Drugged driving allegations in Detroit often involve marijuana, prescription medications, or combinations of substances. These cases can be scientifically complex because impairment is not reliably inferred from a number in the same way alcohol cases are often argued.

Michigan law allows OWI charges based on alcohol, drugs, or a combination, and it also recognizes a separate “any presence” offense for certain controlled substances. Prosecutors may rely on Drug Recognition Evaluator opinions, officer observations, and toxicology reports, each of which can be challenged.

Because many lawful medications can cause signs that mimic impairment, a careful defense evaluates dose timing, tolerance, medical history, and alternative explanations. Video and objective driving evidence are often more probative than subjective impressions.

A strong drugged driving defense treats the case as an expert-evidence problem. The goal is to test whether the state’s conclusions follow reliably from the underlying facts, and whether the state can connect ingestion to impairment at the time of driving.

Drugged Driving: Evidence, Science, and Law

Michigan prosecutes drug-impaired driving primarily under Section 625, and the Traffic Benchbook explains that Section 625 encompasses alcohol-based OWI, OWVI, and controlled-substance offenses. Drugged driving cases tend to be proof-intensive because the prosecution must connect the driver’s condition at the time of operation to impairment, rather than relying solely on the presence of a substance in a sample.

Two evidentiary features recur. First, the state often relies on officer observations and standardized field sobriety tests. Second, it may rely on DRE or expert testimony and toxicology. The Benchbook includes separate discussions of testimony regarding field sobriety tests and of drug recognition evaluator or expert testimony, reflecting how frequently these issues arise in court.

Testing evidence is not always straightforward. Blood results can show presence without establishing impairment, particularly for marijuana metabolites and for therapeutic prescription levels. The defense should evaluate what was tested, how the sample was collected and preserved, and whether the state’s expert can reliably infer impairment at the relevant time rather than at some later point.

Finally, the defense should consider statutory and constitutional issues that govern chemical testing and roadside investigations. Where a test was obtained without lawful authority or where the investigation’s methodology is unreliable, the case can be positioned for suppression, reduction, or acquittal.

Why Choose William Maze As Your Criminal Defense Attorney?

As a Detroit criminal defense attorney, I provide specialized expertise in Detroit's court systems. I understand the specific procedures, judges, and prosecutors in Detroit courts, giving my clients a distinct advantage in their criminal defense cases.

Local Expertise:

• Knowledge of Detroit judges' preferences
• Experience with Detroit prosecutors
• Understanding of local court procedures
• Relationships with court personnel

Attorney Credentials:

• 28+ years Detroit experience
• Expert witness qualified
• Former CDAM President
• SFST certified instructor

William J. Maze, Esq.

Detroit Criminal Defense Attorney

Expert Witness 28+ Years