In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, the defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI, for driving while impaired with a license that was suspended or revoked.

The Defendant appealed the convictions with several challenges. The central argument was that the trial court had erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test due to being deprived of his right to counsel.

The defendant’s appeal also included a challenge that the trial court had erred in its instructions to the jury.

Case Facts

The case arose when a police officer stopped the defendant after seeing him utilize a private parking lot to avoid a traffic signal.

The officer noticed that the defendant appeared to be drunk and saw an open container of alcohol beneath his seat.

The defendant admitted he was drinking.

A field sobriety test was conducted, and the officer reported that the defendant exhibited impairment ques on the roadside test.

The officer read his Miranda warning, and arrested the suspect.

While in custody at that station, before the breath test, the suspect invoked his right to legal counsel.

His breathalyzer tests showed he had a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .153 and .152.

At trial, a jury found him guilty of Aggravated DUI, and he was sentenced to presumptive, concurrent terms of 4.5 years in prison.

Denial of Right to Counsel Challenge

On appeal, the defendant argued that the police officer deprived him of assistance from an attorney, by not allowing enough time for an attorney to return his call. Therefore, his motion to suppress the breathalyzer results should have been granted.

From the police stop the defendant to the point the DUI breath test was taken was central to the case:

5:00 a.m. – Police stopped suspect;

5:45 a.m. – Suspect arrested and taken into custody.

6: 31 a.m. – While at the station suspect requests to speak with an attorney, and police give him a phone book. The officer gave the suspect 10 minutes to reach an attorney.

6:52 a.m. The suspect called a law firm twice and left messages. He waited for an attorney to call him back at the station. Officer waits until 6:52 a.m. for an attorney to return his calls.

6:56 a.m. Officer proceeds and conducts the 1^st breathalyzer test.

7:02 a.m. Officer conducts the 2^nd breathalyzer test.

The officer testified that he conducted the two blood alcohol content tests before the defendant reached an attorney because under A.R.S. Section 28-1381(A)(2), there are only two hours before the statutory window to collect the BAC evidence before it expires.

The Court noted that when breath tests are conducted more than two hours after driving, the state would need to hire an expert to use “retroactive extrapolation” to figure out the blood alcohol content. (Retrograde extrapolation is a method where certain assumptions are made to calculate back to what the BAC would have been during the two-hour window.)

The court explained that in spite of this brief window, the defendant is entitled to get help from counsel when in custody before taking the breathalyzer. However, that right must yield when exercising would determine an ongoing investigation citing Arizona v. Kunzler, particularly in the case of a DUI.

The court noted that the defendant does not have the right to hinder or delay an investigation by demanding to speak with counsel. Further, if the suspect cannot reach the attorney, the state may proceed with the investigative procedures.

There is no deprivation of the right to an attorney unless the police actively prevent the defendant from talking to an attorney of his choice. The court found that in this case, the defendant’s right to counsel was respected because the officer had delayed the tests as long as possible.

The Appeals court noted that courts have found deprivation of counsel either because police clearly prevented the suspect from speaking to one, or somehow obstructed their access to an attorney, citing multiple cases including State v. Juarez (1989); and McNutt v. Arizona (1982).

The court determined that the defendant’s right to counsel was honored. And that the officer reasonably waited as long as possible until the two-hour window had nearly expired waiting for an attorney to return the suspect’s calls.

Jury Instruction Challenges

The defendant also argued that the trial court erred in jury instructions.

The defendant challenged the jury instructions given on the refusal to submit to a sobriety test, because there was no evidence to support he had refused.

The instruction given was that when a person drives a vehicle in Arizona, there is an implied consent for testing of bodily substances to determine alcohol or drug concentration. If someone fails to complete this test or won’t agree, it is considered a refusal.

The appellate court acknowledged since there was no evidence of refusal then there was no evidence to support the instruction.

The Court cited State v. Bolton 1995 noting that a party is entitled to an instruction on any theory that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Further the court cited State v. Smith 1976, in holding that it is improper to give the jury an instruction which is not supported by evidence.

The Court noted that since the defendant consented to the breath tests, and there was no evidence to support a refusal then the the trial court erred in providing it to the jury.

Once it is determined if the trial court erred in jury instructions given, they must decide if that instruction was harmless.

If the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an error didn’t affect the verdict, then the error is considered harmless, citing Arizona v. Nottingham.

The Court held that since the jury was not given any information about consequences for test refusal, and it was undisputed that the defendant did not refuse, a reasonable jury would have disregarded the instruction.

Further the court concluded that even if the instruction had been omitted, the jury would have reached the same verdict, based on the strength of the evidence.

The defendant also argued that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury about the maintenance records requirement for the breath test machine.

The defendant contended that instruction created a presumption of evidence which burdened the defense to prove that the machine was not working properly.

The Appeals Court held that the jury was properly instructed to the fact that the defendant was not required to produce any evidence.

The Court added that even if an instruction is found to be an “evidentiary presumption”, it does not have an impact on whether or not the results of the breath test were accurate. And it does not relieve the state of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath tests results were in violation of Arizona’s Aggravated DUI laws.

The Appeals Court noted that the instruction did not require the jury to reach any conclusions.

Further, the Court concluded that the instruction did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant, which is held by the state citing Arizona v. Norton.

The Court also noted that the jury was not presented with any reason to believe the breath machine was not working properly.

The Appeals Court also concluded that the defendant failed to show that his case was harmed by the instruction.

The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.

Impact of Ruling on Arizona Drivers

The Appeals Court recognized the Defendant’s right to Legal Counsel during detention.

At the same time, however, the Court held that the defendant was not deprived of this right since the officer acted reasonably to accommodate the suspect’s rights.

In Arizona it is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-1381 for a person to be found to driving impaired to the slightest degree with an Alcohol BAC of .08 percent or greater within 2 hours of being in actual physical control of a vehicle.

The Appeals court held that a suspect cannot be permitted to jeopardize a DUI investigation, by demanding to speak with an attorney, when the officer reasonably honored the request, within that two hour window.

In sum, yes the suspect has the right to request an attorney prior to conducting a breath test while in custody. But they do not have the right to demand to speak with with an attorney who cannot be reached, and continuing to wait, would jeopardize gathering the DUI test evidence.

Aggravated DUI Laws and Penalties Arizona

An Aggravated DUI is a Felony offense. All felonies in Arizona call for prison terms.

A Misdemeanor DUI is elevated to a felony when the impaired driving offense involves aggravated factors including:

• 3^rd or subsequent DUI within 7 years; (Class 4)
• Driving on a revoked, suspended, or invalid license; (Class 4)
• Driving with a passenger under the age of 15 in the vehicle; (Class 6)

A person can also be charged with Aggravated DUI and/or vehicular crimes if they caused a serious bodily injury or fatal accident while driving impaired due to alcohol or drugs. The Classification will depend on the conviction, and circumstances.

Class 6 Felony DUI charges expose a person prison terms of 4 to 8 months.

Class 4 Felony DUI charges expose a person prison terms of 4 to 8 months.

Aggravated DUI convictions call for $4,000 in fines, fees, and assessments; driver’s license revocation for one year; use of Ignition Interlock Device for up to 2 years; possible forfeiture of vehicle; possible restitution or community service; alcohol or drug screening and treatment program; loss of right to bear arms and vote; and other penalties the court deems appropriate.

Defending Charges for Aggravated DUI Phoenix-Metro and East Valley

“Prepared to Defend”

James Novak, DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of James Novak, PLLC

DUI charges are multifaceted in nature. Therefore, a strong defense is required and all facets should be considered.

Your case should be evaluated to determine the best approach to defending the case and presenting it in a effort to obtain the best possible outcome in your case.

No matter how serious the charges may be, you have the right to be treated fairly, make sure your rights are

protected, provide evidence in your defense, and due process.

While there are a number of defenses that may apply, some of the most common defenses used to challenge DUI charges are Constitutional Rights violations, and evidentiary issues.

If police violated your rights in order to obtain evidence against you, the charges may be dismissed.

If evidence is challenged that is weak, inaccurate or inadmissible, it often leads to dismissal or acquittal of the charges.

It is important to select an attorney who understands the gravity of a DUI charge and knows multiple ways to fight it. If you are charged with a DUI, consult James E. Novak, a DUI defense attorney in Tempe, Arizona.

Mr. Novak is a former prosecutor and experienced trial lawyer, and is prepared to defend you and your rights.

If retained, he will provide you with a strong defense for your charges. We offer a free consultation for active criminal charges in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona. Call today at (480) 413-1499.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 28-1381
• A.R.S.§ 28- 1383
• Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona

Other Articles of Interest from our Award Winning Blog:

• Conspiracy Drug Charges involving use of Cell Phones or Mobile Devices
• Consent to Search includes K-9 Search of Vehicle
• Warrantless Searches for Probationers
• Violations of “Search and Seizure” Laws: How they Impact Prosecution
• U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Warrant Needed To Collect DNA If Arrested,

The SUV was carrying three people, a man, his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s three-year-old daughter.

The toddler was thrown from the SUV and sustained life threatening injuries. The man suffered head and lung injuries.

The man’s girlfriend, a passenger in the SUV is listed in stable condition but still in the hospital late last week.

The 14-year-old driver of the sedan that ran the red light signal, and his 17- year-old passenger whom the police report were under the influence of alcohol both suffered minor injuries.

It is unclear who owned the sedan driven by the 14-year-old was driving.

The driver was later taken to the Juvenile Court Center. The 17-year-old passenger was released to his family.

The 14-year-old has reportedly since been charged as an adult, and faces 4 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

According to Maricopa County Prosecutor and Court records, the decision to prosecute the youth as an adult was based on the severity of the accident and victim’s injuries.

A secured release bond was ordered by the judge for $100,000.00, and the next court date set.

Charges of this nature are considered dangerous and violent crimes in Arizona, and call for aggravated sentencing.

Penalties for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges can expose a person to decades and long-term prison sentences if convicted.

A follow-up media report indicated that the driver and passengers in the other vehicle are recovering from their injuries.

3 Ways Tragic Underage DUI Accidents Impact a Minor and their Parents.

The three ways underage drinking and minor consumption will likely impact the driver and/or their parents following a tragic DUI accident are:

• Serious injuries or fatalities;
• Criminal charges, penalties and consequences to the accused;
• Civil and in some cases criminal liability against the parents or guardians

Serious Injuries or Fatalities

The chances of a driver or passenger involved in an Underage DUI accident suffering a serious injury or fatality are higher than with adult impaired driving crashes.

Recent statistics by the National Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 23% of drivers aged 15 to 20 involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes were under the influence of alcohol.

According to the CDC there are a number of reasons for the increased risk of injuries by minor of other underage drinkers.

5 reasons for increased risk of underage DUI accidents

Here are 5 reasons the CDC reported as reasons why underage DUI accidents have proven to result in more serious injuries or fatalities, than adult DUI accidents:

• A teen driver’s ability to drive may be impaired after only one drink, which puts them at greater risk for a DUI accident.
• Young drivers are more likely than experienced drivers to underestimate or be unable to recognize or react effectively to hazardous or dangerous driving situations;
• Teens are more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors and speeding, than adults or experienced drivers;
• Recent seatbelt use statistics show that younger drivers have lower rates of use than older drivers. In 2013 only 55 percent of high school age drivers reported using their seatbelts when they were passengers in vehicles;
• The Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at all levels suggested a higher risk of involvement in an automobile crash than an adult driver.

Criminal Penalties for Minor Consumption, Underage DUI, Aggravated Assault Laws

The second important impact of a DUI involving a serious accident is criminal charges, and penalties. The charges, their classifications, and penalties for conviction will vary, based on the following circumstances:

• Age of the driver and whether or not they are charged as adults;
• Seriousness of the accident and victim injuries;
• Whether or not fatality occurred;
• Blood Alcohol Content Level (BAC):
• Prior DUI or other alcohol related offenses;
• Age of driver;
• Validity and standing of license to drive;
• Prior criminal record;
• Other mitigating or aggravated circumstances

Arizona has no tolerance for underage drinking and driving. Anything above .00% can result in a DUI citation, even if there are no physical signs of impairment and or injuries.

Just for an underage DUI, a minor can face serious consequences such as a license suspension for up to two years or until the driver is 21, a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal record, a minimum of one day in jail, fines, probation, alcohol abuse education, and community service.

Typically, minors who commit crimes are sent to juvenile court, on the assumption that they don’t understand the consequences of their actions.

However, under A.R.S. 13-501, a juvenile between 14 and 17 who commits any violent felony offense—such as aggravated assault— may be tried in adult court.

Aggravated assault can be charged in a variety of situations, such as when a person commits misdemeanor assault and also causes serious physical injury to someone else or uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in the commission of the offense.

For a first-time offender, the punishment is usually less severe, on the assumption that a child can be rehabilitated.

However, when a minor is tried as an adult, aggravated assault is a class 3 felony that is punishable by 5-15 years in prison.

When the victim of an aggravated assault involving use of a deadly weapon, is under the age of 15, charges could be elevated to a Class 2 Felony, with aggravated sentencing that could expose them to maximums of 21-27 year prison terms.

Many serious charges against minors, including vehicular manslaughter or homicide, are heard in the juvenile courts.

If fatalities result in such tragic cases, a minor could be charged with a felony homicide, such as vehicular manslaughter (A.R.S. §13-1103) or vehicular homicide (A.R.S. §13-1102).

Vehicular manslaughter is charged when someone recklessly causes the death of another. Vehicular homicide is charged when someone negligently causes the death of another.

If the court decides to try a minor as an adult for vehicular manslaughter or homicide, the penalties are severe.

Manslaughter is a Class 2 dangerous felony and is punishable by 4-10 years in jail.

For offenses in violation of extreme DUI where the suspects BAC was 0 .15 or greater, the minimum sentence is 10.5-21 years.

Negligent homicide with a car while drunk driving is usually charged as a “dangerous” class 4 felonies, exposing a person to prison sentences of 4-8 years.

In additional to criminal penalties, civil penalties also apply with regard to denial, revocation, or suspension of driver’s licenses, fines, and substance abuse counseling.

If the charges result in a felony conviction, it will mean loss of other civil rights such as the right to vote, and possess or carry firearms.

Differences between Criminal Liability and Civil Liability

The main differences between civil law and criminal law are the complainants or entities filing the complaint; nature of the dispute, and the remedies.

Let’s break those down with examples: In criminal law the charges are filed by the State or the County.

The type of dispute is a state criminal law that the suspect is accused of violating. The remedy is prosecution and penalties for conviction.

In contrast, for civil claims, the complainant is the injured victim or their family in the case of wrongful death.

The complainant is known as the plaintiff. The dispute is that the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is responsible for the injuries or death as a result of wrongdoing, neglect, or recklessness.

The remedy is to recovery a monetary settlement for losses, or coverage for medical bills and other losses suffered by the victim as a result of their injuries.

So in the context of criminal law, it means holding parents criminally responsible to some extent for criminal conduct of their children.

Parental Criminal Liability Injuries caused by a Minor’s Criminal Conduct

Parental Liability has long been a controversial subject throughout the United States.

When we think of liability the first thing that comes to mind for most people is personal injury liability, which pertains to civil law.

In Arizona the criminal laws that shift liability to the parents are scarce as they apply to a child’s actions that have resulted in serious injury or harm to another.

Though the laws are few, they apply to very specific circumstances that give rise to parental liability.

For example, under Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-661, a parent can be held liable for an act of willful or malicious misconduct of a minor that results in injuries to another.

This applies to whether or not the parents could have anticipated the misconduct, for purposes of civil damages.

In these cases, the parents can be held jointly and severally liable for up to $10,000 for a tort committed by a minor.

Moreover, the court may order either a juvenile or his parents to reimburse the county responsible for the juvenile’s detention for the detention costs.

Nonetheless, a parent may still be held criminally liable for actions or inactions that contributed to a dangerous or violent crime.

For example, in the case of a deadly DUI accident, the parents may be held liable if they offered or supplied the liquor to the minor or gave them permissive use of the vehicle they were driving under the influence.

Civil Liability surrounding DUI with Accidents

We discussed the consequences, existence, and non-existence of criminal liability in Arizona.

But the situation is quite different when it comes to civil liability.

State laws vary with regard to both criminal and civil liability.

Nearly every state has civil laws that hold parent responsible in some form for tort or criminal conduct of minors.

I’ve asked Tina Willis, of Tina Willis Law – Orlando an experienced car accident lawyer, from Orlando, Florida to share her thoughts on this topic. Tina M. Willis is a trusted colleague, and former law professor, and serving personal injury victims in Orlando Florida.

The topics I asked Tina Willis if she would discuss evolved around whether or not parents could be held liable under civil law for injuries caused by a minors due to criminal conduct or wrong doing.

Tina Willis shared the following astute information, as the question pertained to Florida Laws:

Featured Guest Commentary by Tina M. Willis, of Tina Willis Law – Orlando, Personal Injury Attorney in Florida

Parental Responsibility Laws in Florida

“Yes, there are many ways that a parent could be held responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by their minor children, while drinking and driving.

For one thing, Florida has a Statute, 322.09, http://goo.gl/238KVa, that requires parents to sign the driver’s license applications of their children.

When they do, they agree to be financially responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by their children while drinking and driving.

The Florida statute establishes pretty rock solid liability with very few exceptions.

Even if that statute did not apply (let’s say the child didn’t have a license), the parents still might be responsible if they knew of a child’s dangerous propensities, or somehow authorized, contributed to, benefited from, or ratified the child’s bad behavior.

The non-statutory legal arguments are very complicated. But a skillful injury attorney in a serious injury or death case could probably establish some degree of parental liability, at least in the great majority of cases, even without the statute.

And their motivation for developing creative arguments would be higher, if the injuries were more serious, or a death occurred.

This reference, http://goo.gl/1cLPCR, is an academic thesis in honorary legal studies, which focuses on the complexity of the non-statutory arguments.

It also provides some discussion regarding of the potential insurance coverage issues (whether there is any insurance coverage is usually the more important practical question).

Also, Florida has something called the “dangerous instrumentality” doctrine. That doctrine basically says that the owner of a vehicle is responsible for any injuries caused by any other driver of the vehicle, if driven with the owner’s knowledge and consent.

So, if parents allow children to drive their vehicles, they are responsible for any resulting injuries.

The bottom line is, when it comes to driving, parents absolutely must watch and control their minor children.” – Tina M. Willis, of Tina Willis Law – Orlando, Personal Injury Attorney in Orlando, Florida.

References:

Florida Statute 322.09: – Financial responsibility for negligence or misconduct of minor: http://goo.gl/238KVa

Parental Accountability for Children in Florida – “Examining the Oxymoron of Parental Liability”: http://goo.gl/1cLPCR

What Parents can do to Help Teens Avoid Impaired Driving

There is an infinite number of resources available that serve to support parents in their efforts to help prevent minor and underage drinking and driving. The CDC offers these four recommendations:

• Set an example for your children by not drinking and driving;
• Discuss and ask your teen to comply with a “Parent-Teen Driving Agreement”;
• Share more facts about the dangers of impaired driving;
• Provide statistics about the hazards of teen drinking and driving.

Safety and prevention resources referenced above can be found at the CDC website: “Parents are the Key to Safe Teen Drivers” http://goo.gl/SEbqow What to Do if you Receive a Complaint, Criminal Charges, or Demand Letter

As the you receive any type of legal document as a result of a DUI with Accident, you should never ignore it.

If a complaint or charges are being brought by the state, government or other jurisdiction you should contact a criminal defense attorney immediately to discuss the matter. They will assist you in determining the proper course of action in response to the complaint or charges, and provide you with option for your defense.

Ignoring criminal charges or failure to appear for your court date as instructed will result in a bench warrant for your arrest. It is never a good idea to go to court without consulting an experienced criminal attorney first.

If you receive formal or informal civil documents from the driver or passenger of the other vehicle making claim against you, it is important that you immediately contact your insurance carrier, and/or submit the documents for review. They will direct you as to the proper instructions. You should never provide a response or comply with a demand for economic consideration without consulting your insurance carrier first.

Criminal Defense for Aggravated Assault Phoenix AZ

If you face any DUI or Aggravated assault charges, it is important that you retain a highly skilled and experienced Attorney such as James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak, PLLC. He will make sure your rights are protected, that you are treated fairly, and will provide a strong defense for your charges, or those of a loved one.

If you or your child is charged with any DUI charges, aggravated assault, or other criminal offenses, call Phoenix felony defense attorney, James Novak to discuss your matter and your options for a defense as soon as reasonably possible.

James Novak is a former prosecutor, and experienced and highly effective criminal defense and DUI trial lawyer. You can contact James Novak 24/7 at 480-413-1499 for a confidential and free initial consultation if you face active criminal charges. The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC serves clients with new active charges in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Scottsdale, AZ., or other surrounding East Valley Cities within Maricopa County.

Additional Resources

• A.R.S. §13-501
• A.R.S. §12-661
• A.R.S. §13-1103
• National Centers for Disease Control

Other Articles of Interest

• Violations of “Search and Seizure” Laws: How they Impact Prosecution, July 23, 2013
• U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Warrant Needed To Collect DNA If Arrested, June 9, 2013
• Yes, You Have Constitutional Rights At An Arizona Checkpoint, July 5, 2014

Drunk driving can subject you to harsh penalties in Arizona. However, driving drunk with children in the car can lead to even harsher penalties.

Recently, a middle-aged man was stopped

in Arizona driving 89 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone. His ten-year-old and twelve-year-old daughters were in the car with him and the sheriff noticed his breath smelled like alcohol. His Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was .253 percent over 3 times the legal limit for alcohol in Arizona. The man admitted to deputies that he drank a six-pack of beer before driving. He was then charged with aggravated felony DUI, Super Extreme DUI and excessive speed.

An Aggravated DUI charge means that Misdemeanor DUI charges were raised to a felony in violation of Arizona’s A.R.S. 28-1383 Aggravated DUI Laws. An impaired driving charge without aggravated circumstances is generally charged as a Misdemeanor. The aggravated factor of having passengers under the age of 15 in the vehicle raise the charges to a felony violation.

Aggravated DUI charges alone are categorized as Class 6 felonies and expose a person to up to 20 days of incarceration; $4,000.00 fines; Driver’s License Revocation for 3 years; 2 years Ignition Interlock Device (IID) after driving privileges are reinstated; substance abuse education and counseling; and possible forfeiture of vehicle. These penalties will be more severe if coupled with other DUI or criminal charges, or if they are repeat offenses.

An Extreme DUI is charged when someone has a BAC above 0.150 percent but below 0.199 percent. First-time violations of Extreme DUI convictions expose a person to driver’s license suspension for 18 months; fines fees and assessments of $1500.00; 30 days in jail; installation of an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) for 1 year; and substance abuse screening and treatment.

The Super Extreme DUI charge was because his BAC level exceeded 0.20 percent under Arizona Super Extreme DUI Laws A.R.S. 28-1382. A first time DUI conviction with a BAC 0.20 percent or higher, calls for maximum jail terms of 45 days: fines, fees, and assessments of $1750.00; IID for 18 months; driver’s license suspension; and substance abuse screening, counseling or treatment.

In Arizona, the higher the BAC, the more severe the sentencing related to most all the penalties. Repeat violations can also result in aggravated DUI charges, and exposes a person to prison sentencing.

The Aggravated DUI in this case may present even harsher penalties if the man is convicted than the extreme DUI charge. When children under the age of 15 are in the car of a drunk driver, a misdemeanor DUI or DWI is automatically charged as a more serious Class 6 felony, even if it is a first drunk driving offense and the driver has no criminal history. This is because of the significant risk to a child’s life from being in the car with a drunk driver. Someone convicted of felony aggravated driving while under the influence, may be sentenced to prison for 2 ½ years. Not only that but he or she must also attend and complete an alcohol education/treatment program, pay a fine of $750 and additional fees of $1750. His or her driver’s license will be revoked for 3 years. He or she will also be required to install an ignition interlock device on any car he operates for more than a year. Installation of the device typically costs money, too.

DUI and child endangerment convictions will usually have an adverse impact on civil and parental rights as well as criminal penalties. Convictions may result in a court order reducing of parenting you have with a child, for example if you have joint custody. It can also impact your civil rights such as causing you to be classified as a “prohibited user” due to the felony charge; and other consequential losses.

DUI charges involve multi-facet circumstances, evidence, laws, penalties and consequences. And the punishments can impact your life, and that of your family, adversely for many years into the future. There is a lot at stake in the way of your future and freedoms that you currently enjoy.

For these reasons if you are accused or charged with aggravated driving under the influence or any other drunk driving offense, you will need the help of an experienced DUI attorney. You have the right to retain a qualified DUI lawyer to defend you, and it is important that you invoke that right, before your first scheduled court date. If retained, they will defend your rights, and DUI charges. A good criminal defense attorney will tailor and mount a strong defense on your behalf and work to get the best outcome in your case. Contact The Law Office of James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a free consultation, if you face DUI charges in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert or other surrounding East Valley Cities.

Additional Resources:

• Drug DUI and Super Extreme DUI laws
• Arizona 2012 Statewide DUI Enforcement Statistics
• Alcohol/Substance Abuse Counseling and Treatment Providers
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving
• Community Safety Project – Distracted Driving Prevention

More Blogs

• Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law Stands Ground, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, June 4, 2013
• DUI Laws and Penalties in Arizona, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, July 1, 2013