The new law changes how prosecutors charge these cases, how courts look at bond and release conditions, and how defense attorneys approach negotiations. If you were stopped on an Arizona roadway and officers claimed they found fentanyl in your car, it is important to understand what this new 200-gram rule means for the rest of your case.

Arizona’s 200 Gram Fentanyl Threshold Creates A New Category Of Serious Drug Charges

Under HB 2607, possession of 200 grams of fentanyl or more inside a vehicle triggers elevated penalties. Arizona lawmakers created this benchmark because fentanyl is far more potent than other narcotics, and even small amounts can be deadly. Two hundred grams suggests distribution or transport rather than simple possession, so prosecutors now treat these cases as major felony matters.

This threshold affects charging decisions immediately. When officers claim to find fentanyl in a traffic stop, law enforcement forwards the case to prosecutors with an emphasis on the total weight seized. If it reaches 200 grams, the State may file enhanced charges tied to distribution or transportation for sale, along with new sentencing ranges created by the statute. These enhanced penalties can expose a person to far greater prison time than many people think possible for a first arrest.

Traffic Stops And Vehicle Searches Take On More Importance Under HB 2607

The new law ties punishment to the amount found in a vehicle; thus, the legality of the stop becomes a central issue. Arizona officers frequently rely on speeding, lane violations, or equipment issues to justify pulling a car over. From there, they may claim to smell narcotics, notice nervous behavior, or suspect impairment. These observations often prompt a request to search the car or to call for a K-9 unit.

Under HB 2607, every step of the traffic stop matters. If the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop, exceeded the lawful scope of the encounter, or conducted a search without valid consent or probable cause, the defense can challenge the seizure of the fentanyl. A successful challenge can limit the admissible evidence, directly affecting whether the prosecutor can prove the 200-gram threshold.

Prosecutors Use The 200 Gram Rule To Push For Higher Sentences

When a case reaches the 200-gram mark, prosecutors often frame it as a high-level trafficking matter. They may point to the weight alone as evidence of intent to sell, even if they did not find scales, packaging material, or transactions. They may also seek mandatory prison time depending on the exact charges filed.

The law ties punishment directly to the amount of fentanyl involved, so plea negotiations in these cases often feel much more intense. Prosecutors tend to treat 200 grams or more as clear evidence of major trafficking and may only discuss meaningful reductions if you plead to serious felony charges. They frequently point to overdose statistics and community safety concerns to argue for long prison terms and very few alternatives, which raises the stakes for anyone accused of a high-weight fentanyl offense.

Sentencing Exposure Rises Significantly For High-Weight Fentanyl Cases

Arizona already imposes strict drug sentencing laws, but HB 2607 raises the stakes. Even individuals with no prior felony convictions can face years in prison when the weight passes the 200-gram threshold. Courts may also consider additional factors, such as whether the fentanyl was found in bindles, capsules, or pills, or whether other controlled substances were discovered with it.

Sentencing judges now view these cases through the lens of community safety, overdose rates, and drug-distribution trends. This means that a person arrested during what they believed was a routine stop may suddenly face penalties normally associated with large-scale trafficking organizations. Understanding this shift helps defendants evaluate their options and anticipate how the court will approach the case.

Defense Strategies Shift Under The New Fentanyl Penalty Structure

A strong defense begins with the stop itself. Attorneys scrutinize dash-cam and body-cam footage, dispatch logs, and search reports to determine whether officers followed constitutional standards. If the stop or search is unlawful, the quantity becomes irrelevant because the evidence may be suppressed.

Defense strategies also focus on constructive possession. Prosecutors must prove you knew the fentanyl was in the vehicle and that you had control over it. If multiple people were in the car, the ownership of the substance may not be obvious. When the State cannot link the substance directly to a specific person, the case becomes more difficult for prosecutors to win.

Another strategy involves challenging laboratory testing and weight calculations. Because the law relies heavily on the exact weight, any flaw in testing, packaging, or measurement can affect the final number.

The Impact Of HB 2607 On Your Need For Skilled Criminal Defense

With enhanced penalties tied to weight, these cases now move quickly and carry significant consequences. Early representation can help protect your rights during bond hearings, evidence review, and negotiations. Fentanyl prosecutions evolve rapidly, and the 200-gram rule gives the State more leverage at every stage. Having a defense lawyer intervene early can change how

the case proceeds and improve the options available.

Talk With An Arizona Criminal Defense Lawyer About Your Fentanyl Case

If you were stopped in Arizona and officers claim they found fentanyl in your vehicle, it is important to understand how the new 200-gram rule affects your case. You can contact The Law Office of James Novak for a free initial consultation at (480) 413-1499. The firm is available around the clock to evaluate your stop, explain your potential exposure under HB 2607, and help you build a defense that protects your future.

The Charges

The State charged the defendant with transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, a Class 2 felony. The charges were based on an incident during which officers stopped a car after they noticed the driver commit a traffic violation. One of the officers began speaking with the driver, who answered questions nervously and claimed she did not know the passenger (the defendant)’s name. After this conversation, the officer conducted a search of the car and found methamphetamine in the vehicle’s tires.

Statements Between the Driver and the Officer

A jury found the defendant guilty, and on appeal, he argued that the court made a mistake when it allowed the State to present statements by the driver to the officer. The statements were irrelevant, said the defendant, and were only prejudicial to his case. The State, on the other hand, argued that the statements were relevant because of their effect on the officer before he searched the vehicle.

In this case, concluded the court, whether the officer was suspicious was not actually at issue in the case, especially since the driver ended up consenting to the search. Even if the court admitted the statements erroneously, though, there was no reason to believe that the statements harmed the defendant during trial. There was plenty of other evidence, like the patrol car recordings and fingerprint evidence, that supported the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale.

Because the error did not significantly affect the outcome of the case, then, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal. His conviction for transportation of a dangerous drug for sale would therefore remain in place.

Do You Need a Maricopa County Criminal Defense Lawyer in Your Corner?

If you or a loved one has been criminally charged in Arizona, give our office a call to talk through a defense strategy that works for you. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in our informed, aggressive approach to every case that we take on. If you haven’t yet spoken with an experienced Maricopa County criminal defense lawyer, call us today 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.

Background

This case was based on an incident in which the State charged a defendant with possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of narcotic drugs. The State charged the defendant in 2011, and the defendant pleaded guilty to several of his charges several months later. As part of this plea, the defendant admitted to having provided the means to another to sell or transport marijuana.

Nine years after the guilty plea, Arizona adopted Proposition 207, which is a law allowing trial courts to erase (or “expunge”) defendants’ records when the records pertain to a certain category of marijuana offenses. Because the defendant’s offense was eligible for expungement, he filed a petition with the trial court. The trial court granted the petition, and the State appealed.

more The Court’s Ruling

Once the State appealed the expungement, the higher court had to decide whether it was procedurally appropriate for the State to file this appeal. Importantly, a party in a case can only appeal if the ruling affects the “substantial rights” of the party. Thus, the question here was whether the State’s substantial rights were affected by the trial court’s decision.

Ultimately, the higher court decided that the State’s rights were, indeed, affected by the trial court’s expungement. The State has an interest, explained the court, in making sure defendants face consequences when they break the law. In addition, a defendant’s previous convictions can affect their later sentences for different convictions, which affects the State’s interest in ensuring that defendants are properly sentenced both in the present and in the future.

Because of the reality of this interest, then, the State was legally able to appeal the expungement. The court did not ultimately decide whether to grant the State’s appeal; it only concluded that the State had a valid right to challenge the lower court’s ruling. With that, the court remanded the case down to the trial court for additional proceedings, so that the trial court could determine whether the appeal had merit.

Are You Looking for a Phoenix Drug Lawyer for Your Case?

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Arizona, know that you are not alone. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we commit to standing by your side every step of the way, fighting for your rights to be protected. For a free and confidential consultation with an experienced and professional Phoenix drug lawyer, 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 a member of our team reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers conducted a routine traffic stop one evening by pulling over the defendant’s wife. The defendant’s wife was driving the car registered in the defendant’s name, and upon conducting the traffic stop, the officers found drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine in the vehicle. The defendant was indicted on possession of dangerous drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia.

The defendant pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. After a jury found him guilty, the defendant promptly appealed the verdict.

The Decision

In his appeal, the defendant argued that it was his wife driving the car, not him. There was not, therefore, sufficient evidence for a jury to find that he possessed the paraphernalia and the drugs, and his conviction should be reversed.

The court was not convinced by the defendant’s argument. To start, wrote the court, it is possible for more than one person to own incriminating items in a car. Secondly, there was evidence that the defendant did actually possess the paraphernalia and drugs. There was paraphernalia on the passenger floorboard on the driver’s side of the car, leading a reasonable person to believe that the car’s driver would have known about its presence. The car was also full of items like men’s clothing that made the jury believe the defendant had recently used the vehicle.

These facts, combined with the fact that the car was registered to the defendant, were enough to convince a reasonable jury that the defendant was guilty. With that, the court affirmed the original verdict. Its opinion serves as a reminder that if you own a car, or if you are responsible in any way for a car, you could be liable for its contents even when you are not driving it. If you have questions about how this ruling might apply to you, contact a knowledgeable Arizona criminal defense attorney today.

Do You Need Legal Representation in Arizona?

If you or a loved one has been criminally charged in Arizona, give us a call at the Law Office of James E. Novak. Our team’s expertise is handling criminal charges with as much precision as possible, with the goal of getting your charges dropped as soon as possible. If you are looking for aggressive and personalized representation, call us today 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.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer noticed while on patrol that the defendant was following another car too closely as he drove by. The officer stopped the defendant and immediately began asking him questions about where he was headed. As he continued to ask questions, the officer asked the defendant to leave his vehicle and sit in the passenger seat of the patrol car.

The officer explained to the defendant that his job was to find individuals that were trafficking drugs. He also assured the defendant that he would only give him a warning for the traffic violation. The officer then asked the defendant if he had drugs in the car, and the defendant admitted he had marijuana in his vehicle.

The officer called in backup, and the team subsequently found cannabis-infused edibles and methamphetamine in the car. The State charged the defendant with transportation of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence.

The Decision

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, ruling that the officer’s traffic stop was too long and that the officer had no reason to keep the defendant in the stop for such a prolonged period of time. He had no grounds to have the defendant move to the patrol vehicle, given that the defendant acted calm and polite throughout the entire interaction.

Because the officer could not reasonably suspect criminal activity, the lower court decided he unreasonably had the defendant’s car searched. On appeal, the higher court agreed. There was nothing about the defendant, said the court, that made him suspicious. The officer’s prolonged and intense traffic stop was unwarranted, and the lower court’s suppression of the evidence was therefore reasonable.

Siding with the defendant, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Do You Need Legal Representation in Arizona?

If you or a loved one has been charged with a drug offense after a traffic stop, give us a call at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We represent defendants facing a wide array of charges, and we believe that no matter the severity of the charge, every defendant deserves the highest quality of representation. If you are in need of an experienced criminal defense attorney, call us today 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.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators worked with an informant to catch the defendant selling methamphetamine. The informant contacted the defendant two separate times to buy the substance, and both times, the informant returned from the sale with a white crystal substance. After both of the purchases, detectives analyzed the material, which tested positive for methamphetamine.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. His case went to trial, and during trial, the State introduced video recordings of the transactions as well as the bags with the substance inside.

The jury, finding enough evidence to support the defendant’s charges, found the defendant guilty. The defendant promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant asked the higher court to complete a thorough review of the lower court’s record. The higher court, performing its due diligence, reviewed the trial record to make sure there was no error that deprived the defendant of his rights under the law.

According to the court of appeals, the defendant’s proceedings were conducted in alignment with Arizona rules of criminal procedure. He had representation at every critical stage of the case, and the State introduced enough evidence at trial to sufficiently support the guilty conviction. There was no reason, said the higher court, to believe that the defendant was deprived of his opportunity for a fair trial.

The court therefore affirmed the lower court’s ruling, meaning the defendant’s convictions and sentences would stay in place.

Are You in Need of a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is facing drug charges in Arizona, you don’t have to go it alone. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are there for our clients every step of the way, providing representation that is both aggressive and empathetic, focused and holistic. If you are looking for an attorney you can trust, give our office a call today. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case so that an attorney can reach back out to you as soon as possible.

The higher court agreed that the defendant’s argument should have been given more consideration, and it sent the case back down to the lower court. The trial court then held a hearing and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress for a second time. Again, the defendant appealed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

The main officer involved in this case received an anonymous tip that the defendant was selling drugs from his home, and the officer began to investigate. After some initial investigations, the officer requested a search warrant from the court, which would allow him to go into the defendant’s home without the defendant’s permission. The court issued the search warrant, and the officer went to the defendant’s house and found evidence of drug operations happening inside. The defendant was quickly arrested for possession of dangerous drugs for sale.

more The Opinion

The main point of contention in the case quickly became whether the officer’s warrant was sufficient under the law. According to the defendant, the request for a warrant inaccurately described that he was married and omitted the address listed on his driver’s license. These inaccuracies made the warrant based on false statements, and since the original warrant was invalid, the subsequent arrest was also invalid. The court agreed that there were, indeed, at least two inaccuracies on the warrant. However, the court also found that the officer believed “in good faith” that the warrant was accurate, as well as that the inaccuracies did not have any substantial effect on the defendant’s case. Because the officer genuinely believed the warrant was correct, there was not enough evidence to find that the warrant was invalid. The lower court’s denial of the motion to suppress was therefore affirmed.

Are You in Need of a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is facing Arizona drug charges, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We fight relentlessly for criminal defendants to make sure they have access to the highest quality representation possible, because we know how daunting it can feel to fight to make sure your rights are well protected. For a free and confidential consultation with a member of our team, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case, and we will get back in touch with you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

In 2013, the defendant in this case and one of his acquaintances were driving one night when a police officer stopped them and began questioning them about where they were headed. Upon further investigation, the officer discovered marijuana in the car, and he learned that the defendant was going to California to buy more marijuana. The officer arrested both the defendant and his acquaintance.

The defendant was charged and convicted of conspiracy to transport marijuana for sale, and he finished the terms of his parole in 2018. In 2022, the defendant filed a petition to expunge, or remove, the conviction from his record. The trial court denied that petition and the defendant promptly appealed.

more The Decision

The lower court’s reason for denying the defendant’s petition was based on a newly enacted statute in Arizona, ARS 13-911. This statute allows for individuals to have their records expunged if they meet certain criteria. Here, the lower court focused on the fact that the defendant was convicted of a marijuana offense that involved “for sale” marijuana. The newly enacted law allowing the defendant to petition for expungement, said the court, did not apply to “for sale” offenses; it only allowed those defendants convicted of recreational marijuana offenses to receive a chance at expungement.

On appeal, however, the higher court reviewed a recent appellate decision that we covered on our blog last month. In this important decision, the court decided that “for sale” offenses are actually eligible for expungement. Because the statute allows defendants convicted of both recreational offenses and “for sale” offenses to petition for expungement, the defendant was right to ask for his record to be cleared.

Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the marijuana conviction would be wiped from the defendant’s record. As a result, the defendant’s record will be wiped clean of his prior marijuana-related conviction.

Are You on the Lookout for an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney?

The legal landscape in Arizona can be tough to navigate, but with the right attorneys by your side, you can make sure your rights are well protected. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we work hard for our clients because we know how much it can make a difference to have an expert in your corner. If you are facing criminal charges in Arizona and you need legal representation, call us today for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant pled guilty in 2017 to two counts of sex trafficking. When the defendant and the State were negotiating his plea deal, the defendant admitted that he had seven previous felony convictions on his record – one of these offenses was possession of marijuana in 2004. Because of the combination of these previous convictions and the 2017 convictions, the defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

In 2020, however, Arizona voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use. As part of that new law, adults that had been previously convicted of marijuana use could be eligible to have those convictions removed from their records. Here, the defendant filed a petition before the court after this 2020 law passed, arguing that his 2004 marijuana conviction should be vacated. If the 2004 conviction were removed, he argued, the defendant’s overall sentence would be less than the 12 years he received.

The court of appeals reviewed the defendant’s appeal in light of the 2020 law that was passed.

The Decision

In looking at the facts of the case, the court ultimately decided that the defendant’s marijuana conviction was, indeed, eligible for expungement. Because that conviction could be wiped from the defendant’s record, the basis of the 2017 plea deal was now different.

The defendant’s plea deal specifically mentioned his 2004 marijuana conviction, and without this conviction, the terms of the plea were no longer intact. Thus, said the court, the rational thing to do would be to vacate the plea agreement and remand the case back to the trial court so it could determine how long the defendant should be incarcerated. The defendant’s recalculated sentence, said the higher court, will likely be lower than it had been in 2017.

Are You In Need of a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is facing drug charges in Arizona, give the Law Office of James E. Novak a call so that we can help you figure out how to move forward. When there is so much on the line, you want to make sure you have the right people in your corner – at our office, we take pride in offering diligent, strategic, aggressive representation so that you can rest easy, knowing your case is being handled by the best. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators had been looking into the defendant and her acquaintance for months, suspecting they were engaged in the sale of dangerous drugs. While the investigators were conducting surveillance, they watched one day as the two individuals loaded their SUV and got on the highway. Because the investigators had been looking into these two people for a while, they did not want to make it obvious that they were following the car or that they suspected there were drugs in the car.

The investigators asked local police officers to conduct something called a “whisper stop”, which is when a law enforcement agency can ask another agency to find an entirely different reason to stop and search a vehicle so that the driver and passengers are not clued into the fact that they are under surveillance. Here, the local police officers received the call that the investigating agency needed a whisper stop, so they followed the car and suspected it was speeding by 5 miles per hour.

The officers stopped the vehicle for speeding and asked the defendant and the driver to exit the car. They found six pounds of methamphetamine, and they charged the individuals accordingly.

The Decision

The defendant’s case went to trial, and she was found guilty as charged. On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the officer conducting the traffic stop could not prove that the car was speeding. According to the defendant, she was going well within the speed limit, and thus the officer’s stop had no basis. If the stop had no basis, then the officer did not have a legal reason to search the car, and the evidence should not have been admissible at trial.

The court looked at the evidence to try and decide if the officer had reason to think the defendant’s car was speeding. According to the court, it was impossible to say one way or the other; the officer did not have a device measuring the defendant’s speed, so it was just one person’s word against the other. In the absence of any evidence, then, the court said it would trust the lower court’s conclusion and find that the officer had reasonable grounds to conclude that the defendant’s car was speeding.

Therefore, said the court, the stop was legal, and the resulting search was valid. The defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

Are You Fighting Drug Charges in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are committed to fighting for your rights when you are facing drug charges. We know what it takes to get you the results you need to move on with your life, and we will work tirelessly to get there. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

• Jail time
• Probation
• Driver license suspension
• Community service
• Ignition interlock device installation
• Treatment programs
• Traffic school
• Fines and assessments

Even those taking the medications as directed may face Arizona DUI charges. Two DUI statutes, ARS § 28-1381(A)(1) and ARS § 1381(A)(3), govern prescription medication DUIs. ARS § 28-1381(A)(1) refers to cases involving “impairment to the slightest degree.” This statute makes it illegal to operate a vehicle while impaired by any drug or alcohol. This zero-tolerance law strictly prohibits driving under these conditions, regardless of whether the driver has a legal prescription. ARS § 1381(A)(3) involves “driving with an illegal drug in one’s Body” and generally refers to non-prescribed prescription medications and street drugs.

A potential defense may involve a violation of an accused’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment refers to protections from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Under the amendment, law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion of a crime to pull over a driver. Further, even if they have the appropriate suspicion, the law limits their investigation. In prescription drug DUI cases, an accused may claim that the officer lacked probable cause for the stop or arrest. Additionally, an Arizona DUI attorney may suppress the results of any unlawful methods the officers used to establish probable cause.

Presenting a valid prescription alone does not constitute a valid defense against a charge under 1381(A)(1). However, a valid prescription may be a valid defense to charges involving 1381(A)(3). In these cases, the government must prove that the prescription medications caused impairment. The government often relies on biased and subjective accounts from the arresting officer. In an effort to combat this fundamental shortcoming, police departments use drug recognition programs and certify “experts” to recognize impairment. However, an attorney can use their skills, resources, and experience to refute these claims.

Arizona DUI laws are complex, and anyone facing these charges should reach out to an experienced attorney for immediate assistance.

Contact an Arizona Prescription Drug DUI Defense Lawyer

If you face Arizona DUI charges related to prescription drug use, non-prescription drugs or alcohol use, contact the Law Office of James E. Novak. Our Maricopa County criminal defense law firm has successfully represented those accused of drunk and drugged driving crimes for nearly 20 years. Attorney Novak prioritizes every client’s needs, and their defense comes first. He believes that all clients deserve a vigorous defense, and he fiercely fights for their constitutional rights, future, and freedom. Our firm handles Arizona criminal defenses involving DUIs, assault, burglary, vehicular crimes, sexual offenses, arson, domestic violence, drug offenses, and more. Contact Novak Law at 480-413-1499 to schedule a free initial consultation.

The defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a photograph of the victim. The photograph was a picture of the victim when she was alive and unrelated to the accident. The defendant contends that the photograph “inflamed the jury,” resulting in a prejudicial error. In this case, the trial court did instruct the jury not to be “influenced” by sympathy or prejudice.

Under Arizona law, a defendant may establish a fundamental error by proving that the error:

• Went to the foundation of the case,
• Took away an essential right to a defense or,
• It was so egregious that they could not have received a fair trial.

Here, the defendant argues that the photograph inflamed the jury and caused the jury to convict her of a greater offense by depriving her of her “essential right” of having the jury decide the case based solely on the facts. However, the court explained that an error only amounts to a deprivation of an essential right if it deprives the defendant of a statutory or constitutional right.

In this case, the appellate court did not find that the trial court committed a fundamental error or any other error. They reasoned that the defendant failed to present evidence that the photograph prevented her from presenting a compelling and viable defense; or that it prevented her from rebutting the prosecution’s case. In addition, she did not present any evidence proving that a photograph of a deceased victim, unrelated to the incident, would inflame the jury. The court ultimately found that the defendant failed to establish a prejudicial error. As such, for this and other reasons, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Have You Been Charged with an Arizona Crime?

If you are under investigation or have been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact the Law Office of James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a former prosecutor with years of experience handling Arizona criminal matters. The firm represents clients in various criminal defense matters, such as Arizona gun crimes, drug offenses, violent crimes, sexual offenses, and misdemeanors. James Novak has over 17 years of experience defending those accused of crimes in Arizona. He consistently provides clients with a strong defense to ensure that they receive the best possible outcome. Contact James Novak at 480-413-1499 to discuss your Arizona drunk driving case today.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, two women were leaving a casino by car. A police officer noticed that the vehicle had only one working headlight and pulled the driver over. The defendant, who was the front-seat passenger, sat and waited as the officer conducted the investigation.

Initially, the officer asked if he could search the car. The driver declined, explaining that it was her son’s car. However, the driver allowed the officer to search her purse, where he found nothing. Then, the officer informed the driver that he suspected she was under the influence. He removed the driver, performed field sobriety tests, and determined that she was not impaired.

However, the officer told the driver he thought, “something else is going on here tonight.” The officer told the driver he wasn’t going to take her to jail and that he just wanted her to be honest. After another three minutes passed, the driver allowed the officer to search her backpack, where he found two pipes used to smoke methamphetamine and a scale. The officer then searched the defendant’s purse, finding another pipe and methamphetamine. In total, the traffic stop took nearly 25 minutes.

The driver challenged the traffic stop in a pre-trial motion to suppress but was unsuccessful based on the court’s finding that she consented to the search. The defendant never joined the driver’s motion but instead argued that the officer’s continued investigation after finding no evidence of criminal activity resulted in an unreasonable seizure under Rodriguez v. U.S. The court denied the defendant’s motion, found her guilty, and sentenced her to six years in jail.

The defendant appealed the denial of the driver’s motion to suppress, as well as her own. The court rejected both of the defendant’s claims. First, the court found that, even if the defendant had the legal ability to appeal the denial of the driver’s motion, the lower court properly found that the driver’s consent was validly given.

Second, the court determined that the officer did not impermissibly extend the length of the traffic stop. The court noted that the officer provided several reasons why he thought the two women were engaged in criminal activity, including 1.) the seemingly unusual relationship between the two women, 2.) the high-crime nature of the area, 3.) the distance from their home, 4.) their criminal records, and 5.) their nervous behavior. The court determined that, given the officer’s findings, he was justified in continuing to investigate any possible wrongdoing.

Have You Been Arrested After an Arizona DUI Stop?

Police officers have broad authority to investigate crimes, including Arizona DUI offenses. However, this authority is not without its limits. When officers conduct an illegal traffic stop or extend the length of a stop without a valid reason, any evidence discovered as a result of the stop may be kept out of trial. Attorney James E. Novak is a dedicated Tempe criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI and drug offenses. He is knowledgeable in the evolving laws that govern these cases and aggressively stands up for his clients’ rights at every stage of the process. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call the Law Office of James E. Novak at 480-413-1499 today.

Thus, if police officers suspect someone of driving under the influence of alcohol, they may ask the driver to take a breath test. However, if police suspect someone is driving under the influence of drugs, they will most often take a blood test. Blood tests will detect both drugs and alcohol but breath tests will only detect alcohol.

The next critical fact to keep in mind is that someone can be found guilty of driving under the influence of prescribed medication. Occasionally, therapeutic doses of some prescription medications will not put someone in jeopardy. However, certain prescribed medications, if found in sufficient levels, can result in a DUI conviction.

How Long Do Drugs Stay in a Driver’s System?

The science behind determining how long a drug stays in someone’s system is complex. From the moment someone takes a drug, whether they smoke, snort, swallow or inject it, the drug immediately starts to break down. As a drug breaks down, it leaves behind metabolites, which are the byproduct of the breaking-down process. When it comes to determining whether someone was intoxicated by a substance, drug testers look for the “active” metabolite. Inactive metabolites, especially for marijuana, do not necessarily indicate that someone was intoxicated.

The most common way police test for drugs in a motorist’s system is through a blood test. Below is a list of how long each drug stays in someone’s blood.

• LSD – three hours
• Morphine – eight hours
• Heroin – 12 hours
• Amphetamines – 12 hours
• Methamphetamines – 37 hours
• MDMA – 48 hours
• Cocaine – 48 hours
• Barbiturates – 48 hours
• Cannabis – 336 hours

Of course, these figures are all estimates, and the actual amount of time that a substance stays in a motorist’s system depends on a variety of factors including the frequency with which they ingest the substance, their age, height, weight and more. Additionally, urine and hair follicle tests, while very rare in the context of an Arizona DUI, tend to reveal substance use for a longer time frame, up to 90 days. Anyone with questions about the validity of a chemical test should reach out to a dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney for immediate assistance.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drug DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona drug DUI, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Tempe criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI cases. Attorney Novak prides himself in staying up-to-date with all recent legal and scientific advances regarding Arizona DUI law, and puts this knowledge into each of his client’s cases. To learn more, and to schedule your free consultation, call 480-413-1499 today.

Lorazepam is a prescription drug, often used to treat anxiety. It can impair driving, by making a driver drowsy and slowing the driver’s reaction time, even when taken as prescribed. The defendant testified that he was prescribed lorazepam, and had taken it two days before the crash. Methadone is a narcotic, generally used to treat heroin addiction. It also can cause sleepiness and can slow reaction time, even when taken within the therapeutic range. The defendant took a dose of methadone at a clinic on the morning of the crash. There is also evidence that the combination of the two drugs can also compound their effects.

At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of criminal damage and two counts of driving under the influence. The defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial did not support the DUI convictions, because, while he had both lorazepam and methadone in his body, he was using the drugs as prescribed.

The defendant argued that he qualified for the defense of “narrow safe harbor” under Arizona Statutes section 28-1381(D). That statute states that a person using a drug as prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner is not guilty of driving under the influence. The appeals court disagreed, finding that the defendant failed to prove that he was using the medication as prescribed. Although the defendant testified that he was using the medicine as recommended by a doctor, he did not present a prescription or a doctor’s letter. The court noted that he also failed to present any additional evidence suggesting he took the medication as prescribed. For example, the defendant could have presented testimony from the physician who wrote the prescription. The court explained that in this case, the jury heard the evidence and rejected the defendant’s defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Call a Phoenix DUI Defense Lawyer

DUI convictions carry harsh punishments under Arizona law. A DUI attorney can help drivers avoid or mitigate the consequences of an Arizona DUI offense to the extent possible. At the Law Offices of James E. Novak, we are committed to protecting the rights of drivers accused of drunk driving, whether it is a first or subsequent offense. James E. Novak is a former prosecutor who understands how the other side tends to approach these cases, and he can anticipate and counter the prosecution’s strategies. Contact us at (480) 413-1499 or by completing the contact form on our website.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was pulled over after a police officer noticed that the car the defendant was driving did not have a temporary registration tag displayed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed that the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication. The defendant was placed under arrest for driving under the influence.

After the defendant’s arrest, the officer conducted an inventory search of the car, which was registered to the defendant’s sister. During the search, the officer located an eyeglasses case inside a coat pocket. Inside the eyeglasses cases was a pipe and some methamphetamine. The defendant was taken into the police station, and her blood was taken. The results came back showing that the defendant had methamphetamine in her blood. The defendant was then charged with transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a dangerous drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of DUI, and plead not guilty to the drug charges, which proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the prosecutor sought to admit evidence of the blood-test results indicating that the defendant had methamphetamine in her system. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to exclude this evidence.

The court determined that the evidence was admissible, but not as proof that the defendant possessed the drugs for sale. The court explained that by pleading not guilty of the drug offenses, the defendant was claiming she had no knowledge of the drugs in her car. The court explained that blood-test results showing she had methamphetamine in her system were relevant to the determination of whether the defendant knew that the same type of drug was in the car. Thus, although the prosecution was unable to present the defendant’s blood-test results as substantive evidence of her guilt, the evidence was admissible to establish her knowledge of the drugs.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drug Crime?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona drug crime, contact Attorney James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney with extensive experience representing clients in all types of cases, including Arizona DUIs as well as other offenses that may be charged in conjunction with a DUI. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the changes you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule your free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381
• A.R.S. section 13-3406

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

Arizona Has Some of the Harshest Penalties for Those Convicted of Driving Under the Influence, Even for First-Time Offenders, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, October 17, 2018

We’d like to consider a few factors with regard to drug penalties for DUI arrests as there are many factors to consider in such cases.

Drugs and DUI Charges

Any time a person is found to be driving under the influence, law enforcement in the state of Arizona will take these incidents very seriously, punishing people with stiff fines and other penalties that restrict the ability to drive.

Since drugs cannot be detected with a breathalyzer during a traffic stop, law enforcement will typically note other signs of potential intoxication as a means of determining if a person is under the influence. This means erratic driving patterns, strange behaviors on the road, pupil dilation, slurred speech, poor coordination or balance, and so forth. A subsequent drug test can then be performed at the police station following the arrest.

Similar DUI Charges Apply to Drug Arrests

If you are arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of drugs, you will face similar penalties as those who are charged with drunk driving.

These penalties for a first-time DUI offense include:

• Up to 10 days in jail
• A fine of $1,250
• Enrollment in an alcohol/drug education program
• Installation of ignition interlock device
• Driver’s license suspension
• Community service

For a second-offense DUI, the penalties are as follows:

• At least 90s days of jail
• A fine of $3,000
• Enrollment in an alcohol/drug education program
• Installation of an ignition interlock device
• Driver’s license revocation
• Community service

Keep in mind that penalties can vary for charges of Extreme DUI and Aggravated DUI simply given the nature of these charges. These more serious kinds of intoxicated driving charges can lead to prison time and more serious items placed on your criminal record.

Additional Penalties for Drug Possession

There may be additional differences in the penalties and charges faced if you are found with drugs or any controlled dangerous substances (CDS) on your person. There are six classes of felony charges and three classes of misdemeanor charges. These will vary based on the type of controlled substance that is found on your person or in your vehicle as well as the nature of the arrest.

There are, generally speaking, three classes of controlled substances:

• Dangerous drugs
• Narcotics
• Marijuana

Possession of dangerous drugs is considered a misdemeanor, and includes possession of LSD, psychedelics, GHB, ecstacy, and so forth. You may be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor in such cases, resulting in fines up to $2,500 and 6 months in jail. Narcotics possession is a felony and includes controlled substances such as cocaine, heroin, oxycodone, morphine, and so forth, carrying a prison sentence of 18 months. Marijuana laws in Arizona are rather complicated, and possession may result in a felony charge and up to a year in prison.

How a DUI Lawyer Can Help You

If you have been charged with driving while under the influence of an illegal drug, having an attorney on your side is imperative. Your lawyer will fight diligently on your behalf to ensure you receive a fair hearing. All efforts will be made to reduce charges or to have them dropped. We can also provide expert counsel after your case has been heard on how to proceed and put your life back in order.

Contact The Law Office of James Novak

To learn more about your legal options following a drunk driving or drug possession charge, it’s important that you contact an experienced DUI defense attorney today. The team at The Law Office of James Novak is here to help you make smart choices in your time of legal need.