What Theft Means in Arizona and What You Should Do in the Next 24 to 72 Hours

Arizona theft is an umbrella concept. The state may claim you “controlled” someone else’s property, took it by deception, or kept it without lawful authority. In Phoenix, theft allegations commonly arise from retail claims, return and refund disputes, workplace accusations, family conflict, or traffic stops where police say they found stolen property. In Arizona, the charge title matters less than the theory the state chooses, because the theory determines what must be proven. In Maricopa County, officers and loss prevention often write reports that read like conclusions, not facts.
In Arizona, your first job is evidence preservation. Write a clean timeline while your memory is fresh, including where you were, who was with you, what you handled, and what you paid for. Save receipts, order confirmations, texts, and emails that show context. In Phoenix, timestamps and camera angles can matter more than opinions in a report. In Arizona, do not contact the accusing person, the store, or loss prevention to “fix it,” because those communications can be reframed as pressure. In Maricopa County, release conditions and no-contact orders can also create new exposure if you guess wrong.

What the State Must Prove and Where the Burden Stays

The state does not win a theft case by repeating the accusation. It wins by proving elements with admissible evidence. In Arizona, the prosecution must prove you acted knowingly and with the required intent tied to the specific theft theory charged. In Arizona, the state must prove you lacked lawful authority to control the property or that it belonged to someone else. In Arizona, value often matters because it influences the charge level and sentencing exposure. In Phoenix theft cases, value disputes are common, especially in retail and return-related allegations.
A prosecutor still must prove identity when the case rests on video, a rushed witness, or an assumption tied to a transaction. A prosecutor still must prove intent, not simply “suspicious behavior.” In Arizona, a good-faith claim of right can undermine the mental state the state needs for theft.

Evidence the State Relies On and How It Gets Attacked

Most theft cases in Phoenix rely on a familiar set of evidence: surveillance footage, employee statements, loss-prevention narratives, inventory or pricing records, transaction logs, and police summaries. In Phoenix, surveillance video can be incomplete, grainy, or shot from angles that hide what matters, including what was scanned, what was paid for, or what was in a bag. In Maricopa County, reports sometimes fill gaps with assumptions, and those assumptions can be tested under cross-examination.
In Arizona, value claims can be challenged with receipts, discount history, condition evidence, and pricing records that show the real number is lower than the state suggests. In Arizona, “possession” is not the same as theft, and the state still must prove the required mental state and lack of authority. A prosecutor still must prove admissibility before the jury can consider key statements or seized items.

The Best Defenses if You Have Been Charged With an Arizona Theft Crime

Below are six defenses that show up often in Phoenix theft charges, including shoplifting defense scenarios and more serious felony theft allegations. Each includes a real-world style example so you can see how the argument works.

Mistaken Identity

Example: A store employee in Phoenix points to you based on clothing and timing, but the video only shows a partial profile and the identification procedure was informal. In Arizona, identity is an element the state must prove. A prosecutor still must prove you were the person who committed the act.

Lack of Intent to Steal

Example: A self-checkout transaction leads to an accusation, but the receipt shows partial scans and the video shows confusion, not concealment or a deliberate bypass. In Arizona, negligence and mistake are not the same as intent to deprive. In Maricopa County, intent is often the weakest link in retail theft cases.

Claim of Right or Permission

Example: A workplace or roommate dispute in Phoenix becomes a theft report, but messages show you believed you had permission or ownership rights to the property. In Arizona, a good-faith claim of right can defeat the intent the state must prove.

Value Disputes That Reduce Exposure

Example: Police list a value based on a shelf tag, but the item was on sale, used, damaged, or bundled, and the real value is lower. In Arizona, value affects classification and leverage. In Maricopa County, a value correction can shift a case from felony theft Arizona exposure toward misdemeanor posture.

Suppression Motions Based on How Evidence Was Obtained

Example: You are detained outside a store, questioned aggressively, and searched before there is proper legal justification, and the case leans on what was found or what you allegedly said. In Arizona, motions can challenge unlawful detention, searches, and involuntary or improperly obtained statements. A prosecutor still must prove the evidence is admissible.

Proof-Based Negotiation Built on Weaknesses in the File

Example: The state has a report and a clip, but it lacks clean inventory proof, reliable intent evidence, or a credible witness who will hold up in court. In Phoenix, showing those weaknesses early can drive reductions, dismissals, or resolutions that limit long-term damage without conceding facts that the state cannot prove.

Why the Law Office of James E. Novak

The Law Office of James E. Novak approaches Arizona theft crime defense with a motion-driven mindset, careful evidence review, and a courtroom-ready theory that targets intent, identity, ownership, and value. In Phoenix, that kind of structure often creates the leverage that drives better outcomes, because it forces the case to be proven rather than assumed.

Take the Next Step in Securing Your Defense

If you are facing Phoenix theft charges or any Maricopa County theft allegation, start with a focused review of what the state can actually prove and what can be challenged through motions and evidence-based strategy. Call the Law Office of James E. Novak at (480) 413-1499 to talk through what happened and what comes next.

A recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision addressed how this lookback rule works and what the State must prove to elevate a case. The takeaway is practical. Dates, certified records, and how prior convictions are counted can decide whether the charge remains a misdemeanor domestic violence allegation or becomes aggravated domestic violence.

Arizona Aggravated Domestic Violence Charges

Aggravated domestic violence is a felony offense under Arizona law. The charge generally applies when a person commits a domestic violence offense and has two or more prior domestic violence convictions within the past 84 months. Prosecutors often use this charge when the underlying allegation involves assault, disorderly conduct, threatening or intimidating, criminal damage, or harassment, and the relationship qualifies as domestic violence under the statute.

The aggravated label does not mean the alleged conduct involved extreme violence. The word “aggravated” in this context often refers to repeat domestic violence convictions within a defined time period. That structure is one reason many people feel blindsided when a new argument turns a case into a felony based largely on a record history.

Arizona Domestic Violence 84-Month Lookback

The 84-month lookback is a time window used to count qualifying prior domestic violence convictions. Courts and prosecutors focus on whether the prior convictions occurred within 84 months of the new offense date. Small details matter, including the exact conviction dates, how the prior cases were labeled, and whether the prior convictions were truly domestic violence convictions under Arizona law.

Lookback calculations can create disputes when a prior case involved a plea to a non-domestic count, when the record is incomplete, or when the relationship element was never established clearly. The State typically relies on certified court records to show prior convictions and the domestic violence designation.

Prior Domestic Violence Convictions Proof Requirements

Aggravated domestic violence requires proof of prior qualifying domestic violence convictions. Prosecutors usually present certified judgments, minute entries, or other official records. The defense review should focus on whether those records establish what the State claims they establish.

Issues commonly arise in three areas. One area involves mislabeling, where a prior case is treated as domestic violence without the necessary designation. Another area involves proof gaps: a record exists, but it does not clearly show the domestic violence finding or the qualifying relationship. A third area involves counting errors, where multiple counts from a single case are treated as separate prior convictions, or where the timing falls outside the lookback period.

These details can change charge level, sentencing exposure, and bargaining power.

Multiple Domestic Violence Counts From One Incident

Aggravated domestic violence litigation sometimes turns on how prior convictions are counted when they arise from the same incident or the same case file. Prosecutors may argue that separate counts and separate convictions qualify as separate prior domestic violence convictions. Defense arguments often focus on fairness and statutory interpretation, especially when the prior convictions occurred in a single court event.

Arizona appellate decisions in this area can be technical, and outcomes depend on the record structure. A person may have pled to two domestic violence counts on the same day and later face an aggravated domestic violence filing based on those convictions. The legal question becomes whether the statute treats them as distinct prior convictions for the enhancement scheme.

Sentencing Exposure in Aggravated Domestic Violence Cases

Felony domestic violence charges can carry consequences beyond jail or prison exposure. A conviction can impact firearm rights, employment background checks, housing applications, professional licensing, and immigration risk for noncitizens. Courts may impose probation with counseling and strict no-contact orders. Violations can trigger new charges or probation revocation proceedings.

Protective orders and release conditions also change day-to-day life. Many people lose access to their home, their children’s routines, or shared vehicles, even before the case resolves. These practical consequences often matter as much as the final sentence.

Common Defenses in Arizona Domestic Violence Cases

The defense is always fact-driven. Many domestic violence cases arise from chaotic moments with conflicting stories and limited physical evidence. Defenses may involve misidentification of the primary aggressor, lack of intent, self-defense, accidental contact, credibility issues, or the absence of injury consistent with the accusation.

Evidence often includes 911 calls, body-worn camera footage, neighbor statements, medical records, and text messages. A careful review can reveal whether the State’s theory aligns with the evidence. The prior-conviction element adds another layer, and it should be tested with the same care as the facts of the new allegation.

What to Do After an Arizona Domestic Violence Arrest

Early decisions can shape outcomes. Protective order terms, release conditions, and first appearances often happen quickly. Statements made to police, to family members, or in messages can also become exhibits.

A practical approach is to preserve communications, gather any relevant photos or videos, and write down a timeline while it is fresh. Court orders should be followed closely, even when they feel unfair, since violations can create separate problems that distract from defending the main charge.

Contact an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney

Aggravated domestic violence cases require close attention to both the facts of the new allegation and the prior conviction proof the State plans to use. The Law Office of James Novak can review the timeline, the 84-month lookback issue, and the charging documents to identify defenses and weaknesses in the State’s case. A clear plan can also help address protective orders and release conditions in a way that reduces disruption to your life. Contact an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney at (480) 413-1499.

You have the right to appeal if you are convicted, but appeals focus strictly on the record from your original trial. That means every objection, motion, and legal argument must be properly presented and preserved. Without it, even strong arguments may be impossible to raise on appeal.

How Arizona Courts Review Criminal Appeals After a Felony Conviction

The case involved a robbery conviction out of Mohave County. The accused challenged multiple issues on appeal, including evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing. The court considered whether the trial judge had committed reversible error or if the verdict stood on a solid legal foundation.

Arizona appellate courts apply a high threshold for overturning convictions. Judges reviewing an appeal do not reweigh the evidence or decide guilt again. Instead, they ask whether any legal errors occurred and whether those errors impacted the outcome. In McNulty, the court found that the evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court acted within its discretion.

The opinion highlights how important it is for defense attorneys to preserve every issue during trial. If an objection is not raised at the moment, the court may consider the issue waived. Even when the court reviews unpreserved matters, it does so only for fundamental error, which sets a much higher bar.

How Trial Records Shape Your Appeal in Arizona

Every appeal begins and ends with the record. That includes:

• All testimony presented at trial;
• Every document entered into evidence;
• Transcripts of court hearings and arguments;
• Objections made by the attorneys; and
• Jury instructions and verdict forms.

Once a case moves to the appellate level, you cannot add new facts or evidence. If your defense lawyer failed to object to a questionable ruling or did not request a specific jury instruction, you may lose the chance to raise the issue later.

This is one reason why preparation matters at every stage of your case. Trials are not only about persuading the jury. They are also about protecting your rights in case the verdict goes against you.

What You Need to Win a Criminal Appeal in Arizona

Appeals are not second trials. You cannot simply say the outcome was unfair or that the evidence should have been interpreted differently. You must show that the trial court made a legal error and that the mistake affected the verdict or sentence.

In McNulty, the court explained that it gives deference to the trial judge’s factual findings. That means the judge’s decision to allow or exclude evidence, instruct the jury a certain way, or rule on a motion will usually be upheld unless clearly wrong. You need to work with an attorney who understands how to preserve each legal issue and make a clear record for appeal.

What You Should Do If You Are Facing Felony Charges in Arizona

If you are charged with a felony, start thinking about your appeal before trial even begins. Your defense lawyer should:

• File motions to suppress improper evidence;
• Object to faulty jury instructions;
• Request specific rulings on the record; and
• Prepare for post-trial motions and appellate review.

Even if your case never goes to trial, your attorney’s efforts at the early stages can affect how the judge rules and whether any plea deal is worth considering. Arizona prosecutors take full advantage of the rules. You need someone who can do the same for your defense.

Call an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Who Knows How to Protect the Record

If you are facing serious charges in Arizona, you need more than courtroom presence. You need a legal defense that prepares for trial and appeal simultaneously. At The Law Office of James E. Novak, we defend clients with precision and preparation. Attorney Novak knows how to protect your rights during every phase of the case, from arrest to appeal.

Call (480) 413-1499 today to schedule a free consultation. We will review your situation and explain how to build a defense that stands up in court and on appeal.

Appeals Court Sends Case Back for Proper Sentencing

In this case, the accused stood trial in Maricopa County and received multiple felony convictions. At sentencing, the prosecutor requested that the judge impose an enhanced sentence based on the defendant’s prior conviction. However, the trial judge did not personally examine the underlying record or make the required findings before agreeing to the enhancement.

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 19.4 requires the court to confirm the existence and validity of any alleged prior conviction before using it to increase a sentence. Judges must go beyond summaries provided by the prosecution. They must review the evidence themselves, state their findings, and ensure those findings appear on the record.

The appellate court agreed that the jury’s verdict could stand. However, because the judge skipped the steps required under Rule 19.4, the court vacated the sentence. The panel ordered a new sentencing hearing, during which the trial court must follow proper procedures.

Sentencing Errors Can Still Change the Outcome

A guilty verdict does not allow the court to bypass the legal process during sentencing. Judges must follow specific procedures to ensure fairness, especially when prosecutors seek longer sentences based on prior convictions. When those procedures are ignored, the consequences can be severe and may result in a full resentencing.

Arizona law requires the court to confirm any prior felony convictions through an independent review. Judges cannot simply accept what the prosecutor claims without examining the actual records and making clear findings in open court. Rule 19.4 exists to safeguard your rights during this part of the case.

If a sentencing court skips these steps, you may still have an opportunity to challenge the outcome. Even when the conviction itself remains intact, an appellate court can step in and correct mistakes that occurred during sentencing. That review can result in a shorter sentence or force the court to reconsider its decision entirely.

Defense strategy does not end once the trial is over. Sentencing carries lasting consequences, and every stage of the process deserves the same level of scrutiny and care as the trial itself.

Understanding Rule 19.4 and Its Role in Arizona Sentencing

Rule 19.4 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure plays a critical role in sentencing hearings involving prior convictions. This rule requires judges to do more than simply accept the prosecutor’s claims about someone’s criminal history. The judge must personally examine the court records, determine whether the prior conviction qualifies as a historical prior felony, and announce those findings in open court before using them to increase a sentence.

This process ensures fairness and accuracy. A conviction from another case may not meet the legal standards necessary for sentence enhancement. For example, the prior offense might not qualify under Arizona’s current definition of a felony, or the prosecution might fail to show that counsel properly represented the accused in that earlier case. If the trial judge skips the review or fails to make clear findings, any enhanced sentence may violate the accused’s due process rights.

This safeguard protects individuals from receiving longer sentences based on unverified or improperly applied past convictions. In the case at hand, the appellate court recognized that the trial judge’s failure to follow Rule 19.4 required a full resentencing. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to proper judicial procedure, particularly when liberty is at stake.

Contact an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you face charges that could involve sentence enhancements, you need a defense lawyer who pays attention to the details. One overlooked rule could mean years of unnecessary prison time. Call The Law Office of James E. Novak at (480) 413-1499 to speak with an experienced Arizona criminal defense attorney who can defend your rights through trial, sentencing, and beyond.

In State v. Armendaris, the accused faced charges related to online communications with someone he believed to be a minor. The person he was messaging turned out to be an adult undercover officer using a false identity on a public website. Because the charges did not carry a possible sentence of 30 years or more, the trial court seated an 8-person jury as provided under Article II, Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution. The accused requested a 12-person jury under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The request was denied, and the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.

Arizona Law Sets Jury Size Based on Potential Sentencing

Under Arizona law, a 12-person jury is required only when the accused faces a sentence of at least 30 years. For all other felony cases, the court may empanel 8 jurors unless otherwise mandated by statute. In this case, the charges did not meet the sentencing threshold for a larger jury. The appeals court held that Arizona’s system does not conflict with the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees an impartial jury but does not define its exact size.

This ruling clarifies that asking for a larger jury, even in serious felony cases, may not succeed unless the sentencing range qualifies. Knowing how many jurors will decide your case is important, especially when weighing trial strategy and deciding whether to accept a plea deal.

Claim of Police Misconduct Rejected by Trial and Appeals Courts

The person on trial also argued that he should have been allowed to question the undercover officer about whether her actions constituted computer tampering. He claimed that her creation of a false profile and impersonation of a minor violated Arizona criminal statutes. The trial court allowed general testimony about the officer’s use of the website but prevented questions about the specific charge of computer tampering.

The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The court reasoned that the evidence was already before the jury and that any additional testimony would have had limited value. It also noted that introducing the officer’s conduct as a possible crime would likely have caused unnecessary confusion and delay. The court found no error in excluding the additional line of questioning.

Why This Case Matters for Your Criminal Defense

This decision serves as a reminder that courts maintain broad discretion over what evidence and arguments may be presented at trial. If you plan to challenge police conduct or expose flaws in the investigation, you need to make sure the evidence is relevant and presented in a way that supports your defense. Courts may reject your argument if it distracts from the issues at the heart of the case.

The same applies to procedural requests, such as demanding a 12-person jury. If Arizona law does not entitle you to a larger jury, judges are unlikely to grant the request, no matter how serious the charge feels. That makes early preparation with your attorney even more important, especially in sex-related internet cases where undercover stings and website terms of service often play a central role.

Call an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Who Understands the System

If you are facing serious criminal charges in Arizona and want to challenge how your case is being handled, James E. Novak is here to help. With a deep understanding of Arizona law and courtroom strategy, Mr. Novak works to protect your rights at every stage of the process, from jury selection to trial. Call James E. Novak today at (480) 413-1499 for a free consultation. Make sure your voice is heard and your defense is built on solid legal ground.

Police Interview Featured Strong Statements from Detective

The case began when the victim reported that her ex-boyfriend sexually assaulted her and recorded it without her permission. She underwent a forensic exam the same day. During the investigation, officers arrested the defendant and recorded a three-hour interview between him and the lead detective. In that interview, the detective directly questioned him about visible injuries, such as a human bite mark, scratches on his face, and a broken necklace. The detective repeatedly pointed out that the victim’s account matched those physical signs. At trial, the defendant admitted he had lied about the origin of his injuries, initially blaming his dog.

Statements at the Center of the Appeal

On appeal, the defense focused on specific quotes from the detective’s interview. The detective made several emotionally charged comments, including:

“She’s had a very invasive, very personal medical exam. That’s traumatizing in and of itself.”

“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that something happened.”

“There’s just so much that’s adding up.”

“You have a human bite mark… She said she bit you to try and get away.”

Statements like these formed the basis of the defendant’s claim that the detective had improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility. Under Arizona law, vouching occurs when the government suggests that a witness is believable based on information not presented to the jury or when it places the weight of the government behind a witness’s testimony.

Court Found No Prosecutorial Misconduct

The appellate court rejected the claim. It found that although the detective did express personal beliefs and drew conclusions about the evidence, those remarks did not amount to prosecutorial vouching. Arizona courts have consistently ruled that a police officer’s personal opinion during an interview does not carry the same weight as a prosecutor’s statements in court.

Importantly, the defense had not objected to the video interview during the trial. Because of that, the appellate court reviewed the issue under a higher standard. Unless an error affects the trial’s outcome or causes fundamental unfairness, it will not lead to reversal. Here, the court decided that none of the detective’s remarks met that threshold.

Arizona Sentencing Law Allows Courts to Consider Lies Told by the Accused

In the Narayan case, the accused argued that the judge wrongly used his dishonesty to increase the severity of his sentence. Arizona courts have the authority to consider several factors at sentencing, including whether the accused accepted responsibility or attempted to mislead investigators or the court. The record showed that he admitted under oath to lying during the police interview. He had falsely claimed his dog caused visible injuries that the victim described as part of the assault.

The Court of Appeals determined that the judge acted within the boundaries of the law. Arizona law does not prevent judges from considering whether someone has been truthful throughout the legal process. When you testify, and your story conflicts with earlier statements, that inconsistency may be factored into sentencing.

Recorded Interviews and False Claims Can Affect Your Criminal Trial

If police question you after an arrest, anything you say can be used at trial. Video recordings often include more than just facts. Detectives may express doubt, pressure you to change your story, or suggest their conclusions. The jury may see and hear it all unless your attorney raises a timely objection. Courts are unlikely to exclude such statements unless they violate legal standards.

This case shows how important it is to speak carefully after an arrest. Misleading investigators may damage your credibility in front of a jury. It can also affect the sentence you receive if you are convicted. Even if you believe police statements went too far, you need an attorney who can identify objectionable content and act quickly to preserve your rights.

Telling the truth from the start or exercising your right to remain silent may protect you later. Once conflicting statements appear in the record, they are hard to explain away.

Call the Law Office of James Novak for Criminal Defense Support in Phoenix

If you are accused of a sex crime in Phoenix or anywhere in Maricopa County, your best defense starts with early legal intervention. The Law Office of James Novak provides skilled criminal defense for those facing serious charges. Whether you are being investigated, preparing for trial, or considering an appeal, we are ready to fight for your future. Call (480) 413-1499 today to set up a confidential consultation.

Although the responsible use of cannabis for medical purposes has largely been decriminalized in Arizona, prior to this decision the DUI laws effectively made it a crime to drive as a medical marijuana patient (even after the impairing effects faded and disappeared). In other words, using medical marijuana should not automatically be a DUI when there was no actual impairment at the time of driving.

The decision in Dobson v. McClennen didn’t make either side happy. The defense wanted a ruling that Medical Marijuana Patients were immune from the “per se” version of DUI under § 28–1381(A)(3). On the other hand, the prosecution wanted a ruling that a positive blood test meant an automatic “per se” DUI conviction under § 28–1381(A)(3). The Court rejected both positions and came up with a middle ground that leaves many of the complicated issues surrounding driving after consuming medical marijuana unresolved.

In these cases, the main evidence is usually a blood test revealing THC and/or its impairing metabolite, hydroxy-THC. But this evidence alone doesn’t necessary mean that the driver was actually impaired by marijuana at the time of driving. THC and its metabolite stay in a driver’s system long after the impairing effects have disappeared.

In these cases, the presence of THC or its metabolite hydroxy-THC is largely irrelevant to impairment. In other words, the presence of THC or the metabolite hydroxy-THC often has little correlation with actual impairment. Now if the defense raises this new affirmative defense at trial, the issue is left up to the fact-finder to decide.

Under this recent decision, the driver must present some evidence to raise the affirmative Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) Marijuana DUI defense. Raising the affirmative defense would require a showing by the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence, of the following:

• That the driver was covered by the AMMA as a registered qualifying patient (or held an equivalent out-of-state-issued medical marijuana registry identification cards which could be shown by admitting the card into evidence or presenting other evidence of its existence); and
• Showing that the concentration of marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies was insufficient to cause actual impairment at the time of driving.

How would the second showing be made? In many of these trials, expert witness testimony could establish that the concentration was insufficient to cause impairment at the time the driving occurred.

The expert witness could be the same witness called by the prosecutor when the blood test and its result are admitted into evidence. Additionally, the defense could call its own expert to testify about this point. In many of these cases, the expert will be able to testify that although the blood test might reveal THC and/or its impairing metabolite hydroxy-THC, based on the driver’s testimony about the timeline of consumption, the amount would not cause actual impairment at the time of driving. Even the experts will have a hard time explaining it to the jury because, unlike for alcohol, there is no accepted threshold for marijuana impairment. Even according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects.”

Other admissible evidence might come from the driver testifying that he or she did not feel impaired. The defense would also be able to argue that other evidence showed a lack of impairment including a safe driving pattern and good performance on field sobriety exercises.

Ultimately, the driver’s DUI convictions in these cases were upheld. But the decision provides an important road map for other people in a similar situations. At the very least, this decision makes a prosecution for driving while impaired by marijuana much more difficult under § 28–1381(A)(3) alone.

Procedural History

The Defendants were convicted in the Maricopa County Municipal Court of driving with an impermissible drug or its metabolite in a person’s body. After the conviction, the Defendants appealed the conviction to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction.

The Defendants then sought special action review in the court of appeals, which accepted jurisdiction but denied relief finding that “neither A.R.S. § 36–2811(B) nor § 36–2802(D) provides immunity for defendants facing charges for driving with an impermissible drug or impairing metabolite in their bodies under A.R.S. § 28–1381(A)(3).”

Then the Defendants sought relief from the Arizona Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review because whether the AMMA immunizes a medical marijuana cardholder from DUI prosecution under § 28–1381(A)(3) presents a recurring issue of statewide importance.

The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held, as a matter of first impression, that an affirmative defense to the charge could have been made by showing that a qualifying patient’s use of marijuana was authorized by the AMMA and was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment. The Court also found that under the facts of the case any error in excluding evidence of defendants’ registry cards under the AMMA was harmless.

The Chief Assistant City Prosecutor for the Mesa City Prosecutor’s Office represented the State in the appeal. An amicus brief was filed by Thomas W. Dean, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Arizona’s laws generally make it a crime for a person to drive with any amount of certain drugs, including marijuana or its impairing metabolite, in the person’s body. (A.R.S. § 28–1381(A)(3)). In the case, the Arizona Supreme Court held for the first time that “the AMMA does not immunize a medical marijuana cardholder from prosecution under § 28–1381(A)(3), but instead affords an affirmative defense if the cardholder shows that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.”

Facts of the Case

The facts of the case showed that two drivers were each charged with two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”). Count one alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 28–1381(A)(1), which prohibits a person from driving a vehicle in Arizona “[w]hile under the influence of … any drug … if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.” Count two alleged a violation of § 28–1381(A)(3), which prohibits driving a vehicle “[w]hile there is any drug defined in § 13–3401 or its metabolite in the person’s body.” Cannabis (marijuana) is a drug defined in A.R.S. § 13–3401(4).

In each case the driver submitted to a blood test that showed the driver had marijuana and its impairing metabolite in his or her body. The drivers also stipulated to the fact that they “had marijuana in their bodies while driving (blood tests revealed both THC and its impairing metabolite hydroxy-THC) and their failure to offer any evidence that the concentrations were insufficient to cause impairment.” Instead, the only evidence they offered was their respective registry identification cards into evidence.

Before trial, the municipal court in Maricopa County denied the driver’s motion to present evidence at trial that the driver held an out-of-state-issued medical marijuana card. The Court also granted the State’s motion in limine to preclude evidence that the driver held an out-of-state-issued medical marijuana card.

Neither driver tried to introduce at trial any evidence other than their respective medical marijuana cards.

Each was convicted of the § 28–1381(A)(3) charge, which prohibits driving a vehicle “[w]hile there is any drug defined in § 13–3401 or its metabolite in the person’s body.”

History of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA)

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) was passed by voters in Arizona in 2010. The provisions of the AMMA were codified as A.R.S. §§ 36–2801–2819 which allows a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition to apply for a card identifying the holder as a registered qualifying patient. After becoming a registered qualifying patient, the person may possess and use limited amounts of marijuana for medical reasons.

The AMMA broadly immunizes the patient from prosecution for using medical marijuana consistent with the Act. The AMMA broadly immunizes registered qualifying patients for their medical use of marijuana, providing:

A registered qualifying patient … is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau: (1) For the registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, if the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana. (A.R.S. § 36–2811(B)(1)).

The Court noted that the grant of immunity is not absolute. The Court noted that the AMMA does not prohibit prosecutions for operating a motor vehicle or water vessel while under the influence of marijuana under A.R.S. § 36–2802(D). However, in those cases, “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”

On the other hand, Arizona’s DUI laws identify “separate offenses for driving while a person is under the influence of marijuana and ‘impaired to the slightest degree,’ A.R.S. § 28–1381(A)(1), and driving while there is marijuana or its metabolite ‘in the person’s body.’ § 28–1381(A)(3).”

Therefore, an § 28–1381(A)(3) violation, unlike an (A)(1) violation, does not require the state to prove that the defendant was in fact impaired while driving or in control of a vehicle.

The Court also noted that (A)(1) and (A)(3) offenses for DUI also differ with respect to possible defenses. The Court noted that this was the first case in which the Supreme Court was called upon to resolve how the AMMA affects (A)(3) prosecutions.

The court noted that “Section 36–2802(D) does not say that registered qualifying patients cannot be prosecuted for (A)(3) violations. Instead, it provides that such patients, who use marijuana ‘as authorized’ by the AMMA, id. § 36–2802(E), cannot “be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.” Id. § 36–2802(D) (emphasis added).”

The Affirmative Marijuana AMMA Defense in a DUI Case

In setting forth the parameters of the Affirmative Marijuana AMMA Defense in a DUI Case the court noted that:

Section 36–2802(D), rather than § 28–1381(D), defines the affirmative defense available to a registered qualifying patient to an (A)(3) charge. If their use of marijuana is authorized by § 36–2802(D), such patients cannot be deemed to be under the influence—and thus cannot be convicted under (A)(3)—based solely on concentrations of marijuana or its metabolite insufficient to cause impairment.

Possession of a registry card creates a presumption that a qualifying patient is engaged in the use of marijuana pursuant to the AMMA, so long as the patient does not possess more than the permitted quantity of marijuana. A.R.S. § 36–2811(A)(1). That presumption is subject to rebuttal as provided under § 36–2811(2).

A qualifying patient may be convicted of an (A)(3) violation if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the patient, while driving or in control of a vehicle, had marijuana or its impairing metabolite in the patient’s body. The patient may establish an affirmative defense to such a charge by showing that his or her use was authorized by the AMMA—which is subject to the rebuttable presumption under § 36–2811(2)—and that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.

The patient bears the burden of proof on the latter point by a preponderance of the evidence, as with other affirmative defenses. See A.R.S. § 13–205 (“[A] defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence.”).

Problems with Assigning the Patient the Burden of Showing Lack of Impairment

By limiting the defense to an affirmative defense, the Court essentially assigned to qualifying patients “the burden of showing that they did not have marijuana concentrations sufficient to cause impairment….” As a practical matter, this is a difficult task because there is no commonly accepted threshold for identifying marijuana concentrations sufficient to cause impairment. In fact, the courts in Arizona have previously explained that there are “no generally applicable concentration that can be identified as an indicator of impairment for illegal drugs.” Cf. State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), 234 Ariz. 343, 347 ¶ 24, 322 P.3d 160, 164 (2014).

The Court, nevertheless, decided that the “risk of uncertainty in this regard should fall on the patients, who generally know or should know if they are impaired and can control when they drive, rather than on the members of the public whom they encounter on our streets.”

The Court ultimately noted that the drivers in the case before them had made no effort to show that the marijuana in their bodies was in an insufficient concentration to cause impairment. Instead, they argued that the AMMA categorically barred the (A)(3) charge. As such, the only evidence they offered was their respective registry identification cards into evidence. The court noted that evidence of possession of a registry card would generally be admissible in an (A)(3) prosecution to invoke the presumption that the patient was using marijuana pursuant to the AMMA, but it does not suffice to establish the § 36–2802(D) affirmative defense. Therefore, any error by the trial court in excluding evidence of the registry cards was harmless under the particular facts of that case.

The Court found that instead of “shielding registered qualifying patients from any prosecution under A.R.S. § 28–1381(A)(3), the AMMA affords an affirmative defense for those patients who can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the concentration of marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies was insufficient to cause impairment.”

Ultimately, the drivers’ convictions were upheld. But the decision at least provides a road map to other people in a similar position to have their Arizona or out-of-state-issued medical marijuana registry identification cards into evidence or prove other evidence of its existence. The decision would also allow the driver to present the affirmative defense of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the concentration of marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies was insufficient to cause impairment.

Additional Resources

Arizona Supreme Court Rules on Medical Marijuana in DUI Cases — Visit The Arizona Republic to find an article by Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez which was published on November 20, 2015. The article discusses the new affirmative defense announced by the Arizona Supreme Court on Friday.

Legally Speaking: Change in Arizona DUI law gives medical marijuana holders fair shake — Article published by Monica Lindstrom on November 20, 2015 about the Supreme Court’s recent decision to add an affirmative defense to Arizona’s DUI laws on Friday for qualified card holder under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

Arizona Drugged Driving DUI — Visit the website for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws to learn more about the so-called drugged driving laws in Arizona including affirmative defenses, implied consent, penalties, sobriety checkpoints, per se drugged driving laws and case law.

Conclusion

If you were charged with DUI involving a blood test showing the presence of THC and/or its impairing metabolite hydroxy-THC, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at the Law Office of James Novak. Call us today to discuss your case and the best ways to present the Affirmative Marijuana AMMA Defense in your case.

A Real Life Example

In a recent case, a defendant challenged his conviction on the basis that a juror should have been removed during trial due to an incident outside the courtroom. The case involved serious charges, and the defendant’s legal team was concerned about any possible bias in the jury. On the eighth day of the trial, one of the jurors, Juror 14, was parallel parking when a person from another vehicle accused him of hitting their truck. Although the juror and another fellow juror did not believe any contact occurred, the truck’s passenger insisted otherwise. The four individuals briefly examined the bumper and found no damage. The juror, in an effort to defuse the situation, apologized just in case. It was later discovered that the truck had a sticker associated with the defendant’s supporters, and Juror 14 recognized the truck’s occupant as someone who had been attending the trial on the defense side.

Juror 14 reported the incident to the court, and the defense moved to disqualify him, arguing that the interaction could have biased him against the defendant. The judge questioned Juror 14 and the accompanying juror to assess whether the event affected their ability to be fair and impartial. Juror 14 stated that it would not impact his service, and the other juror agreed that the incident had no bearing on their deliberations. Despite the defense’s concerns, the judge found no basis for disqualification and allowed Juror 14 to remain on the case. Later in the trial, the defense renewed their motion to remove Juror 14, citing concerns that he was staring at the defendant’s family. The judge again declined to remove him. Ultimately, the jury convicted the defendant of both charges, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

The Takeaway

This case highlights that unforeseen issues related to jury fairness can arise, both before and during trial. Even something as seemingly innocent as a minor parking dispute can raise concerns about whether a juror can remain impartial. A skilled defense attorney understands the importance of jury selection and will work diligently to identify potential sources of bias before a trial begins. Once a juror is seated, it becomes significantly harder to have them removed, and appellate courts are often reluctant to overturn a trial judge’s decision on these matters. That’s why having an experienced defense attorney is critical—getting an unfavorable ruling reversed on appeal is far more difficult than preventing the issue in the first place.

Speak with an Experienced Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case Today

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Arizona, you need an attorney who will advocate for you at every stage of the process, including jury selection and juror disqualification. The Law Office of James E. Novak is committed to protecting your rights and ensuring you receive a fair trial. Our knowledgeable attorneys can help craft a strategy to attack the prosecution case and tactics from all angles, to ensure our clients have a fair shot. Contact our offices today at 480-413-1499 to schedule a no-obligation consultation with an experienced Arizona criminal defense lawyer who will fight for you. Don’t wait—protect yourself with skilled legal representation now.

Factors for the Court to Consider

If a court is called upon to determine whether a juvenile’s confession is voluntary or involuntary, there are several factors the court must consider. For example, case law establishes that children and adolescents are more likely to be coerced by police officers than adults. The court must consider certain facts about a juvenile suspect, such as his age, education, and intelligence. It is also relevant whether a parent was present during the questioning.

Ultimately, the most significant factor a court must consider during this assessment is whether intimidating police conduct directly caused the suspect’s confession. For example, in a recent criminal case in Arizona, the court found that a juvenile’s confession was voluntary (and therefore admissible in court) when the police officers did not offer any threats or empty promises to the juvenile. Even though the child had no parent present for the interview, and even though he was younger than 18 years old, the questioning officer did not use any intimidating tactics to get him to confess. Because of the acceptable behavior from the officer, then, the juvenile’s confession was admissible in court.

These kinds of cases can be tricky, especially given the different hurdles that a young person might face in court. At our firm, we recommend that whether you are young or old, you do not speak with the police about a crime without an attorney present. Having an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side during these interactions can make all of the difference in your case.

Do You Need a Maricopa County Criminal Defense Lawyer by Your Side? 

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take every case that comes on our desk seriously, and we treat every client with the respect we believe they deserve. If you need a Maricopa County criminal defense lawyer you can trust, know that we are standing by, ready to fight for your rights. When your freedom is on the line, you shouldn’t have to settle for any attorney but the best, and our firm promises to represent you aggressively and zealously. 

To learn more about the legal services we provide, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible regarding next steps.

Definition of Hearsay

When a statement is “offered for the truth of the matter” in a courtroom, the person making the statement is offering the statement in order to prove that the statement is true. For example, if a litigant states that his brother told him that “the cat is black,” the statement is hearsay if the reason the litigant offers the statement is to prove, indeed, that the cat is black. If, instead, the litigant offers the statement for another reason (perhaps to prove that he saw his brother on a particular day or to prove that his brother had no idea the cat was actually orange), the statement is not considered hearsay.

A Recent Case Before Appeals Court

This distinction is important. If a court determines an out of court statement is not actually hearsay, the statement can come into the record. In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant tried to appeal his convictions and sentences for aggravated driving under the influence. According to the defendant, the trial court incorrectly admitted hearsay when it allowed a testifying police officer to indicate that a witness told him that the defendant had hit a nearby pole with his car.

The court, however, determined that this statement was not hearsay. The officer did not provide the statement for “the truth of the matter” (to show that the defendant hit the pole), but instead to provide context for how he got involved in the case to begin with. Because the statement was offered for this second purpose, it was admissible in court. Therefore, the defendant’s appeal had no merit.

If you are facing charges for a vehicular crime in Phoenix, you need an attorney that is well-versed in criminal defense strategy and can use the rules surrounding hearsay to your advantage. By hiring a Phoenix vehicular crimes attorney you can trust, you can give yourself the best chance at getting your charges dropped entirely.

Do You Need a Phoenix Vehicular Crimes Attorney You Can Trust?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we provide the highest quality legal representation for our clients. If you need a Phoenix vehicular crimes attorney by your side, there is no wiser choice than James E. Novak. We fight to win, and we don’t give up on making sure your rights are well protected.

To learn more about the legal services we provide, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible regarding next steps.

Circumstances Relevant to Reasonable Suspicion

Courts can interpret this case law differently. Importantly, courts will look at the circumstances surrounding a traffic stop to determine if an officer properly prolonged the stop when investigating additional criminal activity. This inquiry generally arises when an officer arrests a driver for a reason totally unrelated to the original traffic violation.

Whether or not an officer has “reasonable suspicion” depends on the “specific, articulable facts” of the traffic stop’s circumstances. The officer may consider factors such as the driver’s conduct and appearance, the location of the stop, the time of day, and the officer’s training leading up to the stop. If an officer suspects drug use, for example, the officer might rely on his experience investigating drug crimes to determine whether the driver appears to be under the influence. If the officer has significant experience with drug crimes, the court will be more trusting when the officer says he suspected drug use during the traffic stop.

Filing a Motion to Suppress

If you think an officer might have unreasonably prolonged your traffic stop in Arizona, and if that traffic stop led to unrelated charges, you might have reason to file a motion to suppress. This motion asks the trial court to remove from the record any statements or evidence related to the prolonged traffic stop. If your attorney can prove that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot, the court has the option to suppress the evidence, which can in turn lead to the state’s dropping the charges against you.

Do You Need a Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are experts in doing everything in our power to fight relentlessly for our clients’ freedoms. Every case that we take on, no matter how big or small, is an opportunity to make sure our clients’ rights are protected when it matters the most. If you want to make sure you have the best Phoenix criminal attorney in your corner, make sure you call our team at the Law Office of James E. Novak today.

To learn more about the legal services we provide, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible regarding next steps.

The Facts of the Case

While traveling on a highway in a pickup truck, the defendant was stopped by law enforcement for a mud flap violation. The defendant consented to a dog sniff, which led to the officers finding drugs in the truck. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs being used as evidence against him at trial, arguing that he was detained for a time that was longer than necessary for officers to complete the traffic citation. The lower court denied the motion.

While the defendant awaited his trial, the Arizona Supreme Court modified court operations in response to the Covid-19 public health emergency. Typically, in the Arizona jury selection process, each party is allowed up to six peremptory strikes, or in other words the ability to choose up to six individuals who they would like to excuse from serving on the jury. In response to the pandemic, the Supreme Court decreased the number of peremptory strikes that each party could make, changing it from six strikes to two. Additionally, the Supreme Court authorized the use of technology for virtual jury selection instead of in-person jury selection.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress and objected to the use of Zoom and other video conferencing platforms for jury selection, arguing that the use of these platforms would deny him the right to a fair and unbiased jury. Additionally, the defense counsel objected to reducing the number of peremptory strikes. The court denied the motion to suppress because it was untimely, declared that the use of videoconferencing did not prevent the selection of a fair and unbiased jury, and denied the defense counsel’s objection to the limit on peremptory strikes. The defendant appealed.

The Decision

The defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because he was among the criminal defendants with upcoming trials who were subjected to different procedural rules because of the circumstances of the Covid-19 health crisis. Additionally, the defendant argued that the modified rules were not adopted according to Arizona Supreme Court rules. In response, the court explained that the procedural rules that were put in place at the time of trial, which in this case happened to be during the pandemic, applied to the defendant’s trial and that the Supreme Court has broader power to make emergency provisions.

Because the court reduced the number of peremptory strikes allowed, the appellate court explained that there is no constitutional right to peremptory strikes because these strikes are an added benefit that go beyond the minimum requirements of ensuring a fair jury selection and that the courts have discretion.

In addition, the defendant argued that the use of videoconferencing prevented him from being able to evaluate a potential jurors’ body language and demeanor, and the court explained that although it may be useful to see a potential juror’s demeanor in person, it is not required. Furthermore, the defendant argued that videoconferencing prevented his jury pool from being representative of the community by excluding lower-income individuals who may lack access to technology. However, the court stated that individuals had the option to appear in person or by video. The appellate court, therefore, denied the challenges defendant made to the Covid-19 court modifications, finding that these court modifications in response to the public health emergency were valid.

Have You Been Charged with a Crime in Arizona?

If you are facing criminal charges in Arizona, contact the Law Office of James E. Novak today. Attorney Novak is an experienced and dedicated criminal defense attorney who has expertise in navigating the court system and handling complicated cases including Arizona drug charges, DUI offenses, or assault charges. With changes in court procedures in Arizona during the Covid-19 public health emergency, Attorney Novak is knowledgeable about these changes and ready to assist you with your case. To learn more and to schedule a free consultation, call 480-413-1499.

Series: Part 1 of 2

The AMMA Cannabis Controversy

It’s been nearly a decade since the state passed the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).

According to the DHS statistics for 2018, the number of active qualified Arizona medical marijuana cardholders totaled 198,017. At year-end, there were an additional 108,819 new applications pending for qualified patient status under the AMMA.

Amidst the success of the program, the state has continued to grapple with how to interpret the law.

The most recent controversy was whether qualified patients had immunity under the AMMA law to possess hashish, resin, or other forms of cannabis besides dried leaves, buds and flowers. more

An Arizona Appeals Court ruled last year that hashish, a cannabis resin, was not lawful under the AMMA (Arizona v. Jones, 2018).

Despite the unfavorable ruling, sales of medical marijuana concentrates and extracts continued to increase. flourish. Statistics from Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) for 2018 indicated that marijuana “edibles” and “marijuana other” constituted 10, 085 pounds, representing 8 percent of total medical marijuana sales in 2018. This was a .05% increase over 2017 for the “marijuana edibles” and “marijuana other” of total marijuana sales.

Due to the legal uncertainties, qualified patients were left with only one lawful choice to relieve their debilitating systems, which was by smoking the dried leaves, buds and flowers. Choosing to use a cannabis alternative, such as a concentrate or an extract, meant that qualified patients faced the real threat of being arrested and prosecuted for possessing prohibited marijuana products.

Arizona dispensaries and qualified AMMA patients hoped for an appeal and a favorable decision at the Arizona Supreme Court level to allow medical marijuana alternatives.

Then on May 28, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court released a landmark ruling in the matter. The Court examined the two statutes in controversy pertaining to the definitions of marijuana and cannabis under Arizona criminal law and the AMMA law.

In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that AMMA qualified patients are immune from prosecution for possessing hashish because the statutory definition of “marijuana” includes resin.

This article outlines the Arizona Supreme Court Case; impact of new legislation on Arizona marijuana laws; differences between cannabis products; penalties for violations of marijuana drug laws and AMMA laws; and related criminal defense topics.

Arizona Supreme Court Opinion

The case began when the defendant, a qualified medical marijuana patient, was arrested for possession of a little less than one-and-a-half grams of hashish, and drug paraphernalia (the jar in which the hashish was stored).

The statutes central to the arguments were Arizona’s criminal law which defines “cannabis” under A.R.S. 13-3401 (a) and 2) “marijuana” under A.R.S. 13-3401 (19); and the AMMA statute which defines “marijuana” under A.R.S. 36-2801 (8), and “usable marijuana” under A.R.S. 36-2801 (15).

The defendant argued that possession of hashish was permitted under the AMMA. Specifically, the defendant pointed to Arizona Statutes section 13-3401(4)(a) defining cannabis as “the resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin.” The prosecution argued that under previous case law, AMMA does not displace the criminal law distinction between cannabis and marijuana, and that the AMMA only applies to marijuana. The lower trial court agreed, and with that, found the defendant guilty.

On appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, the Justices considered the fact that the AMMA was passed as a result of voter initiative, and allows qualifying patients to possess marijuana. The court advised that their first order was to determine if the Arizona legislature’s intended to legalize hashish, concentrates, and extracts based on the statutory language of the AMMA.

The Court explained that the AMMA defines marijuana under A.R.S. 36- 2801 (8), as “all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant”. It noted Arizona case precedent in it’s reasoning that “The word “all,” one of the most comprehensive words in the English language, means exactly that”.

It was the opinion of the court that hashish was considered marijuana under the AMMA because of it’s clear definition, “Marijuana” includes “all parts of the plant.” In so holding, the court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the AMMA does not apply to resins or extracts that are derived from the plant.

The court then noted that the AMMA does not reference the criminal drug law A.R.S. 13-3401, and therefore determined that the AMMA’s reference to marijuana should not be based on the criminal law definition of marijuana.

The Arizona Supreme Court also rejected the prosecution’s argument that the court’s ruling would allow up to two-and-one-half ounces of hashish, which would be much more potent than dried marijuana flowers.

The court took an interesting approach to this argument, finding that the AMMA allows “qualifying patients are allowed two-and-one-half ounces of dried flowers, or mixtures or preparations made from two-and-one-half ounces of dried flowers.” The Arizona Supreme Court held that the definition of marijuana under the AMMA immunizes cannabis resin, which includes hashish, and overturned the defendant’s convictions.

Checklist for Cannabis, Marijuana, and Hemp Laws in Arizona

The Arizona Supreme Court recently handed down an opinion in which it ruled that a qualified medical marijuana patient was immune from prosecution for possessing hashish, a cannabis concentrate (Arizona v. Jones, 2019). This ruling stand as a case precedent which will influence similar cases of this nature in Arizona in the future.

Hashish, resin, cannabis concentrates, and cannabis extracts are only lawful within the guidelines of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. They are still prohibited in Arizona for uses outside the scope of the AMMA guidelines, under A.R.S. 13 Chapter 34 Arizona criminal statutes. Marijuana possession, use, transportation, cultivation, distribution, and sales are prohibited under Arizona criminal law A.R.S. 13-3405. Under Arizona criminal statute A.R.S. 13-3401 (4), cannabis means resin, and any part of the plant of genus cannabis; including every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin or THC.

If a qualified medical marijuana patient violates AMMA guidelines under Arizona Title 36, Chapter 28, the individual may be prosecuted under Arizona criminal law statutes, Title 13, Chapter, 34. Criminal charges for marijuana possession will be brought as a felony All felonies in Arizona expose a person to prison terms, and other harsh penalties.

Qualified AMMA patients do not have immunity from DUI for driving impaired under the influence of medical marijuana. All Arizona drivers, including those who are qualified patients under AMMA, may be prosecuted for DUI under A.R.S. 28- 1381 (1), Arizona’s Drug DUI law if the individual is found to be driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired to the slightest degree due to marijuana, alcohol, other drugs, or any combination.

Marijuana in any form remains prohibited under Federal Controlled Substances Act and is listed as a scheduled I drug. However, medical cannabis protections remain in place under the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, previously known as the Rohrabacher- Farr Amendment of the Federal Appropriations Act. This amendment prohibits the Federal Justice Department from using appropriated funds to enforce the laws under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, in states like Arizona, that have passed their own medical marijuana laws. The amendment remains in effect until September 30, 2019 and will need to be renewed for the protections to be continued. Current legislation for 2019-2020, H.R. 3055, passed the House of Representatives, pends Senate’s review at this time.

In 2018 the Federal Government removed hemp as a Schedule 1 drug under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. It is now recognized as a commodity under the U.S. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Arizona passed new legislation in 2018, which became effective in the summer of 2019 which also decriminalizes hemp for industrial purposes under A.R.S. 13-3405 (I), (1) & (2) pursuant to Arizona Title 3, Chapter 2, Article 4.1.

What is the difference between cannabis, marijuana, and hemp?

Cannabis or Cannabis Sativa is a species of the Cannabaceae flowering plant family. It is a strong, fast growing plant, first known to be used in Asia over 10,000 years ago. It is a strong, fast growing plant that can grow and flourish in a variety of climates, and weather conditions. Cannabis is considered a cannabinoid. Cannabinoids are chemicals compounds such as THC, and CBD, which are naturally found in cannabis. These cannabinoids impact the receptors of the human body and nervous system which enabling responses such as pain relief. There are two varieties of cannabis which are marijuana and hemp. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, marijuana and hemp are identical in appearance, and the main distinguishing factor is quantity of THC in the plants.

Marijuana contains 0.3% of more of THC. It is mainly used for medicinal and recreational purposes due to its natural psychoactive substance, THC. Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, buds, stems, and resin of the cannabis plant. Marijuana is known by many other names including weed, pot, grass, joint, and Mary Jane.

Hemp contains less than 0.3% of THC. Hemp has been cultivated throughout the world and used for thousands of years for many purposes. These include but are not limited to food, fiber, oil, rope, fabric, canvas, paper, building material, and sailcloth for ships. It’s use continues to expand and fulfill industrial, consumer, and commercial needs. Hemp is also known by other names including fiber, thread, and flax.

What are penalties for conviction of marijuana possession in Arizona?

Any person found to be in possession of marijuana unlawfully, may be found guilty of Arizona’s marijuana criminal laws in violation of Title 13, chapter 34. Currently, marijuana crimes are classified as felonies in Arizona.

All felonies in Arizona expose a person to prison sentencing, fines, a felony conviction and other statutory penalties. Charges of possession for personal use for a first offense will be brought was follows:

• Possession of less than two pounds of marijuana is a class 6 felony; Class 6 felony conviction for possession of marijuana range from .33 mitigated to 2 years prison for aggravated sentencing.
• Possession of two to four pounds of marijuana is a class 5 felony; Class 5 felony conviction for possession of marijuana range from .5 mitigated to 2.5 years prison for aggravated sentencing.
• Possession of more than four pounds is a class 4 felony; Class 4 felony convictions for possession of marijuana range from 1.1 mitigated to 3.7 years prison for aggravated sentencing.

If a person is convicted for possessing more than 2 more pounds of marijuana which exceeds the statutory Threshold Amount in Arizona, they will not be eligible for probation. Fines range from $750.00 or three times the street value of the marijuana found in their possession, whichever is greater not to exceed $150,000.00 for individuals.

Will Marijuana be legal in Arizona in the future?

Currently, adult possession of marijuana for recreational use in Arizona is prohibited. While 12 states in the U.S.A. have legalized recreational marijuana in some fashion, it is still prohibited in Arizona.

Any person using or in possession of marijuana outside of the AMMA guidelines is subject to criminal charges. This is the case, even if it is legal in the state where a person resides and they are visiting or traveling through Arizona.

The most recent attempt to legalize recreational marijuana was with Proposition 205 which was defeated by a narrow margin in 2016, with 51 percent of the voters against it, and 49 percent in favor of passing the initiative.

Advocates for the campaign project that another attempt will be made to put recreational marijuana on the ballot for 2020. The proposal would make it legal for adults age 21, or older to possess up to one ounce of cannabis. It would also allow those persons to produce up to 6 plants in their residence.

Other changes are proposed including a state imposed sales tax of 16 percent on recreational marijuana.

Opponents of proposed initiatives are concerned about public safety, user safety, unintended consequences, and the fact that marijuana is still unlawful under The Federal Controlled Substances Act.

Supporters of a proposed voter initiative for November 2020, maintain that any new proposal will be modified to address flaws in the prior initiative, and it will include provisions that will address public safety issues.

How can an Attorney help me if I get arrested for hashish or other cannabis crimes in Arizona?

If you are a qualified medical marijuana patient, you are subject to the provisions, limitations, and restrictions of the Arizona medical marijuana law.

Despite due diligence mistakes can happen. If you are arrested for non-compliance with AMMA guidelines or any other arizona drug crimes in violation of criminal law, your future and freedom are at stake.

James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak, PLLC understands that facing criminal charges can be an overwhelming experience with dramatic impacts on a person’s life. It is important that you retain an experienced criminal attorney who will make you and your case a priority.

You will need your own criminal defense attorney to represent you in your criminal charges, and make sure your constitutional rights are protected throughout the criminal justice process. It is important that you retain an experienced criminal defense attorney who can give you the time you deserve and the due diligence necessary to defend your charges.

With over 20 years of experience, James Novak of The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC defends individuals charged with marijuana crimes, marijuana DUI crimes, drug crimes, and other criminal charges. Criminal defense attorney, James Novak is a former Maricopa County Prosecutor with decades of experience defending his clients for marijuana DUI, and other serious criminal charges. If retained, James Novak will be your voice, and protect your rights in the criminal justice system. Attorney, James Novak works vigilantly to get the best possible resolution in your charges. James Novak offers a free initial consultation to individuals who face active marijuana, drug charges, and other criminal offenses in Mesa, Chandler, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Gilbert, and Tempe AZ. To learn more about your defense options and to obtain your free initial consultation call James Novak at (480) 413-1499 or complete the contact form on this website today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 13- 3408 (A) (1) Arizona Criminal Code – Narcotics
• A.R.S. 13-3401 (4) (A) – Arizona Criminal Code – Definition of Cannabis
• A.R.S. 13-3405 (A) Arizona Marijuana Laws
• A.R.S. 36 – 2801 (8) Marijuana Definition under AMMA
• A.R.S. 36 – 2806.02 (A) (B) Dispensing Medical Marijuana
• A.R.S. 36 – 2801 (1) Allowable Amount of Marijuana under AMMA
• A.R.S. 28 – 1381 (A) (1) Arizona Drug DUI Law
• Arizona Department of Health Services Marijuana Sales Statistics 2018
• Arizona Department of Health Services – Medical Marijuana Index
• Americans for Safe Access – Guide to Using Medical Cannabis
• United Patient’s Group –Difference Between Marijuana and Hash
• United States Drug Enforcement Administration – Marijuana
• Congress.gov Current Legislation H.R. 3055 Appropriations Act 2019-2020
• Marijuana Policy Project – 2020 Ballot Initiative
• Marijuana Business Daily – Marijuana Legalization Initiative
• United States Department of Agriculture Hemp v. Marijuana
• Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
• Arizona Department of Agriculture – Industrial Hemp
• A.R.S. 3 – 312 Agriculture –Industrial Hemp
• A.R.S. 3 – 13-3405 (I) 1 & (2) Criminal Exceptions for Industrial Hemp

More related articles

• How to Defend Your Medical Marijuana Charges in Arizona
• Arizona Medical Marijuana Law Stands Ground
• Medical Marijuana Patients have Limited Defense for DUI

Earlier this year, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in an Arizona drug trafficking case in which the passenger in a GPS tracked vehicle was arrested in addition to the suspect driver.

In the case, the Arizona Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the officers who conducted the search relied on previous case law in place, that held the conduct was permissible. With that, the court determined that the police acted properly and did not suppress the evidence, based on the good faith exception.

However, the court decided that moving forward police should obtain a warrant before engaging in this type of investigation. The court held that passengers who are not aware that a vehicle is being tracked by GPS, has a reasonable expectation of privacy while traveling in it.

This article provides the following:

• An overview of the court’s decision and it’s impact on Arizona;
• 3 circumstances in which it is lawful for police to conduct vehicle GPS tracking;
• Explanation of the exclusionary rule;
• Explanation of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule;
• Impact on your case when police obtaining evidence illegally;
• How to get evidence dismissed that was obtained unlawfully;
• Explanation of other legal issues central to this court opinion;
• What a criminal defense attorney can do to help you resolve your charges

Case Overview and Decision

The defendant and another man were driving a tractor-trailer from Georgia to Arizona. The truck belonged to the other man, but both shared the driving responsibilities.

The truck was registered as “Swiff,” but the truck was marked “Swift.” Arizona police ran the tags and noticed that the truck came back as stolen, but also registered to the man they later learned was driving the truck with the defendant.

Believing that the truck was being used to transport narcotics, police placed a GPS tracking device on the truck without obtaining a warrant. At the time, the officers did not know the defendant was in the truck.

Over the course of three days, police tracked the truck as it entered Arizona. Police observed the owner of the truck exit, conduct a hand-to-hand transaction, and then get back into the truck. Later, the truck traveled to California, stopped at a warehouse, and then came back through Arizona. Overall, police tracked the truck for 31 hours over three days.

Using the GPS tracking device to locate the truck, police pulled the truck over. At the time, the other man was driving, and the defendant was asleep in the cabin area. Both men denied officers’ requests to search the car. However, after a drug-detection dog signaled an alert, the officers searched the truck and found over 2,000 pounds of marijuana.

The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress, arguing that the police conducted a warrantless search by placing the GPS tracking device on the truck, and in so doing violated his Fourth and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as his rights under Article II, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.

The court composed a detailed opinion, making several important holdings. First, the court held that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy while he was a passenger who only occasionally drove the vehicle. Thus, the police officers’ conduct was classified as a “search” under U.S. Supreme Court case law. As a result, the court held that the officers should have obtained a warrant prior to placing the GPS tracking device.

The court, however, ended up deciding that the defendant’s motion should be denied based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This was because at the time the police used GPS to track the suspect, police relied on case law in place was favorable to their conduct.

Arizona’s good-faith rule allows for illegally obtained evidence to be introduced at trial if the officer conducting the search was relying in good faith on an honestly held belief that the conduct was not illegal.

Here, the court explained that the officers’ conduct was based on an “objectively reasonable good-faith belief that their conduct [was] lawful” Thus, the court held that the exclusionary rule should not apply, and the evidence should not be suppressed.

What impact does this opinion have on Arizona?

Arizona Supreme Court rulings have potential to influence cases in the future with the same or similar questions that arise in the future and stands as case law in the state.

Unless an exception to the warrant applies, it will be necessary for law enforcement to obtain a valid search warrant if they wish to conduct GPS tracking on a vehicle in order to monitor the activities of the driver and passenger.

When can police legally track a vehicle with GPS?

Police can legally use GPS tracking on the vehicle you own or lawfully drive with a valid search warrant for probable cause; with your consent or the consent of a joint owner of the vehicle, or someone else who has lawful possession or control over the vehicle consents to GPS tracking; or with an exception to the warrant.

Exceptions to a warrant are specific circumstances recognized by the courts as those where the search can be conducted, when a warrant would otherwise be required.

One example is in the case of exigent circumstances. This applies when police reasonably believe that evidence is at risk of being destroyed, eliminated, or removed, before police can obtain a valid warrant.

Another exception includes situations that pose a threat to public safety. If police reasonably believe that GPS tracking on the vehicle is necessary because the situation presents an immediate threat to the public, the life of the officers or others, they can proceed without a warrant.

What is the exclusionary rule in criminal cases?

The exclusionary rule is a remedy adopted the courts which allows for suppression of evidence when it is obtained by police unlawfully in violation of a person’s rights.

The purpose of the rule is to discourage law enforcement from violating a person’s rights in an effort to obtain evidence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule applies when the manner in which the law enforcement officer behaves is “deliberate, reckless, grossly negligent,” or “recurring and systematic negligence.”

What is the “good-faith exception” to the exclusionary rule?

Exceptions exist for the exclusionary rule that serves to avoid penalizing police when their actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The “good faith exception” is an example of one of them. It applies when evidence was reasonably obtained by police because they relied on case law or particular statutes at the time, which was later reversed or overturned.

Another example where the good- faith exception applies is when police make an arrest based on a warrant that later turns out to be invalid.

What happens if police get evidence illegally, and then arrest me?

When police violate your rights in an effort to obtain evidence that leads to your arrest, your criminal defense attorney can move to suppress the evidence against you. If the court agrees to exclude the evidence, this often results in a dismissal of the charges

How can I get evidence dismissed that was obtained illegally by Police?

The most effective way to challenge evidence obtained unlawfully, is by retaining a private practice criminal attorney to represent you. Your criminal defense attorney will evaluate the facts, and if applicable will file a motion with the court to prevent it from being used against you. If the judge agrees, the evidence will not be used to prosecute you in the case. In some instances, another hearing will be required for the court to rule on the issue.

Trying to deal with the charges on your own without a criminal defense attorney can result in a harsh and swift conviction. It is important that you consult a criminal defense attorney in the jurisdiction where you received the charges, well before your first court date.

The prosecution represents the state and their sole purpose is to prosecute your charges and obtain a conviction. The judge has no obligation to point our flaws in the prosecution’s case, obtain favorable evidence, or to help you get a favorable resolution.

How can a criminal defense attorney help me resolve my charges?

Facing prosecuting of drug charges can be a traumatic and overwhelming event. Attorney James understands this. He will guide you through every phase of the legal process, and be your voice in the criminal justice system.

If retained, Criminal defense attorney, James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak will evaluate the facts, evidence, and circumstances.

If your rights were violated, or other grounds exist, he will make every effort to get the charges exist.

If i is impossible to get the criminal charges dismissed, James Novak ill work closely with the prosecution to negotiate the best possible resolution. Some favorable resolutions for drug offenses include but are not limited to the following:

• No jail or reduction of incarceration time in return for successful completion of special drug treatment program;
• Reduction of charges to a lesser offense in the same classification;
• Reduction of classification of charges for example a felony down to misdemeanor;
• Probation as an alternative to serving jail or prison terms;
• Reduction of incarceration time;
• Reduction or elimination of fines
• Elimination of the risk maximum sentencing

If an acceptable resolution cannot be reached, you still have the right to take your charges to trial. James Novak is an experienced former prosecutor and highly skilled criminal defense litigator. James Novak will explain the pros and cons of taking your case to trial based on the strength or weaknesses of your case. If retained for trial, James Novak will provide strong legal representation for your trial.

If you have recently been arrested for a crime involving either drugs or guns, you should contact the Law Office of James E. Novak. James Novak is a dedicated Arizona drug crime defense attorney with over 20 years of personal experience representing those charged with serious crimes in Arizona. Attorney Novak works tirelessly to uphold the rights of those accused of Arizona drug offenses and other crimes. To learn more, call 480-413-1499 or complete our contact form to schedule a free consultation for your drug charges.

Additional Resources:

• U.S. Constitution 4^th Amendment Rights
• A.R.S. § 13-3407 (possession or transportation of dangerous drugs)
• A.R.S. § 13-3408 (narcotics transportation for sale)
• Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office | Jail Information for Families
• Criminal Sentencing Guidelines 2017 – 2018
• United States Drug Enforcement Agency – Phoenix AZ Division
• Police Report and Records Search – City of Mesa AZ
• Arizona Constitution – Article II, Section 8 – Right to Privacy
• Arizona Superior Court Drug Program

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

• How to Avoid Self-Incrimination while in Custody for Aggravated Assault Charges
• How to Avoid Probable Cause for Arrest for Unlawful Flight
• 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 is a standard of proof in criminal law recognized throughout the United States.

It refers to the justification needed by police to make an investigative stop.

Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch, feeling, or guess.

This standard requires the police to have an unbiased belief that a crime or violation of the law is in progress or has occurred.

The reasonable suspicion standard requires that the objective belief be based on specific facts or circumstances.

These factors must be articulable and capable of being expressed clearly.

Reasonable suspicion in criminal law is a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence in civil law proceedings.

Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is required for police to obtain a search warrant, or make an arrest.

There are a few exceptions to the need for reasonable suspicion to make a stop. One example of an exception is a stop at a designated DUI safety checkpoint, whereby vehicles are stopped in a predetermined numerical order in those jurisdictions utilizing recommended National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidelines.

Any police stop can result in seizure of illegal drugs, or lead to other criminal charges.

In order for police to make an investigative stop, not including safety checkpoint stops, they must have reasonable suspicion that you violated the law.

But what happens when police stop you in absence of reasonable suspicion?

Without reasonable suspicion, the stop is unconstitutional and violates your 4^th amendment rights. When this happens, it means the stop was unlawful.

When the stop is unlawful, your criminal defense attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that police stop.

If the court agrees to suppress the evidence, often this results in the prosecution having insufficient evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, suppression of material evidence can lead to an acquittal, not-guilty verdict, or dismissal of the charges.

An Arizona Appeals Court recently considered a case in which the defendant was stopped by police for investigation, while he was riding his bicycle.

Following the stop, the defendant was charged with possession of marijuana. He was convicted, and sentenced to nine months in prison for the charges.

The defendant argued that his motion to suppress evidence should not have been denied because the officer who stopped him didn’t have reasonable suspicion for the stop.

In this article we will provide an overview of this case, and discuss key elements of reasonable suspicion.

Case Overview

The case began when a Tucson police officer saw the defendant riding his bike on an elevated dirt area near a roadway.

The police stopped the defendant for violating A.R.S. § 28-815, and Tucson City Code § 5-2 (1953), because he suspected the rider was breaking the law by riding his bike on a sidewalk and the left side of the roadway.

While investigating, the officer learned there were outstanding warrants against the defendant and arrested him.

A different officer arrived on the scene and searched the defendant incidental to the suspect’s arrests for the outstanding warrants, and found Marijuana.

The defendant argued that his actions did not constitute a traffic violation, and therefore the officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion to make a lawful stop.

The appeals court noted he was cited for section 28-815(A), which outlines the law pertaining to a riding a bike at less than the normal speed of traffic.

The law indicates that a person riding a bike on a roadway less than the normal speed of traffic should ride as close to the right-hand curb, as possible.

The defendant argued he wasn’t riding his bike on a roadway, and the officer testified that when he stopped the defendant, he was riding on a dirt surface.

The court noted that a roadway is described under Arizona law as a part of the highway which was normally used for auto travel, and was designed for this purpose.

The court determined that the evidence supported that the defendant was not riding on a roadway.

The court explained that the area where the defendant was riding wasn’t a sidewalk either, and pointed out the officer’s own testimony had established this fact.

The State argued that the officer might have believed that the defendant had just committed a traffic violation, or was about to commit one, since he was riding on an unpaved area between two paved areas.

The court noted that the officer only observed the defendant in an area in which the defendant was lawfully riding, which could have been accessed from other lawful directions or means.

In order to have reasonable suspicion, the officer would have had to construct a long made-up narrative based on nothing more than a hunch.

The court noted that a series of innocent acts could, when taken together, produce a reasonable suspicion.

The court determined that nothing was observed beyond a single incident of lawful conduct that would allow the officer to construct a narrative made up of multiple acts that together, produced reasonable suspicion.

The State also argued that the officer might have made an objectively reasonable mistake of law, which would requires the lower court’s ruling related to reasonable suspicion to stand.

An objectively reasonable mistake occurs when an officer mistakenly interprets a statute that is genuinely ambiguous so that arguing against the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work.

The court found no ambiguity in the language of the statutes on which the officer relied.

The State also argued that the discovery of narcotics was too attenuated—too far removed—from the illegality of the stop to justify excluding it.

There are three factors to determine whether the illegal conduct is sufficiently removed from a subsequent search to allow the evidence from a search to be admitted which include:

1. How much time passed between unlawful police action and finding the evidence;
2. Whether there are intervening circumstances; and
3. Purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct.

The court reasoned that in this case, the discovery must have occurred fairly quickly after the illegal stop.

Finding the warrants gave the officer probable cause for arrest, which weighed against exclusion.

The defendant didn’t present any evidence that the officer’s actions were flagrantly inappropriate or a part of a recurrent pattern of unlawful traffic stops.

However, since the State did not argue the attenuation principal at the lower court level, there was no reason for the defendant to present evidence of a pattern or systemic misconduct.

Accordingly, the court sent it back to the trial court for a new evidentiary hearing related to these factors, directing the trial court to conduct the hearing.

The State has asked for a time extension to file a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court. We will provide an update the matter if the case is heard.

5 Things You Should Know about What Constitutes Reasonable Suspicion

When determining whether or not police had reasonable suspicion to make a stop, Arizona courts often look to state and federal case precedents.

The court takes into consideration not just one factor surrounding the stop, but numerous factors or “totality of the circumstances.”

Below are examples of 5 factors that the court may consider to determine if an officer does or does not have reasonable suspicion to make a stop.

1. Police must have more than speculation that a violation of the law occurred (State v. Evans 2015). If the prosecution is unable to show that police had no more than a hunch that violation of the law was being committed or in progress, the stop is unconstitutional.
2. Reasonable Suspicion may arise from an act observed by the police officer or reported by another, if the officer who stopped the suspect did not observe it (Arizona v. Box 2015). If one or more of the officer (s) observed only lawful behavior in absence of any other objective facts to support reasonable suspicion, the stop is unlawful.
3. Reasonable suspicion may be found if the police made a mistake believing a suspect was violating the law. However, the mistake must be objectively reasonable. (Hein v. North Carolina U.S. Supreme Court 2014). In order for the mistake of law to be a reasonable one, the language of the law must be considered ambiguous, or capable of having more than one meaning. If the language of the law reads clearly, the mistake is not considered reasonable, and the stop was unconstitutional.
4. Reasonable suspicion may arise following initial lawful actions, only if the officer observes the suspect further, and later finds suggestive illegal behavior. (Arizona v. Teagle 2007). If the officer stopped the suspect only after seeing lawful behavior, without engaging in further observation of illegal behavior, the stop was not lawful.
5. Reasonable suspicion may be found if otherwise legal behavior is suggestive of previous criminal behavior, such as fleeing from police in a known high crime area. (Adams v. Williams U.S. Supreme Court 1972). If police stop you for driving, riding or running, and can show no other reason that this behavior is suggestive of prior criminal behavior, the stop is unlawful.

Criminal Defense Attorney for Marijuana Charges Phoenix AZ

Penalties for marijuana offenses and other drug crimes are harsh in Arizona. Even a conviction for a possession of a small amount for personal use of marijuana is a class 4 felony in Arizona.

Penalties in Arizona are separated into misdemeanors and felonies.

While both have the potential to be serious, felonies exposes a person to prison sentencing, large fines, fees, and assessments, a felony criminal record and other penalties.

The higher the quantity of marijuana you are accused of having in your possession, the more severe the penalties.

Generally when a person is in possession of marijuana in higher quantities, law enforcement suspect that the purpose of possession is to sell, or intends to sell it.

If the offense involves an amount of more than 2 pounds in a person’s possession, charges will be brought as a Class 3 felony.

For offenses involving possession of 4 pounds of marijuana, charges will be brought as a Class 2 felony, second to the most severe category of Class 1.

If you are facing drug charges your freedom and future are at stake.

For these reasons it is important that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney representing you in your criminal matter.

If you face drug charges in Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, or Scottsdale, Phoenix or Mesa AZ, consult Marijuana defense attorney James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak PLLC at (480) 413-1499.

James Novak is a former Maricopa County Prosecutor, practices exclusively in criminal defense.

James Novak takes pride in being accessible to his clients, and fighting to defend their rights.

If retained, he will work hard to defend your charges, protect your rights, and personally handle your criminal matter.

The state and prosecution are not required to look for ways to make things easier for you.

They rarely if ever point out to the court or jury that their evidence is weak or invalid.

The state and prosecution do not have to tell the court that your rights were violated when the police stopped you, or that the evidence was obtained unlawfully.

The state will not look for, or present evidence that you are not guilty.

For these reasons it is important that you retain a private practice attorney, to be your own legal advocate to defend your charges.

James Novak gathers all evidence available that the prosecution plans to use against you. In addition, he seeks out evidence that will work in favor of your defense.

Attorney James Novak, will evaluate the circumstances surrounding your case, along with the evidence, and determine the best course of action for your defense strategy.

He will work to obtain the best possible resolution of your charges. James Novak offers of free initial consultation for those facing active criminal charges in his service areas.

If you have been charged with a crime call or contact The Law Office of James Novak at (480) 413-1499 and speak directly with Attorney James Novak, regarding your criminal matter.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 28-931
• A.R.S. § 28 – 815 A
• 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, an Arizona appellate court considered an important case where the Justices reviewed what it takes to prove this affirmative defense.

This article sheds light on some important related criminal law and defense topics:

• 3 ways a person facing Medical Marijuana DUI charges may establish an affirmative defense;
• The burden of proof for an Affirmative Defense;
• 10 other common challenges for Marijuana DUI charges;
• How a criminal attorney can defend your Marijuana DUI charges

Overview of Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion

The incident began after the defendant was stopped by police for allowing his vehicle to drift slightly into the next lane.

When an officer approached the car, he smelled marijuana.

The defendant told the officer he’d been speaking to someone else in the car and moved the car back into place after he realized it drifted across the line.

The officer saw that the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot. He asked the defendant when he’d last smoked marijuana.

The defendant told the officer he had smoked marijuana that morning just after he woke up.

During one of the DUI field sobriety tests, the officer reported that defendant had body and eye tremors.

The suspect was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana or its metabolite under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3), and impaired driving to the slightest degree under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1).

Before the trial began, the prosecution tried to keep out evidence that the defendant had a medical marijuana card.

The defendant argued that it was unfair for the jury to think it was illegal for him to smoke marijuana.

Before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on another important medical marijuana card case (Dobson), the State’s motion to exclude the evidence was granted on the ground that the medical marijuana card was irrelevant.

At trial, the prosecution hired an expert who testified the defendant had 26.9 ng/ml of THC in his blood.

The defendant also retained an expert witness for his defense.

The defense expert testified that there was no agreement about the concentration of THC that would impair a person.

That expert also testified that what the defendant had in his body was a quantity that would impair some people, but might not impair everyone.

The jury acquitted the defendant of impaired driving under Arizona’s DUI law 28-1381(A)(1).

However, the jury convicted him of driving with marijuana or its metabolite in his body under § 28-1381(A)(3). The judge sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration, with half the term suspended.

The defendant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of marijuana, to the superior court. The superior court reasoned that even if it was a mistake for the municipal court to prevent the defendant from mentioning his medical marijuana card, the defendant hadn’t shown he could get an expert who would testify he wasn’t impaired at 26.9 ng/ml. The defendant petitioned by special action to the appellate court. The appeals court looked at the recent Arizona Supreme Court decision in Dobson, which explained that the immunity provided by AMMA was not absolute. In Dobson, it was not enough for a qualified user to simply present their medical marijuana card to establish an affirmative defense.

The court noted that under A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) (2016), a medical marijuana cardholder could be prosecuted in some circumstances, but not solely for driving with the presence of marijuana or its metabolite in their body.

The court explained that a qualified patient could establish an affirmative defense by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he was using medical marijuana as authorized by AMMA, and (2) the metabolite was in a concentration that was not enough to impair him while driving.

The appellate court found that the municipal court had made a mistake in preventing the defendant from submitting evidence to support this affirmative defense.

The appellate court explained that when a defendant raises the affirmative defense, the question is whether the cardholder was impaired, rather than whether the amount of THC in his blood is enough to impair anyone else.

Additionally, the court explained that nothing in the statute required the defendant to present expert testimony on whether he was impaired because of THC.

The defendant simply had to establish that the metabolite in his body was not enough to impair him at the time he was in control of the car, by offering any admissible evidence. Accordingly, the conviction was vacated.

3 Ways to Establish an Affirmative Defense for Medical Marijuana DUI

While the Arizona Appeals Court did not address all types of evidence that can be used by a qualified patient to establish an affirmative defense, it provided some much-needed clarity.

The three ways that were discussed in this case in which a cardholder may establish an Affirmative defense include:

• Cross examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, or the officer who made the arrest.
• Offering the opinion of an expert witness hired in your defense.
• The defendant’s own testimony, or the testimony of lay persons who may have witnessed and observed the driver’s behavior with regard to the impairment issue.

In addition, it is helpful for defendants to know that courts will be looking at whether an individual defendant with metabolites in his blood was impaired, rather than whether the public in general may experience impairment while they have a particular amount of THC in their system.

The Burden of Proof for an Affirmative Defense

Under Arizona law A.R.S. 13-103 (B) an affirmative defense is one that offers a way for a defendant to be excused from criminal liability of an otherwise unlawful act.

In absence of an affirmative defense situation, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime, and the defendant is presumed innocent from the start.

In an affirmative defense, the prosecution needs to prove the elements of the crime were committed beyond a reasonable doubt. But the defendant must also prove an affirmative defense applies by the preponderance of the evidence, a lesser standard than reasonable doubt.

10 Other Defenses for Marijuana DUI Charges

The DUI defenses that may be used to challenge your charges will vary based on the unique set of circumstances surrounding your matter.

Below are 10 examples of common defenses that are often used to challenge and defend Marijuana DUI charges:

1. The chemical found in your bloodstream was a non-impairing ingredient or metabolite in Marijuana such as Carboxy-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This substance is an inactive metabolite that can remain in a person’s body up to several weeks after using marijuana.
2. Independent lab testing results were inconsistent with police lab results. You have the right to request a sample of the DUI evidence for the purposes of your defense. If the results are materially different, it weakens the validity of the police results. If the court agrees, the evidence can be suppressed or not used against you.
3. The DUI testing sample was mishandled, mislabeled, contaminated, or the subject of other protocol violations. Strict procedures are in place for the administration, processing, handling, storage and transport of chemical tests. If they are compromised, it may reduce the validity of the results of the sample.
4. You did not give a voluntary consent for the DUI chemical test. The Arizona Courts have determined that in order for a consent to be given voluntarily, they must be given freely, and in absence of coercion. Further if a person refuses medical treatment than the drawing of blood for DUI purposes as part of subsequent medical treatment, then the blood draw is considered to be involuntary as well.
5. Challenges to validity of the field sobriety tests and their results. Roadside testing has long been the subject of court challenges. One reason for this is their high inaccuracy rate. Another reason is that the results are often perceived as being biased, since the police administer and grade the test unilaterally. Numerous other challenges exist including but not limited to the the fact that the driver was not a good candidate for testing as recognized by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration due to existing medical conditions.
6. The officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Police must have reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law is in progress or has occurred in order to stop you for a DUI investigation, or the stop is unlawful.
7. The officer did not have probable cause to arrest you. Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. Under the 4th Amendment, the police must have reasonable grounds to arrest you. This means the police need evidence and not just a hunch that you were driving impaired.
8. The driver was not in actual physical control of the vehicle. There are a number of factors that need to be considered when determining if a person was in actual physical control of a vehicle. These circumstances may be such that you were not in actual physical control of the vehicle.
9. The state is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle.
10. Other constitutional rights violations. If a person’s constitutional rights are violated in the course of a DUI investigation or arrest, the remedy provided by the court is to disallow the evidence from being admitted and used to for prosecution.

Favorable outcomes may include but are not limited to decreasing a felony to a misdemeanor; dismissal of some or all of the charges; reduction of sentencing; elimination of incarceration or other penalties; reduction of charges from a criminal offense to a civil offense, participation in a diversion program as an alternative to incarceration, reduction or elimination of fines.

James Novak provides a free initial consultation by phone or in person, depending on the circumstances, for active criminal charges in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona. Call (480) 413-1499 or contact us online today to discuss your matter and options for defending your charges.

Penalties and Criminal Defense for Marijuana DUI Charges in Mesa AZ

It is never a good idea to go to court without effective representation and plead guilty. Doing so will result in a swift and harsh conviction.

Even a first time Misdemeanor drug DUI exposes a person to 10 day jail terms; suspension of driver’s license; fines, assessments, and fees of $1,250.00, substance abuse screening and testing, probation, and other penalties the judge deems necessary.

A second DUI within 7 years calls for increased penalties of jail terms to 90 days; fines, fees, and assessments to $3,000.00; and driver’s license revocation for 1 year.

Penalties for a third DUI within 7 years will elevate a misdemeanor DUI to a felony DUI. Punishments for felony DUI expose a person to 4 months in prison.

Penalties for a fourth DUI in 7 years call for 8 month prison terms.

Fines fees and assessments for a third or fourth felony DUI are increased to $4,000.00.

A felony conviction will stay on a person’s record for years and jeopardize certain civil rights such as the right to bear arms and vote. It can adversely impact their current or future employment, credit, existing or potential scholarships, and education.

For these reasons it is important that you retain an effective criminal attorney for defense.

Many people who have been arrested feel that the cards are stacked against them, and there is no hope.

But by law, you have the right to defend your charges, and to retain an attorney to defend you.

There may be defenses that can be used to obtain a favorable outcome in your case. This is best accomplished by hiring a private practice criminal defense attorney.

James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak, PLLC is a former prosecutor and an experienced trial lawyer.

If retained, James Novak will protect your rights, and provide a strong defense for your charges.

James Novak, will carefully evaluate your case to determine what defense strategy will likely bring you the most favorable outcome.

If you are charged with any type of DUI including Marijuana DUI, contact criminal Defense Attorney, James Novak at (480) 413-1499 in Tempe, Arizona.

Additional Resources:

• A.R. S. § 28-1381(A)(3) (Driving while under the influence)
• A.R.S.§ 36-2802 (American Medical Marijuana Act; limitations)
• A.R.S.§ 36- 2801 (Presumption marijuana medical use; protections)
• Arizona Department of Health Services –Medical Marijuana Requirements
• A.R.S. § 13- 3405 (Arizona Marijuana Laws)
• A.R.S. § 13 -103 (Affirmative Defense)
• Arizona Supreme Court (Dobson v. McClennen, November, 2015)

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

• Medical Marijuana Users Have a Limited DUI Defense
• New Affirmative Defense for DUI
• 4 Deadly Criminal Charges in Domestic Disputes
• How to Challenge, and Overcome Your DUI

In 2012, a total of 7,696 Extreme DUI arrests were made representing 29% of the total 26,334 DUI arrests; and aggravated DUI (felony) arrests 3124 representing 12% of all DUI arrests last year.

A majority of DUI arrests in Arizona are misdemeanors. Even Extreme DUI charges are brought as misdemeanors. However, a misdemeanor will be elevated to an Aggravated DUI (felony) when certain factors are present surrounding the DUI charge, as defined under A.R.S. 28-1383.

For example, a driver was recently arrested for DUI for driving with a suspended license while approximately four times over the legal limit, Maricopa County. Under these circumstances a motorist is exposed charges of aggravated DUI (felony DUI). Prosecutors bring charges of aggravated or felony DUI when not only is a driver impaired by alcohol or illegal substances, but he or she (1) has a suspended, cancelled, revoked or restricted license or (2) has two DUI convictions within seven years of the current DUI or (3) has been ordered to have an ignition interlock device on a car.

It is illegal to drive with .08% Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). However, in Arizona, a driver does not need to have blood alcohol levels this high to be charged. It is illegal to drive even when you are only slightly impaired by alcohol or illegal substances.

A driver may also be charged with more serious offenses when the blood alcohol levels exceed the legal limit. If a driver’s blood alcohol level is .15% or more you can be charged with extreme DWI. In addition to Extreme DUI (.15%) Arizona also has Super Extreme DUI laws. A person can be charged with super extreme DWI, if their BAC is .20 % or higher. Assuming the additional circumstances described above are met, aggravated DUI can be charged for regular DUIs, as well as for extreme DWI or super extreme DWI.

Generally, the higher the BAC for which a person is convicted, the more harsh the penalties. This includes longer incarceration terms. But by far the harshest penalties go to people who are convicted of an aggravated DUI. An aggravated DUI is a Class 4 felony. However, it can also be charged as a Class 6 felony if you are impaired and driving with a child under the age of 15 in the car. Felony DUI may also be charged if someone is severely injured or killed while the driver was under the influence.

The penalties for an aggravated DUI in Arizona can be harsh. There is a mandatory minimum of 4 months in prison and up to 3.75 years in prison. “Mandatory minimum” means that the judge is required to sentence you to at least that amount (4 months) in prison regardless of how good one’s character or lack of prior record.

For example, if you have had two prior DUIs and you drink a glass of wine at happy hour, and as a result you weave in and out of traffic and get pulled over by the police, you could face aggravated DUI charges. If you are so charged, the judge is required to sentence you to at least four months in prison.

On top of the mandatory minimum prison time, you may face fines and costs that together exceed $4600. A person’s driving privileges may be revoked for a year and you may be placed on probation. An aggravated DUI will be on a person’s record, which means a person’s sentence could be enhanced in the future if you are ever again convicted of a felony.

Moreover, on future job applications, you will have to answer that you have been convicted of a felony, thereby limiting the kinds of work that will be available to you. There is a significant social stigma attached to felony convictions. If a person’s license has been revoked, it can be difficult to get to work, thereby further impacting a person’s employment prospects.

If you are charged with a Class 6 felony DUI, there are no mandatory minimums. However, you can be sentenced to prison for up to two years. There is a mandatory license revocation.

Because of the harsh penalties involved with DUIs in Chandler, and surrounding Phoenix-metro cities in Arizona, whether ordinary, extreme, super or aggravated, it is important to contact a DUI attorney as soon as possible. An experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to weaken the prosecution’s case by revealing constitutional rights violations, improper police procedure, or other applicable defenses in an attempt to reduce the charges, and mitigate the penalties. Occasionally, the charges can be dismissed depending on the circumstances. Contact The Law Office of James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a free consultation.

Additional Resources:

• Drug DUI and Super Extreme DUI laws
• Arizona 2012 Statewide DUI Enforcement Statistics
• Alcohol/Substance Abuse Counseling and Treatment Providers
• Arizona Department of Health Services – Behavior Health Resource Links

More Blogs

• Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law Stands Ground, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, June 4, 2013
• Marijuana DUI: The Impact of Montgomery v. Harris, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, March 13, 2013

The phrase “Super Extreme” relative to “DUI” refers to the level or amount of Alcohol Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) found in a person’s system. “Felony” refers to the Classification of criminal charges as in the difference between Misdemeanor and Felony crimes.

Differences between Misdemeanor and Felony DUI charges

First we will discuss the main differences between Misdemeanor DUI and Felony DUI classifications. A majority of DUI charges are classified as Misdemeanors. A Misdemeanor DUI offense will be raised to Felony charges when certain aggravated factors are presents. For this reason, Felony DUI charges are also referred to as “Aggravated”. The penalties for felony DUI charges are more severe than misdemeanor. Convictions will expose a person to prison term, larger fines, fees, and assessments; and driver’s license will be indefinitely revoked.

Aggravated Factors – Felony DUI Charges

Under Arizona law A.R.S. §28-1383 (A) (1), (2), & (3) three aggravating factors that will cause an Arizona Misdemeanor DUI to be elevated to Felony DUI charges.

(1) DUI charge while driving on a suspended, restricted or revoked driver’s license; (2) Third DUI charge within 7 years and you have two prior DUI convictions that occurred during the last 7 years:

(3) DUI DWI and a child under 15 years of age was a passenger in the vehicle you were driving

Super Extreme DUI Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) in Arizona:

The terms “Extreme” or “Super Extreme” refer to the motorist Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) level found in a person’s system.

The legal limit for alcohol in Arizona is 0.08%. If a person exceeds 0.15% they are considered to be Extreme DU; if a BAC exceeds 0.20% or greater they will be charged with Super Extreme DUI – DWI offense.

In Arizona a person can also be charged with DUI for being “Impaired to the Slightest Degree” even if their BAC is below 0.08%, or if they are impaired due to drugs and alcohol, or drugs alone.

Penalties for Felony DUI Super Extreme BAC Convictions:

• Mandatory Prison – 4 months minimum or more;
• 3 year Driver’s License Revocation;
• Participation in Mandatory Alcohol counseling or treatment program;
• Minimum of 30 hours in Community Service;
• Ignition Interlock device on vehicle – current statutory requirements;
• Fines, court fees, prison assessments and fees exceeding $4,000.00.

Tempe AZ Super Extreme Aggravated DUI Lawyer for defense

Felony DUI charges with Super Extreme BAC are very serious. Your future and freedom are at stake. A Felony DUI conviction will leave you with a felon criminal record, prison terms, and have lasting adverse impacts on your life. You should always consult an experienced criminal defense attorney in the jurisdiction where you were arrested or received charges. They will discuss your matter and provide you options for defense. There may be defenses you are not aware of that may lead to a favorable resolution of your charges. If retained, a criminal defense attorney will protect your rights, defend your charges, and pursue the best possible outcome in your case.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona State Legislature = Aggravated DUI Laws
• Arizona State Legislature – Extreme DUI Laws.
• Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (azgohs.gov) Super Extreme DUI Sentencing
• Arizona Department of Public Safety (azdps.gov)

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

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

www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, AZ

Arrest Warrants Scottsdale AZ

Basically, an arrest warrant is a legal order issued in the name of the State of Arizona which provides legal authority for the police or law enforcement to make an arrest. The two most common types of arrest warrants are Police Arrest Warrants and Bench Warrants. Police issue arrest warrants when they determine that they have “probable cause” to believe that a suspect committed a crime. A Bench warrant is issued by the Judge in a presiding criminal case, if a defendant fails to appear for a scheduled court hearing (“Failure to Appear for Misdemeanor Charges A.R.S.13-2506; Failure to Appear for a Felony Crime Charges A.R.S. 13-2507). They remain outstanding indefinitely or until the suspect takes care of it through the criminal justice court system.

How to find out if there is a Warrant for your Arrest

There are a variety of ways to find out if you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest in Scottsdale. Some mediums charge and some do not. But either way the safest, most reliable way to find out is to consult a Scottsdale criminal defense lawyer or Scottsdale DUI lawyer to find out. An experienced criminal defense Attorney will conduct a thorough search via accessible legal resources. They will then advise you of the most accurate and current information available concerning the warrant.

Arrest Warrant Options -What to do if you have an Arrest Warrant

An arrest warrant is a very serious matter. Some people are arrested decades later upon being stopped for a minor traffic violation or other matter. In Arizona there are no expiration dates on an outstanding arrest warrant. If you have a warrant it will remain outstanding until either the bond is posted or the judge decides to “quash” or cancel it.

Here are your options:

• Pay the bond amount set by the judge: Once you pay the bond amount, the warrant will be quashed and you will be given a new court date if the warrant is for failure to appear.

• Appear before the judge during the Walk-in Docket: Scottsdale Court usually provides a daily time for defendants who need to make unscheduled court appearances. Unscheduled appearances are heard only at specified times available by the Scottsdale AZ Court.

• Retain a private practice criminal defense attorney: This is the best way to take care of an arrest warrant. Your criminal lawyer will confirm the facts, and a Motion to “quash” or cancel the warrant. At that point they can also begin tailoring a solid defense strategy for your Scottsdale Criminal or Scottsdale DUI charges.

The judge may still require a bond be posted before canceling the warrant whether you have an attorney or not. So it is best to be make arrangements in advance to post a bond for your court appearance. Upon Retention of a private practice criminal attorney, they can guide you through the steps of safest ways to deal with the warrant based on your circumstances. They will make sure that the warrant has the least adverse impact on your life relating to addressing the warrant and will defend your criminal charges.

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 Maricopa County DUI, DWI, Drunk Driving & Criminal Defense Firm Serving Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Gilbert & Scottsdale AZ Free Consultation! Call (480) 413-1499