Thus, in the 1966 case, Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that police must provide certain rights at the time of arrest. Primarily, officers are required to inform arrestees that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, and that they are entitled to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one.

Miranda rights must be read to someone any time they are subject to “custodial interrogation.” While the term is subject to varying interpretations, to establish custodial interrogation, a defendant must show that they were in custody and that police made some statement that would be expected to elicit a response. If police officers do not provide Miranda warnings at the time of arrest, any statements that are made by the arrestee cannot be used in a criminal trial against them.

It is a common misconception that a police officer’s failure to read Miranda warnings invalidates the arrest itself. That is not the case. The remedy for a violation of Miranda rights is the suppression of a statement that may not have otherwise been made. In addition, courts will take into factors into account when determining the appropriate remedy for a Miranda violation.

Court Applies Harmless-Error Analysis in Recent Arizona DUI Case

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case requiring the court determine if the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the fact that police did not read the defendant his Miranda warnings at the time of his arrest. In that case, the defendant was charged with a DUI after another motorist was rear-ended. Evidently, the motorist that had been struck told police that the driver who had rear-ended her was male and got out of the driver’s side door before leaving the scene.

Police located the defendant nearby and arrested him after allegedly noticing he was exhibiting signs of intoxication. Video captured police interrogating the handcuffed defendant, accusing him of driving the car and asking about his role in the collision. The defendant continually denied all involvement in the collision. The defendant’s case proceeded to trial, and he was convicted of several DUI related charges.

On appeal, the court determined that while the defendant’s statements were improperly admitted at trial, the error was harmless and his conviction should be affirmed. The court explained that even if the defendant’s statements would have been excluded from evidence, the result of the trial would have been the same because the defendant’s statements were not against his interest. Because the error in admitting the statements was harmless, the court determined there was no remedy necessary for the violation of the defendant’s rights.

Have You Been Arrested after Being Subject to Interrogation?

Police officers routinely push the limits of what they are permitted to ask during Arizona traffic stops. Too often, police officers attempt to illicit harmful information that can later be used in a criminal prosecution. Unsuspecting motorists routinely comply with police questioning out of fear they have no other choice. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we represent those who are facing serious Arizona DUI charges. We provide full-service representation from the inception of a case all the way through appeal, if necessary. We have in-depth knowledge of the state’s DUI laws and put this knowledge to use for our clients at every stage of their case. To learn more, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381
• Article 2 section 10 of the Arizona State Constitution
• Article 2 section 24 of the Arizona State Constitution

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Arizona Court Condones Officer’s Arrest of Defendant, Despite Potentially Innocent Explanation for Signs of Intoxication, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, September 12, 2018

Court Discusses Notice Requirement in Recent Arizona Aggravated DUI Case, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, September 28, 2018

The Facts of the Case

Two men were taking their two-year-old cousin to the pharmacy by car. The driver parked the car, and each man grabbed one of the young child’s hands as they walked across the parking lot toward the entrance to the pharmacy. As they were walking, however, the young child broke free from the men and was struck by the defendant’s truck.

Police officers responded to the scene and immediately learned that the child had died from the collision. One officer approached the defendant, who was huddled over and clearly distraught. As the officer bent down to talk to the defendant, he claimed that the defendant had a “strong, pungent” odor of alcohol coming from her breath. When asked, the defendant responded that she had consumed two cans of beer earlier that day. The officer also noticed that the defendant’s eyes were watery and her face was flushed. However, the officer acknowledged that the defendant’s appearance may have been due to her distraught state and was not clearly evidence of intoxication. The officer then arrested the defendant.

The officer took the defendant to the station, obtained a search warrant to take the defendant’s blood, and then took a sample of the defendant’s blood. The test results showed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was .201. The defendant unsuccessfully litigated a motion to suppress the blood evidence on several grounds, including that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest her. Ultimately, the defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of her motion to suppress, renewing her argument that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her. Specifically, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that she was intoxicated. The defendant noted the officer’s admission that her physical and emotional state may have been due to her grievous mindset, rather than intoxication.

The court disagreed, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion. The court explained that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, could lead a reasonable officer to the conclusion that the defendant was likely intoxicated. The court relied heavily on the “strong, pungent” odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, as well as her admission that she had consumed alcohol earlier in the day. The fact that there were potentially innocent explanations for the defendant’s appearance did not prevent the officer from considering her appearance, in conjunction with the other evidence, when concluding that she may have been intoxicated.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, you should reach out to dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney James E. Novak. Attorney James Novak has decades of experience handling Arizona DUI cases, and has a deep understanding of both the substantive and procedural laws governing this area of law. Attorney Novak fights zealously on behalf of his clients, from the beginning of their case to the end. To learn more, and to speak with a member of our team about your case, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Arizona Appellate Court Upholds DUI Conviction Over Defendant’s Operation Challenge, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 19, 2018

When Can an Officer Pull a Motorist Over Based on a Belief of Intoxication?, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, August 24, 2018

By knowing the DUI case stages, clients can empower themselves when their rights are violated. With that in mind, let’s explore the arrest phase of DUI cases and what these involve.

The Traffic Stop: It Starts with Probable Cause

Probable cause, as we’ve previously noted on our blog, refers to the reasonable belief by an officer that the driver of a vehicle or the passengers of a vehicle have engaged in some form of illegal activity. This is often rooted in the concept of reasonable suspicion, which refers to the reason why an officer may believe that a driver or the passengers may have acted illegally.

In the context of DUI arrests, the reasonable suspicion might refer to swerving/weaving while on the road or running a traffic sign. The probable cause for arrest would be the driver exhibiting slurred speech, having alcohol on his or her breath, or failing sobriety tests.

Assessing Sobriety or Intoxication

After a driver has been pulled over, the officer will ask for license and registration. The officer may ask the driver some questions, and then directly assess the sobriety and potential intoxication of the driver/passengers. Apart from checking the driver’s eyes and checking for signs of alcohol on the driver’s breath, there are two common methods of checking sobriety: the field sobriety test and a breathalyzer test.

The Field Sobriety Test

The field sobriety test is a series of non-scientific tasks an officer may ask a driver to do in order to check coordination, balance, and decision making/thinking skills. This might include walking a straight line, touching your own nose, and counting backwards. Typically a person who is intoxicated will not be able to accomplish these tasks.

A Breathalyzer Test

A breathalyzer test measures the amount of alcohol on a person’s breath as a way to assess sobriety. Keep in mind that this does not measure the actual alcohol content of the driver’s bloodstream.

Exceeding the Legal Limit for BAC

The legal limit for BAC is 0.08 percent. Exceeding that BAC limit while operating a vehicle is against the law and grounds for arrest.

Other compelling evidence of intoxication may be considered ground for arrest as well, such as the suspect admitting that he or she is intoxicated or any combination of actions consistent with intoxication.

Reading the Miranda Rights

While you are arrested, the officer must read your Miranda rights to you. This is official language that informs a person being arrested of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, that they have a right to an attorney present during any questions related to the charges involved, and that an attorney can be provided if a person cannot afford attorney services at the moment.

Issues with the Arrest Procedure

If there are any abnormalities in the arrest procedure, including a failure to read your Miranda warning or a lack of probable cause/reasonable suspicion, it’s important to fight four your rights and legal protections. Working with James Novak means having a skilled litigator on your side who’s committed to fairness and justice for all.

Contact The Law Office of James Novak

To learn more about your legal rights after a drunk driving arrest, be sure to contact a criminal defense and DUI attorney today. You have an ally on your side at The Law Office of James Novak. He will fight for you.