Defending DUI Charges in Farmington Hills: Understanding the "Drinking After Driving" Defense

​If you are facing a DUI charge in the 47th District Court in Farmington Hills, presided over by Judge Marla Parker and Judge James Brady, one possible defense strategy may involve the "drinking after driving" argument. This defense arises when a driver is found outside the vehicle by law enforcement—whether at home following an accident, at a parking lot, or after their vehicle becomes disabled. When subsequently tested, the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is above the legal limit, but they claim the alcohol was consumed after driving, not before or during.

Key Factors in the "Drinking After Driving" Defense

For this defense to be viable in Farmington Hills’ 47th District Court, several key factors must be established:

Time Delay Between Driving and Police Contact – There must be a clear gap between the time of driving and the time law enforcement arrives to administer BAC testing.

Readily Available Alcohol – The driver must have had access to a sufficient amount of alcohol post-driving to explain the BAC reading.

Understanding Alcohol Absorption – BAC levels continue to rise after alcohol is consumed until full absorption occurs, which can take anywhere from 14 to 138 minutes (KM Dubowski, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1985).

The Science Behind BAC Absorption and Elimination

For this defense to succeed, it is crucial to apply scientific principles to the facts of the case. Generally:

A person’s BAC rises as alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream.

A single unit of alcohol raises BAC by .02 to .025 (Jones & Holmgren, Forensic Sci Int’l, 2009).

Beer, wine, and spirits vary in alcohol content, meaning a standard drink differs from craft beers or mixed drinks, which often have a much higher alcohol content.

For example, a 12 oz. craft beer at 7% ABV is approximately 1.5 units of alcohol rather than one standard drink. If a driver consumed multiple high-alcohol craft beers or mixed drinks, their post-driving BAC could be significantly higher than expected.

Michigan Case Law and the "Drinking After Driving" Defense

A recent Michigan appellate case, People v. Smith, addressed the "drinking after driving" defense. In that case, the defendant argued that alcohol detected in their breath test was not present when they were driving but rather consumed afterward. However, the court ruled against the defendant, citing insufficient evidence to overcome the legal presumption that BAC at the time of testing reflected BAC at the time of driving.

The court noted that if the driver had consumed only three standard beers post-driving, it would not have been enough to account for the high BAC results recorded in the breath test. This case highlights the importance of accurately calculating the amount and type of alcohol consumed, as well as the timing of consumption relative to when the police arrived.

Presenting the "Drinking After Driving" Defense in the 47th District Court

To successfully present this defense before Judge Marla Parker or Judge James Brady at the 47th District Court, it is essential to:

Gather strong factual evidence, such as witness testimony or receipts proving post-driving alcohol consumption.

Understand and explain alcohol metabolism, including how BAC absorption and elimination rates support the argument.

Challenge the prosecution’s timeline, demonstrating that alcohol consumed after driving was the primary contributor to BAC at the time of testing.

Conclusion

The "drinking after driving" defense is complex but can be effective when backed by scientific analysis and credible evidence. If you are facing a DUI charge in Farmington Hills, consulting an experienced attorney who understands Judge Parker and Judge Brady’s approach to DUI cases is critical. A well-prepared defense could mean the difference between a conviction and a favorable outcome in the 47th District Court.