Call Ray Purdy at 1-616-502-1646

Author Archives: Bill

There are still attorneys that do not take MIP cases seriously and provide an aggressive defense. There is also a misconception among young people that getting an MIP case in college is no big deal and will not have any affect on their future.  This is simply dead wrong.

Either through our own experience or talking to colleagues we know the following to have happened:

  • An applicant for the Los Angeles Police Department is denied employment and told to wait a specified amount of years before re-application due to an MIP conviction in Michigan.
  • A student at University of Michigan went on their lenient diversion program. She paid all of her fines and cost but forgot to complete a one hour alcohol class offered by the school. The result? She had her probation revoked without any notice to her, a conviction for MIP was entered and she lost a $70,000 a year job offer due to a background check done by the company. Even though MIP cases may not show up in a L.E.I.N search (statewide database of convictions and charges) it will show up on the driving record and in the local court’s records. This company did a check of all known addresses.
  • It may keep you from being admitted into medical or law school due to the level of competition.
  • It may raise your insurance rates due to the fact that it sits on your permanent driving record.
  • It may keep you from getting a job with the government requiring security classifications

There are many more stories, but the moral of this is that the time to fight an MIP case, whether it is attacking the evidence obtained or the methods to obtain that evidence, is BEFORE a conviction enters. Any means necessary to keep an MIP in Michigan off your record is time and money well spent.

Contact Ray Purdy today to see if you can keep you future secure. Call (616) 502-1646 for a FREE MIP consultation.

If you have had the pleasure of being at a party that has had a visit by the police, you know that most of the time they will knock on the door and ask everyone to keep it down. This usually occurs after angry neighbors trying to get some sleep get fed up and call…Continue Reading

MCL 780.621 Setting Aside Convictions Many lawyers cheered when the legislature changed the Expungment statute to allow for a person to have two convictions and still be eligible to set aside a conviction.  However, many attorneys may have misinterpreted this statute to allow those convicted of two minor offenses to have BOTH of these set…Continue Reading

Effective July 20, 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted a new statute that may have gone either unnoticed or under the radar of the general public. MCL 750.479c states that a person who is “informed” by a police officer that he or she is conducting a criminal investigation shall not do the following: knowingly and willfully…Continue Reading

If you have charged with Operating While Intoxicated, Operating While Visibly Impaired, or any type of Operation of a Motor Vehicle with drugs in your system, the definition of “operating” took a strange turn in the Michigan Court of Appeals. Common sense would dictate that operating a motor vehicle would involve moving it in some…Continue Reading

Our office represents many students at Hope College, Grand Valley State University, Muskegon Community College, Grand Rapids Community College and other surrounding higher educational institutions and community colleges. If you find yourself charged with a college ordinance, you may be able to challenge its validity. In People v. Rapp, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled…Continue Reading

In May of 2012, an Oakland county Trial Court heard a case where a police officer pulled over and eventually arrested an individual for possession of Heroin less than 25 grams.  The court suppressed ALL the evidence in the case when the police officer testified that he pulled over the vehicle because his air freshener,…Continue Reading

In January of 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. Tavernier and followed the United States Supreme Courts ruling in Arizona v. Gant that a search of the passenger compartment after an arrest is reasonable, only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or…Continue Reading

The United States Supreme Court, in January of 2012, ruled in United States v. Jones that the government’s physical intrusion of attaching and monitoring a GPS unit was a search and was obtained without a proper warrant. The lower court had ruled that any data compiled on public streets was admissible because the person had no expectation…Continue Reading

In April of 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. Moreno that the common law principle that allows a person to resist an unlawful arrest still applies in Michigan.  Unbelievably, the Michigan Court of Appeals had earlier ruled that you could NOT resist an unlawful arrest as the statute did not contain a…Continue Reading