Michigan has a distinct OWI-related offense for operating with the presence of certain controlled substances in the body, sometimes called the “any presence” offense. In Detroit, these cases can arise from traffic stops where blood is drawn and later testing shows a qualifying substance, even when the officer’s impairment observations are thin.

The “any presence” concept is legally different from alcohol-based OWI. Instead of proving intoxication by alcohol level, the prosecution may rely on proof that a schedule 1 controlled substance or cocaine was present in the body. That makes toxicology and chain of custody central issues.

Defenses often turn on what was actually tested and how results are reported. Issues include contamination, lab methodology, sample integrity, and whether the substance detected fits the statutory category. These cases demand careful review of lab documentation, not just police reports.

Because the consequences can be serious, a defense plan should be built around motion practice and expert analysis where appropriate. The goal is to force the state to prove admissibility and statutory fit, not merely to assert that a lab detected something.

Any Presence Schedule 1 Drug: Strict Liability Issues

Michigan’s “any presence” controlled substance offense is addressed in the Traffic Benchbook as operating with the presence of certain controlled substances in the body, Section 625(8). The Benchbook notes that statutory authority includes MCL 257.625(8) and related provisions defining schedule 1 substances and the scope of qualifying drugs. This offense differs from impairment-based OWI because the state’s theory can be presence rather than observable intoxication.

The central evidence is typically a blood test. That shifts the case toward laboratory proof and chain-of-custody issues. Counsel should examine the warrant or other legal authority for the draw, the timing of the draw relative to driving, how the sample was preserved, and whether the lab’s method and reporting conform to accepted standards. A positive report is not the end of the inquiry if the underlying process is contestable.

Michigan law has also addressed evolving roadside drug testing methods. The Benchbook discusses preliminary oral fluid analysis as part of a pilot program and notes statutory provisions governing the admissibility and limits of that preliminary testing. That context matters when officers use screening results as a substitute for individualized evidence of impairment or when screening is treated as confirmatory rather than preliminary.

A disciplined defense returns the case to statutory elements. The state must show that the detected substance fits the statutory category and that the evidence is admissible and reliable. Where those links are weak, the case may be positioned for reduction or dismissal.

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