Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 257 / Act 300 of 1949
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b (2026)

Arraignment of person arrested for misdemeanor violation; pretrial conference; advising accused of maximum penalty before acceptance of plea; screening, assessment, and rehabilitative services; assessment for medication-assisted treatment; action by secretary of state pending appeal.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE


Act 300 of 1949


257.625b Arraignment of person arrested for misdemeanor violation; pretrial conference; advising accused of maximum penalty before acceptance of plea; screening, assessment, and rehabilitative services; assessment for medication-assisted treatment; action by secretary of state pending appeal.

Sec. 625b.

    (1) A person arrested for a misdemeanor violation of section 625(1), (3), (6), (7), or (8) or section 625m or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), (6), or (8) or section 625m must be arraigned on the citation, complaint, or warrant not more than 14 days after the arrest for the violation or, if an arrest warrant is issued or reissued, not more than 14 days after the issued or reissued arrest warrant is served, whichever is later. The court shall not dismiss a case or impose any other sanction for a failure to comply with this time limit. The time limit does not apply to a violation of section 625(1), (3), (7), or (8) or section 625m punishable as a felony or a violation of section 625(1), (3), (6), (7), or (8) or section 625m joined with a felony charge.

    (2) The court shall schedule a pretrial conference between the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and the defendant's attorney in each case in which the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor violation of section 625(1), (3), (6), (7), or (8) or section 625m or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), (6), or (8) or section 625m. The pretrial conference must be held not more than 35 days after the person's arrest for the violation or, if an arrest warrant is issued or reissued, not more than 35 days after the issued or reissued arrest warrant is served, whichever is later. If the court has only 1 judge who sits in more than 1 location in that district, the pretrial conference must be held not more than 42 days after the person's arrest for the violation or, if an arrest warrant is issued or reissued, not more than 42 days after the date the issued or reissued arrest warrant is served, whichever is later. The court shall not dismiss a case or impose any other sanction for a failure to comply with the applicable time limit. The 35- and 42-day time limits do not apply to a violation of section 625(1), (3), (7), or (8) or section 625m punishable as a felony or a violation of section 625(1), (3), (6), (7), or (8) or section 625m joined with a felony charge. The court shall order the defendant to attend the pretrial conference and may accept a plea by the defendant at the conclusion of the pretrial conference. The court may adjourn the pretrial conference upon the motion of a party for good cause shown. Not more than 1 adjournment shall be granted to a party, and the length of an adjournment must not exceed 14 days.

    (3) Except for delay attributable to the unavailability of the defendant, a witness, or material evidence or due to an interlocutory appeal or exceptional circumstances, but not a delay caused by docket congestion, the court shall finally adjudicate, by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, entry of a verdict, or other final disposition, a case in which the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor violation of section 625(1), (3), (6), (7), or (8) or section 625m or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), (6), or (8) or section 625m, within 77 days after the person is arrested for the violation or, if an arrest warrant is issued or reissued, not more than 77 days after the date the issued or reissued arrest warrant is served, whichever is later. The court shall not dismiss a case or impose any other sanction for a failure to comply with this time limit. The 77-day time limit does not apply to a violation of section 625(1), (3), (7), or (8) or section 625m punishable as a felony or a violation of section 625(1), (3), (6), (7), or (8) or section 625m joined with a felony charge.

    (4) Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere under section 625 or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (2), (3), (6), or (8), the court shall advise the accused of the maximum possible term of imprisonment and the maximum possible fine that may be imposed for the violation and shall advise the defendant that the maximum possible license sanctions that may be imposed will be based upon the master driving record maintained by the secretary of state under section 204a.

    (5) Before imposing sentence for a violation of section 625(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), (6), or (8), the court shall order the person to undergo screening and assessment by a person or agency designated by the office of substance abuse services to determine whether the person is likely to benefit from rehabilitative services, including alcohol or drug education and alcohol or drug treatment programs. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the court may order the person to participate in and successfully complete 1 or more appropriate rehabilitative programs as part of the sentence. If the person was convicted under section 625(1)(c) or has 1 or more prior convictions, the court shall order the person to participate in and successfully complete 1 or more appropriate rehabilitative programs as part of the sentence, including, but not limited to, an alcohol treatment program or a self-help program for a period of not less than 1 year. The treatment plan must be devised from an assessment performed by an appropriately licensed alcohol assessor and approved by the court. If the person has 2 or more prior convictions, the court shall order the person to undergo an assessment that uses a standardized evidence-based instrument performed by a provider or other licensed or certified substance use disorder professional to determine whether he or she has a diagnosis for alcohol dependence and would likely benefit from a United States Food and Drug Administration approved medication-assisted treatment that is indicated for the treatment of alcohol dependence, as specified in the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. A person may request an independent assessment that uses a standardized evidence-based instrument and that is performed by a provider or other licensed or certified substance use disorder professional to determine whether he or she has a diagnosis for alcohol dependence and would likely benefit from a United States Food and Drug Administration approved medication-assisted treatment that is indicated for the treatment of alcohol dependence, as specified in the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. A court shall grant a request for an independent assessment and shall consider the results of the independent assessment along with the assessment required under this subsection when determining if the court will refer the person to a rehabilitative program that offers 1 or more forms of United States Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Only a provider may recommend that a person take medication-assisted treatment. A person always maintains the right to refuse ingestion or injection of medication. Only a provider may determine the type, dosage, and duration of the medication-assisted treatment. If the person refuses to take the medication-assisted treatment, the court shall not hold that person in contempt. As used in this subsection, "provider" means an individual with prescribing authority under the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211, who regularly communicates with the treatment team during the defendant's recovery and who has training or experience that demonstrates the provider's ability to treat and manage patients with alcohol dependency. If no other identified funding source is available, the person shall pay for the costs of the screening, assessment, or assessments, as applicable, and rehabilitative services ordered under this subsection. This subsection does not require the person to successfully complete an ordered rehabilitative program before driving a vehicle with an ignition interlock device on a restricted license. As used in this subsection, "other licensed or certified substance use disorder professional" means an individual or organization licensed or credentialed in this state to treat substance use disorders, including individuals certified by the Michigan certification board for addiction professionals and individuals who have training in providing assessments for alcohol dependency.

    (6) If the judgment and sentence are appealed to circuit court, the court may ex parte order the secretary of state to stay the suspension, revocation, or restricted license issued by the secretary of state pending the outcome of the appeal.

History: Add. 1966, Act 243, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 285, Eff. Apr. 1, 1977 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 515, Eff. Apr. 1, 1981 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 309, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 109, Eff. Mar. 30, 1988 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 93, Eff. Jan. 1, 1992 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 100, Eff. Jan. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 359, Eff. Sept. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 211, Eff. Nov. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 450, Eff. May 1, 1995 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 357, Eff. Oct. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 62, Eff. May 3, 2004 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 462, Eff. Oct. 31, 2010 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 657, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 2 of Act 309 of 1982 provides: “All proceedings pending and all rights and liabilities existing, acquired, or incurred at the time this amendatory act takes effect are saved and may be consummated according to the law in force when they are commenced. This amendatory act shall not be construed to affect any prosecution pending or initiated before the effective date of this amendatory act, or initiated after the effective date of this amendatory act for an offense committed before that effective date.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases, 1969–2015 · leading case: People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “MCL 257.625b(10); MSA 9.2325(2)(10) provides the conditions that must be met before a restricted license may be issued: The court shall not order the secretary of state to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds pursuant to testimony…”
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Before 1991, the offense of impaired driving was found in MCL 257.625b. See People v Pomeroy (On Rehearing), 419 Mich 441, 446 ; 355 NW2d 98 (1984), overruled in part People v Wood, 450 Mich 399, 405 ; 538 NW2d 351 (1995).”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “However, Smith and Yarema actually stand for the exact opposite proposition, because in those cases the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was entitled to a remedy for the government’s failure to follow statutory time limits. That is, in Smith and Yarema, the Court of…”
People v. Pomeroy, 276 N.W.2d 904 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 8× “MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). [1] He was fined $100 and placed on probation.”
People v. Keskimaki, 521 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 4× “The vehicle has a standard transmission; it was in neutral.”
People v. Pomeroy, 355 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 3× “In each case, the defendant was arrested while asleep in his stationary car.”
People v. Wickham, 503 N.W.2d 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The people appeal by leave granted a circuit court order affirming a district court's dismissal, on speedy trial grounds, of a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired, third offense, MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). We reverse. Defendant was arrested on January 18, 1990,…”
People v. Yarema, 527 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “At a November 5, 1993, pretrial conference, defense counsel moved for dismissal for failure to arraign defendant within fourteen days or to hold the pretrial conference within thirty-five days as required by § 625b of the Vehicle Code, MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). That motion…”
People v. Walters, 407 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Following a jury trial in district court, defendant was convicted of driving while his ability was visibly impaired (dwi), MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). Defendant was sentenced on the conviction to probation and fines and costs or to seventy days in the county jail.”
People v. Pipkin, 287 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “Prior to trial, the defendant moved the court to determine whether the jury would be instructed on the lesser included offense of driving while one’s ability is visibly impaired due to the consumption of intoxicating liquor (DWI), MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2), during the first…”
Collins v. Sec'y of State, 187 N.W.2d 423 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 2× “1 MCLA § 257.625b (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2325[2]).”
People v. Leonowicz, 350 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “Over objection of the prosecutor, the district judge permitted defendant to plead guilty to a second charge of operating a vehicle while impaired (DWI), MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2), and subsequently dismissed the charge of DUIL.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(1) — 2 cases
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014). “However, Smith and Yarema actually stand for the exact opposite proposition, because in those cases the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was entitled to a remedy for the government’s failure to follow statutory time limits. That is, in Smith and Yarema, the Court of…”
People v. Craun, 406 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(10) — 1 case
People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 257.625b(10); MSA 9.2325(2)(10) provides the conditions that must be met before a restricted license may be issued: The court shall not order the secretary of state to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds pursuant to testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(2) — 4 cases
People v. Yarema, 527 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “At a November 5, 1993, pretrial conference, defense counsel moved for dismissal for failure to arraign defendant within fourteen days or to hold the pretrial conference within thirty-five days as required by § 625b of the Vehicle Code, MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). That motion…”
People v. Hurn, 518 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
People v. Bidwell, 522 N.W.2d 138 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
People v. Weatherholt, 533 N.W.2d 24 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(3) — 1 case
People v. Smith, 453 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(4) — 1 case
People v. Bennett, 491 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(5) — 2 cases
Broadwell v. Dep't of State, 539 N.W.2d 585 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
People of Michigan v. Lawrence Clifton Douglas (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(5)(b)(iii) — 1 case
People v. Vezina, 550 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(6) — 1 case
People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 257.625b(10); MSA 9.2325(2)(10) provides the conditions that must be met before a restricted license may be issued: The court shall not order the secretary of state to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds pursuant to testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(6)(b)(iii) — 1 case
People v. Vezina, 550 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(7) — 1 case
People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 257.625b(10); MSA 9.2325(2)(10) provides the conditions that must be met before a restricted license may be issued: The court shall not order the secretary of state to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds pursuant to testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(7)(a) — 1 case
People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 257.625b(10); MSA 9.2325(2)(10) provides the conditions that must be met before a restricted license may be issued: The court shall not order the secretary of state to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds pursuant to testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(7)(b) — 1 case
People v. Seeburger, 571 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 257.625b(10); MSA 9.2325(2)(10) provides the conditions that must be met before a restricted license may be issued: The court shall not order the secretary of state to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds pursuant to testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(a) — 1 case
People v. Pipkin, 287 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Prior to trial, the defendant moved the court to determine whether the jury would be instructed on the lesser included offense of driving while one’s ability is visibly impaired due to the consumption of intoxicating liquor (DWI), MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2), during the first…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(b) — 2 cases
People v. Pipkin, 287 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Prior to trial, the defendant moved the court to determine whether the jury would be instructed on the lesser included offense of driving while one’s ability is visibly impaired due to the consumption of intoxicating liquor (DWI), MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2), during the first…”
People v. Lawrence, 219 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625b(l) — 6 cases
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014). “However, Smith and Yarema actually stand for the exact opposite proposition, because in those cases the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was entitled to a remedy for the government’s failure to follow statutory time limits. That is, in Smith and Yarema, the Court of…”
People v. Smith, 504 N.W.2d 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
City of Plymouth v. McIntosh, 804 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
People v. Leonowicz, 350 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Over objection of the prosecutor, the district judge permitted defendant to plead guilty to a second charge of operating a vehicle while impaired (DWI), MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2), and subsequently dismissed the charge of DUIL.”
People v. Smith, 453 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.