The cases centered around two primary issues. The first was whether or not consent to a warrantless search to conduct DUI breath and blood tests were voluntary, after suspect agreed to submit to them only after the officer instructed him repeatedly about the law.

The next question for the court was whether or not the advisement by the police officer was given in good faith when the officer believed that his conduct was lawful and not in violation of the suspect’s 4^th Amendment rights.

This article provides a case overview, legal principles that applied, and the additional related resource information:

• Impact of Ruling on Arizona Drivers;
• Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule;
• Arizona Courts on what Constitutes Voluntary Consent to Search;
• Answers to the question surrounding “Should I consent to a DUI Test in Arizona?”;
• 10 Common Defenses for DUI Charges in Arizona

Case Overview

The case began when a Department of Public Safety (DPS) officer found the defendant sleeping in the driver’s seat of a truck that was stopped with the engine running.

In Arizona a person may be found guilty of DUI even if they were not driving the vehicle, but were considered to be in actual physical control of it.

The officer saw an open alcohol container and smelled alcohol. He also saw signs that the defendant was impaired, and the officer arrested the defendant on suspicion of DUI.

At the police station, the officer read an admin per se form that provided that Arizona law required him to submit to a breath, blood, or other bodily substance test, as chosen by a police officer, to determine his blood alcohol levels.

The officer verbally stated that the DUI tests were required by law. He repeated his advisement of this to the suspect 3 additional times.

The police officer warned the suspect that Arizona law required him to submit, and that his refusal would result in a one-year license suspension.

The defendant then cooperated, claiming he understood the admonition, and submitted to both blood and breath tests.

The tests results showed more than 0.20 percent Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels, in violation of Arizona’s Super Extreme Law A.R.S. 28-1382 (A) (2).

The suspect was charged with five counts of aggravated DUI.

The defense filed a motion to suppress the test results, arguing that his consent to the tests was not voluntary. He challenged the constitutionality of the warrantless search and voluntariness of his consent.

The officer testified at the suppression hearing. The trial court denied the motion to suppress the DUI test results on the grounds that the “totality of the circumstances” demonstrated the defendant’s consent.

The court then dismissed three counts and convicted the defendant on two counts, and prison sentences were imposed based on other merits of the case.

The appellate court affirmed, but the dissenting judge reasoned that there was no voluntary consent because the police had asserted they had lawful authority to search.

The defendant then asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the decision.

The Court explained that warrantless searches are generally prohibited under the Fourth Amendment with some exceptions, including free and voluntary consent to search.

However, consent isn’t given freely or voluntarily if the defendant reluctantly gives in to an officer’s claim of lawful authority.

Under Arizona’s implied consent law, those who drive in the state implicitly give consent to DUI blood and breath tests if they are arrested for a DUI.

But A.R.S. § 28-1321(A) doesn’t authorize officers to administer a test without a warrant unless there is an express agreement or consent by the suspect to conduct it.

A compelled blood or breath test administered under § 28-1321 is considered a Fourth Amendment search.

Evidence from a compelled test obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial.

The defendant in this case argued that his consent must be considered involuntary because he agreed only after the officer repeatedly told him he was required to submit under Arizona law.

The Court noted that under case law, citing multiple cases including Byars v. State, that if the totality of circumstances showed that consent was coerced by threats or force or granted only in submission to an officer’s claim of lawful authority, the consent is invalid.

The Court held that consent given in response to a warning about the law, as in this case, was not freely and voluntarily given.

Once it was concluded, that the consent was not voluntary, the Arizona Supreme Court’s next task was to review whether or not the officer’s conduct fell within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

In effect, this means if the record shows that the officer reasonably believed in that they were acting in good faith and that their conduct was lawful, the evidence obtained following the invalid consent may still be admitted.

The court determined the good faith exception applied to the DPS officer’s conduct in this case.

Since the admonition in this case was given by an officer relying in good faith on case precedent, the Court ruled it would not be appropriate to exclude the test results.

Accordingly, the DUI conviction was affirmed.

Impact of Ruling on Arizona Drivers

The Court’s ruling in this case didn’t change the outcome for this particular defendant due to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

However, it is important going forward, because it holds that officers must inform arrestees of the rules without implying that officers have lawful authority to compel a defendant to give samples of bodily substances, without a warrant.

An officer can inform an arrestee of the consequences for refusing to permit DUI testing and ask if the arrestee will consent.

Alternatively, the Court explained that the admin per se form should be revised so that it provides an arrestee with a clear choice about whether to submit to the tests.

Consent given solely based on advisement of a law, is not lawful, unless the officer is acting in good faith.

Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

Before we consider the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, we must look at the meaning of the “exclusionary rule”.

The exclusionary rule refers to a doctrine established in criminal cases, recognized in the United States, which allows for evidence to be excluded from trial if it was obtained in violation of a suspect’s constitutional rights.

The remedy in Arizona criminal courts reflects this principle. Thereby, if police obtain evidence unconstitutionally, the defense may file a motion to suppress that evidence so that it may not be used against a defendant. Thus the evidence is “excluded” from trial giving rise to the Exclusionary Rule.

The exception that applied in this case was the fact that the court found the officer acted in good faith. If the police officer believes the conduct in searching or seizure of the evidence was lawful, then the evidence may be admitted as an exception to the exclusionary rule.

Another illustration of what the courts considered to be a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, by law enforcement was in the ruling of Arizona v. Evans 1995.

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained after an officer acted on an outstanding warrant, had been obtained in good faith.

However, it was later discovered that the warrant was actually resolved several weeks before the stop. The warrant was still showing active as a result of a clerical error.

The US Supreme Court noted that the exclusionary rule was designed to discourage law enforcement from intentionally gaining evidence unlawfully. In Evans, the officer acted on the information available to him on record, that he later learned was incorrect due to an administrative error. Thus the US Supreme Court felt the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.

Arizona Courts on what Constitutes Voluntary Consent to Search

In this case, the Arizona Supreme Court found that court found that if consent is given by the suspect solely on the basis of the Police Officer’s warning about the implied consent the consent is not considered voluntary.

Below are some additional cases in which Arizona courts ruled on voluntariness of the suspect’s consent for DUI testing was considered:

• A driver’s consent to testing must be freely and voluntarily given (State v. Butler 2016);
• A driver’s consent must not be compelled by an ultimatum (State v. Spencer 2014);
• For DUI blood tests drawn incidental to medical treatment, the blood draw is not given freely and voluntarily if the suspect expressly refused (State v. Estrada 2004);
• When an officer asserts lawful authority to search, the consent is not voluntary, (State v. Valenzuela 4/16, citing Bumper)
• A DUI Test is not voluntary if consent was the result of coercion or duress (State v. Alder 1985).

The courts have recognized that all decisions on cases involving consent, should be based upon consideration of totality of the circumstances.

“Should I consent to a DUI Test in Arizona?”

One of the most frequently asked questions by drivers at a DUI stop is suspects in Arizona is “Should I consent to a DUI Test?” There are three factors to consider before making your decision to consent or refuse a DUI breath, blood or urine test:

• The laws in the state where the DUI stop occurs;
• Whether or not you can do without your driver’s license for a year;
• Your individual circumstances

Under Arizona’s Implied Consent law A.R.S. 28-1321, any person driving in Arizona gives their consent to have alcohol or drug testing if they are arrested for DUI, or for being under the influence of alcohol if they are under 21 years of age.

The type of test to be done such as DUI breathalyzer, blood tests, or other chemical testing, will be done at the officer’s discretion.

A person has the right to refuse breath, blood, urine or other chemical tests, but not without consequences.

If a person refuses, a one year loss of driving privileges will be suspended or denied for one year.

If a person fails to complete the test or expressly consent to it, will be considered to have refused the DUI testing resulting in a one year loss of their driver’s license.

If a person refuses, in many cases the police will usually be able to obtain a search warrant to administer the DUI breath, blood, or chemical test anyway.

Before the age of technology, obtaining a warrant was a more time consuming task for police. Now most police agencies have are equipped with electronic means for officers to obtain a DUI search warrant. A can be achieved within a fraction of the time it formerly took.

10 Common Defenses for DUI Charges in Maricopa County, AZ

An experienced DUI defense attorney will be aware of what defenses may apply, or other challenges that can be made, that may lead to a favorable resolution of your charges.

DUI charges may be challenged on different fronts. Your defense case should be tailored to the circumstances unique to your case. This may include moving to suppress evidence that was obtained in violation of your constitutional rights. In this case, the courts ruled that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. But not all evidence obtained in violation of a person’s rights, is done in good faith.

Below are 10 common defenses that may be used to defend DUI charges (This list is not inclusive):

• Evidentiary Challenges to blood test, urine, or other chemical tests including inconsistent independent lab results;
• Challenging the reason for the stop (no reasonable suspicion);
• Challenging probable cause for arrest;
• Violation of 4^th amendment search and seizure rights;
• Field Sobriety Test results invalid;
• Evidentiary Challenges of breath test instructions, procedures, or results;
• Failure to prove driver impairment;
• Violations in police procedures;
• Trial defenses;
• Miranda warning, 5^th Amendment, and other Constitutional violations.

If you are charged with any type of impaired driving offense, you have the right to defend your charges.

Though you were arrested and charged, that does not necessarily mean you will be convicted of impaired or drunk driving.

It is important that you consult a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible if you were arrested, or for a criminal or DUI offense.

If you are not aware of your rights, you could inadvertently jeopardize them for your defense.

For effective legal representation you should choose an attorney who understands the gravity of a DUI charge, and the nuances of the case law in this area. Your attorney should also be familiar with the court in which your case will be heard.

DUI Defense Attorney Mesa Arizona

“Prepared to Defend”

If you are charged with a DUI, consult James E. Novak, a DUI defense attorney, in Tempe, Arizona.

James Novak is a former prosecutor and experienced trial lawyer.

He provides a strong defense, make sure your rights are protected, and work hard to obtain the best possible resolution to your charges.

James Novak offers a free consultation Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona. Contact or call The Law Office of James Novak at (480) 413-1499. Speak directly with James E. Novak, experienced DUI and criminal defense attorney regarding your charges and defense options.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 28-1321
• A.R.S. § 28-1381
• A.R.S. 28- 1382
• A.R.S.§ 28- 1383
• Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | SFSTs
• Arizona Department of Public Safety | DUI Prevention
• Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office | Jail Information for Families
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving | Latest from MADD
• Consequences of Refusing a DUI Breath, Blood, or Urine Test in Arizona
• Arizona Breathalyzer, Blood, and Field Sobriety Tests – Criminal Defense Challenges

Other Articles of Interest from our Award Winning Blog:

• Consent to Search includes K-9 Search of Vehicle
• Your Right to Request Change of Judge in Criminal Court
• 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

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,

Partition Ratio in DUI Breathalyzer Tests

Breathalyzer tests produce a numerical score, only by mathematically converting the breath sample to a Blood Alcohol Concentration level. This conversion process is known as the “partition ratio” when the conversion factor is used. The conversion is considered problematic by some because it is not necessarily reflective of the actual partition ratio for an individual; actual partition ratios for individuals can vary. Factors that may cause the ratios to vary include but are not limited to body temperature, medical conditions and gender. This means a breathalyzer test for an individual may not accurately translate to a blood alcohol concentration level indicative of impairment.

Case Background: State of Arizona v. Cooperman In a recent case, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether partition ratio evidence could be admitted in a DUI case where (1) the state chose to bring in breath test results to prove a defendant had a .08 percent or more BAC within two hours of driving, and (2) evidence related to how much partition ratios varied in the population was relevant to the defendant’s level of impairment. The defendant here wanted to show how the partition ratio varies in the general population in order to introduce doubt as to whether the results of the breath test showed impairment. In this case, a motorist charged with one count of driving while “impaired to the slightest degree” in violation of A.R.S. 28-1381 (A) 1; and the other was for having an alcohol concentration of .08 percent or more within two hours of driving in violation of A.R.S. 28-1381 (A) 2.

The Prosecution generally attempts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the latter charge (.08 percent BAC) by presenting a jury with evidence of a defendant’s blood alcohol content and establishing a DUI test sample was taken within two hours of the defendant driving. When a person’s BAC is .08 percent or higher, the presumption is that a person is under the influence, in violation of Arizona’s legal limit. However, to have a level below the .08 percent BAC does not however, create a presumption. If the officer had probable cause to believe that a motorist’s was still impaired, even though their BAC was below .08 percent, they may bring charges in violation of “impaired to the slightest degree”. The impairment, however, cannot be presumed, and must be decided in connection with other probable cause evidence.

The prosecution in this case attempted to prevent the defendant from submitting evidence that showed the partition ratio used to convert the breath reading to a blood reading was variable, meaning inconsistent, or liable to change. The prosecution argued that it planned only to introduce the breath test results for proof that the defendant’s BAC exceeded .08 percent; but not to prove the first charge of “impairment to the slightest degree”. Since the prosecution was not going to introduce the breath test for the impairment to the slightest degree charge, they argued the defendant could not present the partition ratios related to that breath test to cast doubt on whether or not the defendant was impaired at all.

Experts for both parties testified regarding the partition ratio. The defendant again tried to introduce exculpatory evidence of the partition ratio to that would cast doubt on whether or not he was impaired to the slightest degree. The State argued the defendant’s evidence was irrelevant and had the potential create unfair prejudice. The court ruled that partition ratio evidence was in fact relevant whenever breath test results are brought forward by the State. The court of appeals affirmed this ruling. The State then appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Arizona Supreme Court Analysis

The Arizona Supreme Court held that evidence is relevant where it can make a material fact in a case more or less probable. If evidence is relevant, it is permitted at trial, unless there is specific rule or provision in the law that prohibits it. In this case, the State was required to prove that the defendant was impaired because he drank alcohol. Therefore evidence of his impairment was relevant.

The AZ Supreme Court recognized the strong correlation between Blood Alcohol Content levels and intoxication. The prosecutors had argued that they had the unilateral ability to invoke the presumption that the defendant was under the influence and the partition evidence was irrelevant because they chose not to invoke the presumption of impairment to the slightest degree.

The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed with this approach by the prosecution. They held that there is nothing that precludes a DUI defendant from presenting partition ratio evidence to show he was not impaired in an impairment case. In fact, they cited specific Arizona Law, A.R.S. 28-1381(H) which specifically provides that any “competent evidence” on the issue of the question of the defendant’s impairment in DUI charges brought against them.

Conclusions

In conclusion the Arizona Supreme Court cited Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 524 (1979). Which holds the need to satisfy constitutional requirement presumptions in criminal cases must be rebuttable, enabling either side to provide evidence or argument that challenges or opposes the presumption. Thereby The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed decisions made by all previous courts, Municipal, Superior, and Appeals Court of Arizona, which was to allow the exculpatory evidence regarding partition ratio variability to be admitted to show the defendant’s lack of impairment.

There are many facets and complexities to defending DUI charges. There is no one size fits all defense. For this reason it is important to have an experienced criminal defense attorney defend the charges, and tailor such defense to the facts of the case. If you have been arrested or charged with a DUI, an experienced DUI defense attorney can figure out the best defense strategy for the specific charge. 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

More Blogs

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

If a driver refuses a DUI breath test the police may obtain a warrant to collect a blood or urine sample. In order to obtain a warrant the police must have “probable cause” to believe that a motorist was driving impaired under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If a driver refuses to participate in the chemical testing, there are civil and criminal consequences. A refusal of a DUI chemical testing with a valid warrant will result in a 12 month suspension of the motorist’s driver’s license. The police may proceed with a DUI arrest with probable cause for DUI charges.

Arizona Implied Consent Law

Under the Implied Consent Law A.R.S. § 28-1321 a motorist driving in Arizona inherently gives their consent to DUI breath, blood or urine test if requested by police to determine if they are driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Police Officer who makes the DUI stop decides what type of test should be administered. The officer must have cause to believe that the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle either alcohol or drugs.

Implied Consent Law – Underage 21 Drinking

Arizona is a “Zero Tolerance” state with regard to underage 21 drinking. This means an underage drinker may be arrested for being under the influence of any alcohol in their blood stream. The Implied Consent Law A.R.S. § 28-1321 also gives authority to police in Arizona to administer chemical testing to a person under the age of 21 years of age. They police may administer the test to determine if the person under age 21 has in their body, whether or not they were driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle.

DUI Lawyer Tempe AZ – Defense

If you were arrested for DUI based on breath or blood testing, there may defenses you are not aware of that can lead to suppression of evidence or even a dismissal of charges. An arrest is not a conviction. Anyone arrested has a constitutional right to defend their charges. In order to make sure your rights are protected, and to defend your charges, you should always retain the services of a qualified criminal defense attorney.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Legislature Implied Consent Law

• Arizona Legislature DUI law

• Arizona Supreme Court JOSE CARRILLO v. HON. ROBERT HOUSER Ref: CV-09-0285-PR • Arizona Department of Transportation

If you “Like” this article please let us knowwith +1! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Free Consultation!

Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Phoenix,Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, AZ

Difference between DUI Task Force Stops and DUI Stops

The difference between a regular DUI “pull over while driving” stop and a DUI Task Force Stop are the circumstances that lead to the initial DUI stop. In a DUI roadblock situation, Police do not need “reasonable suspicion” that someone is driving drunk or DUI, in order to stop a vehicle.

A routine DUI stop occurs when the driver is “pulled over” in absence of a DUI Task Force Situation. In a routine DUI stop, the police must have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is in progress or other violation of the law has occurred. This standard has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, as held by the rights given under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If a person is stopped for DUI or any other crime in absence of “reasonable suspicion” that a crime or violation is in progress or has occurred, then the stop is unlawful. Subsequently, it would be considered a violation of the driver’s rights. DUI Task Forces are organized and conducted according to The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), and along with City or State Laws in place for DUI Task Force Stops. The purpose of a DUI Task Force is to seek out and arrest persons driving drunk, or “driving impaired to the slightest degree” due to alcohol or drugs. No one is immune to the stop. In most cases, The vehicles to be stop at are decided in advance by city, or county officials and their respective law enforcement Agencies. The NHTSA guidelines require that the determination be made on the basis of a mathematical or numeric formula, for example, every vehicle, or every 2nd vehicle. According to the NHTSA guidelines, the determination must be made by means of some sort of mathematical formula. For example, they will stop every first, third, or every other vehicle passing through the DUI roadblock. Police need no other reason to make the checkpoint DUI stop.

Arizona DUI Penalties

Generally, there is no difference in penalties sentencing for convictions resulting from DUI Task Force arrest and a routine DUI Task Force Arrest. Arizona has some of the toughest DUI penalties in the country. Currently they include 24 hours jail time; suspension of driver’s license for 90 days; interlock device installation; fines, fees, costs; drug or alcohol screening or counseling and other penalties ordered by the court. Penalties increase in severity for higher Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels and repeat DUI offense.

DUI Lawyer for Defense, Gilbert AZ

If you face DUI charges in Maricopa County, you should consult an Arizona criminal defense attorney regarding your charges, and defense options. If retained an experienced DUI attorney will review the facts of your case. They may find that there are defenses that can be used to challenge the evidence or charges in your matter. If the DUI stop was unlawful, it is considered to be a violation of your constitutional rights. In that event, any evidence gathered after that stop may be prohibited by the court from being used against you as evidence. This severely weakens the prosecution’s case, and usually results in DUI case dismissal. Any defenses are the most effective, when presented by a qualified and experienced criminal defense lawyer. They will defend your charges; protect your rights; and represent you throughout the DUI case stages to obtain the most favorable outcome possible in your case.

If you “Like” this article please let us know! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI, DWI, Drunk Driving & Criminal Defense Firm Serving Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, and Scottsdale AZ Phoenix Metro and East Valley Cities Free Consultation! Call (480) 413-1499. Call 24/7