JURY TRIAL: Directed Verdict of NOT GUILTY on BAC of .17

In Garden City's 21st District Court, I represented GG, accused of OWI by local police.  My client was seated in his car, which was running, eating taco bell in February 2015. The car was parked a few blocks away from Taco Bell. An open beer was located inside the car.  Police investigated because the parked running car occupied a space at a closed hardware store.
Upon approaching, the officer asked my client what he was doing. He reportedly told the officer that he had been drinking at a local establishment, left the bar and picked up Taco Bell. He was parked at the hardware store after calling his brother to pick him because he was too drunk to drive home. 
I filed motions challenging the arrest. The officer did not witness a misdemeanor that occurred in his presence, and--even if he had reason to believe that a misdemeanor might have occurred ealier in the evening--an officer cannot arrest someone for a misdemeanor committed outside the officer's presence, which runs afoul of federal constitutional rights and the common law. This motion was denied by the trial court judge, and the matter was scheduled for a jury trial.
At trial, I established that the officer could not prove that my client drove the vehicle. The vehicle was not presenting being operated when the officer arrived on the scene, and the officer failed to establish any reasonable time line for the alleged driving. The BAC of .17/.15 could not relate back to the time of operation, since the officer could only guess or speculate as to when (and if) the client had ever driven the vehicle in an intoxicated state.
The trial court judge granted a motion for directed verdict. A directed verdict is granted by a court very rarely. It is only granted when the evidence presented by the prosecutor, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, could not persuade a rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime charged were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Werner, 254 Mich. App. 528, 530; 659 N.W.2d 688 (2002). "'Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.'" People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392, 400; 614 N.W.2d 78 (2000), quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 757; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). In this specific case, the trial court judge was very careful to point out the difference between circumstantial evidence and speculative evidence. Had the officer testified that had asked the client how long he had been at the location, adequate evidence would have existed to establish a time-line, but the officer failed to ask any questions regarding the time of driving. Since no relevant times could be established, there was nothing more than speculative evidence to suggest that the client had recently driven to the location.