The rumble of engines can be heard on Woodward Avenue as car collectors are gearing up for the Annual Woodward Dream Cruise. The official event will be held on Saturday, August 16th, 2014 but hundreds are warming up their engines already.
The Dream Cruise first started in 1995 and has since become a Detroit tradition. The event attracts 1.5 million people and 40,000 classic cars from across the U.S. and beyond. The tradition is for caravans of cars to parade up and down the iconic Detroit Avenue, giving car lovers an amazing opportunity to “camp-out” on the street and spot some amazing models. Additionally, there will be other entertainment set up along the route including musical performances and a play zone for children.
The nature of the event lends itself to certain concerns and police will be out in full force implementing the law. They will be keeping an eye out not only for traffic violations such as Reckless Driving and Drag Racing but also general violations such as Open Container/Intoxicants and Urinating in Public. If you are charged with any of these offenses or others while you are enjoying the events over the next week, contact the attorneys at Garmo & Kiste, PLC. We are experienced criminal defense attorneys and have represented hundreds of cases in Metro Detroit including the 44th District Court in Royal Oak and and 43rd District Court Ferndale. For more information, contact the attorneys at Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation or send us a private message.
We are pleased to announce that Matthew Van Steenkiste has been selected to the 2014 Michigan Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a research-driven, peer influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Attorneys are selected from more than 70 practice areas and all firm sizes, assuring a credible and relevant annual list.
The objective of Super Lawyers is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys to be used as a resource for both attorneys and consumers seeking legal counsel.
The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country, as well as in the Michigan Super Lawyers Digital Magazine.
Please join us in congratulating Matthew Van Steenkiste on his nomination. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process, which results in a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in their practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.
The Fourth of July has come and gone but fireworks can still be heard in neighborhoods all around Detroit when the sun goes down. Michiganders have been enjoying relaxed state fireworks rules since Governor Synder signed the Michigan Fireworks Safety Act of 2011. This act allows aerial fireworks to be legally purchased within Michigan state lines, making it easier for consumers to put on their own impressive firework displays around the holidays.
The law states that local governments may create their own ordinances to regulate the use of consumer fireworks as long as the local ordinances do not restrict the use of consumer fireworks on the day before, of, or after a national holiday except to dictate that fireworks cannot be discharged within certain hours. Localities with a population of 50,000 or more may prohibit use from midnight or 1 a.m. to 8 a.m. and localities with a population of less than 50,000 may prohibit use from 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. Violating a local fireworks ordinance comes with a fine of up to $500.00 so it is best to refer to your city or town’s ordinance before you use fireworks.
The Act also prohibits the use of fireworks by someone that is under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances or from use on public property. An individual that violates these provisions could be fined up to $500.00.
Recently, Michigan state Senator Glenn Anderson stated that he is working to repeal the 2011 Act and prevent the sale of high-powered fireworks within Michigan. His primary concern is that the expected economic benefits of allowing sales don’t outweigh the risks to Michiganders’ health of widespread use. Individuals across Michigan feel the same way and have concerns about the noise implications. Local governments are responding to these concerns by strictly enforcing the law.
Violations come with a significant penalty. If you have violated the Act or a firework ordinance, contact the attorneys at Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation or send us a private message. We will help you assess your options and discuss how to proceed.
Sued by Ally Financial, Inc.? Do you owe money for unpaid car, credit card, or various loans? Have you fallen behind on your payments? Many individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, unable to pay off their loans, due to unforeseen circumstances such as the loss of a job. In these instances, consumers should be aware of all options available in order to protect themselves in the event that the creditor takes legal action against them.
If you have been sued by a financial institution such as Ally Financial, Inc. or have fallen behind on loan payments there are a few things you should know. Ally Financial, Inc., like many companies, is multi-faceted and includes the subsidiary of Ally Bank. This company issues a number of loans and may take action to collect them on its own behalf. In some instances the companies are willing to settle. An experienced debt defense attorney can help you achieve the best possible outcome. Further, some companies may exercise abusive debt collection behavior so it is important to be informed of what is not permitted behavior.
Alternatively, if you have not been sued by your creditor, you should know that you do not necessarily have to wait until the company makes the first move. In fact, it may be more advantageous to consult a debt defense attorney before that point in order to discuss your options.
The collections process can be challenging to undergo. If a creditor such as Ally Financial, Inc. has sued you or if you’ve fallen behind on your payments and would like a free consultation, please contact the attorneys at Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 or contact us with a private message.
For more subject specific information, please click on the following Article links:
If you are a Michigan resident, you should be aware that the act of operating a vehicle enters you into an implicit agreement to submit to alcohol testing. MCL 257.625c dictates that any individual who operates a motor vehicle on a public highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles within the state is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his or her blood, breath, or urine to determine if he or she has been using alcohol or another controlled substance in certain circumstances. These circumstances include if you are being arrested for operating while intoxicated or while visibly impaired.
Violations occur when an individual is arrested under one of the provisions cited in MCL 257.625c including operating while intoxicated and the driver has refused to submit to a breath test. Though it is not mandatory that you submit to a breath test, you should know that refusal is de facto an implied consent violation. Some individuals refuse under the assumption that it may help them avoid the primary charge including operating while intoxicated. However, the officer will almost always proceed to obtain a warrant to do the testing and the implied consent violation has already occurred.
An individual seeking to challenge the refusal violation must request a hearing within 14 days of the date of notice. Time is of the essence in these cases. The ramification of violating the implied consent provision is a one-year suspension of your operator’s license. Note that this applies only to the first refusal. If you refuse a second time within seven years of the first refusal, your operator’s license may be suspended for a period of two years. There may also be special ramifications if you have a commercial operator’s license.
There is an exception to the implied consent rule under MCL 257.625(c)(2) for individuals that suffer from hemophilia, diabetes or other conditions requiring the use of an anticoagulant which may justify the refusal to submit to a blood test. This defense should be raised by your attorney because an officer may neglect to include this information in his report thus subjecting you to punishment.
Losing your operator’s license has a severe impact on your life economically and socially. If you were arrested for operating while intoxicated or any of the other offenses cited in MCL 257.625c and refused to submit to alcohol testing, contact the attorneys at Garmo & Kiste, PLC. We have extensive experience handling cases in the Metro Detroit area, giving is the expertise necessary to handle these intricate cases. Contact Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 now for a free consultation or contact us with a private message.
A recent Supreme Court ruling took a strong stance in support of privacy, preventing law enforcement officers from searching individuals’ cell phones without a warrant. The Supreme Court made a combined, unanimous decision over Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie that police officers generally must obtain a warrant before searching a suspect’s cell phone regardless of what type of cell phone it is.
In the first case the Court discussed, the defendant was stopped for a traffic violation. After law enforcement accessed information on his cell phone, he was charged with a weapons offense and associated with gang activity. In the second case the Court discussed, the defendant was arrested after police officers believed they observed him engaging in a drug deal. Law enforcement officials then used information on his cell phone to determine the location of his residence, obtained a search warrant and found drugs and other contraband at the premises. The defendant was charged with drug and firearm offenses. In both of these cases, the defendants sought to have the evidence that had been discovered as a result of the cell phone searches excluded. In support of the searches, the government argued that a search of the data stored on a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable” from searching the types of physical items that are typically found on suspects such as address books and purses. Therefore, the government argued that law enforcement officials should be able to search cell phones without a warrant. The Court rejected this argument, humorously noting that, under the government’s logic, a ride on horseback would be materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.
Despite this, the Court did state that the exigent circumstances exception could apply, allowing an officer to search a cell phone without a warrant. Under this exception, an officer can search the information contained in a cell phone if it is necessary to prevent an imminent danger. Additionally, the Court stated that law enforcement officers may physically search a cell phone in order to ensure their personal safety. For example, an officer may examine the physical aspects of the cell phone in order to determine that a weapon is not hidden on or in it. Further, this ruling does not denote that cell phones cannot be searched at all; it merely states that officers must obtain a warrant before they perform a search of the cell phone.
Ultimately the Court’s ruling protects individuals’ privacy by requiring law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant before searching the information contained in cell phones. This case reinforces privacy interests in a technologically saturated world and serves as an example of how technological evolution may cause us to reconsider the scope of our constitutional rights.
For more information about criminal defense, Contact Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation or send us a private message.
The Detroit fireworks went off without a hitch last Monday, despite the threat of thunderstorms. However, the night was cut short for a number of young viewers. Detroit police officers were out in full force on and one of their goals was to implement the modified curfew. The Detroit curfew law was altered for Monday night, dictating that individuals under 17 years of age needed to be accompanied by an adult after 6 p.m. Ultimately over 100 juveniles were detained for violating the curfew.
The default curfew is less restrictive, though the penalties are significant. The standard Detroit curfew law dictates that it is unlawful for a minor to be on a public street, sidewalk, playground, vacant lot, or other unsupervised pubic place, or in a place of entertainment (including movie theaters and restaurants) during certain times. The Ordinance organizes the rules by age:
- For minors age 15 and under: from 8:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. during standard time and from 10:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. during daylight savings time.
- For minors ages 16 and 17: from 10:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m., except Fridays and Saturdays: from 11:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. during standard time and from 11:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. during daylight savings time.
(Sections 33-3-11 and 33-3-12, Ord. No. 30-08, § 1, 12-9-08)
The curfew rules do not apply to private residences, private clubs, schools, churches, duly-licensed family hobby and recreation centers, fraternal organizations, or any other civic agency, organization or institution.
If a minor commits a delinquent act by violating the above referenced rules, the parent could be held responsible. The first conviction for violating the Ordinance subjects the parent to a fine between 75 and 100 dollars. The second violation subjects the parent to a fine between 100 and 500 dollars. All subsequent violations subject the parent to a fine between 250 and 500 dollars and, if the court chooses, confinement in the county jail for between 15 and 90 days or probation upon the condition that the parent participate in a government sponsored mandatory work program for the duration of the sentence. (Sec. 33-6-4. Ord. No. 9-87, § 1, 3-25-87)
Questions about Detroit Curfew Laws? If your child violated the curfew you may be forced to pay significant fines or face other serious penalites. For more information about or to retain Garmo & Kiste, PLC call us at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation or contact us with a private message.
Everyone understands that drinking and driving not only puts yourself and others at risk of serious injury, but it also endangers your ability to have an Operator’s License. The stakes are even higher if you are one of thousands of people that have a commercial motor vehicle license (CMV license), especially if you rely on the CMV License for employment reasons. This may be because Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) are particularly dangerous because they weigh more than 26,000 pounds. (MCL 257.7a)
Your CMV License may be suspended for up to one year if you are convicted of a number of offenses including Operating While Intoxicated and Operating While Visibly Impaired while operating a CMV or even a noncommercial vehicle.
Effectively, any convictions or license suspensions for anything related to a violation while operating a noncommercial vehicle count against the you as if you were operating a commercial motor vehicle at the time the offense occurred. (MCL 257.319b(7)) In fact, if you are convicted or found responsible for a combination of two of these types of offenses, your CMV license can be revoked for life.
This law may seem unfair but there are options available to individuals in these types of situations. For example, under MCL 257.319b(1)(e), if your CMV license was revoked, you may be eligible for reissuance of the CMV license after 10 years.
Many people base their livelihood on having a Commercial Motor Vehicle License. If you have lost or are in danger of losing your CMV License or Operator’s License, Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation or contact us with a private message. We’ll discuss your options and help you take the wheel again.
Google, the world’s most popular search engine, capitalizes on human curiosity by connecting users to seemingly infinite amounts of information. Though this may be incredibly helpful for users, it may also be detrimental to individuals about whom information is posted. The Court of Justice of the European Union sought to prevent detriment to these individuals in its May 13, 2014 decision to uphold Directive 95/46/EC, a European law protecting data on the basis of privacy, in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v AEPD. This case concerned Google-generated links to a newspaper article about the repossession of a Spanish man’s home. The ruling stated that Google must remove links to data that is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed” from the search results it posts after a query. In essence, this prohibits Google from posting links to information that is dated or irrelevant.
This ruling pits the right to privacy against freedom of information and functionally limits users’ ability to access certain types of information. This ruling has been heralded by individuals as a landmark for the right to privacy, colloquially referred to as the “right to be forgotten”. Conversely, many consider this a form of censorship.
Google has expressed concern about complying with this ruling and about the limiting effect on the dissemination of information.
In an effort to comply, Google posted a web form that allows European citizens to request the removal of a link. Thousands of Europeans have filed requests for links to be taken down.
Whether you agree with this holding on the basis of privacy or oppose it on the basis of freedom of information, the holding is not controlling in the United States. Though it is not binding, it may be a sign of issues to come in U.S. courts regarding the right to privacy in this heavily internet-reliant nation. Contact Garmo & Kiste, PLC at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation or send us a private message.