Stuart Collis Interview Transcript ( Michigan DUI Lawyer )

 

RJ: What made you choose to handle DUI cases and what motivates you to be a criminal defense attorney in general?

 

SC: My biggest concern in representing individuals and making sure their personal and constitutional rights are protected. When I was in law school that was one of the main things that I wanted to make sure was guaranteed because everyone has certain constitutional rights. And it is our job as a criminal attorney or even as a drunk driving attorney to make sure that those are protected. We set bounds and they need to be kept within them .

RJ: Over the years how many DUI cases have you handled ?

 

SC: I have been in practice now for, it will be 15 years in June and I can't even tell you how many. It's at least several hundred probably getting into the, well maybe not getting into the thousands but several hundred.

 

RJ: And of the people that you see is there any typical circumstance where they come to you? Do you see a lot more first timers or repeat or more men and women? Or older people or younger?

 

SC: I have seen people from every walk of life. I have seen rich, I have seen poor. I've seen the three, four, five, six time offenders. I have seen the first time offenders that are very ashamed. There's no typical client that I serve.

 

RJ: Okay. Are there the clients that you service, do a lot of them end up close that .08 limit or do you see a lot of people that are a lot higher?

 

SC: It is very rare to see someone at the .08 limit. It does happen. It wasn't until about four or five years ago that Michigan went to a .08. We used to be .10.  and I usually see people .13, .14, .15. Obviously. But I have seen them as high as .37 is the highest I have serviced.

 

RJ: Wow. They're supposed to be dead at that level right?

 

SC: Uhh .40is supposedly dead but I know of an attorney who had someone with a .42. But personally I have never handled anything worse than a .37.

 

RJ: That’s amazing. Okay.

 

SC: Like I said I get all kinds.

 

RJ: I'll bet.

 

SC: Like I have said I have had all kinds of clients. And the big thing is is that we have first in Michigan, in many times are dipped in the PBT or what's called the preliminary breath test. And that is usually established as probably cause for police take in. and those PBT's are extraordinarily inaccurate. The ones that are at the station, the actual data master devices are better but they aren't always very accurate either. There's a lot of discussion, at least in this state, always been a lot of discussion on how these particular machines work. And again this is something that depends on the potential client. We have expert witnesses that will testify that bread will register as alcohol on these things. There good to an extent because it's measuring something but the state of Michigan won't release how the data master device works.

 

RJ: Really?

 

SC: No.

 

RJ: I guess they don't want it to be hacked.

 

SC: I don't know if it is a hacking issue. I think it is more of a matter that they don't want the data master to be challenged more than it already is.

 

RJ: Yeah that is true though. It would open it up and people would scrutinize it to death. Looking for any problem that they could find.

 

SC: Exactly.

 

RJ: Of the cases that you see do you see a lot more due to alcohol or drugs and of the drug ones are they harder or easier to defend?

 

SC: I tend to see more of the alcohol cases than the drug cases. I have done the cases involving drugs I have not found either one more difficult than the other to defend. The alcohol ones certainly are much more common. The ones that are usually drug offenses usually they have been caught on other things before but usually. I don't know what it is but I have not found that as many people do drugs and drive. It seems to be drinking because people feel when they drink that they are more confident than they might other wise be when they go out to drive.

 

RJ: Okay. Hmm. I guess the drinking gives you more confidence and impaired judgment make yourself feel like you can do it.

 

SC: And not only that but I think that when an individual does drugs they clearly get that high and they feel that sensation where as with alcohol especially someone that has built that tolerance to it they don't have the same skill to differentiate the difference. Between being sober and maybe being over the limit. Plus with the .08 that is not exactly a very high limit. You could be at what most people would feel as tipsy and be like oh well you know it's alright to go and take a drive.

 

Part Two

 

RJ: what would you say is unique about the DUI laws in the counties you serve and the state of Michigan?

 

SC: Well, every city in every county has their own way of prosecuting these particular claims. What’s more concerning is that Michigan just enacted this year what has called the super drunk driving statue. When an individual comes in my office with a .16 or higher, they are facing extra penalties than if they had just a normal drunk driving offense. That changed in October of this year.

 

RJ: And you mentioned a lot of your cases will be .13 or higher so that may turn a lot of your cases into super cases?

 

SC: Tthe super drunk driving law is definitely going to have an impact on Michigan drivers. It is definitely going to have an impact on my typical client and there is going to be a lot of good people who may be first time offenders who are going to find themselves in much worse situations than they would have say in September.

 

RJ: can you say what the differences are in the law, what’s the increased penalties?

 

SC: hang on I need to pull it all up.

 

RJ: sure. We were talking about the new super level of drunk driving. Can you talk a little about what that entails for people that are charged with it?

 

SC: Well as I was saying, this was enacted by Jenifer Granholm, the governor who just left and she enacted this law that basically said anyone with a .17 or higher on their blood alcohol content is subject to this new law. This really impacts the first offender a lot greater than it does the second offender or the third offender because the first offender is essentially treated like a subsequent offender. They are subject to potential of impoundment of the car, potential of breath interlock devices, their fined minimums go up from the normal drunk driving or even the normal impaired driving. So there’s quite a bit of heftier sanctions for this. As I said, the person who goes out and parties too hard on one given night and their breath alcohol is too high is going to be facing these super penalties whereas just four months ago that was not the case.

 

RJ: I got ya, ok. To change direction a little bit. What would be your best tip if someone’s been drinking a little bit or a lot and they see the blue lights come on behind them they are being pulled over, what should they do, what shouldn’t they do at that point?

 

SC: the first thing they should do is comply with the officers. The worst thing that anyone can do is give false names, false information because that will result in other criminal charges such as resisting and obstructing a police officer in their line of duty. If the blue lights come on and your start to drive away that’s a fleeing and alluding which is a felony. These are definitely things that you want to…(file cuts out). If you have been drinking a little or a lot and the police office comes up to you, he has an absolute right to do the alcohol testing. You’ll be given an option whether or not to take a PBT but if you refuse the preliminary breath test you could be hit with a six-month suspension of your license. Again, it is critical that you do whatever the police officer says and comply. With that being said, there are limits, he’s allowed to inquire into certain things like have you been drinking tonight without it being a violation of your right to self incrimination because it’s a probable cause type of stop at this moment in time. But, he’s not allowed to go further than that. Obviously, he’s going to be able to test you for the drunk driving. He’s going to give you the right to have a blood test as opposed to going to the station and having a breath test. These rights you do have but again there are limits to what the officer can do. You don’t want to answer anything more than what is simple and straightforward. Go through the testing and do the best you can. Unfortunately, like I said, the resistance is only going to make this worse.

 

RJ: Right. Alright. Well, what kinds of help can you provide to the people that you work with? Can you reduce jail time, or fines, or fees? What kind of benefits do you bring when you represent them?

 

SC: Well first of all, obviously, I have a generally a greater understanding of law than your average, ordinary individual. This is what I went to law school for, this is what I studied, this is what I practice on a daily basis. So I’m going to be able to make sure they have their constitutional rights protected, I’m going to be able to make sure that the police followed all the correct procedures, that they made sure their their data master was properly calibrated, that they had fulfilled their fifteen minute waiting requirement before the breath test was given so that there was no foreign objects put in the mouth, etc, which might skew the results which might make them invalid. So I’m going to be able to serve first of all as a double check on all the constitutional rights as well as the administrative procedures required to be followed every time that there is a breath alcohol device test done. Secondly,. What I’m going to be able to do is I’m going to be able to negotiate with the prosecuting attorney whoever it may be, whatever county, city, or state to get the best possible result if this is just a plea situation. If it is not a plea situation I can bring a motion to the court for reasons why evidence must be suppressed or why the case must be dismissed prior to getting to a trial. And if it gets to a trial obviously I have connections with the appropriate expert witnesses to bring them in to testify as to why certain things are not as obvious as they might seem or as presented by a prosecuting attorney.

 

RJ: what level of success have you had in getting any of the possible punishments reduced in the end result for your clients?

 

SC: Most drunk driving cases, like most criminal law cases, do end in a plea of some sort. The reasons range from its too expensive to get the expert witness to the fact that most people know they did this at some level. So about 90 percent of cases result in some sort of plea or plea bargain of some sort for a reduction. So obviously that’s a great benefit to an individual. The other benefit is that even if this is a second offense situation where you’re facing a license revocation for one year in this state I can help them in the end of the driver’s license restoration process, which would occur thereafter. There are certain ways things need to be done and the secretary of state needs to be satisfied in certain ways. Or I can advise on how to get into the appropriate programs, get into the appropriate forms, and so on so that individuals are best prepared for whatever may come whether it come the sentencing or after they have been convicted of a subsequent drunk driving offense so that they’re prepared when it is time to get their license restored.

 

RJ: Ok. So, you talked about this already, the pros and cons of hiring an attorney to defend yourself versus just representing yourself. Is there anything more you want to add about the obvious pros and cons of hiring representation versus not?

 

SC: Wasn’t it Clarence Darrow who said, “he represents himself as a fool for a client?” Again, when  you represent yourself you are inviting trouble. You are at the mercy of whoever the prosecutor is. You do not know if they’re nice, or willing to work with you, or even who the judge is. This is what I do for a living. This is how I can help people get through the system. Sometimes, unfortunately, the results going to be the same whether you have an attorney or not. I like to think though that in the vast majority of cases, having an attorney by your side will make a case go much easier for you as a client as well as make sure that every single right that you have is protected. Again, I’m the kind of person where I’m going to work with my client. They know the facts and I know the law and together we work as a team to get the best-proven result for that individual whatever that might look like. Sometimes it means pleading out, sometimes it means a trial. Again, ultimately its going to be left up to the client because they’re the ones who have to live with the decisions and they have to live with the results.

 

RJ: Right, Ok. So, what have you learned about peoples’ behavior and their reaction to being arrested and prosecuted for DUI? What kind of insights have you gained into this whole process?

 

SC: Well, that’s kind of an interesting question because the first time offenders, especially the ones who are good hard working individuals who just had a bit too much to drink on one given day celebrating a party or wedding are just highly embarrassed. They are just trying to protect their loved ones. They don’t even want their loved ones to know about the situation and they want to make sure everything is kept confidential which of course it is. With the people who have had subsequent offenses they are more resigned as to the process. They know what is going on, they’ve been through it before. They are more concerned about mitigating their own damages. What I’ve also found with people who have a serious problem, those who are unwilling to admit they have a problem, they will always say they only had two drinks that night. That is probably the biggest mistake anyone can make because every judge, every attorney knows that if you are six foot tall and weigh 200 pounds that two drinks is not going to get you to a .15. There’s many alcohol calculations. It’s just, it’s not going to happen. The best thing that you can when a judge asks you, especially if it’s a plea or a sentencing, just be honest. If you saw two, or three, or a few, you are setting yourself up for tougher sanctions and you’re setting yourself up to a position where you’re proving that you’re an alcoholic. I don’t think that many people understand that and they want to try and makes themselves look better. By not just out and out saying this is what I had they are making themselves look worse.

 

RJ: Ok. You may have said this, I’ve only had two drinks but is there any other particular story that you keep hearing over and over again from the people who come to see you?

 

SC: Beside the two drink issue, a lot of them come in and its funny, not saying that this is inaccurate but it very well raises my level of suspicion. I get a lot of cases where police officers say well I pulled them over because their tail light was out or their license plate light was not on. Or something extraordinarily minor. It is not usually the case where they say oh he’s weaving all over the road. These are what I would call probably practice pullovers where they just kind of pull them over and the police officer’s intent is to give them a warning. They get up to the person and they smell alcohol on the breath and that’s what sets up the full investigation. It is perfectly acceptable under Michigan law to pullover someone for a civil infraction, a common traffic ticket such as defective equipment where a tail light may be out, didn’t use a turn signal, or like I said a license plate light might be out. But this is where the vast majority of drunk driving cases I’ve seen come from. Not often well they are weaving all over the side of the road, they had a traffic accident, and then they tested them. It’s usually these what seems to be innocuous situations that turn into something more.

 

RJ: Do you feel like the current DUI punishments, including the new super legislation, do you think they are too harsh or too lax and why do you feel that way?

 

SC: They are much too harsh. When I started practicing, as I said almost 15 years ago, drunk driving offenses were treated quite lightly in this state. I regularly would see people with third, fourth, fifth and sixth offenses. We didn’t have the felony statute back then which made on the third offense it made drunk driving a felony. These people had no real incentive to improve their behvarios because it was still a misdemeanor unless there was death involved in which case or serious bodily injury in a traffic accident. But five years into my practice, Michigan had enacted a law said if you have three drunk driving charges in ten years that would be a felony. That was severe I think. I don’t know that a third offense really warrants it but in ten years its certainly understandable. Now micgian law says that if you have three durnk driving offeense anytime in your life it’s an automatic felony. And it doesn’t matter whtewr its impaired driving, or driving under the infleucne of intoxicating liquors. Its dimply doesn’t matter, it’s a felony. There’s a lot of people out there that may have say kicked their alcohol habit twenty, thirty, forty years ago and either had a relapse or a couple of drinks. Maybe in their youth they were big partiers and then nowadays they’re practically tea drinkers but again they one night just decide to have a few drinks and they get caught.

 

This is extraordianrly harsh treatment and I think that the pendulum has swung way too far on the criminal conviction side as opposed to the moderation position. Like I said, when I started practicing it was probably a little too lax. But now the pendulum has swung way over to the other side. There has been a lot of overreaction in my opinion by the state legislature. It’s not to say that drinking and driving is appropriate, it isn’t. but many people, jailing these individuals is not necessarily the best result because most of these people if you get them away from alcohol they are nice, ordinary indidiauvls who hold a living, work, go home kiss their kids, treat them well and only when they get to alcohol do they have a problem and then of course get behind a wheel. So jailing them doesn’t seem right plus they can’t make a living so it hurts the family because they are in jail or prison depending on how bad it is when it fact they need treatment. Now then again, these individuals also need that treatment they have to be willing to accept. If they are not willing to accept it what does one do with them. Is jail or prison the answer? I really don’t know. That’s up for obviously  legislature to decide. So far they are deciding that these people need to be in jail. I just think that’s there’s got to be some solution in between. Whether that’s the breath interlock device or an alcohol tether or something of that affect. Jail just seems to be, especially drunk driving law where we now have the super drunk driving law where any three in your life is a penalty just seems to be way over the top.

 

RJ: Right, ok. I guess uh an even more depressing question is what do you see as the future of DUI in terms of punishments and the number of offenders?

 

SC: I hate to say that I couldn’t see Michigan getting much worse but I’m sure at some point it could. MAAD, mothers against drunk driving, is really active out here. I don’t know what more they could do. I’m sure someone’s imagination could make it worse. But I don’t see it getting, any punishments getting lesser or lighter in the near future. We also out here have driver responsibility fees. Which means that when you’re caught with the drunk driving, I didn’t mention this earlier, that for two years, depending on the level of the drunk driving, you’re going to be hit with a $500 per year or $1,000 per year fine payable to the state of Michigan. This again wasn’t around when I started practicing either. Considering the states hitting you, the insurance companies hitting you, now you’re facing serious jail or imprisonment. Now it is hard to imagine much worse but I don’t see the legislature going backwards anytime in the near future.

 

RJ: My last question is what would you say makes your firm and you unique regarding DUI defense and what kind of statement would you like to make to all the potential clients that are going to watch this video?

 

SC: In terms of what I do, I am very client oriented. I am here to service my client, I am here to help my client and help to each client is individual. Some people want to assert every single defense that there is out there and drag the state through the ringer. Others are more content to say let’s take our best stab at this and if it’s not meant to be or the odds are not in our favor lets arrange something with the people. The key is, is that I am here to service the client, I’m here to accommodate my client and it’s not the other way around. My practice is about helping people, it is not about being the person who says you will do this. I think that’s an old-fashioned notion. I think that attorneys that practice that way are one day going to be out voted. It’s very old fashioned. Today I believe that customer service and client satisfaction is the best thing that I can do. Because like I said, they know the facts and I know the law. We can’t function without one another and if we could, neither one would need the other. Understanding that makes me more sympathetic and makes me more empathetic for my clients as well as the fact that I am willing to work with them on financial matters so that they can afford my services.

 

Watch Stuart Collis Interview HERE >>