New law creates drunk driving headache

Lawmakers call it a simple error that will soon be fixed, but changes in wording regarding field sobriety tests for impaired drivers have frustrated Michigan police and prosecutors.

In some counties, the change in the state statute regarding field sobriety tests has led judges to kick sobriety test evidence out of court entirely, possibly letting some suspects to go free.

In Livingston County, it’s defense attorneys crying foul as at least one local judge continues to accept test results.

Confusion arose after Legislators last month amended Michigan law regarding field sobriety tests.

Lawmakers sought to create new standards, potentially making it easier to arrest suspects for drugged driving.

However, Livingston County Prosecutor William Vailliencourt said the Legislature, in adopting the new standards, failed to clearly define the tests.

As a result, attorneys and judges across the state are interpreting the law differently.

Traditionally, field sobriety tests include having suspects recite the alphabet, place a finger to their nose, walk a straight line or count backwards, as well as making them undergo a roadside breath analysis.

Vailliencourt said his assistant prosecutors have argued that the tests are admissible when one reads the “plain language” of the statute, which went into effect Jan. 15.

That means a judge can look at the language and its context to determine what the Legislature intended.

“I don’t think anyone seriously believes the Legislature intended to make all effects of a person’s intoxication inadmissible,” Vailliencourt said.

Livingston District Judge Carol Sue Reader apparently agrees with that argument. She admitted roadside test evidence in two recent cases.

However, defense attorney Lyle Dickson says that interpretation is wrong. He says Reader erred in her decision because he believes the plain language of the law says field sobriety tests are not admissible.

As far as Dickson knows, Reader is “the only judge” still allowing that information in court.

“Obviously their cases are devastated without field sobriety tests coming in,” Dickson said Monday. “I don’t understand how Bill Vailliencourt can read the statute and say the plain language allows it to come in. It is only allowed in under certain, specific situations ... which rarely apply.”

In Dickson’s case, his Jackson County client was charged in Livingston County with operating under the influence of a controlled substance after he was seen weaving on a Livingston County roadway as he was delivering a load to Lansing around 4 p.m. Feb. 2, 2014.

At the trial, Reader allowed testimony about the roadside sobriety tests as well as testimony from a drug recognition officer — both of which Dickson argues should have been inadmissible. The Jackson County semi driver was convicted of operating a vehicle while impaired and as a result his “career is destroyed,” Dickson said.

“As it is being currently interpreted, anyone taking prescription medication can now be charged with drug driving because that’s the new emphasis that prosecutors have because drunk driving is down,” Dickson said. “Now they are going after anyone with medications. It doesn’t matter if you’re taking it as doctor has directed you to. I think it’s a problem for anyone who takes prescription medications … because they are subjected to arrest.”

He appealed Reader’s decision to the Livingston Circuit Court, but the court declined to hear that appeal.

Vailliencourt said it might be worthwhile to lawmakers to “tweak the law.”

That is exactly what is happening, state Rep. Dan Lauwers said.

Omission of a clear definition for field sobriety tests was a technical error that should soon be corrected, the St. Clair County Republican said.

“The wording is there and it’s ready to go,” said Lauwers, who sponsored the original amendment.

Lauwers said he and other legislators hope the amended wording will be placed on the fast track.

The only question, he said, is which state House committee will take up the wording.

“It’s between Transportation (and Infrastructure) and Judiciary,” he said.

Legislators are hoping for a quick decision and, after that, a quick vote.

“We’re hoping to have something in place by the end of March,” Lauwers said.

Local state Rep. Hank Vaupel, R-Handy Township, said he hasn’t heard too many complaints about the new law.

“I’ve talked to some local law enforcement officials and they tell me they’re proceeding pretty much as they have been,” Vaupel said.

At that, he hopes action will come quickly to clear up any confusion.

“Any time you can bring clarity to an issue that’s always a positive thing,” Vaupel said.

Contact Livingston Daily reporter Lisa Roose-Church at 517-552-2846 or lrchurch@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @LisaRooseChurch or Wayne Peal at 517-548-7081 or wpeal@gannett.com.