Memorial Day weekend is one of the moments in the year when ordinary plans can turn into criminal cases very quickly. In Michigan, the holiday weekend often means family gatherings, travel, lake traffic, concerts, backyard parties, and late drives home after a long day. Memorial Day 2026 falls on Monday, May 25, 2026. For many people, that means a three-day weekend. For law enforcement, it also means a predictable period of increased impaired-driving patrols.
I do not write that as a warning to panic. I write it as a practical reminder. If you drink, use marijuana, take medication, or use any substance that may affect your ability to drive, the safest legal decision is not to drive. During holiday enforcement periods, police officers are specifically looking for driving behavior, physical observations, admissions, odors, containers, field sobriety performance, and chemical test evidence that may support an arrest for operating while intoxicated or operating while visibly impaired.
The Michigan Impaired Driving Task Force, chaired by my friend Judge Tina Brooks-Green (ret.), reflects the seriousness with which Michigan traffic-safety partners approach these cases. Judge Brooks-Green presided over thousands of impaired-driving cases during more than 30 years on the bench, including many cases in the 34th District Court in Romulus where I defended drivers before juries. Her public comments are direct and worth taking seriously: “I’ve seen firsthand the heart-breaking devastation caused by poor decision-making of impaired drivers,” said Judge Brooks-Green. “I’m honored and excited to be working alongside key stakeholders in traffic safety, including law enforcement agencies, community organizations, public health officials and other experts in the impaired-driving field, to help make our roads safer for everyone.”
That public-safety message is not inconsistent with careful defense work. Both things can be true. Impaired driving can cause terrible harm, and a person accused of impaired driving is still entitled to have the government prove its case lawfully. In my practice, I often explain to clients that a DUI case is not simply about whether a police officer thought someone had been drinking. The legal questions include why the vehicle was stopped, what the officer observed, whether the detention expanded lawfully, whether field sobriety tests were fairly administered, whether a preliminary breath test was used for a legally permitted purpose, whether the arrest was supported by probable cause, and whether any breath, blood, or urine testing complied with Michigan law.
Michigan’s drunk-driving statute is broad. Under MCL 257.625(1), a person may not operate a vehicle in Michigan on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles while operating while intoxicated. Michigan law recognizes operating while intoxicated as a hybrid offense. The prosecution may proceed on the theory that the person was under the influence, or on the theory that the person operated with an unlawful bodily alcohol content. People v Hyde, 285 Mich App 428, 447-448 (2009). A separate offense, operating while visibly impaired, applies when, because of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, another intoxicating substance, or a combination of them, the person’s ability to operate the vehicle is visibly impaired. MCL 257.625(3).
The familiar number is .08. Michigan law treats an alcohol content of 0.08 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine as legally significant under MCL 257.625(1). Michigan also has a high bodily alcohol content provision at 0.17 grams or more. MCL 257.625(1). But clients should not misunderstand the .08 number. A driver can still be arrested and charged even when the alleged alcohol level is below .08 if the officer and prosecutor claim that alcohol, drugs, medication, or a combination of substances visibly impaired the person’s ability to drive.
This is especially important over Memorial Day weekend because increased patrols change the practical reality of the road. More officers may be assigned to traffic enforcement. More stops may occur for speeding, lane use, equipment violations, expired plates, or other traffic issues. Once a vehicle is stopped, the officer may begin looking for signs that suggest alcohol or drug use, including odor, bloodshot eyes, speech patterns, fumbling with documents, confusion, divided attention problems, or admissions about drinking or substance use.
A traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Michigan law recognizes different levels of police-citizen encounters. An informational encounter does not require cause if it is not coercive. An investigative detention requires reasonable suspicion. An arrest requires probable cause. People v Shabaz, 424 Mich 42 (1985); Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968). Those distinctions matter in a DUI case because many cases develop in stages. The officer may begin with a traffic violation, then expand the encounter into an impaired-driving investigation, then request field sobriety tests, then request a preliminary breath test, then make an arrest, then seek a breath test, blood test, urine test, or search warrant.
Police motivation is not usually the key legal question if the stop is objectively valid. If an officer stops a vehicle for a valid traffic reason while also hoping to investigate drugs or alcohol, the stop may still be lawful if it was objectively justified. People v Haney, 192 Mich App 207 (1991); Whren v United States, 517 US 806 (1996). For the driver, this means small traffic violations can become the entry point into a full DUI investigation.
Field sobriety testing is another area where the public often misunderstands what is happening. These tests are not just roadside games or casual exercises. They are investigative tools used to create evidence. The officer is watching balance, coordination, instructions, divided attention, eye movements, speech, timing, and compliance. In most states, field sobriety testing generally does not implicate the Fifth Amendment when it consists of physical acts rather than testimonial communications. Pennsylvania v Muniz, 496 US 582 (1990). That does not mean the tests are immune from challenge. It means the defense issue is usually more precise: whether the request was lawful, whether the instructions were proper, whether the testing conditions were fair, whether the officer was trained, whether the observations were accurately recorded, and whether the claimed clues actually support impairment.
Michigan law also gives particular treatment to preliminary roadside testing. MCL 257.43a defines “preliminary roadside analysis” to include the on-site taking of a preliminary breath test or the performance and observation of a field sobriety test for the purpose of detecting alcohol, a controlled substance, another intoxicating substance, or a combination of those substances. It further notes that MCL 257.625a limits the purposes for which preliminary roadside analysis results may be admitted, including use to assist the court or hearing officer in determining a challenge to the validity of an arrest.
That distinction is important. Evidence that may be useful to an officer in deciding whether to arrest is not always admissible for every purpose at trial. When I evaluate an impaired-driving case, I want to know exactly what testing occurred, when it occurred, what the officer told the driver, what the officer wrote in the report, what appears on the video, whether the officer’s testimony matches the recording, and whether the prosecution is using the evidence for a legally proper purpose.
After an arrest, Michigan’s implied consent law becomes central. MCL 257.625c provides that a person who operates a vehicle on a public highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles is considered to have given consent to chemical testing of blood, breath, or urine for alcohol, controlled substances, other intoxicating substances, or combinations of them, if arrested for specified offenses. Those specified offenses include operating while intoxicated under MCL 257.625(1) and operating while visibly impaired under MCL 257.625(3).
In practical terms, a Memorial Day DUI arrest may quickly become a chemical-test case. The result may come from a breath instrument, a blood draw, or in some very limited cases, urine testing. If the driver refuses a requested chemical test, additional implied-consent consequences may follow, and police may seek a warrant for blood. The legal analysis then shifts again. The defense may need to examine the arrest basis, the implied-consent advisement, the warrant, the affidavit, the timing, the testing method, the chain of custody, and the laboratory result.
The consequences are not limited to a night in jail. For a first OWI conviction under MCL 257.625(1), the statute includes misdemeanor penalties that may include community service, jail, and fines, with enhanced penalties for high bodily alcohol content and for prior convictions. A prior conviction within 7 years, or two or more prior convictions regardless of the number of years elapsed, changes the sentencing exposure substantially. MCL 257.625(9). Operating while visibly impaired under MCL 257.625(3) is also a criminal offense with its own penalty structure under MCL 257.625(11).
The most useful advice is also the simplest: plan the ride before the first drink or dose. Use a sober driver, rideshare, taxi, hotel, or stay where you are. Do not assume that coffee, food, sleep, or confidence makes driving legally safe. Do not assume that marijuana is treated casually because it is lawful for adult use in Michigan. Do not assume that a prescription medication cannot support an impaired-driving investigation. Michigan’s impaired-driving law is not limited to alcohol.
For people who are stopped, the practical advice is different. Be polite. Provide license, registration, and insurance when required. Do not argue on the roadside. Do not try to talk your way out of the stop with unnecessary explanations about where you were, what you drank, what medication you took, or how recently you consumed it. The roadside is not a courtroom. It is a place where statements, movements, and test performance may become evidence.
For people who are arrested, the next step is not guesswork. Preserve paperwork. Write down what happened while it is fresh. Save receipts, phone location data, witness names, rideshare records, photographs, and medical information that may matter. Do not assume that the police report is complete. Video often matters. Dispatch records may matter. Calibration, maintenance, and laboratory records may matter. The timing between driving, stop, arrest, and testing may matter. The difference between alcohol impairment, drug impairment, fatigue, illness, injury, anxiety, and poor testing conditions may matter.
Memorial Day is a solemn holiday, and it is also a busy travel weekend. Michigan’s enforcement message will be clear: drive sober or risk arrest. My message is narrower but equally direct. Do not drive impaired. If you are accused of doing so, the case should be reviewed carefully, stage by stage, because a drunk-driving case is rarely just about one number, one test, or one police report. The legal question is whether the evidence was obtained, interpreted, and presented in a way that Michigan law permits.
