People v. Stephen
262 Mich App 213, 685 N.W.2d 309 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer may lawfully arrest a person without a warrant for operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL) if the officer has reasonable cause to believe the misdemeanor occurred and the person committed it, provided the offense is punishable by more than ninety-two days’ imprisonment, regardless of whether the officer observed the vehicle's operation or if an 'accident' occurred under the traditional exception.
Facts:
- Responding to an anonymous call, a police officer discovered the defendant asleep in his truck at the county fairgrounds.
- The defendant's truck was wedged on a parking log, with its tires barely touching the ground.
- The truck’s engine was not running, the automatic transmission was in park, and the keys to the truck were inside the defendant’s pocket.
- Upon awakening, the defendant smelled strongly of intoxicants and appeared confused and unaware of his surroundings.
- The defendant explained to the police officer that he had been at a bar earlier that evening, had too much to drink, and drove to the fairgrounds to sleep because he was too intoxicated to drive home.
- The defendant stated he struck the parking log while trying to leave the fairgrounds and, after unsuccessfully attempting to free the truck, he turned off the engine and went to sleep.
- The police officer administered field sobriety tests to the defendant.
- The police officer arrested the defendant for OUIL and operating a vehicle with a restricted license.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant moved to dismiss the OUIL and restricted license charges in the district court.
- The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges.
- The prosecution moved for a rehearing in the district court.
- The district court denied the prosecution’s motion for rehearing.
- The prosecution appealed the district court's ruling to the circuit court.
- The circuit court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
- The prosecutor appealed by leave granted to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer's reasonable cause to believe a person committed Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (OUIL), a misdemeanor punishable by more than ninety-two days' imprisonment, provide a valid basis for a warrantless arrest, thereby allowing prosecution, even if the officer did not witness the vehicle's operation and no 'accident' occurred under the traditional exception?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
Yes, the lower courts erred in dismissing the charges because a police officer's reasonable cause to believe a person committed Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (OUIL), a misdemeanor punishable by more than ninety-two days' imprisonment, provides a valid basis for a warrantless arrest, allowing prosecution, even if the officer did not witness the vehicle's operation or if the traditional 'accident' exception does not apply. The court explained that the validity of the arrest hinged on MCL 764.15(1)(d), an exception effective August 21, 2000, which permits warrantless arrests for misdemeanors punishable by more than 92 days’ imprisonment, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe the crime occurred and the person committed it. Operating a vehicle while under the influence (first offense) is a misdemeanor punishable by 93 days’ imprisonment, thereby satisfying this statutory criterion. Consequently, the prior rulings in People v Wood, which focused on whether officers observed the defendant operating the vehicle, and People v Keskimaki, which defined 'accident' for the purpose of a different warrantless arrest exception (MCL 764.15(1)(h)), were not determinative for the validity of the arrest in this case. The officer had reasonable cause to arrest the defendant based on his observed intoxication, admissions of driving while intoxicated, and striking the parking log.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of warrantless arrests for Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (OUIL) in Michigan, emphasizing the broader applicability of MCL 764.15(1)(d). It establishes that law enforcement officers do not need to directly observe the act of driving or rely on the specific 'accident' exception to make a valid OUIL arrest, provided there is reasonable cause to believe the offense occurred and the suspect committed it, and the offense carries a punishment exceeding 92 days. This ruling broadens the circumstances under which an OUIL prosecution can proceed, particularly when an intoxicated driver is found after they have ceased active operation but recent driving under the influence is evident. It shifts the legal focus from the 'in-presence' requirement or 'accident' specifics to the underlying reasonable cause for the arrest, thereby strengthening the state's ability to combat impaired driving.
