{"id":8,"date":"2018-06-05T13:52:17","date_gmt":"2018-06-05T18:52:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kevinalandau.com\/?page_id=7"},"modified":"2018-06-05T13:52:17","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T18:52:17","slug":"2007-06-04-plaintiff-appellees-brief-on-appeal","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/?page_id=8","title":{"rendered":"2007-06-04 PLAINTIFF \u2013 APPELLEE\u2019S BRIEF ON APPEAL 040870514"},"content":{"rendered":"

STATE OF MICHIGAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND<\/strong><\/p>\n

PEOPLE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD,<\/p>\n

Plaintiff-Appellee,
\nCASE NO: 07-DA8602-AR
\nvs \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hon: Rae Lee Chabot<\/p>\n

KEVIN AARON LANDAU,<\/p>\n

Defendant-Appellant,<\/p>\n

__________________________________\/
\nSherman & Sherman, P.C.
\nBY: NICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI, ESQ. (P63188)
\nTownship Prosecuting Attorney
\n30700 Telegraph Road, Suite 3420
\nBingham Farms, MI 48025-4590
\n(248) 540-3366 TELEPHONE
\n(248) 540-5959 FAX<\/p>\n

ARTHUR H. LANDAU, ESQ. (P16381)
\nAttorney for Defendant
\n29777 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2500
\nSouthfield, MI 48035
\n(248) 948-0893 TELEPHONE
\n____________________________________\/<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PLAINTIFF \u2013 APPELLEE\u2019S BRIEF ON APPEAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

TABLE OF CONTENTS <\/strong><\/p>\n

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026 iii<\/p>\n

Cases\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026. iii<\/p>\n

Other Authorities\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. iii<\/p>\n

STATEMENT OF BASSIS OF JURISDICTION<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 1<\/p>\n

STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 2<\/p>\n

STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\u2026 3<\/p>\n

STANDARD OF REVIEW<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 4<\/p>\n

ARGUMENT<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 5<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Trial Court did not commit reversible error in denying the Defendant\u2019s Motion for an evidentiary hearing<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 5<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    RELIEF<\/strong>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 7<\/p>\n

    ii<\/p>\n

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

    People<\/em> v. Krulikowski,
    \n60 Mich. App. 28, 230 N.W.2d 290 (1975)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 5<\/p>\n

    People<\/em> v. Hackett<\/em>,
    \n421 Mich. 388, 365 N. W. 2d 120 (1984)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 6<\/p>\n

    People<\/strong> v. Williams<\/em>,
    \n191 Mich. App. 269, 477 N.W.2d 877 (1991)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 6<\/p>\n

    Other Authorities<\/strong><\/p>\n

    MCR, 7.210(A)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 5<\/p>\n

    MCR, 6.201\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.5<\/p>\n

    Administrative Order 1999-3\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026…. 5<\/p>\n

    iii<\/p>\n

    STATEMENT OF BASIS OF JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Plaintiff-Appellee accepts the Statement of Basis of Jurisdiction contained in Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Brief as complete and correct.<\/p>\n

    1<\/p>\n

    STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Plaintiff-Appellee accepts the Statement of Questions Involved contained in Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Brief as complete and correct.<\/p>\n

    2<\/p>\n

    STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

    On or about January 12, 2007. Defendant-Appellant filed a Motion to Challenge Chemical Tests and Memorandum of Law with the District Court, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. On January 15, 2007, the Plaintiff-Appellee filed its response to the Motion, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. On February 12, 2007 the District Court Judge denied the Defendant-Appellant\u2019s motion and set the matter for trail. The Defendant-Appellant then filed this interlocutory appeal.<\/p>\n

    3<\/p>\n

    STANDARD OF REVIEW<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Appellee\/Defendant accepts the Statement of Facts contained in Appellant\/Plaintiff\u2019s Brief as complete and correct.<\/p>\n

    4<\/p>\n

    ARGUMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT\u2019S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Review here is limited to the record developed by the trial court. MCR 7.210(A). Therefore, the sole issue to be decided is whether or not the Defendant-Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing based only on his Motion and the response and the brief record created at the District Court.<\/p>\n

      The Defendant-Appellant\u2019s original Motion, attached as Exhibit 1, although entitle \u201cMotion to Challenge Chemical Tests\u201d actually requests information from the People pursuant to MCR 6.201. However, MCR 6.201 is a discovery rule that the Michigan Supreme Court has clearly stated in Administrative Order 1999-3, that MCR 6.201 does not apply to Misdemeanor cases and there is no mandatory disclosure required of the prosecution and is inapplicable to a Motion to Challenge Chemical Tests.<\/p>\n

      None the less, the Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Motion then has some paragraphs citing the criteria for laying a foundation for the admission of an Evidential Breath test, as set forth in the Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Memorandum of Law, citing People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich. App. 28 (1975). The Motion then requests from the court a hearing and determination of certain facts. On its face, the Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Motion is nothing more than a demand of the People to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the Evidential Breath test prior to trial. The Motion alleges no error of law but rather demands findings of fact by the trial judge not by the jury. The proper time and place to argue whether or not a proper foundation is made for the admission of evidence is at the time of trial. Plaintiff-Appellee can find no authority what so ever that establishes a requirement to lay a proper foundation for admission of evidence prior to trial. Moreover, all of the Michigan authority discussing admission of evidence are reviewing the case on appeal after the trial, not before, and reviewing whether or not the trail court correctly decided to admit evidence or not.<\/p>\n

      The Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Motion fails to set forth any errors or questions of law and fails to set forth any claim of error at all. As the Supreme Court stated in People v. Hackett, 421 Mich. 338, (1984) evidentiary hearings should not be utilized as a fishing expedition. See also, People v. Williams 191 Mich.App. 269, (1991). The effect of Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Motion is a request for such a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d upon the court. Furthermore, already overly busy courts and prosecutors would be forced, in essence, to have two trials on the same case if this Honorable Court were grant the Defendant-Appellant\u2019s requested relief. This is an unnecessary and unreasonable burden upon the criminal justice system.<\/p>\n

      The Defendant-Appellant\u2019s Motion does not set forth any questions of law or even any disputable questions of fact. Although, the Defendant-Appellant argues questions of fact in his Brief on Appeal, this Honorable Courts review is limited to the record created at the District Court. The Defendant-Appellant has included additional claims and arguments in this appeal that were not presented or argued at the lower court. Defendant-Appellant\u2019s additional arguments beyond his original Motion are without merit and cannot be considered because they were not part of the original record. Furthermore, had the Defendant-Appellant raised a question of fact in this original Motion, it is clearly established that questions of fact are to be decided by the trier of fact, in this case the jury, not the court before hand.<\/p>\n

      5<\/p>\n

      RELIEF REQUESTED<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Plaintiff-Appellee respectfully requests that this Honorable Court affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the matter for trial.<\/p>\n

      Respectfully submitted,<\/p>\n

      SHERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C.<\/p>\n

      ________________________________
      \nNiccolas J. Grochowski (P63188)
      \nAttorneys for Appellee\/Plaintiff
      \n30700 Telegraph Rd., Suite 3420
      \nBingham Farms, MI 48025-4590
      \n(248) 540-3366 Telephone
      \n(248) 540-5959 Fax
      \nDated: June 4, 2007<\/p>\n

      7<\/p>\n

      STATE OF MICHIGAN
      \nIN THE 48TH<\/sup> DISTRICT COURT
      \nFOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND<\/p>\n

      PEOPLE OF THE CITY WEST BLOOMFIELD
      \nPlaintiff,<\/p>\n

      Case No. 06-WB83588
      \nHon. Diane Dickow D\u2019Agostini<\/p>\n

      V<\/p>\n

      KEVIN AARON LANDAU
      \nDefendant.<\/p>\n

      ___________________________________\/
      \nNICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI
      \nAttorney for Plaintiff
      \n30700 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 3420
      \nBingham Farms, MI 48025
      \n248.540.3366<\/p>\n

      __________________<\/p>\n

      ARTHUR H. LANDAU (P16381)
      \nAttorney for Defendant
      \n29777 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2500
      \nSouthfield, MI 48034
      \n248.948.0893
      \n____________________________________\/<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      MOTION TO CHALLENGE CHEMICAL TESTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      NOW COMES defendant, KEVIN A. LANDAU, through his attorney, ARTHUR H. LANDAU, and states in support of this motion:<\/p>\n

      MCR 6.201, requests the following information from the People:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The prosecution has the duty to establish a proper foundation for admission of Datamaster test results in a drunk driving case.<\/li>\n
      2. The prosecution has a duty to provide Defendant with any exculpatory evidence.<\/li>\n
      3. The arresting officer has a duty to provide Defendant with his chemical test rights.<\/li>\n
      4. The legal authority for the above-mentioned statements is set forth in the attached memorandum of law.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Defendant requests the court to<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Order a hearing at which Defendant may challenge any chemical tests performed on him at the time of his drunk driving arrest. Defendant requests that the hearing be scheduled before trail on the following issues:<\/li>\n
        2. Whether the person performing the test was qualified to do so.<\/li>\n
        3. Whether the proper methods and procedures as promulgated by the Michigan State Police were followed in administering the test<\/li>\n
        4. The reliability of the testing device.<\/li>\n
        5. Order the testifying police officers to produce appropriate police Datamaster logs and Datamaster training manuals to substantiate their anticipated claim that the tests were performed properly and according to regulations.<\/li>\n
        6. Request the presence of the arresting officer(s) to determine if all statutory chemical test rights were afforded Defendant at the time of arrest.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Dated: January 8, 2007<\/p>\n

          ________________________
          \nArthur H. Landau (P16381)
          \n29777 Telegraph Rd. Suite 2500
          \nSouthfield, MI 48034
          \n248.948.0893<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          STATE OF MICHIGAN
          \nIN THE 48TH<\/sup> DISTRICT COURT
          \nFOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND<\/p>\n

          PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WEST BLOOMFIELD
          \nPlaintiff,<\/p>\n

          Case No. 06-WB83588
          \nHon. Diane Dickow D\u2019Agostini<\/p>\n

          v<\/p>\n

          KEVIN AARON LANDAU
          \nDefendant<\/p>\n

          __________________________________\/
          \nNICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI
          \nAttorney for Plaintiff
          \n30700 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 3420
          \nBingham Farms, MI 48025
          \n248.540.3366
          \n____________________<\/p>\n

          ARTHUR H. LANDAU (P16381)
          \nAttorney for Defendant
          \n29777 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2500
          \nSouthfield, MI 48034
          \n248.948.0893
          \n__________________________________\/<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

          People<\/em> v, Krulikowski<\/em>, 60 Mich App 28, 230 NW2d 290 (1975), establishes the prosecutor\u2019s duty to establish a proper foundation for admitting Breathalyzer test results in a drunk driving case. It held that the prosecutor must establish the qualifications of the Breathalyzer operator, the method or procedure followed in administering the test, and the reliability of the testing device. Although there are not yet any reported cases establishing the proper foundation for admitting Datamaster test results, the analysis should be the same.<\/p>\n

          Should the testimony at the requested hearing establish that these requirements were not followed, the drunk driving charge should be dismissed. To the accused, the chemical test is as much an instrument of exculpation as it is inculpation. If the police fail to administer the chemical test properly, a tremendous hardship results for Defendant. Because alcohol in the blood dissipates quickly, the accused is left with no way of gathering favorable evidence later if police negligence has prevented the administration of a proper chemical test. See Brady v State of Maryland<\/em>, 373 US 83 (1963).<\/p>\n

          Should the testimony further establish that the arresting officer(s) failed to provide Defendant his chemical test rights, MCI.A 257.625a, MSA 9.2325(1), dismissal of all drunk driving charges is likewise required. People v Castle, 108 Mich App 353, 310 NW2d 379 (198); People ex rel Scodeller v Clem<\/em>, 47 Mich App 517, 209 NW2d 689 (1973); People v Burton<\/em>, 13 Mich App 203, 163 NW2d 823 (1968); see also People v Koval<\/em>, 371 Mich 453, 124 NW2d 274 (1963).<\/p>\n

          Dated: January 11, 2007<\/p>\n

          ________________________________
          \nArthur H. Landau (P16381)
          \n29777 Telegraph Rd. Suite 2500
          \nSouthfield, MI 48034
          \n248.948.0893<\/p>\n

          STATE \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 OF \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 MICHIGAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 48TH<\/sup> JUDICIAL DISTRICT<\/strong><\/p>\n

          PEOPLE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD,<\/p>\n

          Plaintiff,
          \nCASE NO: 06WB83588
          \n-vs- \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hon: Diane D\u2019Agostini<\/p>\n

          KEVIN AARON LANDAU,<\/p>\n

          Defendant.<\/p>\n

          __________________________________________\/
          \nSherman & Sherman, P.C.
          \nBY: NICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI, ESQ. (P63188)
          \nTownship Prosecuting Attorney
          \n30700 Telegraph Road, Suite 3420
          \nBingham Farms, MI 48025-4590
          \n(248) 540-3366 TELEPHONE
          \n(248) 540-5959 FAX<\/p>\n

          ARTHUR H. LANDAU, ESQ. (P16381)
          \nAttorney for Defendant
          \n29777 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2500
          \nSouthfield, MI 48035
          \n(248) 948-0893 TELEPHONE<\/p>\n

          ___________________________________________\/<\/p>\n

          PEOPLE\u2019S RESPONSE TO
          \nDEFENDANT\u2019S MOTION TO CHALLENGE CHEMICAL TESTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

          NOW COMES Plaintiffs, the Township of West Bloomfield, by and through its Attorneys, SHERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C., by Niccolas J. Grochowski, Esq., (P63188) and in response to the Defendant\u2019s Motion, states as follows:<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Defendant\u2019s Motion alleges various factual issues with regard to the administration of the Defendant\u2019s DataMaster test.<\/li>\n
          2. Defendant\u2019s Motion is a demand that the People establish a foundation for the admissibility of the DataMaster results before the actual trial is conducted in this case.<\/li>\n
          3. The People have no obligation to prove any elements of a crime prior to the trial. The effect would amount to having two trials, which is unnecessary and an unreasonable burden upon the People and this Honorable Court.<\/li>\n
          4. There is no right to have evidentiary hearing to determine if the People will be able to lay a foundation for the admission of evidence prior to the trail. The presiding Judge can only determine this at the actual trial by reviewing whether or not the people have laid the proper foundation through testimony.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

             <\/p>\n

            WHEREFORE, <\/strong>the Prosecution respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant\u2019s Motion and set the matter for trial.<\/p>\n


            \n<\/strong>Respectfully submitted,<\/p>\n

            SHERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C.<\/p>\n

            BY: ____________________________________
            \nNiccolas J. Grochowski (P63188)
            \nTownship Prosecuting Attorney
            \n30700\u00a0 Telegraph Road, Suite 3420
            \nBingham Farms, MI 48025-4590
            \n(248) 540-3366 Telephone<\/p>\n

            Dated: January 15, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND PEOPLE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, CASE NO: 07-DA8602-AR vs \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hon: Rae Lee Chabot KEVIN AARON LANDAU, Defendant-Appellant, __________________________________\/ Sherman & Sherman, P.C. BY: NICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI, ESQ. (P63188) Township Prosecuting Attorney 30700 Telegraph Road, Suite 3420 Bingham Farms, … Continue reading “2007-06-04 PLAINTIFF \u2013 APPELLEE\u2019S BRIEF ON APPEAL 040870514”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":6,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kevinalandau.lol\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}