OWI investigations after a crash in Michigan

After a crash, Michigan police may arrest a driver for OWI without a warrant and without having seen the driving, if they have reasonable cause to believe that person was the driver and was operating in violation of the drunk-driving law.^[1] Much of the evidence in these cases comes from places a roadside stop does not involve: hospital blood tests, a medical examiner's sample, and search warrants for blood.^[2][5][6] This page covers how those rules work. The offenses themselves are covered in OWI causing serious impairment and OWI causing death.

Arrest without a warrant after an accident

Ordinarily, an officer may arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence, or on reasonable cause for a misdemeanor punishable by more than 92 days.^[7] The OWI statute adds a crash-specific rule. Under MCL 257.625a(1)(a), a peace officer may arrest without a warrant when the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was, at the time of an accident in Michigan, the operator of a vehicle involved in the accident and was operating in violation of section 625.^[1] MCL 764.15(1)(h) repeats that authority.^[1]

A separate rule covers a person found in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked or stopped on a highway or street with any part of it intruding into the roadway.^[8] That situation, and the cases about sleeping drivers, is on the page about sitting in a parked car.

What counts as an "accident"

The statute does not define "accident." In People v Keskimaki (1994) the Michigan Supreme Court declined to adopt a single definition and said courts should consider all the circumstances, including whether there was a collision, whether personal injury or property damage resulted, and whether the event was undesirable for or unexpected by anyone directly involved.^[9] Applying those factors, the Court held that a car found on the shoulder with its headlights on, engine running and the driver slumped over the wheel was not an accident, and it suppressed hospital blood results admitted on that basis.^[9] That was so even though tire tracks in the snow showed the car had left the roadway before stopping.^[9]

Keskimaki decided the meaning of "accident" in the hospital-blood provision.^[9] It also described an earlier Court of Appeals case, People v Spencley (1992), in which the same question decided whether a warrantless arrest was lawful; that case predates the current driver's-seat arrest rule.^[10][8]

Blood drawn at the hospital for treatment

Under MCL 257.625a(6)(e), if after an accident the driver is taken to a medical facility and blood is drawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding, whether or not the person was offered or refused a police chemical test.^[2] The facility or person who did the analysis must disclose the results to a prosecuting attorney who requests them for a criminal prosecution, and is not civilly or criminally liable for doing so.^[3] The Michigan Supreme Court upheld this provision in People v Perlos (1990).^[2]

The exception is limited. As the Supreme Court described it, there must be an accident, the person must have been the driver and taken to a medical facility, and medical staff must order the analysis on their own for treatment; prosecutors "can only gain access to" chemical test results and "cannot obtain all of a person's medical records," nor a blood sample "for their own discretionary testing."^[4] Other evidence, such as a police-requested test or a search warrant, follows its own rules.^[11][12]

Police-requested tests at the hospital

Implied consent applies once a driver is arrested for an OWI-family offense.^[13] It also applies after an arrest for moving violation causing death or serious injury, reckless driving causing serious impairment or death, or manslaughter or murder from operating a vehicle, if the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating in violation of section 625.^[14] A driver arrested for one of those crimes must be advised of the chemical-test rights listed in the statute.^[15]

Before any arrest, the implied consent statute does not apply. In People v Borchard-Ruhland (1999) a trooper asked an injured crash driver at the hospital for a blood sample, she agreed, and she was not advised of chemical-test rights because she was not under arrest; the Supreme Court held the statute's provisions did not apply and that her consent is judged under the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution.^[16]

Only a licensed physician, or a person acting under a physician's delegation who is qualified to draw blood and acting in a medical environment, may draw blood at a peace officer's request.^[17] The details are in blood tests in OWI cases.

Warrants and unconscious drivers

If an arrested person refuses the officer's test, no test may be given without a court order, but the officer may seek one.^[6] The US Supreme Court has held that the body's natural elimination of alcohol is not by itself an emergency that excuses a warrant for a nonconsensual blood draw; it is decided case by case.^[18] The older Schmerber case upheld a warrantless draw where time had been taken to bring the driver to a hospital and investigate the crash scene.^[19] For an unconscious driver who cannot take a breath test, a four-justice plurality in Mitchell v Wisconsin (2019) said the emergency rule "almost always" permits a warrantless blood test, but a plurality opinion is not binding precedent.^[20] The full picture is on search warrants for blood.

When a driver dies

If a driver involved in an accident is deceased, a sample of the driver's blood must be drawn as the medical examiner directs, to determine the amount of alcohol or the presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance.^[5] The medical examiner gives the result to the investigating police agency, which forwards it to the State Police.^[5]

Other evidence gathered at a crash

The chemical-test rules do not limit other admissible evidence on whether a driver was under the influence or over the legal limit.^[21] Officers may question people at the scene; a motorist in a routine investigative stop is ordinarily not in custody for Miranda purposes, but warnings are required once freedom is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.^[22] Body-camera recordings must be kept at least 30 days, and until the end of any ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.^[23]

No Michigan statute in this library's sources deals specifically with crash reconstruction reports, scene photographs or vehicle data. Under the discovery rule, MCR 6.201, on request the prosecutor must provide police reports, the defendant's recorded statements and search-warrant papers, and the court may allow non-destructive testing of physical evidence for good cause.^[24] See discovery, video and test records.

Charges that can follow an injury or fatal crash

Offense	Maximum under the statute
OWI causing death, MCL 257.625(4)	Felony: up to 15 years and/or a $2,500–$10,000 fine; up to 20 years at 0.17 or more within 7 years of a prior conviction, or where the driver violated the emergency-vehicle law and killed a police officer, firefighter or other emergency worker.[25][26][27]
OWI causing serious impairment of a body function, MCL 257.625(5)	Felony: up to 5 years and/or $1,000–$5,000; up to 10 years at 0.17 or more within 7 years of a prior conviction.[28]
Leaving the scene of an injury crash, MCL 257.617a	Misdemeanor: up to 1 year and/or $1,000, plus license suspension.[29]
Leaving the scene of serious impairment or death, MCL 257.617	Felony: up to 5 years and/or $5,000; up to 15 years and/or $10,000 if the driver caused a crash that killed someone.[30]

For OWI causing death, the Supreme Court held in People v Schaefer that the prosecution must prove the defendant's operation of the vehicle caused the death, not that the intoxication affected the driving.^[31] Proximate cause still applies, and in Feezel the victim's own intoxication was a factor for the jury on that question, though not a defense.^[32] "Serious impairment of a body function" is defined by statute to include injuries such as loss of use of a limb, a skull or other serious bone fracture, and a coma lasting more than 3 days.^[33]

People hurt by an impaired driver have rights in the criminal case and may have civil claims. Those are covered in rights of people injured by impaired drivers.