Charged with DUI Roscommon County - What is Drunk Driving 82nd District Court?

Navigating DUI Cases in the 82nd District Court, Roscommon County

The 82nd District Court of Roscommon County, Michigan, presided over by the Honorable Robert Bennett, Chief Judge, and Honorable Mary Ann Beebe, District Judge, handles a diverse range of cases, including drunk driving offenses, with great respect for the state's legal procedures. 

Typically, clients charged with drunk driving offenses come under two categories: pre-arraignment or post-arraignment. Each category has its unique considerations and approaches.

When representing pre-arraignment clients, who have been arrested but not yet formally charged, I strive to be proactive. I set our own bond conditions ahead of the arraignment, anticipating what the judge might require. This strategy displays preparedness and respect for the court's expectations, thus creating a positive impression.

For post-arraignment clients who have been formally charged, our approach involves adhering to the court-ordered bond conditions and usually adding other proactive steps. This shows the judges that we are serious about meeting the court's expectations and reducing any potential risks.

In DUI cases, Michigan law necessitates the arraigning magistrate or judge to assess the risk of flight and potential risk to the public when setting bond. Most DUI defendants don't pose significant flight risks, but the possibility of alcohol or drug consumption while on bond, leading to re-offending, is a major concern for the court. 

The typical bond conditions in the 82nd District Court, therefore, require defendants to abstain from using drugs or alcohol. The court also regularly monitors compliance with these conditions. Assuming a minimal risk of flight, most defendants can expect a personal or nominal bond.

Factors that Judges Bennett and Beebe might consider when setting the bond include:

- The defendant's previous criminal record, including any juvenile offenses
- The defendant's record of appearing or not appearing at court proceedings, or any attempt to evade prosecution
- The defendant's history of substance abuse or addiction
- The defendant's mental condition and any reputation for dangerousness
- The seriousness of the charged offense, the presence or absence of threats, and the likelihood of conviction and likely sentence
- The defendant's employment status and financial history, particularly as they relate to the ability to post bail
- The availability of responsible community members who can vouch for or monitor the defendant
- The defendant's ties to the community, such as family relationships and the length of residence
- Any other facts relevant to the risk of non-appearance or danger to the public

In the 82nd District Court, alcohol testing is usually a central bond condition for DUI cases. If such testing hasn't been ordered, I generally encourage my clients to voluntarily undergo alcohol testing as a show of commitment to sobriety and respect for the court's objectives. I also advise on the best course of action for testing, taking into consideration the client's lifestyle and convenience.

Some clients, particularly professionals, prefer alternatives to standard court-ordered testing. In such cases, we can arrange for other methods that better suit their schedules while still achieving the court's goal of ensuring sobriety. The options include preliminary breath tests (PBTs), transdermal alcohol tethers, in-home breathalyzers, ignition interlock devices, and EtG or EtS alcohol testing. 

In summary, effectively managing DUI cases in the 82nd District Court of Roscommon County involves proactive preparation, respect for the court's expectations, and a commitment to the defendant's sobriety and adherence to bond conditions.