FRAIBERG & PERNIE
If you were arrested for DUI, OWI, OWVI, High BAC, drugged driving, repeat OWI, or an alleged chemical-test refusal in Birmingham, Michigan, a misdemeanor case will generally be handled in the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, Oakland County.
The first question is usually:
What should I do right now?
Start with the immediate issues:
An OWI arrest is not a conviction.
For many Birmingham clients, an OWI creates two problems at the same time:
The criminal case involving the prosecution’s allegations.
And the practical consequences involving a driver’s license, career, professional credentials, business travel, reputation and family.
Both should be considered when developing the defense strategy.
Matthew Fraiberg is a Birmingham, Michigan criminal defense attorney and managing partner of Fraiberg & Pernie. He has practiced Michigan law since 1997 and previously served as a city prosecutor and judicial clerk.
Fraiberg & Pernie’s Birmingham office represents individuals charged with DUI and OWI in the 48th District Court and throughout Oakland County, Michigan.
Call (248) 986-2682 to request a confidential consultation.
Last reviewed and updated: August 2026
| Law Firm | Fraiberg & Pernie |
| Attorney | Matthew Fraiberg |
| Office | Birmingham, Michigan |
| Primary Court | 48th District Court |
| Court Location | Bloomfield Hills, Michigan |
| County | Oakland County |
| Common Charges | OWI, OWVI, High BAC, drugged driving, repeat OWI and chemical-test refusal |
| Defense Focus | Evidence, driver’s license, bond, professional consequences, motions, negotiation and trial |
| Attorney Experience | Practicing Michigan law since 1997 |
| Professional Background | Former prosecutor and former judicial clerk |
| Phone | (248) 986-2682 |
Matthew Fraiberg is a Michigan DUI lawyer, criminal defense attorney and managing partner of Fraiberg & Pernie in Birmingham, Michigan.
He has practiced Michigan law since 1997 and has more than 28 years of legal experience.
His professional background includes:
Fraiberg’s approach begins with a basic question:
What does the evidence actually prove?
That means looking beyond the arrest and police report.
A DUI defense may require examination of:
The objective is to determine whether the prosecution can prove every required element of the charge.
Birmingham is home to business owners, executives, physicians, attorneys, financial professionals, entrepreneurs, sales professionals and other people whose careers may depend heavily on their ability to drive, travel and maintain professional credentials.
For those clients, the important questions after an OWI arrest may include:
Can I continue driving to work?
Do I have to tell my employer?
Can I travel out of Michigan for business?
Can I enter Canada?
Could this affect my professional license?
Could this affect a commercial driver’s license?
Will the case appear on a background check?
Can the charge be reduced or dismissed?
These are not necessarily secondary issues.
For some clients, they are central to deciding how the criminal case should be handled.
A proposed resolution may appear favorable in court but create an unacceptable employment, licensing or travel consequence.
Collateral consequences should therefore be considered before—not after—an important plea decision.
A misdemeanor OWI allegedly committed in Birmingham is generally handled by the 48th District Court.
The court is located at:
4280 Telegraph Road
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302
The 48th District Court serves seven Oakland County communities:
A misdemeanor OWI generally remains in district court.
A felony OWI prosecution may begin in the 48th District Court before potentially proceeding to Oakland County Circuit Court.
The location of the alleged offense generally determines the district court—not where the defendant lives.
Michigan OWI law applies statewide.
But every OWI prosecution is handled by a particular:
Understanding the 48th District Court can help an attorney anticipate procedures, identify immediate issues and prepare the client for what happens next.
Local familiarity cannot guarantee a particular result.
It can improve preparation.
People understandably focus on the OWI allegation.
They want to know:
Those are important questions.
But while the defense investigates the criminal charge, a defendant may also be subject to bond conditions involving:
A person can have legitimate defenses to an OWI charge and still create a separate problem by violating bond.
The strategy therefore has two immediate components:
Challenge the criminal case.
Comply with the court order while that challenge is happening.
Do not assume an arrest automatically suspends your license.
Likewise, do not assume you may legally drive merely because you still possess the physical license.
Your status may depend on:
Confirm your status before driving.
If testing is required, determine:
Do not rely on what happened in someone else’s case.
Save:
Write down your recollection while events are fresh.
Do not post details of the arrest on social media.
Do not delete potentially relevant messages, photographs or location information.
Do not contact someone if a court order prohibits contact.
Business travel can become an immediate concern for executives, sales professionals, business owners and other professionals.
A person may need to:
A legitimate business reason does not automatically override a court order.
Before traveling, determine:
Employment can explain why permission is requested. It does not itself modify the bond order.
Document the problem immediately.
Preserve:
Do not wait several days and attempt to reconstruct the problem from memory.
Create a contemporaneous record.
An OWI investigation frequently begins with a traffic stop.
Police may allege:
The defense should determine why the vehicle was stopped and whether objective evidence supports that justification.
A traffic violation may provide grounds for a stop.
It does not automatically establish intoxication.
A lawful traffic stop does not automatically justify an OWI arrest.
Police may rely on:
The officer’s conclusions should be compared with the available objective evidence.
Police reports matter.
But a police report is a written description of an event.
Video may provide another perspective.
Body-camera and dash-camera recordings may show:
Sometimes video supports the police report.
Sometimes it adds context.
Sometimes there are meaningful differences.
Watch the video. Compare it with the report.
Field sobriety exercises are generally performed outside—not in a controlled laboratory.
Conditions can matter.
Potential considerations include:
The important question is not merely whether the police report says someone “failed.”
The defense should examine what actually happened.
A breath-test result can be important evidence.
But the number should not automatically end the investigation.
Depending on the circumstances, review may include:
The result matters. How the result was produced matters too.
Blood evidence raises different scientific and legal issues.
Depending on the case, review may include:
A laboratory report is evidence.
It does not automatically answer every legal or scientific question.
Michigan’s High BAC provisions apply to certain first-offense cases involving an alleged alcohol content of 0.17 or higher.
High BAC is sometimes called:
A qualifying High BAC conviction carries enhanced consequences compared with an ordinary first OWI.
Those can include increased potential jail, driver’s-license consequences, mandatory alcohol treatment and ignition-interlock requirements associated with restricted driving privileges.
A high BAC number can make a case more serious.
It does not make evidence review less important.
First determine which breath test is involved.
A roadside preliminary breath test, or PBT, is different from the evidentiary chemical testing involved in Michigan’s implied-consent procedures.
That distinction matters.
An alleged implied-consent refusal can create driver’s-license consequences separate from the criminal prosecution.
Review may include:
Do not assume every allegation that someone “refused a breath test” has the same legal consequence.
Not necessarily.
Jail is legally possible.
It is not automatic simply because someone was arrested.
Factors may include:
No attorney should promise a particular sentence without evaluating the individual case.
Potentially. There is no automatic reduction.
Factors may include:
For professionals, another question should be asked before accepting a reduction:
What are the consequences of the reduced charge?
The label alone does not answer that question.
Potentially, when the evidence and law support dismissal.
Possible issues may include:
No attorney can ethically guarantee dismissal.
The evidence should determine the strategy.
This issue is especially important for professionals.
Suppose a proposed resolution reduces criminal exposure.
That may appear favorable.
But what if it creates:
For a particular client, one of those issues may matter more than another aspect of the sentence.
That is why an important early question is:
What are you most concerned about losing?
The answer can help define the defense strategy.
Potentially.
Physicians, nurses, attorneys, pilots, pharmacists, financial professionals, commercial drivers and other licensed or regulated professionals may have reporting or disciplinary obligations outside the criminal court.
Those consequences depend on the profession and circumstances.
The criminal court does not control every licensing agency.
Professional consequences should therefore be evaluated before an important plea decision whenever possible.
Potentially.
The answer may depend on:
An attorney evaluating the criminal case should understand which collateral consequences matter most to the client.
Avoid:
Eric L. Pernie is a Michigan criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Fraiberg & Pernie and former Bloomfield Township police officer.
His law-enforcement background provides another perspective when evaluating:
Matthew Fraiberg brings former prosecutorial experience.
Eric Pernie brings former law-enforcement experience.
The purpose is not to assume police conduct was improper.
It is to understand how the investigation was conducted and determine whether the evidence supports the charge.
People searching for a Birmingham DUI attorney should be able to verify an attorney’s professional background beyond the attorney’s own website.
Matthew Fraiberg’s professional information appears through independent attorney organizations and directories, including:
These independent sources can help prospective clients verify professional history, memberships and other attorney information.
A misdemeanor DUI or OWI arising in Birmingham is generally handled by the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, Oakland County.
The 48th District Court is located at 4280 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302.
Yes. People commonly use “DUI,” but Michigan law primarily uses the term Operating While Intoxicated, or OWI.
For most drivers age 21 or older, Michigan’s per se BAC threshold is 0.08.
Michigan’s High BAC provisions apply to certain first offenses involving an alleged BAC of 0.17 or higher.
No. A 0.17-or-higher BAC does not by itself automatically make a qualifying first High BAC offense a felony.
No. The traffic stop, arrest, video and chemical-testing evidence should still be evaluated.
Yes. Video can confirm the police report, add context or reveal differences between the written description and recorded events.
Potentially. Testing procedures, instrument records, maintenance, observation requirements and other evidence may be relevant.
Potentially. Issues may involve the warrant, collection, storage, chain of custody, laboratory procedures and admissibility.
Failure to provide Miranda warnings does not automatically dismiss an OWI. Miranda generally concerns custodial interrogation and the admissibility of certain statements.
Potentially. The answer depends on the evidence, circumstances and negotiations.
Potentially, when significant legal or evidentiary issues undermine the prosecution’s case.
Jail is legally possible but is not automatic.
Driver’s-license consequences depend on the charge, prior history, chemical testing and eventual disposition.
An alleged implied-consent refusal can create a separate driver’s-license matter that should be reviewed promptly.
Not if the bond order prohibits alcohol.
Possibly. The written bond order controls. Obtain court approval before traveling when approval is required.
Canadian entry is governed by Canadian law and can raise issues separate from the Michigan criminal case. Obtain advice specific to the circumstances before making international travel plans.
Document the problem immediately and preserve screenshots, error messages, photographs, communications and proof of attempted testing.
Possibly. Employer policies, background checks and reporting requirements vary.
Potentially. Licensing and regulatory consequences should be evaluated separately from the criminal sentence.
Statements can become evidence. Consider obtaining legal advice before discussing the facts of the case further.
Early representation can help preserve evidence, identify driver’s-license deadlines, address bond issues and begin evaluating the prosecution’s evidence.
Fraiberg & Pernie concentrates its practice on criminal defense and DUI/OWI matters.
The firm’s Birmingham DUI defense approach emphasizes:
Do not assume the arrest proves the case.
Examine the underlying evidence.
Matthew Fraiberg’s prosecutorial background provides experience evaluating criminal cases from both sides of the courtroom.
Eric Pernie’s prior law-enforcement experience provides additional perspective when evaluating police procedures and OWI investigations.
Fraiberg & Pernie maintains its office in Birmingham and handles criminal and OWI matters throughout Oakland County.
For executives and licensed professionals, the criminal charge may be only one part of the problem.
Criminal and driver’s-license consequences should be considered together.
Negotiations are stronger when the defense is prepared to challenge legitimate legal and evidentiary issues when necessary.
Charge → Operating While Intoxicated — First Offense
Court → 48th District Court
Location → Birmingham, Michigan
County → Oakland County, Michigan
Major Evidence Issue → The arresting officer reported that the client’s lane position and performance on field sobriety exercises demonstrated impairment. Dash-camera footage, however, provided additional context concerning the driving and roadside investigation.
Defense Issue → The defense examined whether the initial observations justified the stop, whether the field sobriety exercises were administered and interpreted properly, and whether the video supported the officer’s conclusions concerning impairment. Road conditions, footwear, instructions, timing, and the client’s actual performance were evaluated against the written police report.
Outcome → OWI charge reduced to a non-OWI offense.
Attorney → Matthew Fraiberg
The police report characterized the client’s driving and roadside performance as evidence of intoxication. The defense did not evaluate those conclusions in isolation.
Dash-camera and body-camera footage allowed the defense to compare the officer’s written description with what could actually be observed during the encounter.
Particular attention was given to the field sobriety exercises, including the instructions provided, environmental conditions, the client’s responses, and whether the alleged mistakes reliably demonstrated impairment.
Result: The OWI charge was reduced to a non-OWI offense, allowing the client to avoid an OWI conviction.
Charge → Retail Fraud
Court → 48th District Court
Location → Birmingham, Michigan
County → Oakland County, Michigan
Major Evidence Issue → The allegation arose from merchandise leaving a business without being properly included in the final transaction. Store surveillance captured portions of the incident, but the client’s conduct before and during checkout raised questions concerning intent.
Defense Issue → The defense focused on whether the prosecution could prove an intentional theft rather than mistake, distraction, or misunderstanding. Transaction records, receipts, surveillance footage, payment activity, employee observations, and the client’s conduct were reviewed together.
Outcome → Retail Fraud charge dismissed following a negotiated resolution.
Attorney → Eric L. Pernie
An unpaid item does not by itself answer the most important question in many retail-fraud prosecutions: Was there an intent to steal?
The defense reconstructed the transaction rather than relying solely on the loss-prevention report. Surveillance footage and transaction records provided context for the client’s actions and created a basis to challenge the allegation of criminal intent.
Result: The Retail Fraud charge was dismissed following a favorable negotiated resolution, avoiding a retail-fraud conviction.
Charge → Malicious Destruction of Property
Court → 48th District Court
Location → Birmingham, Michigan
County → Oakland County, Michigan
Major Evidence Issue → Property was damaged following a dispute, but there was no video showing the client intentionally causing the damage. The prosecution’s case depended substantially on circumstantial evidence and statements from individuals involved in the disagreement.
Defense Issue → The defense challenged identification, causation, and—most importantly—whether the evidence established that any damage was caused intentionally or maliciously rather than accidentally. Witness credibility and the sequence of events surrounding the property damage were also examined.
Outcome → Malicious Destruction of Property charge dismissed.
Attorney → Matthew Fraiberg
The existence of damaged property did not establish who caused the damage or whether it was intentional.
The defense separated those issues and examined the evidence supporting each required element of the offense.
Witness accounts were compared with photographs, communications between the parties, the timing of the alleged damage, and other available evidence. The investigation exposed weaknesses in the prosecution’s ability to establish both identity and criminal intent.
Result: The Malicious Destruction of Property charge was dismissed, avoiding a criminal property-damage conviction.
Charge → Disorderly Conduct
Court → 48th District Court
Location → Birmingham, Michigan
County → Oakland County, Michigan
Major Evidence Issue → The charge resulted from a late-night encounter after police responded to a reported disturbance. Witness descriptions of the client’s behavior differed from portions of the police body-camera recording.
Defense Issue → The defense examined the precise conduct underlying the charge, whether witness accounts were corroborated, what the body-camera footage actually showed, and whether the client’s behavior satisfied the legal requirements of the charged offense.
Outcome → Disorderly Conduct charge lowered to a civil infraction.
Attorney → Eric L. Pernie
The defense focused on the difference between behavior that may be loud, argumentative, or unwanted and conduct that actually satisfies the elements of a criminal offense.
Body-camera footage provided objective evidence of portions of the encounter. That evidence was compared with witness statements and the allegations contained in the police report.
Eric Pernie’s prior law-enforcement experience also provided perspective when analyzing the police response, officer observations, body-camera evidence, and circumstances surrounding the arrest.
Result: The Disorderly Conduct charge was dismissed, allowing the client to avoid a criminal conviction.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every criminal and OWI case is different. Results depend on the particular facts, evidence, applicable Michigan law, court, prosecutor, judge, defense strategy, and individual circumstances of each case.
Matthew Fraiberg
Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney
Managing Partner, Fraiberg & Pernie
Former City Prosecutor
Former Judicial Clerk
Practicing Michigan law since 1997
Birmingham, Michigan
Last reviewed and updated: August 2026
If you were arrested for DUI, OWI, OWVI, High BAC, drugged driving, repeat OWI or an alleged chemical-test refusal in Birmingham, Michigan, do not assume the outcome has already been determined.
A proper defense should ask:
Why was the vehicle stopped?
Was the stop lawful?
Was there probable cause to arrest?
What does the body-camera footage actually show?
Were field sobriety tests properly administered?
Is the breath or blood evidence reliable and admissible?
Were constitutional protections followed?
What driver’s-license consequences apply?
What employment or professional consequences matter?
Can the prosecution prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt?
Fraiberg & Pernie represents clients facing OWI and DUI charges in Birmingham, the 48th District Court, Oakland County and throughout Southeast Michigan.
For a confidential consultation, call Fraiberg & Pernie at (248) 986-2682.
Protect your license. Protect your career. Protect your reputation. Protect your future.
Call Fraiberg & Pernie at (248) 986-2682 to request a confidential consultation with Birmingham DUI attorney Matthew Fraiberg.
Protect the bond. Confirm your driving status. Preserve the evidence. Understand the consequences before making decisions.
This page provides general information about Michigan OWI and criminal proceedings. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its facts, evidence, court, judge, prosecutor and applicable law. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Related Michigan DUI Resources
Ultimate Guide to Michigan DUI Law
Michigan DUI Penalties
Best DUI Lawyers in Michigan
Written by Matthew Fraiberg
Attorney Reviewed August, 2026
Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney
28+ years experience.