You cannot be arrested solely for a non-criminal traffic violation in Mesa, AZ.

However, that changes if you fail to stop or try to elude police when you are signaled to pull over. Failure to stop violates Arizona’s unlawful flight laws.

The most important thing you can do when you realize police are signaling you to stop, is to pull over safely and promptly.

In the least you should slow down and find a way to let police know that you intend to pull over. Otherwise you could potentially create probable cause for your arrest.

Recently an Arizona Appeals Court ruled on whether or not a search warrant was required for police to follow a driver into a private driveway for a stop that began on a public road.

It held that though a person is not subject to arrest for a civil traffic violation, fleeing from police or refusal to stop can create probable cause for arrest.

This article features 5 important answers to questions about your rights at a stop, and defending subsequent criminal charges.

Why Did the Court Hold that Police Stop Without Warrant in Residential Driveway was Constitutional?

In a Arizona Appeals Court case, the defendant was charged with transporting methamphetamine (meth) for sale, possessing marijuana, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He was convicted and sentenced to a total of 11 years of imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that the trial court shouldn’t have denied his motion to suppress evidence due to a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

The case arose when two deputies saw a car stop and then turn, eventually following a random zigzag pattern through multiple intersections. The deputies checked the license plates and found there was an insurance cancellation for the car a month earlier. They drove after the car to start a civil traffic stop due to no valid insurance. Once they caught up with the suspect’s vehicle, the officers activated their emergency lights. A few seconds later, the suspect reportedly made what was described as a swooping turn into a private driveway. The police followed him into the driveway and into a backyard. It was there that the suspect complied with police. Police testified that at that time of the incident, they were unaware if the suspect had had any connection to that property.

Later, one of the deputies would testify that he felt the defendant was trying to run. The other deputy tried to call in the stop on his cell phone, while the first deputy went up to the car. The defendant began to exit the vehicle, but was instructed by police to remain inside the car.

The first deputy smelled pot and told the defendant to get out of the car and put his hands behind his back. He cuffed the defendant and checked for weapons. He found a stack of bills and a plastic baggie in one pocket, as well as a wallet plus two stacks of money in another pocket. The defendant had more than $2,400 in cash, and his car contained a burned pot cigarette, a charred metal spoon, and a bag containing meth.

The defendant denied knowing anything about the property where he’d stopped, but the police figured out that the property was his girlfriend’s property. The defendant was arrested, and he moved to suppress what the deputies had seized. The court denied his motion to suppress, finding that there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain him. It found that the place where the defendant had stopped in the backyard was not inside the home and that therefore, it was reasonable under the circumstances for the cops to follow him back there.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the deputies had gone onto his girlfriend’s private property without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment, thereby subjecting him to an unlawful search and seizure. Deputies cannot go into somebody’s house to arrest him without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. There must be an objectively reasonable basis for deputies to believe the circumstances justify a warrantless entry to raise the exigent circumstances ground. For example, if a deputy is in hot pursuit of someone suspected of committing a felony, there might be exigent circumstances to go into a private residence. Generally, curtilage or an intimate area of the home is considered part of the home. In this case, the trial court had found the defendant went into the curtilage but not the home.

The defendant argued that he didn’t try to flee the deputies in this case and that the reason they followed him was because he didn’t have auto insurance, which was only a civil infraction. The prosecution argued that by the time the deputies caught up with him in the backyard, they had probable cause for an arrest under A.R.S. § 28- 622.01.

The appellate court explained that any refusal to stop when asked by an officer in a police car is a violation of the felony flight statute. In this case, the deputies had turned on their emergency lights, but the defendant didn’t stop on the shoulder but instead drove onto a private driveway. Based on the total circumstances, a reasonable officer could conclude he was trying to escape. The driver’s attempt to avoid stopping for the officers by going onto the private driveway formed probable cause of a flight attempt, even though the purpose of the stop was to investigate a civil traffic violation. The convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Updated June 6, 2018:

On May 18, 2018 the Arizona Supreme Court reaffirmed the convictions and sentences in this case. It concluded the police did not violate the defendant’s rights by following him into the driveway. It reasoned that the Constitution does not allow for a driver to refuse to stop on a public road and retreat to a private driveway. Further the court found that the defendant’s actions implied that he was consenting to the stop.

Probable Cause for Arrest Q & As

Below are answers to 5 important questions about actions that create probable cause for arrest, and your rights at a police stop.

Can Police Detain You in Your Driveway Without a Warrant?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the 4^th amendment police are prohibited from entering a home without a warrant. The individual’s property attached to a home such as an enclosed garage, are considered private. However, driveways are only semi-private.

There are a few exceptions recognized within the scope of the 4^th amendment warrant requirement.

Exigent circumstances that cause a situation to be emergent in nature to protect the safety of others or avoid destruction of evidence.

One exception to the warrant requirement is when exigent circumstances are present.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that police do not need a warrant is when they are in hot pursuit of a felon suspect. Police may finish pursuing a suspect in a chase that begins in a public location and eventually leads to a private driveway or home.

Does Failure to Stop, or Unlawful flight from Police Create Probable Cause for Arrest?

Yes, probable cause can be created by fleeing from police.

If the driver of a vehicle fails to stop after police have instructed or signaled them to stop even for a civil violation, they will be in violation of A.R.S. 28 – 622.01 or A.R.S 28- 1595.

Under Arizona law A. R.S. 28 – 1595 a person who knowingly fails to stop their vehicle when signaled by police to pull over may be found guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Under Arizona Law A.R.S. 28-622.01 a person who willfully fails to comply with a police officer’s order may be found guilty of a class 5 felony. misdemeanor.

Below are 10 things you should consider if you are signaled by police to pull over:

1. Once you have reached a stop, remain in the driver’s seat until the officer instructs otherwise.
2. Always keep both hands on the steering wheel in plain sight where the officer can see them.
3. Refrain from making any sudden or unexpected movements, especially those that suggest you are reaching for something.
4. Do not provide anything until the officers requests it with regard to ID information. If the officer asks you for identifying information or vehicle registration, let the officer know where the document is and where you will be retrieving it from inside the vehicle.
5. If it is dark outside the vehicle, turn on the dome light or interior lights so the police officer can see you and your surroundings within the vehicle.
6. If others are with you in the vehicle, you should instruct them to remain quiet and calm. You should also advise them to comply with the police orders or instructions.
7. If the officer issues you a citation of any kind, you should try to remain calm. It is OK to ask for clarification if you have questions about it.
8. The most effective way to contest a citation or stop is through the proper legal channels after you have been released from custody, or detention. Do not challenge the charges or ticket in the presence of the officer at the stop, if he or she has written one. This usually will cause more harm than good. Usually it leads to the officer getting annoyed or feeling threatened. These situations can quickly turn bad and result in serious physical harm as well as additional charges.
9. Accepting a citation peacefully does not mean you agree with the citation. An arrest is not a conviction. You have the right to hire an attorney to represent you. You have the right to contest the charges or citation. If you wish to invoke these rights you should consult a criminal defense attorney who serves the area where you received the citation or were arrested.

What can an Attorney do to Help Resolve Drug Charges and Unlawful Flight Charges in Mesa AZ?

Attorney James Novak has extensive experience in defending drug crimes involving drug possession and possession with intent to sell, drug sales, distribution, manufacturing, transport, and unlawful flight charges.

James Novak of the Law Office of James Novak exclusively defends individuals charged with a crime in Maricopa County. Mr. Novak is a former Maricopa County Prosecutor with strong litigation skills and over 20 years of experience in DUI & Criminal Law

If retained, Attorney James Novak will represent you and defend your charges. He will make sure your rights are protected and determine the best defense strategy in your case.

James Novak will look for weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, gather favorable evidence if available, and work hard to obtain the best possible resolution to your charges.

James Novak offers a free initial consultation for people facing active drug crimes, DUI and other criminal charges in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona.

Contact or call (480) 413-1499 experienced criminal defense attorney, James Novak, to discuss your options for defense, and representation.

Additional Resource Links:

• A.R.S. § 28-622.01 (Unlawful flight)
• A.R.S. § 28-1595 (Failure to Stop)
• A.R.S. § 13-3913 (Conditions Precedent to Issuance of Search Warrant)
• Arizona Attorney General – Criminal Investigations
• Phoenix AZ Police Department
• U.S. Supreme Court Terry v. Ohio
• Phoenix Police Department | What to Do if You are Stopped by Police

Other Articles of Interest from Law Office of James Novak’s Award Winning Blog:

• 3 Things You Should Know about Plea Deals and Deferred Prosecution
• What You Need to Know About Your Rights in a Police Frisk
• Reasonable Suspicion and Totality of the Circumstances Arizona

This was a question for a recent Arizona Appeals Court to decide. In the case, the court considered whether a deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop a driver because the officer thought the rear display light on his vehicle was unlawful.

This article takes a closer look at how defense successfully challenged an unlawful police stop due to the police officer’s mistake of law with these topics:

• Overview of the case and ruling;
• Impact of Appeals Court ruling in Arizona;
• Questions and answers;
• 11 rights you have at an unlawful stop;
• 10 good reasons to file a motion to suppress evidence;
• DUI & Criminal Defense in Phoenix and East Valley AZ

Overview

The case arose when two deputies were in a convenience store, and smelled the odor of burnt marijuana near two men.

The police did not stop the men to question them at that point.

The two men left the store without incident and drove away.

The deputies followed the SUV and stopped them several blocks away.

The officers had noticed that a white light was being emitting from the lamp that was shining light on the license plate. At that time, the driver was not given any citations for the lamp.

The officers testified during the suppression hearing, that they thought that the white light seen from a vehicle driving forward violated A.R.S. § 28-931(C) which applies to vehicle lamp colors.

This provision requires that all lighting and reflectors mounted on the rear of any vehicle be red color, except that the light displaying the license plate shall be white.

While the stop was underway, the deputies smelled alcohol and saw that the defendant was flushed and that his eyes were bloodshot.

Officers administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a roadside Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST).

The results of the SFST suggested that the suspect had been drinking alcohol.

The breathalyzer test measured his blood alcohol content (BAC) at .165, and he was arrested for DUI.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the DUI test evidence that was obtained during the stop.

The defendant argued that no statute supported the deputies’ claim that white light from a license plate light could contribute to reasonable suspicion to stop a driver.

The prosecution alleged that reasonable suspicion existed because the lamp in question was working properly, but it didn’t have opaque casing and sent out some white light at the back of the SUV.

The trial court did not accept the prosecution’s allegation, and granted the motion to suppress the evidence at the suppression hearing.

Meanwhile the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled on a separate case, involving similar issues.

In Helen v. North Carolina the U.S. Supreme Courtdecided that a traffic stop did not violate the suspect’s rights because the police officer’s mistake of law was reasonable.

In light of that U.S. Supreme Court Decision, the State decided to file an appeal to the trial court to reconsider suppressing the evidence on the grounds that the deputies had made a reasonable mistake in the way they interpreted A.R.S. § 28-931(C).

At the reconsideration hearing, the defendant argued that the statute clearly compelled the court to find his lamp wasn’t in violation; the deputies’ interpretation wasn’t objectively reasonable; and that the 4^th Amendment of the Constitution provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizure.

At this reconsideration hearing the patrol commander in the same department as the deputies testified, explaining the department’s policy with regard to the rear lighting.

The patrol commander testified that officers were trained to treat rear-facing white lights on vehicles, other than backup lamps, as a violation of § 28-931(C).

Since the officer acted upon his training, the trial court decided to vacate their earlier decision. They then determined that the officer was reasonable in applying the laws as he understood them.

The defendant moved to request that the trial court reconsider their new ruling, but it was denied.

Upon admittance of the evidence at a bench trial, the defendant was convicted and sentenced for DUI.

The Defendant appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed the question of whether an Arizona statute prohibited license plate lamps from emitting white light at the back of a car. If the answer was yes, the deputy had reasonable suspicion to investigate in the defendant’s case.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the Arizona law, which requires lamps to be placed on the vehicle in a manner that illuminates the rear license plate with a white light, making it clearly legible from 50 feet away to the rear.

Another statute provides that lighting devices and reflectors need to glow red, with certain exceptions. One exception is for the light illuminating the license plate, which needs to be white.

The Court determined that the SUV lit up the license plate with a white light as provided under law A.R.S. 28-931 (C) and that the statute was not violated.

The court then looked at whether or not it violated any other Arizona laws.

The court noted that the license plate was working properly; that it made the plate visible from the back of the vehicle; and that it did not create a problem for community welfare or public safety. Therefore, no other laws were broken, and therefore the stop was unlawful.

The court found that the deputy didn’t articulate a legally sound basis for investigating.

But the prosecution argued that the deputy had a reasonable belief that the lamp violated the law.

The court explained that the Fourth Amendment permits only reasonable errors that are objectively reasonable.

One factor the court considered to determine if the mistake of law made by the officer was reasonable, was that the language of the law. The way the statute was written would have needed to be unclear, or susceptible to multiple interpretations.

The Court of Appeals found that in this case the statute was clear, and unambiguous. Therefore, it was not objectively reasonable for the deputy to misinterpret it.

Further, the Appeals Court ruled that the fact that the department had trained its officers to misread the law did not render the misreading reasonable.

The Appeals Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and reversed the granting of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.

*Note: The officers did not stop the suspects in this case while at the convenience store when they smelled the burnt marijuana. But since this incident took place, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in another case that marijuana is sufficient for probable cause to search.

Impact of Ruling on Arizona

This case could potentially serve as precedent in cases involving similar questions surrounding Arizona criminal charges.

As of this date, it is not known if the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would apply in situations where the police make an unlawful stop if due their incorrect interpretation of law.

If an officer stops a driver believing they are breaking the law, and evidence is obtained which leads to arrest, that evidence may be suppressed if the mistake of law is not objectively reasonable.

It will not be enough for the police to claim they believed the law was violated. There must be an objectively reasonable basis for it. One of the grounds for determining if their interpretation of the law was objectively reasonable will be if the law is ambiguous, unclear, or subject to more than one interpretation.

Also, even if the police were trained incorrectly about a non-ambiguous law, that does not justification for concluding that the mistake was objectively reasonable.

In order for police to make a lawful investigative stop, they must still have reasonable suspicion that a violation of Arizona laws has occurred.

11 Rights You Have at an Unlawful Police Stop

No one is immune from an unlawful stop by police.

If the police believe their stop is lawful, they will likely not change their mind at that time.

Trying to convince them otherwise will only aggravate the situation, which could lead to harm or additional criminal charges.

If you have been stopped by an officer for reasons that you know make the stop unlawful, here are your rights. Becoming familiar with these rights will help you avoid escalating the situation, or getting additional criminal charges:

• Remain calm and respectful, and address them as “officer.”
• You can respectfully disagree for the record, but do so politely; refrain from debating or being argumentative about the reason for the stop.
• Cooperate with the officer. Provide routine documentation requested such as ID and registration.
• If you need to reach into your glovebox or elsewhere to retrieve the documents, tell the officer where they can be found and inform them that you will be retrieving from there.
• Do not volunteer or agree to answer personal questions such as where you’ve been, where you’re going, or what you’ve had to eat or drink that day or evening.
• Keep your hands on the wheel unless you’ve been instructed otherwise by the officer. Make sure the officer can see them, if moved elsewhere. Avoid sudden movements that might be perceived as threatening to the officer.
• Decline to participate in DUI Field Sobriety Testing. SFSTs are not mandatory. Respectfully let the officer know that it is your understanding that court have held that they can be invalid, and you would not want the results to suggest otherwise.
• You are within your right to decline a search of your vehicle or belongings unless you’ve been arrested.
• If the police officer requests a breath or blood test, it is your right to refuse. However understand there will be consequences. By law you will lose your driver’s license for one year. If the officer has probable cause to believe you are impaired and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they will obtain a warrant to get a DUI blood test anyway.
• If you are arrested be cooperative. At that point the officer has made up his or her mind, and further objection will only make matters worse.
• Contact an attorney as soon as reasonably possible following your arrest. If retained, your attorney will file a motion to have any evidence suppressed obtained after the unlawful stop.

Q & A

Q. Do police need have reasonable suspicion to stop me at a DUI Checkpoint?

A. No. Police do not need reasonable suspicion of a crime to make a DUI safety checkpoint stop. Arizona has adopted the NHTSA guidelines which requires only that stops be made in a mathematical order or formula decided in advance by the city and agency.

—

Q. If police pull me over for a violating a law that I did not realize was a violation, is the stop still legal in Arizona?

A. Yes. The stop is still lawful. It doesn’t matter if you were unaware for the lawfulness of the conduct, as long as you are aware that the circumstances surrounding the conduct for which you were engaging.

—

Q. When is an officer’s mistake of law due to misinterpretation considered objectively reasonable?

A. If the officer misinterpreted a law that is genuinely ambiguous, and subject to more than one interpretation.

—

Q. What if the officer was trained to believe a law applied incorrectly?

A. In this case, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that an officer’s training, misreading or misapplication of the law due to police procedure, did not make the mistake objectively reasonable.

—

Q. What happens if police stop me unlawfully, and arrest me based on evidence they gather to use against me.

A. In that case your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful stop. If the court agrees, the evidence can be suppressed and will not be used against you by prosecution.

10 Good Reasons for Defense to file a Motion to Suppress Evidence

When evidence is obtained unlawfully, one remedy for the court is to have the evidence suppressed. Some reasons to challenge evidence include but are not limited to the following:

• Evidence obtained in violation of your 4^th Amendment rights or other relevant Constitutional Rights;
• Evidence that is weak;
• Tampering of evidence by the police or other third party;
• A showing that evidence was planted to prosecute the defendant;
• Lab evidence that is not reliable due to inconsistent results obtained by an independent lab results;
• Breath evidence that is unreliable due to improper instruction or administration;
• Field Sobriety Test Evidence that is questionable and invalid based on prior court decisions;
• Inconsistent or unbiased testimony;
• Violation of police procedures or protocols in handling, transport or storage;
• Breath or blood test results that have been contaminated, or have been labeled improperly.

Generally when material evidence is suppressed, it leads to dismissal or acquittal of the charges.The most effective way to challenge the evidence is by retaining an experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who serves the jurisdiction where you were charged.

DUI & Criminal Defense in Phoenix, and East Valley AZ

Suppression of evidence is only one challenge that can apply when defending criminal charges.

Each case holds a different set of circumstances. A defense case must be evaluated by an experienced criminal defense attorney who can uniquely tailor your defense strategy.

If you are accused of any type of DUI or drug, or marijuana offenses, in Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, or Scottsdale, consult DUI defense attorney James E. Novak.

James Novak is a DUI & Criminal Defense attorney. He is also a former Maricopa County Prosecutor.

If retained he will gather all evidence available; determine if any of your rights were violated; if there is favorable evidence on your behalf; and what weaknesses may exist in the evidence or testimony the prosecution plans to use against you.

He will make sure you are treated fairly, and work hard to get the most favorable outcome for your charges.

James Novak provides a free initial consultation for those facing active charges in his service areas.

If you have been charged with a crime call the Law Office of James Novak at (480) 413-1499 and speak directly with Mr. Novak.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 28-931
• A.R.S. § 28-1321
• A.R.S. § 28-1381
• A.R.S. 28- 1382
• A.R.S.§ 28- 1383
• 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

Other Articles of Interest from our Award Winning Blog:

• One of the Most Important Reasons to Resolve Your Warrant
• Marijuana Odor Probable Cause for Search in Arizona
• Does Marijuana Odor Constitute Probable Cause in Arizona? Yes…and No.
• Entrapment: The Most Important Requirement for your Defense Revealed
• Stalking Laws: 7 Myths and Facts
• Arizona Supreme Court Rules on Voluntariness of Drug Testing

Recently a Mesa AZ police officer approached a vehicle and asked the driver if he had any weapons. The driver responded, affirmatively that he did in fact, have weapons in the vehicle. At that point he reached to the other side of the car and pulled a gun out of a holster from inside the vehicle. The officer apparently felt threatened, and reacted by drawing out his own sidearm. The police officer gave verbal commands for the driver to drop his weapon. The driver immediately dropped his weapon. The driver agreed to take a field sobriety test, which evidently did not go well for driver, since he was then taken to a command center to be booked for a DUI.

What went wrong that made this DUI stop potentially deadly?

Let’s take a closer look at reported events; application of the law; and tips on how to avoid criminal charges that are unrelated to driving impairment. First, there is no legal duty to voluntarily tell an officer you are carrying a gun if you are pulled over while driving in Arizona. However, you should respond affirmatively to an officer who asks. You should never pull a firearm out or at the officer or cause those to feel threatened in anyway. The driver was fortunate that the officer responded apparently with levelheadedness.

Although most attorneys discourage suspects from volunteering any information to the officer in a stop, there are others who feel there are safety benefits for the driver to volunteer to an officer that they are carrying a weapon so long as they are prohibited possessor and it is a prohibited weapon. This will avoid the police officer being taken by surprise, it in the event a search is conducted of your vehicle. Some feel too, that volunteering this information will alert a law enforcement officer that you are not doing anything wrong.

With every widely observed holiday, you’re likely you will see heightened police presence, enforcement and DUI Sobriety Checkpoints. DUI Roadblocks are set up with the intent to seek drivers for signs of intoxication or impairment, and make DUI arrests. The goal is to prevent motorists from driving impaired under the influenced of alcohol or drugs. DUI checkpoints can be considered “double edged sword” of sorts. Everyone wants impaired drivers off of the road. But if you’ve ever found yourself in a line-up waiting your turn through the checkpoint, you know it’s no fun. Whether you are driving impaired or not, it’s completely normal to feel a little nervous or anxious.

Most people sort of look around to make sure there is nothing in their vehicle that would give rise to the suspicion that they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In Arizona, you should know that when the officer stops you at a DUI checkpoint, arrests can be made for violations of other crimes too, not just impaired driving. In absence of a formal DUI safety checkpoint, a police officer needs a “reasonable suspicion” that a violation of the law or crime has occurred or is in progress to stop a driver and conduct a DUI investigation. However, DUI checkpoints bypass this usual step. Not all states have laws authorizing use of DUI checkpoints, but in Arizona their use is becoming more prevalent.

Always, (one more time) “always”, keep both hands on the wheel while you are talking to the officer. The exception to this, is if he instructs you to show him your license which requires you to take your hands on the wheel; or otherwise. Talk to the officer as calmly as possible, and when you must take your hands off the wheel to reach for your driver’s license and registration, do so calmly as well.

Like the situation in Mesa described above, an officer who sees you reach into an area of the car he can’t see may think that you are about to shoot. You do not have to reach for anything to extend a verbal affirmative or negative response. If an officer who pulls you over for suspected DUI asks for your driver’s license, you need to show your driver’s license to him. Otherwise you may give the officer probable cause to conduct a further search and seizure. If the officer asks to search your car, you should say that you do not consent to a search. However, if the officer searches anyway, you must cooperate and you cannot put up any sort of resistance.

Field Sobriety Tests are not mandatory in Arizona. They are simply tools for Police to conduct roadside DUI screening and due to their unreliability may result in false conclusions. You can politely and lawfully refuse to participate in a field sobriety test. You should let the officer know that your reason for refusal is that you understand it is not mandatory by law, and it is your understanding that field sobriety tests are often unreliable and could give false impressions that a person is impaired when in fact they are not. You should be aware that refusing to submit to a field sobriety test may be cause for arrest or further detainment. You can and should refuse to answer questions based on your rights under the Constitution and request to speak with an attorney.

Arizona is an implied consent state. What does this mean to drivers? It means that there are civil penalties through the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) for refusal. If a driver refuses to take a breath or blood test to determine your BAC, your license may be revoked or suspended, whether they are were driving impaired or not; or convicted of the charges or not. All a refusal of a DUI breath or blood test costs you is a suspension of your driver’s license for one year. But the choice of course is ultimately yours. If you have been arrested or cited for any kind of DUI, Contact the Law Office of James Novak to receive a free consultation. He provides a strong and experienced defense for DUI and criminal charges. a href=”http://www.arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com/lawyer-attorney-1580468.html”>criminal defense attorney.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Gun Laws
• Arizona sentencing for serious, violent or aggravated offenses
• Phoenix Superior Court

MORE BLOGS

• Aggravated Assault: The High Cost of Harming a Police Officer, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, August 3, 2012
• Assault Convictions Require “Intent” and “Knowledge” or “Recklessness”, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 1, 2012