Facts of the Case

This case began when the defendant tried to use a fake $100 bill to pay at a local gas station. The attendant could immediately tell that the bill was fake and told the defendant that she would not be accepting the money. The defendant subsequently began yelling, and the attendant called the police. Even though the defendant had fled by the time the police arrived, the attendant offered a physical description to the officers.

That same day, the defendant went to another gas station and again tried to use a fake $100 bill. The employee recognized that the bill was fraudulent, told the defendant that he wouldn’t be accepting the money, and called the police once the defendant began hitting the window of the kiosk. The defendant fled, but again the attendant offered a physical description.

A few hours later, an officer noticed a pedestrian matching the attendants’ descriptions of the defendant. The officer found a fake $100 bill on the defendant’s person and arrested him.

Procedural History

The defendant was charged with three counts of forgery, and he pled not guilty. The case went to trial, and the prosecution entered into evidence the fake $100 bills and the police officer’s body-camera footage of his search of the defendant. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he promptly appealed.

The Appeal

In its decision, the court noted that a psychologist conducted a mental evaluation of the defendant, finding through his evaluation that the defendant suffered from the following conditions: cognitive impairment, alcohol use disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and delusional disorder.

Given these conditions, the sentencing court imposed a shorter sentence than it otherwise would have imposed. The defendant received one year in prison for each offense, with credit for time he had already served. The higher court affirmed this sentence, agreeing that the defendant’s conditions were a mitigating factor in the crimes he committed.

Are You in Need of a Maricopa County Criminal Defense Lawyer?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we represent clients in Arizona charged with any number of crimes, no matter the severity. Our clients trust us to work tirelessly on their behalf, because we do not rest until we have done everything in our power to get their charges dropped. For a free and confidential consultation with your Maricopa County criminal defense lawyer, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form if you would like to have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible about your case.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements made during a confrontation call between the defendant and his stepdaughter organized by the Avondale Police Department. The defendant faced molestation charges involving his step-granddaughters, and the confrontation call with the victim’s mother became a pivotal point in the legal proceedings. The court’s decision centered on the admissibility of the defendant’s statements during the recorded call, addressing concerns of coercion and voluntariness.

A confrontation call is a strategy employed by law enforcement to obtain statements from a suspect through a recorded phone conversation. In Arizona, such calls can be recorded with the consent of just one party involved, providing a legal framework for their use. In the recent case, the confrontation call aimed to gather his perspective on the alleged incidents and assess the admissibility of his statements.

Before trial, the defendant argued that the circumstances surrounding the confrontation call rendered his incriminating statements involuntary due to coercion by a state agent. The court emphasized the importance of voluntariness, stating that a statement must be obtained without coercion or improper inducement to be admissible.

The court rejected the argument that the victims’ mother was a state agent coercing the defendant into making incriminating statements. It highlighted that the defendant initiated the call, could have ended it at any time, and was not promised prosecutorial leniency in return for a confession.

The defendant contended that introducing the evidence violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court clarified that, as Davitt was neither in custody nor formally charged during the call, these constitutional rights were not implicated. The defendant also raised a Fourth Amendment argument, asserting that the confrontation call was more than a one-sided consent phone call. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the recorded call was authorized under Arizona law.

The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, stating that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated.

Speak with an Experienced AZ Criminal Defense Attorney Today

For those facing criminal charges in Arizona, it is imperative to understand the legal implications of confrontation calls and seek competent legal representation to navigate such complexities. The skilled Arizona criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of James E. Novak are experienced in handling many types of criminal charges, including sex offenses. With our advice and counsel, you can be confident you’ll have the best chance of successfully clearing your name. To schedule a complimentary consultation to discuss your case, call 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving by his old apartment building when he saw an acquaintance walking on the sidewalk. The defendant and the acquaintance exchanged some words, and the defendant pulled out a gun and fired several shots at the acquaintance. Police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant.

Officers took the defendant to the station, where they read him his Miranda rights and asked a series of questions. At several points during the 30-minute interview, the defendant stated that he wanted to “pass” on the question and avoid answering for the time being. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty of aggravated assault and endangerment.

more The Decision

On appeal, the defendant took issue with the prosecution’s use of silence as evidence that he committed the crime in question. Specifically, during closing arguments, the prosecutor played audio clips from the interview and reminded the jury that the defendant declined to answer several questions during the interview. The prosecutor suggested that this silence tended to show that he committed the crime.

Reviewing the record, the court of appeals ultimately agreed with the defendant – the Miranda rights that the officer read the defendant before the interview explicitly state that the defendant has the right to remain silent. The right to remain silent is an important right for criminal defendants, one that has been safeguarded for many years in the courts.

Given the fact that the defendant chose to exercise a right that the officer explicitly reminded him he had, it was unfair for the prosecution to penalize him for remaining silent. The trial court was wrong to allow the jury to assume the defendant was more likely to be guilty because of his silence.

Therefore, the judgment was vacated. The court remanded the matter for an entirely new trial.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of Arizona?

If you or a loved one is fighting the State on criminal charges in Arizona, you do not have to go through the process alone. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we offer experience, strategy, and common sense as tools to help you get your charges dropped. For a free and confidential consultation with a member of our team, give us a call today 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.

Facts of the Case

Twelve years ago, the defendant in this case pled guilty to burglary, theft, and criminal damage. After the defendant’s guilty plea, the court sentenced the defendant to time in prison and placed him on a five-year probation term upon his release. During this probation period, the defendant ran into trouble when he was criminally charged with trespassing and refusing to leave his ex-girlfriend’s property. He was arrested again a year later for smuggling undocumented individuals into the U.S.

Given these charges, the State asked the court to revoke the defendant’s probation. The court scheduled a hearing to review the terms of the defendant’s probation, but the hearing did not actually happen until two years after the original hearing was scheduled. When the hearing finally occurred, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the hearing had been unreasonably delayed. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and he promptly appealed.

more The Decision

The court reviewed the defendant’s appeal and agreed that the hearing had been substantially delayed – two years went by between the scheduling of the hearing and the hearing itself. However, said the court, the delays were because the defendant and his attorney continued to request that the hearing be moved to a later date. On five different occasions, the defendant had filed motions to continue. On several other occasions, COVID-19 prevented the court from convening, which the higher court considered to be a reasonable reason for a delay.

Because the State was prepared for each hearing and because the court was also ready to hear from the parties on each of the scheduled dates, the higher court decided the motion to dismiss was rightfully denied. It would be unfair, said the court, if the defendant was allowed to request continuances, then request a dismissal when the court ultimately granted those continuances.

The lower court’s ruling was affirmed.

Are You Looking for a Qualified Defense Attorney in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand that facing criminal charges is daunting, especially with the constantly changing legal landscape in Arizona. We pledge to be by your side every step of the way during your criminal case, doing all that we can to ensure your charges are dropped. For a free and confidential consultation with an Arizona criminal defense attorney, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to give us some of the details on your case.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant drove by the victim’s house several times over the course of nine days, each time slowing down to monitor what was happening on the property. The defendant also dumped trash in the yard and slashed the victim’s tires.

Tired of the stalking behavior, the victim decided to confront the defendant during a drive-by. The victim was a justice of the peace in a local Arizona county and therefore had a gun at his disposal, and when the defendant got out of his car and started moving towards the victim, the victim fired a shot to the ground as a warning. Within a few minutes, police officers were on the scene, and they arrested the defendant.

A jury found the defendant guilty of one count of stalking, and the court sentenced him to 1.5 years in prison. He appealed.

more The Decision

On appeal, the defendant focused on the fact that the victim was a justice of the peace and that he was, therefore, an actor of the state. According to the defendant, this individual was acting in his governmental capacity during the pair’s altercation, and there were different considerations for the court to consider while deciding whether the arrest was legal and fair to the defendant.

Ultimately, while the court recognized that the victim did have a role as a justice of the peace, it decided the individual was not acting in his official capacity during the altercation at issue. The victim was responding to the stalking that was targeted at him as a citizen, and therefore the lower court was correct to treat the altercation as an incident between two individuals instead of as between one individual and one state actor.

The defendant’s appeal was therefore denied, and his original sentence remained in place.

Are You Looking for a Defense Attorney in the State of Arizona?

If you or a loved one has been charged with an Arizona stalking or harassment offense, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We know the ins and outs of the criminal legal landscape in the state, and we offer you high-quality representation that cannot be matched. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to give us some of the details on your case.

Facts of the Case

The defendant was arrested in connection with a series of incidents in which a man wearing a clown mask approached individuals, pointed a gun at them, and robbed them. After several months of this particular kind of armed robbery popping up throughout the area, investigators were able to link the defendant in this case to the crime. He was criminally charged, and his case headed for trial.

Before trial, the defendant went to court for several suppression hearings or hearings in which he tried to get certain incriminating evidence suppressed before the trial began. At these hearings, the defendant opted to represent himself, even though he was offered an attorney. He brought in several witnesses for each of the hearings, and his motions to suppress were denied at each hearing.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court was legally supposed to advise him during the suppression hearings that he had a constitutional right to testify on his own behalf if he wanted to exercise that right. Because the court is procedurally required to state this right to unrepresented defendants, he was deprived of a fair process, and his guilty verdict should be reversed.

The court of appeals agreed that the lower court should have explicitly stated to the defendant that he had the right to testify. However, the court of appeals noted that when the trial court did ultimately tell the defendant this information in the third hearing, he declined to testify even then. Thus, said the court, there was no reason to think he would have taken advantage of the right in the earlier hearings. Additionally, the defendant brought up a multitude of witnesses in each hearing, and he was able to sufficiently communicate his side of the story using these witnesses.

Given these conclusions, the court of appeals kept the guilty verdict in place.

Are You Looking for a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

Unfortunately, there are so many procedural parts of a criminal case that it is easy to win or lose on these seemingly minor grounds. With a qualified, knowledgeable attorney, however, you can stay informed of your rights and ensure that you know everything you need to know about the Arizona criminal justice system. For the most qualified and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney around, call the Law Office of James E. Novak. We have a long history of getting our clients the results they need because we understand that sometimes, a guilty verdict just isn’t an option. For a free and confidential consultation, call today at 480-413-1499.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a group of police officers was eating in a restaurant, when someone approached the officers, informing them that a motorist was committing traffic violations. One of the officers left the restaurant, got into his car, and witnessed the defendant run a red light.

The officer turned on his lights and sirens to conduct a traffic stop; however, the defendant did not stop. The defendant led the officer on a chase. According to the officer, the defendant committed “too many traffic violations to count.” When the defendant turned the wrong way down a one-way road, another officer put spike strips down in an attempt to disable the defendant’s vehicle. However, when the defendant saw the officer in the road, he swerved towards the officer. The officer jumped out of the way to avoid being hit.

Eventually, another officer stopped the defendant’s car. The defendant’s blood was taken, and the results came back showing that the defendant had methamphetamine in his system. The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI, aggravated assault, fleeing a police officer, and reckless driving.

The defendant was found guilty of DUI, reckless driving, and fleeing a police officer; however, the jury found him not guilty of aggravated assault. The defendant was sentenced to 2.25 years’ incarceration for fleeing a police officer, 10 days incarceration for DUI, and two years’ probation for reckless driving. The defendant appealed.

On appeal, the court reviewed the record below, finding no errors in the proceeding. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentences.

Strategic Decisions in DUI Cases Involving Multiple Serious Offenses

In this case, the defendant was charged with several serious crimes, other than DUI. This is often the case when a defendant’s arrest involves flight or an accident. In these cases, it is especially important to develop a strong defense, not just to the lead offense, but to every charge. In this case, the defendant beat what was arguably the most serious offense—aggravated assault against a police officer—however, he still ended up with a significant sentence of incarceration. Those facing serious DUI-related charges should be sure to work with a dedicated Arizona criminal defense attorney with experience handling multiple serious allegations within the same case.

Contact a Tempe DUI Lawyer Today for Immediate Assistance

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona DUI offense, give Attorney James E. Novak a call. Attorney Novak is a respected criminal defense attorney with over two decades of experience handling all types of Arizona drunk driving offenses on behalf of his clients. With his aggressive style of representation, you can rest assured knowing that your future is in good hands. To learn more, call 480-413-1499, or reach out through our online form.

Arizona’s spousal privilege has a number of exceptions that can prevent its application. The most common exception is called the “crimes exception” and involves a situation in which one spouse is charged with a crime that was committed against the other spouse. A recent Arizona DUI case illustrates the crimes exception to Arizona’s spousal privilege statute.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant’s husband (Husband) called police because the defendant was trying to leave their home while she was intoxicated. Husband attempted to park one of the couple’s other vehicles behind the defendant’s minivan to prevent her from leaving, but the defendant got into the minivan and backed into the other vehicle. The defendant was later arrested and charged with DUI and causing criminal damage.

Before the trial began, the defendant argued that Husband could not testify against her in the DUI charges based on her spousal privilege. The defendant conceded, however, that Husband could testify against her regarding the criminal damage charge because the damage she allegedly caused was to property that Husband jointly owned. The trial court agreed with the defendant, and severed the DUI charges from the criminal damage charge. The prosecution appealed.

On appeal court held that Husband should be allowed to testify against the defendant because the two sets of charges were based on the same “unitary event.” The court explained that once a judge determines that the crimes exception applies, then the witness spouse can testify about any other crimes that arose from the same unitary event. In other words, the court held that the lower court’s interpretation of the crimes exception was too narrow.

Here, the court explained that the DUI charge and the criminal damage charge both were based on the defendant’s “alleged intoxication and subsequent reckless behavior in trying to drive the mini-van.” Thus, the court held that Husband should be allowed to testify about any other crimes that resulted from the defendant’s conduct. Because the application of the spousal privilege was the sole basis for the severance of the charges, the court also held that when the case proceeds the charges should not be severed.

Have You Been Charged with a Crime?

If you have recently been charged with an Arizona DUI, you should contact a dedicated Tempe DUI lawyer as soon as possible. Attorney James E. Novak is an experienced Arizona DUI defense attorney with extensive experience handling a wide range of DUI cases, including those presenting unique and complex issues. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you are currently facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule your free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381
• A.R.S. section 13-1602

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Court Holds Reasonable Suspicion Exists to Pull Over Vehicle if Owner’s License Is Suspended, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, November 13, 2018

Court Allows Results of Defendant’s Blood Test to Show Her Knowledge of the Drugs That Were Found in Her Car, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, November 29, 2018

The idea of a strong legal defense is important when a person is arrested for drunk driving. We would like to take a basic look at some common DUI defense strategies that can help drunk drivers in their time of legal need.

Focusing on the Circumstances of Your Drunk Driving Arrest

One of the initial focuses for drunk driving attorneys will be the circumstances of the traffic stop. Law enforcement should have a probable and/or legitimate cause for pulling someone over. When law enforcement does not have a probable cause for pulling a motorist over, the motorists’ Constitutional rights have been violated.

When arrested, there may also be an issue of the officer not reading you your Miranda Rights, which is a serious violation of your Constitutional rights and flies in the face of basic police officer protocol.

Problems with the Unscientific Field Sobriety Test

Field sobriety tests are inherently flawed in that they are not scientific measures of blood alcohol content (BAC) or sobriety. Many times field sobriety tests are improperly administered, which means that motorists may fail the sobriety test unfairly.

It should also be noted that anxiety and nervousness can contribute to failure of a field sobriety test, a matter that must be taken seriously. These issues with stress and nervousness can be the result of intimidation on the part of law enforcement, which also needs to be brought up in your case if it occurred.

Issues with Breathalyzer Accuracy and BAC

While many officers rely on breathalyzer tests to assess a person’s BAC, there have been instances in which the breathalyzer misreads BAC. Other contaminants and factors can lead to improper readings of a breathalyzer, including the presence of alcohol from medical or dental treatments on the mouth, the use of cold medicine or mouthwash, and even acid reflux.

Problems with the Accuracy of Blood and Urine BAC Tests

In addition to problems with breathalyzer tests, there have also been cases in which blood analysis and urine analysis for BAC have provided incorrect readings as a result of sample contamination and/or shoddy lab work. In addition, false readings may be reached in urine tests of a driver has not urinated in a long time prior to the test, which can result in a much higher concentration of alcohol in the analysis than actually present in the driver’s system.

Noting Other Issues with the Nature of the Traffic Stop

If there was a witness present in the vehicle or passing by who can testify regarding your sobriety, this can be a crucial part of the defense strategy. The same goes for any witnesses who can note improper actions, harassment, intimidation, or mistakes made on the part of the arresting officer.

In addition, there may be sufficient evidence that demonstrates that a driver was sober or well within the legal limit even though a blood, breath, or urine test may suggest otherwise. These will be noted as the defense strategy is generated based on the circumstances of your arrest.

Speak with a DUI Defense Attorney

If you or someone that you know has been charged with drunk driving, it’s important that you contact our DUI and criminal defense law firm today. We at the Law Office of James Novak will help ensure that you receive a fair hearing and that you understand all of your legal options during each step of the litigation process.

Auto Accidents Caused by Drunk Driving

Drunk driving always has to be taken seriously. According to the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, there were 31,263 drunk driving arrests in the state of Arizona in 2012. There were a total of 227 alcohol-related driving fatalities in that year.

According to numbers from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, there were 5,428 alcohol-related car crashes in 2012, 3,720 of which resulted in injuries. Given these numbers, you can understand why law enforcement is very stringent with such matters.

Aggravated DUI/Felony DUI

If you are driving under the influence and cause an auto accident to occur with another motorist, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian, you will be charged with an Aggravated DUI (aka Felony DUI). An Aggravated DUI charge is far more serious than a regular DUI charge simply given the circumstances of the incident and the arrest.

Your blood alcohol concentration will also determine if you are charged with an extreme DUI (BAC of 0.15 to 0.19) or a super extreme DUI (BAC of 0.2 or greater).

Penalties for Aggravated DUI/Felony DUI

The penalties for a Felony DUI are harsh. An Aggravated DUI is a Class 4 Felony, which means that those arrested for an Aggravated DUI can face between 1.5 to 3 years of prison and pay fines of up to $150,000. Repeat DUI offenses or other charges may add to these penalties, which is why getting legal representation on your side will be critical.

In addition to jail time and the fines associated with the Aggravated DUI charge, you can also expect the following additional penalties:

• Revocation of your driver’s license for at least three years
• Probation for up to five years
• Mandatory community service
• Mandatory traffic school
• Mandatory drug/alcohol screening or counseling
• Installation of an ignition interlock device
• Points on your driving record
• Felony conviction on your criminal record

How Our Legal Team Can Help You

It’s important that those arrested of an Aggravated DUI/Felony DUI get a skilled criminal defense attorney on their side. A DUI defense lawyer will make sure that you receive a fair shake from the law, going over all evidence and ensuring that the legal system works as designed. Your attorney will look into ways of reducing the penalties that you face, making bargains on your behalf while also advising you on your legal options going forward.

Do not make a mistake and attempt go it alone, especially when facing such dire charges. You need the team at the Law Office of James E. Novak on your side.

Learn More About Your Legal Options

If you or someone you love has been involved in a drunk driving auto accident of any kind, it’s of the utmost importance that you contact our Tempe, Arizona DUI defense lawyers today. The team at the Law Office of James E. Novak can help you in your time of legal need and ensure that our system works fairly for you.

In many other states, expungement is the best course of action, though statutes are different in Arizona. We’d like to look at this issue of expungement and what we can help clients in the state do if they would like to address the conviction on their criminal record.

About DUI / DWI In Arizona

A brief reminder about what it means to be a drunk driver in Arizona. The legal blood alcohol content (BAC) for motorists 21 years old and older is 0.08%; the legal limit is 0.04% if the driver is driving a commercial vehicle. There is a zero tolerance policy when it comes to people under the age of 21 driving while under the influence of alcohol, even if their BAC is within the legal limit.

Penalties for drunk driving conviction include fines, jail time, installment of an ignition interlock device, license suspension, and so forth.

What is expungement?

Expungement is a term that refers to the sealing of arrest or criminal records. This means that arrests or convictions do not need to be disclosed, even to potential employers or landlords.

In the state of Arizona, there is no expungement option. Instead, a criminal/DUI defense lawyer can help a client with a “Motion to Set Aside Conviction,” which operates much differently than an expungement.

Motion to Set Aside Conviction in the State of Arizona

The motion to set aside a conviction does not seal a criminal record. Instead, the criminal record will show that the person was charged with the offense, convicted of the offense, but the ruling was set aside and an order of dismissal was then entered. Any rights lost or disabilities imposed as a result of the conviction are thus restored.

Should I seek to set aside my drunk driving conviction?

This is generally a good idea since it will allow employers and others doing background checks to look upon your record more favorably.

What to Expect from the Process

In essence, a client must fulfill his or her legal obligations as a result of the DUI or DWI conviction, which means serving all jail time, paying all fines, and so forth. Be sure to get documentation that all of these were completed. Those who served jail or prison time for their DUI conviction will need to wait two years before petitioning to have their charge set aside.

A written application will need to be filled out with all documentation included. A hearing date will eventually be set following receipt of the application, though it is not necessary to attend this hearing. The judge’s final ruling regarding your petition will be sent by mail if you do not attend.

What Our Attorneys Will Do for You

The process of getting a DUI conviction set aside can be complicated, so our attorneys will help make the process go easier. Our team will be here for you each step of the way, providing all the advice that you need to make smart decisions.

Learn More About DUI / DWI Cases

For more information about drunk driving cases and what our legal team can do for you, be sure to contact our Tempe, Arizona DUI / DWI defense attorneys today. Our entire team looks forward to meeting you in person and helping you achieve the best results with regard to your legal rights.

Right now we would like to focus on the nature of sobriety checkpoints, what they are, and when they may be put in place. These checkpoints tend to catch a number of drunk drivers, so it’s important that you know how they operate.

About Sobriety Checkpoints

Sobriety checkpoints are random stops along busy roads that are set up by law enforcement. With these checkpoints in place, law enforcement stops every vehicle in order to find out if the driver of a vehicle is sober and able to drive.

How These DUI Checkpoints Work

The law enforcement tend to check a driver’s license and registration to make sure that everything is order. They will often ask the driver a few questions to help assess sobriety. If law enforcement suspects drunk driving or that there is something out of the ordinary, the driver is asked to pull over to the side in order to be fully assessed.

If asked to pull to the side of the road away from the sobriety roadblock, law enforcement will resort to DUI tests if needed. This includes breathalyzer tests or even field sobriety tests to check if cognition and motor skills are impaired in any way.

Why are DUI checkpoints in place?

DUI checkpoints are put in place in order to serve the public good and ensure that people are driving responsibly. They are good things in that they prevent potential injury and death from drunk driving accidents, though it’s important that law enforcement treats these checkpoints professionally and in accordance with the civil rights of drivers.

Common Times That DUI Checkpoints Are Enforced

Most DUI checkpoints are put in place during weekends, at night and in the early morning. These are the times that drunk driving arrests are most common, and they often coincide with hours that bars and clubs are operating or are closing.

Other Events That May Result In Sobriety Checkpoints

There are many other times that sobriety checkpoints may be put in place. Some examples of this include:

• New Year’s Eve
• The Fourth of July
• Memorial Day
• St. Patrick’s Day
• Halloween night/weekend

It’s also worthwhile to consider the possibility of sobriety checkpoints to coincide with the following:

• Major sporting events
• Major concerts
• Large conventions
• Large scale parties or social gatherings

How Our Legal Team Can Help with DUI Defense

When you visit our legal team, we will examine the circumstances of your case to ensure that your stop and arrest was handled professionally and properly. If not, we will work to overturn your arrest and hold the irresponsible parties accountable for their actions. We will also work to ensure that any legal punishments are lenient and help advise you on your best course of action.

Learn More About Drunk Driving Litigation

For more information about sobriety checkpoints, drunk driving stops, and many other defense matters related to traffic stops, be sure to contact our Arizona DUI and criminal defense lawyers today. Our entire legal team looks forward to meeting you in person and helping you have a fair shake in a court of law.