The Michigan Court of Appeals sent a recent message to drivers stopped and investigated for drunk driving: tell the officer about your diabetic condition if you suffer from this illness. "The Court of Appeals ruled that if the driver did not tell the officer about his condition, then the fact that the driver had diabetes did not mean the analysis of the driver's blood should be tossed," says OWI-OUIL-DUI attorney Mike Nichols of East Lansing.
The case is People v Arndt and it was released December 27, 2011. "This case is 'unpublished' so it is not binding on all other courts," Nichols added. "However, it is persuasive and I think it means that if a driver does respond that he has diabetes when asked by an officer, then the officer cannot use the so-called implied consent law to draw blood," said Nichols.
Nichols is author of the OWI Handbook for Michigan lawyers by Thomson West publishing. He also teaches drunk driving law and practice for Thomas M. Cooley Law School and he is the Michigan delegate to the National College for DUI Defense.
Nichols said "frankly I think that this case solidifies the holding of People v Hyde, that a person who is diabetic cannot give consent to a blood draw and it is incumbent on the officer to inquire and then, seek a warrant if the person is a diabetic or use some other form of evidence gathering."
The issue in the Arndt case was whether a driver who failed to disclose that he was diabetic when asked about medical conditions by an officer could then use section 625c of the drunk driving statute to prohibit the use of his blood alcohol analysis at trial. Under MCL 257.625c, a person who is diabetic, takes blood thinning medication or suffers from some other medical conditions CANNOT give consent to a blood draw. If you need a law firm to turn over every stone in your drunk driving case and who is committed to results, contact Mike Nichols at 517.432.9000 or mnichols@nicholslaw.net. |