In Michigan alone, for the 2013 year, over 35,000 people were arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. There are several statutes the state law enforcement officers may use to charge an individual with if they are driving under the influence of a chemical. Typically—people refer to these statutes as Drunk Driving—since they often involved alcohol. The Michigan Vehicle Code (is amended September 24, 2014) MCL 257.625 et seq. sets forth the different notations you may see on a possible ticket related to influenced driving.

257.625f – Implied Consent Suspensions indicates cases where a driver was arrested, refused to submit to a chemical test and, consequently, had his/her drivers license suspended.

257.625(1)(a)(b)(c) – OUIL indicates the combined total of arrests for OUIL (Operating a vehicle while Under the Influence of Liquor), UBAC (Unlawful Bodily Alcohol Content), and OUID (Operating a vehicle while Under the Influence of Drugs), and high Blood Alcohol Content (BAC).

257.625(3) – Impaired indicates arrests for the lesser violation of OWI (Operating While Impaired).

257.625(4) – OWPD or OUIL/OWI Death indicates arrests for Operating With the Presence of Drugs (OWPD) or OUIL/OWI at a crash where a person was killed.

257.625(5) – OUIL/OWI Injury indicates arrests for OUIL/OWI at a crash where a person was seriously injured.

257.625(6) – Zero Tolerance indicates arrests of persons less than 21 years of age that had any BAC.

257.625(7) – Child Endangerment indicates arrests of persons for operating a vehicle while another person who is less than 16 years of age is occupying the vehicle.

257.625(8) – OWPD indicates arrests for OWPD at a crash where a person was killed or seriously injured.

257.625m – CDL Driver .04 indicates arrests for OUIL of commercial vehicle drivers (persons with a Commercial Driver License) who had a Bodily Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.04g to 0.07g.

Above from the data collection public document Michigan 2013 Annual Drunk Driving Audit.

The Stop.
Type 1: The driver is pulled over, after having too much to drink, and the police officer has observed the driver committing a civil infraction and makes the stop. MCL 257.742.

Type 2: The officer makes an investigative stop on suspicion of criminal activity. After approaching the driver, asking for a viewing of the license, the registration, and proof of insurance, the officer may notice signs of intoxication.

The officer will then ask the driver to take a field sobriety test. A preliminary breath test may be used after the driver has taken the field tests. The results may allow the officer to make an arrest. Civil infractions may be charged for refusal to take preliminary breath test. MCL 257.625a(2)(d).

The Arrest.
The driver is officially under arrest when the driver is in the police car, handcuffed, and pronounces the words of arrest. The police must read Miranda rights if the driver is interrogated. Being arrested opens the door for chemical tests, blood tests, or urine tests to determine the intoxicant level. If the driver is not arrested, the chemical tests may be refused; instead then, the officer may request a search warrant.

The Right to Counsel.
The right to counsel during investigations does not attach until the accused is in custodial interrogation or has been formally charged. Michigan courts do allow the reasonable opportunity to call an attorney (with reasonable privacy) before deciding whether or not to submit a voluntary breath test. If the police denied this opportunity, and the driver refuses a test, that is generally viewed as reasonable, therefore the driver’s license should not be suspended.

The Bond.
Drunk drivers, after the driver is in a proper condition, with maximum jail time of 1 year or less are entitled to a bond with the police for release. MCL 780.581(3). Bond must be in cash, and your attorney cannot post bond for you. MCL 600.2665.

Call your attorney as soon as possible! Anything you say can be used against you. Do not sign anything. Be calm and polite at all times.

Generally your attorney will not visit you in jail that day, rather when you are released, your attorney will ask that you come immediately to their office.

Each drunk driving case is different. The surrounding circumstances and the impact of an OWI conviction always varies amongst individuals based on their particular situations. An OWI conviction may impact employment, driving privileges, family, as well as a host of other issues.

An OWI arrest and allegation is often times the most stressful situation in an otherwise law-abiding citizen’s life. As discussed, the impact of a conviction may be very direct and devastating. These situations should not be taken lightly and retaining a competent and knowledgeable attorney is always recommended.

Zamzow Fabian PLLC is a law firm that has built a strong reputation for effectively representing its clients. The firm’s success is based on a number of key factors:

1. Experience: The attorneys at Zamzow Fabian PLLC have years of experience representing clients in a variety of legal matters. This experience allows them to provide informed advice and effective representation to clients.
2. Expertise: The firm’s attorneys have expertise in a wide range of legal areas, including criminal defense, employment law, and business litigation. This broad range of expertise allows the firm to provide comprehensive legal services to clients.
3. Client focus: Zamzow Fabian PLLC places a strong emphasis on client service and communication. The firm works closely with clients to understand their goals and objectives, and to develop a legal strategy that is tailored to their individual needs.
4. Attention to detail: The attorneys at Zamzow Fabian PLLC are meticulous in their approach to legal representation. They pay close attention to the details of each case and work diligently to ensure that their clients’ rights and interests are protected.
5. Results-oriented: The firm is committed to achieving the best possible outcomes for its clients. Whether through negotiation or litigation, the attorneys at Zamzow Fabian PLLC work tirelessly to achieve the best possible results for their clients.
6. Integrity: The firm operates with the highest level of integrity and professionalism. Its attorneys are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in all aspects of their work.

Zamzow Fabian PLLC is effective at representing its clients due to its experienced and knowledgeable attorneys, its client-focused approach, attention to detail, results-oriented approach, and commitment to integrity and professionalism.

Cities are a product of design; they are planned for present and future use. Social, economic, and physical restrictions are used to form a vision of a selected populations needs. In Michigan, the state has the high authority to delegate land use to municipalities and counties. In 2006, the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (ZEA) is the newest revision of land use and zoning powers passed to the local governments. Together with the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, and several other acts, sets forth the guidelines of lawful planning in the state.

For example, through the ZEA, Grand Rapids may divide land into districts, which are organized and divided to meet the city’s desired objective. Heavy industrial clustered away from residential, and commercial or light industrial serving as a buffer zone. Under the ZEA the Grand Rapids planning department fits its Master Plan to legitimate zoning objectives; those things that are for public health, safety, and welfare. (Master Plans are typically planned for a non-binding 10-year blocks, and are revised periodically to fit the city budget and needs).

Occasionally an area of land is zoned for one purpose, but might be better suited for another; in those cases, use variances, area variances, and special use permits are granted when presented to the city. The city’s primary objective is to provide the best environment for its citizens; if a new use is proposed that improves the citizen experience it will be approved with minimal adjustments. When disagreements arise, between the city, citizens, and developers, negotiations take place to best meet concerns.

The city may offer a new location for the proposed use in a lawful trade, the citizens may request alternative entrances to a parking lot, and the developer may modify its plan to maximize its approval chances. Only after talks have broken down and the developer has exhausted its administrative remedies may it pursue judicial action; this may take months and occasionally years to implement. During that time, the citizens may campaign against members of the local government and elect more favorable candidates to city improvements.

Developers looking to propose a use in the city should use a law firm that can engage a problem in its entirety. Law firms should determine why a proposed use is denied, beyond looking to the master plan; often times due to budget cuts, city members may be let go before they can execute their pet project with a selected property. Cities should work with the developer to bring new revenue into the city. Citizens should voice their concerns and allow the developer or its counsel answer with a solution that pleases both sides.

This is to serve as general education information and is presented to respect both sides of this issue.

What is “Right to Work”?
Right to Work law is the title granted to statutes designed as a means for the state (Michigan or other), to regulate unions in the public or private sector and limit the collective bargaining process. One of the laws functions is to separate the union from the hiring process by disallowing union dues from being a requisite of employment.

Background
In December 2012, the Michigan legislature passed the Right to Work (RTW) law as Public Act 348 and Public Act 349. At that time, Michigan became the 24th state in the United States to pass such legislation. RTW law regulates collective bargaining both in the private and public sector (all state and local government employees included); firefighters and police officers are currently excluded from the Michigan version of the statute. The law became effective on March 28, 2013.

Although preemptive federal labor law generally governs the private sector, in 1947 Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which added section 14(b) to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Supreme Court has found section 14(b) allows state governments to pass private sector RTW laws. See Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746 (1963).

Impact
The Right to Work laws in Michigan make it unlawful for unions to negotiate for and include security clauses in Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). Security clauses are the means by which unions could make paying union dues or agency fees a condition of one’s employment. Any CBA entered into, extended or renewed after the effective date of Michgan’s RTW (March 27, 2013) may not include a security clause. Older CBAs that expired after the effective date were grandfathered in, and may still have proper security clauses.

Union Issues
Without fees as a condition of employment, employees can decide whether or not to pay any dues. If employees do not make union dues payments, they may still receive employee benefits from the union. Michigan has not ruled on this issue yet; and some division exists in other RTW state courts.

Employer Issues
Since this legislation removes the requirements, unions must become more visible to their fellow employees, showing them the value of the union, to retain dues and prevent employees from opting out. Employers should be prepared for more strict negotiations in CBAs. Further, employers should be aware grievances and arbitration might increase in frequency as the union asserts its value.

Current Legal Climate
Right to Work Law in Michigan is no simple matter, and like any change during this highly polarized political climate, it is certainly controversial. And since RTWs inception, there have been legal challenges to the law on various fronts. A challenge is waiting on the Michigan Supreme Court Docket as of today.

It is now, more than ever, essential to be aware of the current law and have a relationship with your legal professionals to answer questions and solve problems before they arise.

The Constitution (and legislation passed since), offers a very limited shield of individual privacy protection from governmental intrusion, and even less from corporate intrusion. Some people feel technology and privacy is incompatible, others believe one must take extraordinary lengths to guard one’s privacy. Irrespective of how you feel about privacy, it is a fact that the majority of websites you browse are individually tracking your activity—and thousands of Umbrella Trackers—are tracking you across all websites. Some of the largest Umbrella Trackers are facebook, addthis, google analytics, quantcast, alexa, compete, hubspot, siteimprove, and doubleclick.

Simple Trackers
Trackers that follow you across multiple websites are known as Umbrella Trackers; they are a common thread in the web of the Internet. Simple Trackers are unique to the site you are on, and by the unavoidable virtue of how web pages are recalled, every website tracks activity on some level. Simple trackers: When someone performs an Internet search, the search engine records: the search term, the location of the computer, the results it passed on to the searchee, and what has been clicked on (and sometimes what has been hovered over). From the search click, the website landed on begins tracking its own activity: where the searchee came from (search engine), what search terms were used, how long the searchee remains viewing the website, and everything else related to the site. If the searchee returns to the search engine, that will be recorded; if the searchee follows a new link, the search engine is in the dark as to where the searchee disappeared to.

Simple Tracking Chain
The above activity is known as a Simple Tracking Chain. It connects website 1 to website 2 and website 2 to website 3. Website 1 is generally unaware the browser went to website 3 (and vise versa), and only website 2 knows about website 1 and 3. Unless the websites decide to collectively share (buy and sell) information, they only know what the browser saw on its own pages.

Umbrella Trackers
If however, website 1, 2, and 3 have installed an Umbrella Tracker a third-party knows the browser traveled from website 1 to 2 and to 3 (and then to 4 etc). The Umbrella Tracker knows everything, for example: the time, place, subject matter, and the commonalities across all the websites browsed. Further, the Umbrella Tracker knows what the typical browser (in the aggregate) looks at after visiting websites like 1, 2, and 3. This way the Umbrella Tracker can provide very useful information to websites using its service, and to advertisers that look to only show an ad to a person who is interested. This valuable information about every person browsing on the Internet is collected, analyzed, and then sold every day.

Some information is more valuable than others, and some Umbrella Trackers have access to more information than others. A recent social media mood manipulation study published in the National Academy of Sciences represents the type of information available to certain Umbrella Trackers.

(see the two corrections later published by the journal partially in response to public concern ONE | TWO)

Whether or not the conclusions are accurate is irrelevant, an Umbrella Tracker such as this has access to not only the content of which websites are browsed but also how a browser ended up there—and what their mood may have been prior to arrival—and after.

There are options a person may take to reduce tracking.
The first is to limit exposure by controlling which Umbrella Trackers can follow you and where. Ghostery is one way to take control. Next is to limit what is shared with third parties; a simple rule to remember when using a free service is if you aren’t paying for it, you are not the customer, you are the commodity (whether it’s a free email service or social media). And finally, visit websites that aren’t making an attempt to track your movements in the first place.

Is Your Lawyer Tracking You?
With Ghostery enabled visit your lawyer’s website, odds are unless your attorney is at Zamzow PLLC your very private browsing habit information is being shared, and possibly in breach of the attorney-client relationship.

Zamzow PLLC tested law firms in Grand Rapids and Michigan both large and small, they all use Umbrella Tracking of some manner including canvas fingerprinting, except zamzowlaw.com. Zamzow PLLC has a privacy policy, which it takes very seriously.

Realistic
It is largely unrealistic to prevent your activity from being tracked. However, it is very realistic to put yourself in control of some of your own data. Without Internet Umbrella Tracking, advertisements would not be tailored to you. It is also unlikely social media would be as popular as it is either. The world would be different, for the better or worse, and that is for you to decide.

Consider when it comes to the law: E-Discovery may reveal your browsing activities and might be presented against you in court.