Now Accepting New Clients!

Can an officer stop a vehicle because of a dim taillight?

The defendant argued that the court erred because Officer's stop of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. Officer pulled defendant over, and when he approached the vehicle, he smelled alcohol and saw that defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Officer had defendant perform several field sobriety tests and determined that defendant was intoxicated. He then arrested defendant for OWI.

The case was centered on the question of when "a vehicle has two taillights and both taillights are, in some sense, operational, can the vehicle still violate section 686 when one of those taillights is not, in some other sense, fully operational? Defendant's taillights were both operational in the sense that they were lighted when the headlamps were lighted, but one of them was not fully operational in that the light emitted was significantly dimmer than the other.

The answer was: Yes, a vehicle with an operating taillight can violate section 686, but only if

  • the taillight is not red,
  • it is not plainly visible from at least 500 feet,
  • or it is not lighted when the headlamps or auxiliary lamps are lighted.

The dash-cam video clearly showed that the passenger-side taillight on the vehicle in question was significantly dimmer than the one on the driver-side. As the district court judge noted during the suppression hearing, when one taillight is significantly brighter than the other, a dangerous condition may arise. Added to the icy, wintery conditions present on the night in question and the fact that defendant was driving in a congested area in the dark of early morning. The defendant's defective taillight created a 'dangerous' condition, by itself, sufficient to justify the stop under MCL 257.683. Because Officer observed defendant's potential violation of the Vehicle Code, there existed reasonable suspicion to stop him. Thus, there was no Fourth Amendment violation.

Before you agree to pay a ticket or plea to any traffic violation, consider meeting with an attorney to evaluate your case. There is no denying that Michigan has harsh punishments for drinking and driving; jail, probation and license suspension are all possible, not to mention skyrocketing insurance rates and possible job loss. Retaining a skilled and experienced criminal defense attorney who is committed to protecting your rights as soon as you are charged is essential.

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

DIVORCE 45: Federal law preempts state law such that the parties’ consent judgment is unenforceable to the extent that it required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reduction in the amount payable to her due to his election to receive CRSC

BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between former spouses who entered into a consent judgment of divorce (the consent judgment), which provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military retirement benefits. Beyond that, the...

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a DUI

No one wants to be arrested, and if you are, especially for the first time, you can be very confused. Being arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) - formerly Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)...

What does Client and Attorney Privilege Mean?

How much should you tell your lawyer? The fifth amendment protects U.S. citizens from incriminating themselves, but how does that work with your attorney. We get this question all the time. Many people have heard about attorney confidentiality,...

FAMILY LAW 50: A Michigan Court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination when it is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY  Plaintiff and defendant have twin sons, but never married.  On August 13, 2008, the Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division in Montgomery County, Ohio established plaintiff as the legal father of the children and...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000