James Novak Banner
Justia Lawyer Rating
LC Lead Counsel Rated
AVVO
AVVO
AVVO
AVVO
National College for DUI Defense

The role of an Arizona DUI defense attorney is to defend his or her client at every step of the case. Initially, this means conducting a thorough investigation into the case, diligently reviewing the state’s evidence, and creating a compelling defense. Once the trial starts, however, a defense attorney’s role expands, requiring they keep an eye on the prosecution.

The role of a prosecutor is to “seek justice.” However, as history shows, sometimes prosecutors step out of line, either by withholding valuable evidence, trying to use prejudicial evidence, or making inflammatory comments to the jury. Defense attorneys are critical in keeping prosecutors in check, by objecting to their unfair tactics.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona drunk driving case, discussing the defendants’ claims that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant entered a roundabout without yielding the right of way to a police cruiser. The officer initiated a traffic stop, and the defendant sped away. The chase reached speeds of 120 miles per hour before the defendant stopped the car and got out. The officer commanded the defendant to get on the ground, and he complied, at which point he was arrested.

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona drunk driving case, discussing the defendant’s challenges to certain statements admitted at trial. Ultimately, the court held that, while the statements should not have been admitted, the defendant failed to show that admission of the statements constituted a “fundamental error.”

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, witnesses watched as a car drove into their driveway and crashed into their vehicle. There were three people in the car, the defendant, his girlfriend, and another male. One of the witnesses identified the defendant as the driver. However, in the witness’ statement to the police, the description of the driver matched both the defendant as well as the other male in the car.

When police arrived, the witness again identified the defendant as the driver, as did several of the witness’ housemates. The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI. He then told police that he had been drinking, he was driving at some point, but he did not get into an accident. His defense at trial was that he was not the driver.

Continue reading

Late last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI accident case discussing the defendant’s motion to suppress an identification made by witnesses to the accident. Ultimately, the court determined that the witnesses’ identification was not unduly suggestive, and even if it was, the defendant could not show that he was prejudiced as a result of the identification. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a car crashed into a tree right outside of a school. Two school employees were notified of the crash, and walked outside to see the defendant inside the car in the driver’s seat. The witnesses saw the defendant try to drive away, but when he couldn’t’ get his car to move, he exited the vehicle. The witnesses told the defendant to stay on the scene, but he walked away towards a nearby convenience store.

One of the witnesses left briefly to get his car keys. He located the defendant a short time later, and called 911. The witness told police that the driver of the car had on jeans and a dark T-shirt. Not long after the 911 call, an officer stopped the defendant because he matched the description. The officer noted that the defendant appeared to be intoxicated. As the officer was waiting for the witness to come to make an identification, the defendant admitted to being the driver. When the witness showed up, he identified the defendant as the driver, and the officer arrested the defendant. Another witness provided police with photographs and a video of the defendant leaving the scene of the accident.

Continue reading

Arizona ride-sharing and cab services are a popular way for residents to enjoy holiday festivities without the risk of impaired driving. However, as COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the state, people are understandably concerned about the various health and safety issues associated with ride-sharing services. In turn, individuals may be more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol, especially around Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Eve. As a result, Arizona law enforcement increases their DUI patrols during the holiday season.

Driving under the influence can have a serious impact on a motorist and anyone in their path. In addition to causing severe bodily injury and death, driving under the influence (DUI) in Arizona can result in hefty penalties, criminal charges, and incarceration. In addition to alcohol, driving under the influence includes any substance that may impair a person’s ability to operate a vehicle safely, such as both illegal and prescription medication. According to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), there are nearly 5,000 alcohol-related collisions, resulting in over 250 deaths every year.

Prevention is the most important step that an Arizona motorist can take to avoid causing serious injuries or death to themselves and another. However, the inherent nature of alcohol consumption is that it impairs a person to make wise judgments. Individuals attending holiday events should plan ahead to make sure that they have safe transportation. Further, Arizonians should avoid drinking while driving, which may be an issue during this time of “drive-by” celebrations and holiday gatherings.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a case involving an Arizona high-speed chase that ended with the driver being arrested and charged with several serious offenses, including aggravated assault, criminal damage, unlawful flight, and aggravated driving under the influence. At trial, the defendant wanted to introduce evidence that an officer involved in the case had been sanctioned for violating a police policy prohibiting an officer from engaging in a chase after witnessing only a traffic offense. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence may have been relevant to the case, but the lower court’s failure to admit the evidence was a harmless error.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer pulled over the defendant for a traffic violation. The defendant initially pulled over, but then drove off. The officer hopped back in his car and followed. The officer called in back-up as he chased the defendant.

The defendant continued to drive above the speed limit, and eventually drove into a residential neighborhood. The officer who initiated the traffic stop parked his car at the subdivision’s exit, to prevent the defendant from leaving. The defendant crashed into the officer’s car, got out of the car, and ran. He was later apprehended.

Continue reading

One of the biggest fears for most motorists is seeing the red-and-blue lights of a police officer’s patrol car flick on in their rear-view mirror. While the process of getting pulled over is stressful for anyone, this is especially the case for those who have had a drink or two. For many motorists, the thought of refusing a breath test crosses their mind. However, there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to Arizona breath test refusals. In this post, we discuss what a refusal is, and its legal significance.

Arizona has what is called an “implied consent” law. Under this law, motorists agree to submit to a breath test when they are pulled over by a police officer, and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that they are intoxicated. Of course, a police officer cannot physically force someone to take a breath test. So, motorists always have the ability (not necessarily the right) to refuse a test.

When someone refuses an Arizona breath test, that starts a series of events in motion that cannot be undone. As soon as someone refuses a breath test, the officer will take their driver’s license, and their driving privileges will be suspended. The length of the suspension will depend on how many times the driver has refused in the past:

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case, affirming the prosecution’s motion to preclude any evidence that led to the defendant’s stop. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court was proper to grant the prosecution’s motion, and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer responded to a call for possible vehicle arson. Upon arrival, the officer noticed that a silver car was driving by very slowly. People nearby told the officers that the occupants of the car were involved in the arson. However, because the officer was alone, he could not leave the scene to follow the silver car, and called in for backup. However, before backup could arrive, the owners of the burning vehicle chased the silver car. Eventually, backup officers stopped both cars.

The defendant was driving the silver car. As officers approached, they noticed that his eyes were red and watery, and his speech was slurred. They also noticed a smell of alcohol, and that the defendant seemed to be unsteady on his feet. There was an open can of beer, as well as several “Molotov cocktails.” The passenger of the car had a loaded gun.

Continue reading

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case discussing the defendant’s claim that the court improperly prevented him from presenting his medical marijuana card to the jury. Because the prosecution withdrew the charge of driving under the influence of drugs, and proceeded only with the DUI-alcohol charge, the court determined that defendant’s medical marijuana card was irrelevant. As a result of the court’s opinion, the defendant’s DUI conviction was upheld.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was allegedly driving erratically when he slammed into the rear of another vehicle. After the accident, the defendant pulled over to the side of the road and slumped over the wheel. Responding officers believed the defendant to be under the influence of alcohol, a finding that was confirmed after the defendant’s blood indicated the presence of alcohol and marijuana.

Initially, the defendant was charged with various crimes, including two counts of DUI. The first count was based on driving while under the influence of alcohol, and the second for driving under the influence of marijuana. Before trial, the prosecution withdrew the charge pertaining to the defendant’s marijuana use and asked the court to preclude the defendant from presenting his Arizona Medical Marijuana Act card (AMMA card).

Continue reading

Drunk driving is taken seriously by police and prosecutors across the country. That said, out of all fifty states, Arizona DUI laws are among the strictest. However, the punishments for DUI crimes are not always easy to understand. At the same time, it is only when someone truly understands what they could be facing that they can make a fully-informed decision on how to handle their case.

In Arizona, not all DUI offenses are created equal.

  • DUI – A DUI offense is the most basic version of an Arizona drunk driving crime. Someone can be found guilty of a DUI if they are driving a car with a blood-alcohol content between .08 and .14.
  • Extreme DUI – Someone can be found guilty of an Extreme DUI If they operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of .15 or more.
  • Aggravated DUI – An aggravated DUI results when someone is driving under the influence (with a blood-alcohol content of .08 or more) under one of the following circumstances:
    1. Driving on a suspended or revoked license;
    2. Having committed two prior DUIs in the past seven years;
    3. Driving with a passenger under the age of 15 years old; or
    4. Refusing to submit to a breath sample (for those ordered to have an ignition interlock on their vehicle).

So, even a driver who is arrested for a DUI for the first time may face any of these charges. Like most other states, Arizona law provides for escalating punishments for those who are convicted of repeat DUI offenses.

Continue reading

One of the elements that the prosecution must prove in an Arizona DUI charge is that the driver was in actual physical control of a vehicle. If the prosecution cannot establish this fact, then the defendant must be found not guilty. However, courts define “actual physical control” quite broadly, as illustrated in a recent appellate decision.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant’s parents called police after they noticed that their new truck was missing. They told the police that their son, the defendant, had been drunk earlier in the day, and that they believed he stole their truck and drove it while under the influence. Because the defendant had a prior DUI, he was required to have an ignition interlock installed on any vehicle he drove.

Not long after speaking with the defendant’s parents, police officers located the truck with the defendant asleep inside. The truck’s lights were on, but the engine was off, and the keys were not in the ignition. Police woke the defendant up, who told them that the keys were “where they were supposed to be.” However, the defendant did not elaborate, and the officers never found the keys.

Contact Information