Have a Case?

The Nichols Law Firm Lawyers achieved an amazing outcome for a client charged with felony drunk driving. The firm represented a client who had two prior arrests for drunk driving. The client was in an accident on his way home last fall and refused the datamaster test at the police station. He was taken to a local hospital where his blood was drawn and he was ultimately charged with OWI III. The 1st offense, however, never resulted in a conviction. "The client went through a diversion program in Pennsylvania and we meticulously reviewed the record: he clearly was not convicted of OWI, therefore, he could not be charged with felony OWI in Michigan because the statute here requires two prior convictions" said Mike Nichols and so the felony was dismissed and the client was charged with misdemeanor OWI II. There's more: the affidavit that the officer used to obtain a warrant for the blood draw was incorrectly completed. The Nichols Law Firm attacked the warrant based on a terribly defective affidavit and the judge agreed: dismissing the criminal case entirely. "The client was still left without a license because he refused the datamaster," said Nichols. The so-called refusal by the client triggered a hearing at the Secretary of State. The question was whether the client's refusal was reasonable in light of all the circumstances and "we worked our butts off" said Nichols. We marshalled the case law and the witnesses and we actually prevailed. The hearing officer at the Secretary of State ruled that the client's refusal was reasonable because the client had called a friend of his who happens to be an attorney when the officer asked him to take the datamaster. That attorney does not practice criminal law but called Mike Nichols -- a well known criminal defense attorney in Lansing. "When the client's friend got the call he told the client not to give an answer until he called him back. I happened to be home sleeping and didn't get the call. By the time the attorney tracked down another criminal defense attorney the officer took the client's cell phone away and told him that he needed to give an answer, the client's exact testimony at the SOS Hearing was 'if I have to give you an answer my answer would have to be no.' That was key because the referee held that the client's answer was not absolute and based in part on the fact that the client did not know what his rights and ramifications were" said Nichols.  The client went from facing jail time, the loss of his job and the loss of his license for at least one year to a complete acquittal.