STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Honorable Denise Langford-Morris
-vs- No. 2011-DA9388-AR
KEVIN AARON LANDAU,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________/
PEOPLE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
TO MODIFY PRETRIAL RELEASE BOND
NOW COMES Jessica R. Cooper, Prosecuting Attorney in and for the County of Oakland, by Jeffrey M. Kaelin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, answers Defendant’s Motion as follows:
1. In response to the allegations in paragraph one of Defendant’s motion, the People admit that Defendant was arrested for OWI, second offense.
2. In response to the allegations in paragraph two of Defendant’s motion, the People deny the allegations for the reason that they are untrue, as Defendant was undisputedly driving a motor vehicle when stopped by police, and ultimately registered a 0.13 BAC.
3. In response to the allegations in paragraph three of Defendant’s motion, the People admit the allegations in paragraph three.
4. In response to the allegations in paragraph four of Defendant’s motion, the People admit the allegations in paragraph four.
5. In response to the allegations in paragraph five of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but leave Defendant to his proofs.
6. In response to the allegations in paragraph six of Defendant’s motion, the People admit the allegations in paragraph six.
7. In response to the allegations in paragraph seven of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but leave Defendant to his proofs.
8. In response to the allegations in paragraph eight of Defendant’s motion, the People deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, and further note that Defendant’s opinions as to “trends” in district courts is entirely irrelevant to a particular bond decision on a particular case.
9. In response to the allegations in paragraph nice of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but leave Defendant to his proofs.
10. In response to the allegations in paragraph ten of Defendant’s motion, the People deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, for the reason that the bond conditions set for Defendant, charged with violation the OWI laws a second time in three years, were reasonable to protect society against the dangers posed by this criminal activity.
11. In response to the allegations in paragraph eleven of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, as the Court Rules speak for themselves.
12. In response to the allegations in paragraph twelve of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but note that Defendant was afforded a pretrial.
13. In response to the allegations in paragraph thirteen of Defendant’s motion, the People admit the allegations in this paragraph.
14. In response to the allegations in paragraph fourteen of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but note that the Court Rules speak for themselves.
15. In response to the allegations in paragraph fifteen of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but note that the Court Rules speak for themselves.
16. In response to the allegations in paragraph sixteen of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but note that the Court Rules speak for themselves.
17. In response to the allegations in paragraph seventeen of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but note that the Court Rules speak for themselves.
18. In response to the allegations in paragraph eighteen of Defendant’s motion, the People deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, for the reason that Defendant’s behavior, by operating a vehicle while intoxicated on two occasions within three years, demonstrates that Defendant poses a danger to the community, and necessitates pretrial release conditions designed to mitigate this danger.
19. In response to the allegations in paragraph nineteen of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but note that the Court Rules speak for themselves
20. In response to the allegations in paragraph twenty of Defendant’s motion, the People neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, but leave Defendant to his proofs.
21. In response to the allegations in paragraph twenty one of Defendant’s motion, the People deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, for the reason that the nature of Defendant’s crime, coupled with his history, necessitates the pretrial release conditions imposed by the district court.
22. In response to the allegations in paragraph twenty two of Defendant’s motion, the People ask that this Court deny Defendant’s requested relief.
WHEREFORE, Jessica R. Cooper. Prosecuting Attorney in and for the County of Oakland, by Jeffrey M. Kaelin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant’s Motion in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
JESSICA R. COOPER
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
OAKLAND COUNTY
By: /s/ Jeffery M. Kaelin__
(P51249)
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office
1200 N. Telegraph Rd.
Pontiac, MI 48341
(248) 452-9107
Dated: July 5, 2011
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
PEOPLE OF THIS STATE OF MICHIGAN.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Honorable Denise Langford-Morris
-vs-
Circuit Court
No. 2011-DA9388-AR
KEVIN A. LANDAU,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________/
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
)ss PROOF OF SERVICE
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
Laurie Wakerley, beigh duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 5th day of July, 2011, she served a copy of the People’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Modify Pretrial Release Bond, upon William Maze, attorney for Defendant, at 831 Monroe Street, Dearborn, MI 48124, by service through the Circuit Court WizNet Filing System and by depositing same in an envelope with the Oakland County mailing pick-up service.
Further deponent saith not.
/s/ Laurie Wakerley________________
LAURIE WAKERLEY, Deponent
Subscribed and sworn to before me,
this 5th day of July, 2011.
/s/ Michelle Renee Leismer______________
MICHELLE RENEE LEISMER, Notary Public
Oakland County, Michigan
Acting in County of: Oakland
My Commission Expires: 03/29/2017