Motion for an amended order of probation to Allow defendant to possess and consumer alcohol and frequent bars, and to drive a vehicle after dusk, and to remove the requirement that defendant submit to, and pay for a dna test, NOTICE OF HEARING and proof of service
Now comes the Defendant, in pro per, who moves the court for the entry of an order to amend the terms of his probation to allow: 1) the defendant to possess and consume alcohol and be in bars, 2) drive a vehicle after dusk, and 3) to eliminate a requirement for a DNA test and its attendant cost, and in support of this motion, he states as follows:
- On or about June 16, 2015, Defendant was driving his car on a five-lane state highway when a man with a BAC of 0.19, dressed all in dark clothing crossed the highway at 10:27 p.m., against a blinking red light, and walked into the path of Defendant’s car, thereupon being struck by it.
- Defendant’s blood was drawn that evening, and revealed no alcohol or marijuana in it.
- On or about March 10, 2016, the Defendant was charged with operating a vehicle upon a highway while impaired due to consumption of a controlled substance causing serious injury, a five-year felony. The charge was prompted by a statement the Defendant made to the police in admitting he ingested a sleeping aid about 15 minutes before the accident occurred, even though the defendant also informed the police that the prescribed sleeping aid took 40 to 45 minutes before it began to take effect.
- On or about November 14, 2016, approximately two weeks before the jury trial was scheduled to begin, the prosecuting attorney added a 93-day misdemeanor count against the defendant for violation of an unspecified civil infraction causing serious personal injury.
- At no time was the Defendant ever charged with a civil infraction of any sort.
- Following the jury trial, the jury acquitted the Defendant of the felony charge on December 8, 2016, but convicted him of an unspecified civil infraction causing serious personal injury.
- An appeal has been filed.
- A motion to stay Defendant’s sentence was filed, and denied, and the court entered an order denying a stay of proceedings.
- At sentencing on January 18, 2017, the Defendant was placed on 18 months of probation, although the recommendation was for six months, and ordered not to use medical marijuana, consume and/or possess alcohol, refrain from bars, and to not drive a vehicle after dusk, as terms of his probation.
- An attorney for 34 years, and a licensed private detective for 42 years, Defendant has never been charged or convicted of operating while intoxicated, operating under the influence of drugs, or driving while impaired due to any substance, or any other alcohol-related offense, such as drunk and disorderly, public intoxication, etc.
- The Defendant has a good driving record.
- Defendant enjoys a solid reputation as an aggressive criminal defense attorney, and he holds professional stature, appearing nationally on Court TV during a six-month-long murder trial (People v. Donna Yost), and being the first attorney to deliver oral arguments before the Supreme Court in its then-new Hall of Justice Building in Lansing (Yost).
- Defendant has no history of alcohol and/or substance abuse.
- Defendant is a political activist in the Bay County community for some 45 years standing. The Bay City Times, formerly a daily newspaper, published many articles and editorials about Defendant’s involvement in his community, particularly during his 20’s. (As example, see Exhibit A, attached, an editorial published by The Bay City Times on March 13, 1974 entitled “The Czuprynski Affair.”) During the Defendant’s college years, he twice earned one of two national scholarships (1975 and 1979) granted yearly based strictly on Achievements and Leadership in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In fact, Defendant’s entire adult life has been committed to the struggle of championing that cause. (See Exhibit B, attached, a copy of “A Rarity,” a brochure that summarizes Defendant’s lifetime involvement in his community).
- As a well-recognized and highly regarded public figure, Defendant enjoys strong public support and nurtures his community ties through appearing at public events, often held at bars and other venues serving alcohol. At such times, Plaintiff usually, if not always, picks up new cases when appearing in public, due to his name and reputation, and immediate recognition in his hometown.
- Defendant being forbidden by the court from alcohol possession and consumption, or being in bars, impairs his abilities as a community activist and his livelihood as a lawyer. Moreover, the prohibition of alcohol places the Defendant in harm’s way because the police watch for the Defendant so they can arrest him and/or file a police report to trigger a violation of his probation of the alcohol prohibition. (See Exhibit C, attached police report dated February 28, 2017; and see Exhibit D, attached Affidavit by Keith Roznowski, regarding an incident on February 12, 2017). Hence, the Defendant is placed in harm’s way with certain police officers who have a vendetta against the Defendant and wish to harm him in whatever way possible. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Edward M. Czuprynski, requests this Honorable Court to enter an order and state in its terms of probation that the Defendant is permitted to possess and consume alcohol or frequent bars, and to drive a vehicle after dusk, and remove the requirement that Defendant submit to a DNA test and pay for the related expense when he was never convicted of a felony. All of these conditions of the Defendant’s probation are inappropriate and not authorized by statute. Accordingly, the conditions complained of herein should be removed from the Order of Probation to put it in accordance with the applicable law.
BAY JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Edward M. Czuprynski
Dated: March 15, 2017