Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney - Explaining Indecent Exposure - Josh Jones - July 18, 2013

Incident Exposure - Showing A Little Too Much

The sun is out, the booze is flowing, and the music is blasting. During these times, people tend to start taking off clothes, sometimes. At a certain point, these acts become a crime. This crime is usually found to be indecent exposure. Michigan law explains, “[a] person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another.” MCL § 750.335a.

The key word in that statement is “knowingly.” Meaning that the individual must perform the act with some kind of intent. However, as noted, the act does not have to be performed to his or her own person, but can include the act of another.

For example, if “Jason” runs up behind a girl and takes her bathing suit off, which inevitably reveals some part of her “private region(s),” then “Jason” could be found guilty of indecent exposure. A conviction would be placed a misdemeanor on “Jason’s” criminal record, if convicted, and he would face up to 1 year in jail and/or a $1,000.00 fine.

Moreover, if there is intentional fondling of the person’s private area this can and will increase the possible punishment, if the individual is convicted. The statute does not use the term private areas, but instead says no fondling of the genitals, buttock, pubic area, or breasts (if a female is involved).

So in the end, I suppose it is best to keep your clothes on while in public or in eye of the public. This type of crime can occur almost anywhere, even in your own back yard. So, before you decide to strip down, either by yourself or with someone, you make want to think about the consequences.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Resisting, Assaulting, Or Obstructing Police Officer - Josh Jones - Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer - ALL FELONIES & MISDEMEANORS

Resisting, Assaulting, Or Obstructing A Police Officer - A Minor Act With Huge Consequences

A very common crime that is charged when an individual is arrested is resisting and obstructing a police officer. The one issue involved with this type of charge is that in order to be convicted very little action is needed.  MCL § 750.479 reads as follows: “A person shall not knowingly and willfully do any of the following [a]ssault, batter, wound, obstruct, or endanger” a police officer "acting in the performance of his or her [lawful] duties."

Therefore, any intentional force, touching, pulling, or otherwise resisting a police officer’s attempt to arrest and/or detain an individual can be charged with this time of crime. Not only are the facts usually against an individual defendant in such a case, but so is the potential punishment. An individual convicted of resisting and obstructing an officer will have a felony on his or her record and can face up to 2 years in jail and/or a $2,000.00 fine. Moreover, probation will be ordered and a court, while on probation, will likely order other requirements.

Not only are the punishments for this crime fairly steep, but the statute also does not limit the prosecution from tacking on other crimes that were involved in the incident. Furthermore, if the incident involves bodily injury, serious impairment, or death the possible punishment increases, ranging from 5 years to a possible 20 years in jail respectfully.

Many courts take these charges seriously, along with the prosecution. Make sure you have the right representation on your side when charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer.

Contact Josh Jones today. He knows the law, will fight for your rights, and always has your back. 

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Michigan Criminal Attorney - RETAIL FRAUD Breakdown - Josh Jones - All MISDEMEANORS & FELONIES

Retail Fraud - In A Nut-Shell

The State of Michigan statutorily divides up tits heft crimes into multiple categories, which includes the category of retail fraud. Michigan goes even further and divides retail fraud into separate classes or degrees. Each degree is based upon the amount of money the property taken is worth and has corresponding punishments for each.

Retail fraud in the first degree is limited to instances where the value of the property exceeds $1,000.00 and is punishable as a felony. An individual can face up to 5-years in jail and/or a fine of $10,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the value of the property taken, whichever is greater. Moreover, the prosecutor is allowed to use and aggregate multiple incidents, of retail fraud, over a 12-month period to determine the property value amount under this statute.

The other two degrees of retail fraud are both misdemeanors, and thus the maximum amount of time will be 1-year (if convicted for second degree retail fraud) and 93-days for an individual convicted of retail fraud in the third degree. Moreover, the value of property cannot exceed $1,000.00 for a second degree charge and property less than $200.00 will attach a third degree charge.

To note, the statute does allow for statutory increases in punishment for those individuals who have been convicted of the crime on a prior conviction. This applies to all degrees of retail fraud and is enumerated in the statute.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Refusing Chemical Test - Michigan Criminal Defense - Attorney Josh Jones - Drunk Driving - Knowing The Law

Consequences of Refusing a Chemical Test during DUI Investigation

Implied Consent Law: If arrested for a drunk driving offense in Michigan, all drivers are considered to have given their consent to take a chemical test to determine your bodily alcohol content (BAC).

Purpose: The immediate purpose of the ‘implied consent law’ is to obtain the best evidence of blood alcohol content at the time of the arrest of the person; the long range purpose is, of course, to prevent intoxicated persons from driving on the highways.

Facts: An individual is driving South on Mission St., Mt. Pleasant, MI, and is stopped by a police officer. A DUI investigation is conducted; the driver will be first asked to provide a proof a license, registration, and insurance. Next, it is typical of an officer to ask if the driver had consumed any alcohol prior to operating the motor vehicle; the driver will then be asked to step out of the vehicle to perform a number of sobriety tests. Additionally, if the officer believes that the driver is intoxicated, he/she will ask the driver to submit to a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). Once the driver is placed under arrest, he/she, in addition to the PBT, will be asked to submit to a chemical test; either blood or breath.

Ramifications:  A first refusal results in a one-year suspension and the second or subsequent refusal in seven years results in a two-year suspension, six points are entered on the person’s driving record. A person who refuses the police officer’s request to take a chemical test has his or her picture license confiscated and is issued a temporary permit. MCL 257.625g(1). The nature of the permit will explicitly put an individual on notice that a test has allegedly been refused. The individual will then have 14 days from the date of the arrest to request a hearing. MCL 257.625f(1). Failure to do so results in an automatic one- or two-year suspension depending on the individual’s driving record.

With regard to refusal to submit to an evidentiary chemical test (breathalyzer), a hearing shall only cover the following issues set forth in MCL 257.625f:

1)      Whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Petitioner had committed a crime described in section 625c(1).

2)      Whether Petitioner was placed under arrest for a crime described in section 621c(1).

3)      Whether Petitioner was advised of the rights under section 625a(6).

4)      Whether Petitioner unreasonably refused to submit to the test upon the request of the peace officer.

The peace officer has the initial burden to establish these issues while the Petitioner has the burden to prove and affirmative defense to a refusal, pursuant to 1999 MR9 R 257.310. The standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”. Under MCL 257.319b and MCL 257.625f, after considering the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer will either impose a suspension/revocation of the license/operation privilege and all CDL endorsements, or take no licensing action. The Hearing Officer cannot issue a restricted license or work permit.

Possible Outcomes:

1)      Suspension.

2)      If officer fails to appeal, charges will be dismissed.

3)      First time offenders can petition the Circuit Court for their restricted license.

Contact Josh Jones today. He has your back. 

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.