’s personal observation of criminal activity is not needed to form reasonable suspicion, it can be based on third party information.
4) Police officers cannot manipulate someone’s carry-on luggage in order to determine its contents, whereas a canine sniff (properly limited in scope) is not a “search” as defined by law.
5) Police may question persons on public transportation.
Continue reading ›

|

dilliger.jpg
As an active criminal defense attorney in Macomb County, our firm is frequently asked whether a criminal record can be totally erased, disappear or vanish. Unfortunately, the answer is no.


The Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)

The moment an arrest occurs, or a warrant is issued by a court, a record is generated on the Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). Only criminal justice agencies or other authorized agencies (courts) are granted access to the LEIN. A law enforcement officer or court employee who abuses the system faces discipline. This link provides a list of entities who are authorized to utilize the LEIN system.

Continue reading ›

|

warning_psycho_womens_dark_t_shirt-p235606176389139682tr1k_400.jpg

Can I be charged with a crime if only one person says I did it and there are no other witnesses or evidence (commonly called “he said/she said” cases)?

Answer: YES.

This is a question that we are frequently asked in cases involving relationships such as spouses, lovers, family members etc… These cases usually involve domestic violence, assault crimes, stalking, sex crimes or other personal crimes. The prosecutor may opt to charge a person with the alleged crime even though the suspect denies the allegations, there are no other witnesses and there is a complete lack of any other evidence (no injuries, no video, no confession).

Evidence Traps in He Said/She Said cases

The police agency assigned to cases such as this are often aggressive and will attempt to try and gain a confession from the accused to strengthen the case for prosecution. Sometimes in “he said/she said” cases, the alleged victim will call the suspect on the telephone with a script of loaded questions. A recording of the conversation can be used as evidence unless it is obtained illegally (Michigan Law-recording conversations). The phone call may be initiated with police encouragement before the suspect has knowledge that a police report has been filed!

As an active criminal defense lawyer in Macomb County, our firm has represented 1000’s of clients charged with crimes. Sometimes, the only evidence is the statement by an angry party in a tumultuous relationship who is seeking attention, revenge or retaliation. Far too often, the police attempt to get the suspect to talk for the purpose of proving facts surrounding the alleged incident such as alcohol consumption or an argument. Remember, the police rarely call someone unless a police report alleging a crime is filed. For this reason, you should retain a lawyer if you are suspected or charged with a crime and refrain from talking to the police.

Links to some other frequently asked questions:

Can my case be dismissed if I wasn’t advised of my Miranda rights?

Am I entitled to make a phone call if I am arrested?

Can I be charged with a crime if only one person says I did it and there are no other witnesses or evidence?

Do court appointed lawyers work for the police and prosecutor?
Continue reading ›

|

COURTROOM SCENE.jpgThis blog is part of a series of blogs which explores some frequently asked criminal law questions.

I cannot believe how many times I have been asked this question: Do court appointed lawyers work for the police and prosecutor?

Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Continue reading ›

|

interrogation room.jpg

There is a pattern of “frequently asked questions” in the field of criminal law. This blog is dedicated to answer a couple of those questions. This blog is not intended to provide a one-size-fits-all dissertation on the covered subjects but only a short synopsis with some other references linked-in for further research if you are interested. It is important to understand that entire law books have been published regarding the Bill of Rights (4th, 5th and 6th Amendments) and other particular legal issues such as “possession“.

Remember: When the mistakes by the police add up, you may be entitled to a dismissal or suppression of evidence. Even minor mistakes may weaken the case to the extent that the charges are reduced.

Can my case be dismissed if I wasn’t advised of my Miranda Rights?
The answer is usually NO with some exceptions.

This is probably the Number 1 question that we are asked when someone is charged with a crime. In 1966, the Supreme Court held that Miranda Warnings by the police are required to protect a person suspected of a crime pursuant to the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation. When the police have other evidence to proceed against a person, the person’s own statements may not be necessary. Therefore, should the person’s own statements be excluded (based upon Miranda violations), the State may proceed against the person based upon other independent evidence and witnesses. We are often asked this question in the realm of drunk driving cases. Consider the following example:

Example: Assume that a person admits to drinking 4 beers after being stopped for a DUI. The accused may argue that the statements are not admissible because he wasn’t given his Miranda warnings or because the statements were involuntary. Even if the attorney is able to have the statements suppressed (inadmissible at trial), the prosecutor may still proceed with other evidence such as the chemical test (BAC result from blood or breath), witnesses (police or civilians) who viewed the conduct of the accused, the accused’s ability to perform Field Sobriety Tests (FST), etc.

Please be advised that when statements of the accused are suppressed, the Court may also suppress any other evidence derived from the inadmissible statements pursuant to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. When substantial evidence is suppressed (held inadmissible), the case may be dismissed or quashed.

Again, please remember that entire books and treatises have been written on the subject of Miranda Warnings (BOOK LINK).

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for My_Miranda_Rights.jpg

Do I have the right to make a phone call if I am arrested?
The answer is NO.

I do not know of any law in Michigan that allows someone the right to make a phone call upon being arrested. However, some police agencies have adopted regulations which allow an arrested person to make a phone call in the furtherance of Miranda Warnings which provide that a person has a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney
The right to make a phone call is a misnomer since it is actually not a right at all. It is merely a formality which allows an arrested party to call family members or an attorney. Should the police deny a person the right to call an attorney, there may be a legally arguable Constitutional issue. At the very least, we would argue to suppress any statements or information gathered from a suspect who is questioned after being denied a phone call (to his attorney) on the 5th and 6th Amendment grounds (self-incrimination and denial of right to counsel).

Take another look at the image which is posted at the top of this blog.
This scenario raises at least 14 questions which our criminal defense attorneys would ask:

1. Is the person/suspect in custody (not free to leave)?
2. Was the person/suspect validly arrested or detained?
3. Is the person/suspect under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
4. How long has the person/suspect been detained?
5. Was the person/suspect intimidated by the officer (armed and in uniform)?
6. Is the person/suspect suffering any mental condition?
7. Was the person/suspect coerced, threatened or intimidated?
8. Was the person/suspect denied nutrition and rest room facilities?
9. Did the person/suspect ask for an attorney during questioning which was denied?
10. Does the person/suspect take any medications which could impair his judgment?
11. Was the person/accused deprived of sleep or rest?
12. What is the age, intelligence level (IQ) of the person/suspect?
13. WAS THE PERSON ADVISED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS?
14. WAS THE PERSON ALLOWED TO MAKE A PHONE CALL?

Violation of Miranda Rights or the ability to make a phone call can provide a basis for a motion to quash (dismiss) or suppress evidence. For this reason, every detail and fact is important when you talk to your lawyer.

Some excellent video references:

Ten Rules When Dealing With Police (Video)
Don’t Talk to the Police (Video)
The Proper Way to Handle a Police Stop (Video)

If you have a question, please visit our website and send the question which we will attempt to answer and may even consider making it the subject of a future blog.

Links to some other frequently asked questions:

Can I be charged with a crime if only one person says I did it and there are no other witnesses or evidence?

Do court appointed lawyers work for the police and prosecutor?
Continue reading ›

|

abdo law firm.bmpThe Abdo Law Firm, established more than 40 years ago, prides itself on personal service, professionalism, empathy, and most importantly RESULTS. The purpose of this blog is to share some notable success stories that our office has had since Matthew Abdo has joined the Firm. In all of our cases, hundreds a year, we fight to get charges reduced or dismissed and we always push to eliminate or minimize jail time. Though all of our cases are important to us, beneath are some where we feel we achieved exemplary outcomes.

Charge: Home Invasion 3rd Degree / Malicious Destruction of Property Max. Jail: 5 years Court: 41-A District, Shelby

In this instance, Cy was able to negotiate a resolution whereby the original charges were dismissed in lieu of a plea to Entering Without Permission. This is a notable result not only because a 5 year felony was reduced to a misdemeanor and the client did not have to serve any jail time, but because he will eligible to have this off his record after successful completion of probation.

Continue reading ›

|

FINES AND COSTS.jpg
Many of our blogs explore criminal and drunk driving issues within the realm of our law firm’s expertise. Others are about the Courts where we frequently practice law. This blog is about the 42-2 District Court in the City of New Baltimore where we regularly provide legal services to our clients who are charged with criminal and OWI cases arising out of New Baltimore, Chesterfield Township, New Haven and Lenox Township.

The 42-2 District Court, located in the City of New Baltimore, has posted a list of possible fines and costs for various crimes. The list also contains a warning as follows: ALL FINES AND COSTS ARE DUE AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING, WE DO NOT GIVE TIME TO PAY. This warning is followed by strong language that failure to pay fines and costs will result in jail time.

42-2 District Court Drunk Driving Range of Fines and Costs

The approximate range of fines and costs for a first offense Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) or Impaired Driving (OWVI) in the 42-2 District Court is from $500.00 to $1,000.00. For a second drinking and driving offense, the range jumps to $1,000.00 to $2,500.00. This does not include other costs such as probation oversight expenses, substance abuse screening, driver responsibility fees, police/municipal response costs, random testing and substance abuse counseling. The driver responsibility fee for OWI is $1,000.00 per year for 2 years and for $500.00 per year for 2 years upon conviction of Impaired Driving. Based upon my experience, Judge Hackel yields to the low side of the range for fines and costs with respect to drinking and driving cases compared to many other courts.

42-2 District Court Partial List of Fines and Costs for Misdemeanors and Drunk Driving

  • OWI, IMPAIRED First Offense $500.00 – $1,000.00
  • OWI, Impaired, Second Offense $1,000.00 – $2,500.00
  • Driving while License Suspended $300.00 – $500.00
  • Domestic Violence $300.00 – $800.00
  • MIP and Open Intoxicants $200.00 – $500.00
  • Disorderly Conduct $200.00 – $500.00
  • Possession of Marijuana $200.00 – $800.00
  • Retail Fraud $200.00 – $800.00

Again, the above range for fines and costs does not include probation oversight expenses, restitution to any victim, driver responsibility fees, evaluations, police/municipal response expenses and other possible costs.

I would also like to add that our firm can often have many of these listed crimes dismissed whenever a client is eligible for a delayed sentence or a first offender program. For example, our firm handled a retail fraud case for a client who did not have a prior record. The case was dismissed after a short period of non-reporting probation after the client paid only $300.00 fines and costs. We have had similar results in other cases involving domestic violence, disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana, youthful offenders (age17 to 20) and other criminal offenses.

An attorney cannot ethically guarantee a result in a criminal case. However, I have found that some Judges will consider a person’s financial circumstances when imposing fines and costs. In addition, our firm has been able to advocate that an impoverished person be allowed to provide community service to defray fines and costs in extreme cases.

Judge Hackel is a Judge that will listen to a lawyer’s arguments and be willing to give someone an opportunity to have a case dismissed upon compliance with terms of probation. He is a concerned and reasonable Judge that wants to see a person improve his or her life. However, like other Judges in most jurisdictions where we practice, he is not likely to be sympathetic if someone violates probation.

The 42-2 District Court has jurisdiction over the following municipalities: New Baltimore, Chesterfield Township, New Haven and Lenox Township. Judge William Hackel III is the presiding Judge for the Court which is located at 35071 23 Mile Rd New Baltimore, MI 48047, phone: 586-725-9500. Information about other district courts located in Macomb County can be found at the county’s website.

Other Court and Community Blogs:

ROMEO FINES AND COSTS

RETAIL FRAUD IN ROMEO OR WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP

ST CLAIR COUNTY

RETAIL FRAUD CASES AND THE 52-4 DISTRICT COURT TROY

RETAIL FRAUD CASES AND THE 32-A DISTRICT COURT HARPER WOODS

RETAIL FRAUD IN THE 41-B DISTRICT COURT CLINTON TOWNSHIP

CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC JURISDICTION OF THE 42-2 DISTRICT COURT

41-A DISTRICT COURT, STERLING HEIGHTS
Continue reading ›

|

plant.jpg

This is the high season for high school graduation parties, summertime picnics and 4th of July gatherings. Now through Labor Day, teens will freely drink alcoholic beverages at the homes of their friends with adults/parents consenting to the illegal conduct. Otherwise responsible adults with no criminal record will break the law and allow under-age children to consume alcohol at their homes.

Michigan Social Host Liability (Civil Liability) for Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor

In Michigan, the adults who allow persons under age 21 to consume alcohol face civil liability if the minor’s consumption of alcohol causes injury or death to another. The injured third party or the minor may file a lawsuit and recover under a social host theory! Think again if you believe that your adult friends who let their minor children drink at your home will support you if one their children is injured after consuming alcohol at your residence. The Social Host Liability law is friendly to personal injury lawyers as it imposes almost strict liability upon the adults that provide consent or lack of supervision leading to the consumption of alcohol by an under-aged person who causes the death or injury to another.

Michigan Criminal Offenses for Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor

Pursuant to MCL 436.1701, a person or retail establishment that sells or furnishes alcohol to a minor faces misdemeanor criminal charges. If the minor’s alcohol consumption causes a person’s death, the person who furnished the alcohol can be charged with a felony. An adult may also be prosecuted under the statute known as Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor.

-A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than 60 days for a first offense, a fine of not more than $2,500.00 and imprisonment for not more than 90 days for a second or subsequent offense, and may be ordered to perform community service. For a second or subsequent offense, the secretary of state shall suspend the operator’s or chauffeur’s license of an individual who is not a retail licensee or retail licensee’s clerk, agent, or employee and who is convicted of violating this subsection.

-A person is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both, if the subsequent consumption of the alcoholic liquor by the minor is a direct and substantial cause of that person’s death or an accidental injury that causes that person’s death.

The police will also charge a minor who is found in possession of alcohol or who has consumed alcohol (except when the minor can prove he has legally consumed alcohol in a place like Canada). This charge is commonly known as MIP which is given coverage on the Abdo Law Firm website.

Our blogs usually include an image at the beginning of the entry. I thought long and hard about an appropriate image for this blog. My ideas included cheerful graduates, backyard celebrations, car crash photos, teen alcohol consumption, images of someone in a wheelchair, a funeral, etc… In the end, I decided to use the cute July 4th plant image. I want this to symbolize all of the other images that I considered and my sincere hope that everyone has a safe graduation and summer season.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
42550 Garfield Rd #104-A
Charter Twp of Clinton, MI 48038
Phone: (586) 412-5555Fax: (586) 412-5888

We accept the following credit cards

MasterCard, Visa, AMEX, Discover

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Abdo Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design