Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona drug case involving the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. According to the court’s opinion, an officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle with two passengers after noticing the vehicle swerve across the fog line of a highway in Arizona. During the…

Law enforcement agencies often use traffic stops or other small municipal code violations as a pretext to investigate a suspect for more serious criminal activity. Many arrests and convictions for serious crimes occur only after a law enforcement officer has stopped or detained a suspect for a less serious offense, and decided to expand the…

Over the past decade, more states are coming to realize the detrimental—and unfair—effects that result when applying existing laws. For example, laws imposing mandatory minimum punishments, the system’s failure to account for mental health issues (including addiction), and harsh collateral consequences that come along with a conviction have all started to get a second look.…

In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that hashish qualifying patients under the AMMA are permitted to possess and use hashish because the statutory definition of “marijuana” includes resin, and by extension, hashish. With evolving court opinions and rapid changes in legislation, this article outlines current laws associated with medical marijuana, alternative forms of cannabis; differences between cannabis, marijuana, and hemp; impacts of recent federal and state legislation, criminal penalties for violations; and criminal defense topics.

A DUI breath or chemical test is considered a protected search under the 4th Amendment. This requires police to have a warrant for probable cause in order to conduct a DUI breath, blood or urine test. This is the case, even if it is administered under Arizona’s Implied Consent Law. Arizona courts have held that if a person was coerced by the officer to take the DUI test then their consent is not voluntary (State of Arizona v. Valenzuela, 2016). Thus, an involuntary consent does not relieve police of the requirement to obtain a warrant.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case centered on the issue of whether the defendant’s consent to provide a blood test was voluntary or involuntary. This article outlines the recent Arizona Supreme Court opinion, Q. & A. surrounding Arizona’s Implied Consent Law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that when the prosecution uses drug courier profiling evidence for the purpose of substantially proving guilt, it is a violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Drug profiling is when the police officers observe a collection of behaviors typically recognized in law enforcement as being associated drug dealer conduct.
While police can use drug courier profiling evidence to establish reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate a person’s actions, this evidence cannot be used at trial largely to prove guilt. This is because by doing so, the defendant is essentially prosecuted for what others have done instead of what the defendant has done.

This article includes a discussion of the new aggravated factor law pertaining to masks and disguises; what constitutes a mask or disguise; other aggravated and mitigating factors in sentencing; the burden of proof for aggravated factors; examples of aggravated and mitigated factors; sentencing ranges, how penalties are imposed within them; and the role of a criminal defense attorney in the sentencing stage.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously held that Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking on a driver’s vehicle comprises a search under the 4th amendment. This means that police need a warrant to conduct GPS tracking on a vehicle owned or driven by a suspect when the vehicle is legally in their possession. Earlier this year, the…

Arizona jails and prisons have measures in place assure no criminal activity in progress in communications. These procedures enable officials to screen mail, and record telephone calls involving the suspect. The content of mail or phone calls can be used prosecute pending or future criminal charges. This article includes three things to keep in mind to help you avoid self-incrimination; How to invoke your rights; Aggravated Assault Penalties in Arizona; and How to resolve your criminal charges.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that enhanced sentencing does not apply if the victim is fictitious.
Under Arizona’s Dangerous Crimes against Children law (DCAC), a person convicted of a sexual crime against a child is subject to enhanced sentencing. These sentencing guidelines are harsh and designed to provide greater punishments. Dangerous Crimes against Children in Arizona for those offenses described under A.R.S. 13-705 for which calls for enhanced sentencing. It applies when a person 18 years or older is convicted of committing specified offenses against children between ages of 12 to 15 and under, depending on the particular offense listed under the law.