In Arizona, a DUI case often rises or falls on what happened in the first ten minutes. In Maricopa County, the stop must be supported by specific facts, not a hunch. In Tempe, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Glendale, DUI enforcement varies, but the legal standards do not. A prosecutor still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the officer claims the stop was routine.

What You Should Do in the Next 24 to 72 Hours

Your goal is to preserve evidence and avoid creating new problems. Write down the route, cross streets, and the time window while it is fresh. Save receipts, rideshare logs, and messages that help establish timing. Do not talk about the stop, alcohol use, or testing on recorded calls.

In Arizona, dash cam and body cam footage can matter more than the narrative report. In Maricopa County, video may not be kept forever unless a request goes out quickly. In Arizona, the stop, the detention, and the arrest are separate legal steps, and each step must be justified.

What the State Must Prove and Where the Burden Stays

Arizona DUI charges come in different forms, but the burden stays on the state from start to finish. In Arizona, an impairment DUI focuses on whether alcohol or drugs affected you to the slightest degree. In Arizona, a per se DUI focuses on whether your alcohol concentration met the legal limit within the statutory time window. In Arizona, “actual physical control” cases can be filed even without active driving, but the state still must prove the facts support control.

In Maricopa County, timing can drive the defense. In Arizona, alcohol levels change over time, and the gap between driving and testing can matter. A prosecutor still must prove reliability, not just offer a number.

Evidence the State Relies On and How It Gets Attacked

Most DUI prosecutions rely on the same set of evidence, and that predictability helps you build a focused defense. In Arizona, the state commonly leans on the stop rationale, officer observations, field sobriety tests, and chemical testing. In Tempe and downtown Phoenix, lighting, pavement, and traffic conditions often affect how tests look on video.

In Arizona, field sobriety tests are divided-attention tasks, not medical exams. In Maricopa County, officers may score “clues” that have innocent causes, including fatigue, anxiety, footwear, injuries, or uneven ground. In Arizona, breath testing depends on procedure and machine performance. In Arizona, blood testing depends on chain of custody, storage, and lab practices.

Defense Strategies That Win Stop and Testing Cases

Unlawful Stop Based on a Weak or Mistaken Reason

This approach attacks the legal basis for the initial stop. Example: You are stopped in Mesa for “weaving,” but the video shows you avoided debris or merged around a slow vehicle without unsafe movement.

In Arizona, a legal stop must be supported by specific facts that hold up in court. In Maricopa County, when the stop fails, evidence gathered after the stop may be suppressed.

Unlawful Extension of the Stop Into a DUI Investigation

This strategy targets how a traffic stop became a DUI detention. Example: You are stopped in Scottsdale for a minor equipment issue, yet the officer prolongs the encounter without new facts that justify DUI testing.

In Arizona, the detention must stay tied to its lawful purpose unless new facts justify expansion. A prosecutor still must prove the escalation was justified.

Field Sobriety Tests Skewed by Conditions or Health Factors

This defense focuses on reliability problems with roadside testing. Example: In downtown Phoenix, you are asked to perform tests on a sloped shoulder with passing traffic and flashing lights, and your ankle pain or balance issue gets ignored.

In Arizona, these tests are subjective and stress-sensitive. In Maricopa County, careful cross-examination can expose how conditions created the “clues.”

Breath Test Issues That Inflate BAC Readings

This defense attacks procedure, assumptions, and measurement limits. Example: A breath test is taken after reflux symptoms or with an unclear observation period, and the result appears higher than it should.

In Arizona, breath testing depends on strict steps and accurate operation. In Maricopa County, motions practice can force the state to defend the process, not just the printout.

Blood Draw Problems and Chain of Custody Gaps

This strategy challenges whether the sample can be trusted from collection to analysis. Example: Documentation gaps show up in the handling timeline, storage, or transfer of the sample before lab testing.

In Arizona, chain of custody issues can create reasonable doubt. In Maricopa County, lab records and analyst testimony often become central proof targets.

Actual Physical Control When You Were Not Driving

This defense applies when police claim you were “in control” rather than driving. Example: You pull over near a Phoenix freeway entrance, turn the car off, and wait for a ride, yet the officer treats your presence in the driver seat as control.

In Arizona, actual physical control depends on multiple factors, not one detail. A prosecutor still must prove the situation created a real risk of driving.

Penalties by DUI Category and What They Look Like

Arizona penalties depend on the DUI category and your history. In Arizona, a first-time misdemeanor DUI can involve custody exposure, fines and fees, alcohol screening, and license consequences. Example: A Glendale arrest can look standard on paper, yet a strong suppression issue tied to the stop can change the negotiating posture quickly.

In Arizona, extreme DUI penalties increase and the state often relies heavily on the BAC number. Example: A Scottsdale case with a high reported BAC can still be defended by challenging the stop, timing, and testing method.

In Arizona, aggravated DUI is treated more seriously and can bring felony exposure depending on the allegation. Example: A Maricopa County aggravated DUI track often increases the importance of early motions that limit what evidence reaches a jury.

Process and Timeline in Maricopa County and What Your Lawyer Does

A DUI case is a sequence of checkpoints. In Maricopa County, the early phase should include evidence preservation, discovery requests, and a timeline map that ties driving to testing. In Arizona, arraignment and early settings define deadlines and motion windows.

In Arizona, targeted motions can challenge the legality of the stop, the detention, statements, and testing steps. A prosecutor still must prove admissibility before a jury hears key evidence. In Maricopa County, the best leverage often comes from showing the judge and the state where the proof breaks down.

Why the Law Office of James E. Novak

You want a defense that treats the stop and the testing as litigated issues, not background facts. The Law Office of James E. Novak focuses on early evidence control, disciplined motion practice, and a clear case theory built around what the state can actually prove in Maricopa County.

In Arizona, small details often control outcomes. In Maricopa County, video, timing, and testing protocols can matter more than conclusions written in a report.

Get Help Challenging DUI Stops in Maricopa County

If you were stopped and arrested in Maricopa County, a careful review of the stop, detention, and testing can reveal defenses you will not find by reading the report alone. To talk through what happened and what comes next, call the Law Office of James E. Novak at (480) 413-1499.

DUI

A basic DUI occurs if you are stopped for driving under the influence and your BAC (blood alcohol concentration) reads .08 percent or higher. The .08 percent applies to both alcohol and drugs (notably, this includes any kind of drug, not just drugs that are illegal). For drivers under the age of 21, any alcohol or drug concentration could be enough for the State to charge you with DUI. In Arizona, a first offense DUI means that you will be jailed for 10 or more days and fined at least $1,250. For a second or subsequent offense, you will be jailed for at least 90 days, fined at least $3,000, and face a license revocation for 12 months.

Extreme DUI

An extreme DUI, on the other hand, means that a breathalyzer finds that your BAC is .15 or higher. A first offense results in jail time for at least 30 days and a fine of at least $2,500. For second and subsequent extreme DUI offenses, the jail time is 120 days, the fine is $3,250, and the individual’s driver’s license will be suspended.

Aggravated DUI

Aggravated DUI is the most severe of the three kinds of DUIs. This category is reserved for four kinds of offenses: DUIs committed while the driver’s license is suspended; a driver’s third DUI in seven years; DUIs committed while a passenger is under 15 years old; or drivers who commit a DUI and refuse to submit to a BAC test while already under watch for having committed DUIs in the past. Penalties for aggravated DUIs can vary, but they generally include two years in prison and license revocation.

Do You Need a Phoenix DUI Attorney by Your Side?

If you or a loved one is facing charges for driving under the influence, know that you have rights and that you have options under the law. By retaining an experienced, aggressive Phoenix DUI attorney, you can ensure you are doing everything in your power to get your charges dropped. At the Law of Office of James E. Novak, we work hard to fight for our clients’ freedoms, and we don’t rest until we have done everything in our power to make sure our clients’ voices are heard.

For a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix DUI attorney from our team, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have someone from our firm reach back out to you as soon as possible to discuss next steps.

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, a defendant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence. After being charged, the defendant filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence, which the trial court denied. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court wrongfully denied this motion to suppress.

The facts of the case were simple: the defendant was driving, swerving from one lane to the next. An officer stopped him, smelled burnt marijuana on the defendant’s person, and quickly administered sobriety tests. The tests revealed that the defendant was driving under the influence.

Despite the defendant’s argument on appeal that the officer’s stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, the higher court disagreed. As long as the deviation outside a traffic line is not “brief, momentary, and minor,” the officer is allowed to pull a driver over for a traffic stop. The defendant’s swerving in this case was none of these things. Therefore, the officer’s stop was warranted, and the denial of the motion to suppress was appropriate.

Other Possible Grounds for a Traffic Stop

An officer can also conduct a traffic stop if he notices a driver taking the following actions: running through a red light or stop sign, changing lanes recklessly or without a blinker, speeding, or showing disregard for other drivers. It is important to be careful on the road both for your safety and the safety of others, but it is also important not to give officers a reason to pull you over. Once an officer begins the traffic stop, he has many tools available to him that could end up resulting in criminal charges.

Are You Looking for a Phoenix Vehicular Crimes Attorney for Your Case?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand that it is never convenient to face criminal charges, and we do all that is in our power to get your charges dropped as early as possible. Our team of attorneys is relentless, aggressive, and experienced, and we take a client-centered and holistic approach to every case. If a traffic stop has led to criminal charges for you or a loved one, don’t wait; give us a call as soon as possible so that we can begin talking through the best possible strategies for your case.

For a free and confidential consultation with a Phoenix vehicular crimes attorney, call us 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, a woman was at the store one evening when she saw several teenage girls next to her; she recognized the girls as being the same ones that were on an ATV she had recently passed on the road. Before leaving the store, the woman saw the girls on the ATV drive out ahead of her. She also saw the defendant in this case, in his truck, driving out around the same time. Minutes later, she drove away herself, and immediately noticed debris on the road. She knew there had been an accident, and she called 911 to report that the ATV and the truck had collided.

Investigators and first respondents arrived at the scene, and they found two of the ATV riders had died while the third had suffered serious injuries. The defendant had run away from the accident, and the woman from the store told officers she thought he could have been involved.

The officers later found the defendant a couple of miles away at a friend’s house. Taking a sample of the defendant’s blood, the officers approximated that the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident was between .12 and .16, well over the legal limit of .08. He was charged with several crimes, including failure to stop at the scene of an accident, manslaughter, and aggravated assault. A jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court improperly limited his defense by keeping him from introducing certain key pieces of evidence. For example, the defendant argued that the medical examiner involved in the case thought that the ATV riders’ injuries were worsened by the fact that they were not wearing helmets. If the jury had known this fact, it might have helped his case, but the trial court had told the defendant that he could not bring this piece of evidence in at trial.

The higher court examined the record of the case and noticed that on the stand, the medical examiner stated that the intense nature of the victims’ injuries indicated that they were not wearing helmets. According to the court, the examiner implied in her testimony that protective gear would have lessened the victims’ injuries, and because of this common-sense implication, additional statements about the possible effects of helmets would not have helped the defendant make his case.

Thus, said the court, the defendant was not harmed by the exclusion of this evidence. The court then upheld the defendant’s original verdict.

Are You Facing Charges for DUI in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand the harsh consequences of a DUI conviction, and we will fight every case as if our clients’ lives depend on it. If you are looking for an aggressive, dependable Tempe DUI defense attorney, look no further. For a free and confidential consultation, call our office today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was originally convicted in June 2012 of one count of driving under the influence and one count of possession of marijuana. In 2012, Arizona law included a provision that required DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device in their cars for one year upon having their licenses reinstated. By 2016, that provision had been changed, and it began to only apply to DUI convictions involving intoxicating liquor.

The defendant’s license was reinstated in 2017, one year after this relevant change to the law. Confusingly, the defendant’s Motor Vehicle Department record continued to state that he was required to install this ignition interlock device. In 2018, when he was stopped and charged with two counts of aggravated DUI, both charges were based on the fact that the defendant was intoxicated while he was required to have an ignition interlock device.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was unclear whether or not he was actually supposed to have an ignition interlock device in his car. The law had changed in 2016, and the statute was vague. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the prosecution maintained that it was appropriate to apply the law that existed prior to 2016 instead of the law that existed in 2018, thus the defendant should have had the device and was properly charged. The trial court ultimately agreed with the defendant and granted the motion to dismiss. The state promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the court had to decide which version of Arizona law to apply: should they apply the law as it existed in 2012 when the defendant was originally convicted of a DUI and notified that he would have to install an ignition interlock device? Or should they apply the law as it existed in 2017 when the defendant’s license was reinstated and the law no longer applied to him?

The court concluded that it was only fair to apply the newer version of the law in question. According to the court, it would be unreasonable to apply an outdated statute to the defendant, and the correct approach was to interpret the law that was in effect at the time of the defendant’s offenses. Convicting the defendant of violating a law that was not on the books in 2018 would create a confusing and unfair standard for the defendant. Thus, said the court, the trial court’s ruling was correct, and the case indeed should have been dismissed.

Are You Facing DUI Charges in Arizona?

If you or a loved one are facing DUI charges in Arizona, give us a call at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We bring a strong understanding of Arizona case law to our practice so that we can offer you aggressive arguments and winning strategies that prioritize protecting your rights. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499. You can also send us a message online to have your questions answered.

Probable Cause

The first thing to know is that if an officer pulls you over and asks you to perform a breathalyzer test, they must have probable cause to suspect that you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This means that officers cannot ask you to perform a sobriety test without some indication that you are not sober (the exception to this rule would be if the officers are conducting a DUI checkpoint and you were randomly selected to conduct a test as part of this checkpoint).

Anything that you say or do could be used against you in order for the officer to find probable cause to breathalyze you, test your urine, or test your blood. For example, if you are swerving on the road or if (after the traffic stop) your speech is impaired, the officer will likely have legal grounds to request that you take a sobriety test. In Arizona, it is illegal to drive with a blood alcohol count (BAC) of .08% or higher, but officers can still arrest you if your BAC is lower than .08% and if their perception is that you are “impaired to the slightest degree.” For example, if your BAC is .07% but you are slurring your words when you speak to the officer, that officer can still arrest you under suspicion of a DUI.

more Testing Requirements

You are only legally required to take a sobriety test if the officer has probable cause to believe you were intoxicated. The implied consent law in Arizona mandates that you submit to testing requirements. If you have been arrested and refuse to be tested, officers have the power to suspend your driver’s license for one year (or longer if you’ve refused in the past). Refusing a chemical test may make it more difficult for the government to prove a case against you. However, that is not always the case, as the government can also rely upon the officer’s observations indicating you were intoxicated as well as any physical evidence found in the vehicle, such as open containers.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI in the State of Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we work with clients who have been arrested for Arizona DUI offenses every day. We know how much is on the line for you when you interact with a police officer, and we are committed to helping you understand your rights so that you can protect yourself and your loved ones. For a free consultation, call our office at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have your questions answered.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer responded to emergency calls that complained of a pickup truck swerving on the highway in Phoenix. The officer found the truck and began following it, observing that the driver was driving recklessly and nearly colliding with multiple vehicles. When the officer turned on his vehicle lights and siren, the truck did not immediately pull over. Eventually, the driver (the defendant in this case) stopped on the shoulder of the road.

During the traffic stop, the officer noticed that the defendant appeared to be impaired by alcohol. The officer performed several tests on the defendant, concluding that the defendant was, indeed, intoxicated. When the defendant learned he was under arrest for DUI, he immediately ran away, dragging the police officer with him. Both men tumbled to the ground, and they fought each other until the officer was able to restrain the defendant. Later, at the hospital, the defendant was found to have a blood alcohol concentration between .190 and .203 within two hours of driving.

The defendant was charged with and convicted of two counts of aggravated DUI and one count of resisting arrest.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the defendant made several arguments to try and reverse his guilty verdict. First, he argued that the prosecution made several substantial errors during the trial. For example, the defendant said that the prosecutor improperly told the jury that his driver’s license had been suspended twice. By presenting an inaccurate statement, the prosecutor unreasonably biased the jury. The court disagreed – it looked at the defendant’s driving record and discovered that the defendant actually had two suspended licenses. Because there was no error on the part of the prosecution, the court rejected this first argument.

Second, the defendant argued that he did not resist arrest. He explained that he fell on the ground while the officer tried to arrest him. The court again disagreed. When the officer told the defendant he was under arrest, the defendant said out loud, “no, I’m not.” The defendant also overtly pulled away from the officer and ran down the road. Given these facts, said the court, it was proper for the jury to find that the defendant did unlawfully resist arrest.

Next, the defendant argued that the lower court did not pay enough attention to his request for a new trial. After the defendant’s original guilty verdict, he had requested that the court conduct another trial that would be fairer to him. The court again rejected this argument. It noted that the deadline for requesting a new trial was ten days after the verdict, and the defendant’s request came 15 days after his verdict was released. Because of this delay, it was fine for the lower court to reject his request for a new trial.

Finally, the defendant argued that the lower court made a mistake when it took his prior two felony convictions into account at the time of sentencing. At the very least, the lower court should have held a discussion on the issue o these two prior convictions. The court disagreed. If the defendant wanted to make this argument, said the court, he would have to prove that the discussion would have significantly changed the outcome of the sentencing. Because the defendant could not make this showing, his argument failed.

Disagreeing with the defendant on all four fronts, the court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original guilty verdict.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges After a Traffic Stop in Arizona?

If your Arizona traffic stop has unexpectedly turned into criminal charges, know that there are options for you moving forward. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are experienced in Arizona criminal law, and we will not settle for the easiest solution in your case. We will analyze all aspects of your situation in order to build a solid defense that works for you. For a free initial consultation, call us at 480-413-1499.

Changes Based on Proposition 207

Historically in Arizona, defendants charged with DUIs have faced a tough legal landscape when it comes to marijuana. Before the passage of Proposition 207, prosecutors did not need to prove that defendants charged with a DUI were impaired to drive – they only needed to show that there was any amount of drugs in the defendant’s body. Under Proposition 207, the situation has changed: now, you cannot be found guilty of a marijuana DUI unless you are “impaired to the slightest degree.” This means that prosecutors now have to prove both that you were under the influence of marijuana and that you were “impaired to the slightest degree” while driving. This added element makes it more difficult for prosecutors to prove their cases. It is important to note that these elements for a DUI case are the same whether or not a defendant has an Arizona medical marijuana card.

Proposition 207 also changes how police officers in Arizona can investigate crimes. Before the passage of the law, officers could use the smell of burnt marijuana as evidence of a crime. Now, however, the smell of burnt marijuana no longer serves as sufficient reason for an officer to infer criminal conduct. There is one important exception to this rule: if an officer believes that a driver is under the influence because that driver commits a traffic offense, the officer can still rely on the smell of burnt marijuana to make an arrest. Under other circumstances, though, because of changes enacted under Proposition 207, the smell of burnt marijuana cannot serve as grounds for an officer to make an arrest in Arizona.

more Sentencing Under Proposition 207 Remains the Same

New Arizona DUI laws do not affect the severity of defendants’ sentences in the State. For example, a Phoenix DUI conviction carries up to ten days in jail and five years of probation. Speaking with a criminal defense attorney is critical for those charged with a marijuana DUI in Arizona – it is important to investigate all possible defenses to make sure officers are not making arrests without just cause.

Have You Been Charged with Marijuana Possession in Arizona?

If you or a loved one have been arrested for marijuana charges in Arizona, there are defenses that might be available to help fight your case. Because of recent changes to marijuana DUI laws in Arizona, it will be extremely helpful to have a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who can walk you through your options and dedicate himself to advocating on your behalf. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we have defended and litigated criminal cases of all sizes, and we are eager to learn how we can help you make sure your voice is heard. To learn more or to schedule a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499.

The holidays are always a time when troopers maintain a more active presence on the roads, and, according to a recent news report, troopers have pulled more people over around 2021 holidays than they had in 2019 and 2020. Fourth of July, Labor Day, Cinco de Mayo, and Halloween all saw increases in the number of DUI arrests compared to 2020. In particular, 2021 Halloween arrests were more than Halloween arrests in 2019 and 2020 combined.

The day before Thanksgiving is the first day to be extra careful on the roads this holiday season; the NHTSA reports that 800 people died in the U.S. due to DUI accidents during the Thanksgiving holiday period from 2013 to 2017. Popularly known as “Whisky Wednesday”, the day before Thanksgiving will be a day when state troopers to pull over more people than they typically would.

Christmas Day is another day where drivers should exercise caution. Evidence from BACtrack shows that there are at least 45 DUI accidents per day in the United States during the three-day Christmas holiday period, making it another time that officers will be on the lookout for people to pull over.

Lastly, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day is a popular drinking period, and police officers will have this in mind when they are patrolling the roads. ValuePenguin reports that the two-day New Year’s holiday sees an average of 31.7 DUI deaths per day, with more DUI arrests and DUI hit-and-run accidents reported. With this data in mind, police officers will be ready to crack down on any driver they deem suspicious.

It is important to exercise caution when traveling to visit friends and family as we round out 2021. Police will be eager to pull over those who are driving under the influence this next month. What’s more, there is a law in Arizona requiring DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device at the driver’s own expense. This device connects to the driver’s car and will not allow the vehicle to start unless the driver’s BAC is under .02. To avoid this and other possible charges, stay safe over Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s by driving responsibly.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI in Arizona?

If you are facing DUI charges in Arizona, you are not alone. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we will stand with you to fight your charges and make sure you have the best representation possible. We have extensive experience handling all criminal matters, including Arizona drunk driving charges, and are committed to working with you to develop a compelling defense to the charges you face. To learn more, and to speak confidentially with our firm, give us a call to schedule a free consultation at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving a white truck with a female passenger. While driving, the defendant sideswiped another car; then, instead of pulling over, he continued driving down the road. The driver of the second car decided to follow the defendant, noting his license plate and calling the police. The defendant turned onto another road, both occupants got out of the truck, and the female passenger was picked up by another car. The defendant stayed in the truck and drove back to the scene of the accident. He exited the truck and began walking down the street where the accident had occurred.

The police arrived and asked the defendant to stop so they could gather information. The defendant continued walking, initially refusing to stop before eventually complying and answering the officer’s questions. The officer later reported not only that the defendant was intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration of .272 percent, but also that his license had been suspended prior to the accident. The State charged the defendant with two counts of aggravated DUI; one for driving impaired with a suspended license and the other for driving with a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit of .08 percent.

more The Decision

In his appeal, the defendant argued that the jury’s guilty verdict was erroneous because the court incorrectly instructed the jury to consider what he thought were irrelevant details of the accident. During the trial, the court had instructed the jury to take into account the fact that the defendant fled the scene after hitting the car; specifically, the court told the jury that they “may consider any evidence of the defendant’s flight” when deciding whether or not he was guilty. The defendant argued that this instruction was in error because courts are only supposed to give this “flight instruction” when it is clear that the flight supports an inference of the defendant’s guilt. In this situation, said the defendant, the fact that he drove away had no bearing on whether or not he was guilty.

Even though the court agreed with the defendant’s point that flight in this circumstance did not imply guilt, the defendant’s appeal was still denied. It was true that the defendant did not leave quickly or try to hide; thus, it might be correct that the “flight instruction” should not have been given. However, said the court, the flight instruction did not actually have an effect on the jury’s ultimate finding of guilt. Whether or not the instruction had been given, the result would have been the same. Thus, the defendant’s convictions were affirmed.

Have You Been Found Guilty of a DUI in Arizona?

If you have been charged with an Arizona DUI offense, there are defenses you can raise to fight your case. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, our team will work to explore your options and build your case. Attorney Novak is an experienced advocate ready to make sure your voice is heard. For a free and confidential consultation, give the Law Office of James Novak a call today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when he hit another vehicle, launching the vehicle into oncoming traffic. The vehicles involved in the collision caught fire, and one driver died, while several others were injured. When police interviewed the defendant at the scene, they noticed that his eyes were droopy, his speech was slurred, and he was unable to hold his balance. He was arrested, and he later admitted to having taken two Oxycodone pills fifteen minutes before driving. A blood-draw further revealed that he had several other sedative drugs in his system.

At the time of the collision, the defendant had a prior misdemeanor conviction for DUI and was required to have an ignition interlock device on any vehicle he drove. Even though the defendant was aware of this requirement, he did not have an ignition interlock device on his vehicle.

The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of endangerment, and two counts of aggravated DUI. When deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty, the jury took into consideration the fact that the defendant had previously been convicted of a DUI, using this prior offense as evidence that he understood the risk of causing a collision while under the influence of drugs The defendant appealed, arguing that the court should not have allowed the jury to consider his previous offense when making a decision on the current case.

The Decision

The court disagreed. Even though under the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts cannot allow evidence of previous acts to show a person’s character, they are permitted to allow evidence of previous acts to show a person’s motive, intent, or knowledge around a present offense. Under these Rules, evidence of a prior crime can be admitted to prove a defendant’s mental state if the prior crime is substantially similar to the act for which the defendant is on trial.

The defendant argued that his prior DUI conviction did not prove his mental state at the time of the collision. The two events were separate from each other, he said, and there was no evidence that drew specific similarities between the two DUI offenses. The court responded by saying that a time gap between the two events was irrelevant. Furthermore, it did not matter that there were no obvious similarities between the two offenses – it was enough of a similarity that the two offenses were both based on a DUI. Because the defendant had previously been found guilty of a similar crime, said the court, he should have been more cautious when under the influence. Given the previous conviction, the court did not have sympathy for the defendant, and the guilty verdict was affirmed.

Have You Been Charged Driving Under the Influence in Arizona?

If you have been arrested for an Arizona DUI offense, it is of the utmost importance that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are ready to combat the charges you face to put your life back on track. For a free consultation, call 480-413-1499.

Retrograde extrapolation is a technique used by police departments and prosecutors to determine and prove a person’s blood-alcohol level at the time they were operating a vehicle, as opposed to when the sample was actually collected. Crime lab chemists will apply a formula that approximate the average rate of decline and a person’s blood-alcohol level and use that to estimate a person’s blood-alcohol level at a time prior to the sample being taken. Although Arizona courts accept retrograde extrapolation as a method of proving intoxication, it is far from a perfect science.

The results of a retrograde extrapolation can be inaccurate for several reasons. First, each person metabolizes alcohol at a different rate, and simply applying the average rate of metabolization to every sample guarantees some inaccurate results. Furthermore, if a defendant consumed alcohol shortly before their arrest, their blood alcohol level may increase rather than decrease in the time before their sample is taken. If standard retrograde extrapolation is applied, the result would be inflated and inaccurate.

In the recently decided case, the defendant was charged with an aggravated DUI after he was involved in a single-car accident and police were called. He was arrested, booked in jail, and given a breath test over 2 hours after he was stopped. His test result was nearly three times the legal limit in Arizona, and he was subsequently charged with aggravated DUI. According to the case history discussed in the appellate opinion, prosecutors used retrograde extrapolation to estimate the defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of his arrest. The defendant was convicted of the charges against him and sentenced to a significant prison term.

The defendant appealed his conviction. Among other issues, he challenged the propriety of using retrograde extrapolation to estimate his blood alcohol level. Because his blood-alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit when the test was administered, the high court was not convinced that the use of retrograde extrapolation to estimate an even higher BAC when he was operating a motor vehicle was prejudicial to his defense. Essentially, the court found that with or without retrograde extrapolation, the state could have easily proven that he was over the limit while he was driving the vehicle. The court also rejected the defendant’s other contentions, and his conviction was affirmed.

Are You Preparing a Defense to Arizona DUI Charges?

If you or someone you know has been arrested or charged with a DUI or other crime in Arizona, retaining an experienced criminal defense attorney can make the difference between a conviction and a dismissal or acquittal. The Law Office of James E. Novak is staffed by qualified attorneys who know how to fight against Arizona DUI charges. James Novak is an experienced Maricopa County criminal defense attorney who can skillfully handle a variety of Arizona criminal cases, including DUIs. We can help you develop the best defense to the charges brought against you. To schedule a free consultation and discuss your case today, call 480-413-1499.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case involving the question of whether the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew he was required to install an ignition interlock device of his vehicle. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution must present proof that the defendant “knew or should have known an ignition-interlock restriction was in effect at the time of the offense.” Thus, the court vacated the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, in 2015, the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor DUI offense. As a part of the defendant’s sentence, he was required to install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle he drove once his license was reinstated. Initially, the defendant complied with the requirement. The Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), told the defendant that he could remove the device on June 1, 2017.

In March 2016, the defendant sold his vehicle. Before the sale, the defendant had the device removed from his vehicle. The MVC sent the defendant a notice indicating he was out of compliance. The letter stated that another interlock device “must be installed for one year from the date that proof is received unless a different time period is specified.” Again, the defendant complied, installing a device on his new vehicle. While the MVD’s internal documents reflected a November 17 expiration date, this was not provided to the defendant.

On November 10, 2017, police stopped the defendant for speeding. The defendant was not driving his own vehicle, and the car he was driving didn’t have an interlock device installed. Officers believed the defendant was intoxicated, and the defendant was charged with aggravated DUI for failing to have a device installed.

At trial, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that it needed to find he knew or should have known he was subject to the interlock requirement. The court rejected the defendant’s request, and he was convicted.

The defendant appealed, and the court found in his favor. The court explained that, while it may be difficult for a defendant to rebut evidence that they knew or should have known they were required to install an interlock device, it is an element of the offense. Thus, the prosecution must establish evidence of the defendant’s knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. That being the case, the court reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s requested jury instruction and ordered a new trial.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Aggravated DUI Offense?

If you are facing an Arizona aggravated DUI offense, the Law Office of James E. Novak is here to help. With decades of hands-on experience fighting all types of Maricopa County DUI offenses, Attorney Novak has what it takes to defend you against the allegations you face. To learn more and to schedule a free consultation, give the Law Office of James E. Novak a call at 480-413-1499 today.

For example, take a recent appellate decision issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals. In that case, a child was born three weeks prematurely. It was later determined that the baby’s mother tested positive for multiple drugs. However, the child’s father sough to maintain custody. At the hospital, the father was emotional and, evidently, security had to escort him out of the building. A week later, the father was arrested for reckless driving and, after a blood test revealed his blood-alcohol content was twice the legal limit, he was arrested for driving under the influence.

In this case, the court had to determine if the lower court’s determination that the child was a “dependent child,” meaning one “who has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising” the care and control a child needs. Among the factors the court considered was the fact that the father had been arrested for driving under the influence. While there were certainly other issues the child’s father had that caused the court concern, there is a reason the court included the father’s DUI arrest in its opinion.

After an Arizona DUI arrest, panic sets in, your thoughts are racing, and you may not know what to do. You may be afraid that you will be unable to provide for your family, be required to pay thousands of dollars in fees, or even be sent to jail. To be sure, it is a difficult time. However, you do not need to navigate the system on your own. A dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney can go over your options and help you pursue what’s best for yourself and your family. Remember, not every DUI arrest results in a conviction.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drunk Driving Offense?

If you were recently arrested for an Arizona drunk driving offense, and fear what it may mean for your future, give Attorney James E. Novak a call. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe DUI defense attorney with decades of experience handling all types of DUI and traffic-related matters on behalf of a diverse range of clients. Attorney Novak is regarded as an aggressive advocate who unceasingly pursues the interests of his clients at every stage of the process. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation, you can also reach Attorney Novak through his online form.

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.

The Facts of the Case

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

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

Before trial, the state filed a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence from trial. Specifically, the state wanted to prevent the jury from hearing that the officer who initiated the traffic stop had previously been disciplined for engaging in a vehicle pursuit. Apparently, the officer tried to pursue a car that did not stop after committing a minor traffic infraction, which was prohibited.

The court initially determined that the specific facts of the disciplinary proceeding were not admissible, but that the defendant could use any prior inconsistent statements made by the officer to impeach his testimony. However, on the state’s motion, the court revisited that ruling, and ended up disallowing any mention of the officer’s write-up.

The jury convicted the defendant, who appealed the court’s ruling on the state’s pre-trial motion.

On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision, and the defendant’s conviction. In doing so, however, the court warned that, generally, lower courts should “admit evidence of motive or bias as to central witnesses absent weighty concerns about prejudice.” However, the court also determined that, in this case, any error the court made was harmless.

In coming to this conclusion, the court noted that there were other witnesses other than the police officer. These witnesses largely corroborated the officer’s testimony, making the officer’s credibility less important than if he were the only witness. Thus, while the court held that the lower court would have been better to admit the evidence, its failure to do so did not deprive the defendant of his rights.

Have You Been Arrested For an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested or an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Tempe criminal defense attorney with decades of hands-on experience tackling even the most difficult DUI cases. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call 480-413-1499 today.

The Facts of the Case

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

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

The defendant was not charged with arson; however, he was charged with driving under the influence. In a pre-trial motion, the prosecution sought preclusion of any evidence leading up to the stop of the defendant’s vehicle. The prosecution claimed that the evidence was prejudicial to both sides and would confuse the jury. The defendant disagreed, arguing that the evidence was necessary for him to present a complete defense. He argued that the fumes from the gasoline could have been responsible for his red, watery eyes and confusion. He also claimed that the passenger had pointed the gun at him, which was responsible for his demeanor.

The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion in large part, only allowing the fact that there was an open container of gasoline in the car. However, during the prosecution’s opening statement, the prosecutor implied that the defendant was stopped for speeding and erratic driving. In response, the defendant renewed his objection, claiming that the prosecution’s opening statement created a false impression to the jury. The court agreed, and allowed the defendant to question the police officers regarding the nature of the stop, and that other things were going on at the time of the stop.

The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, and then appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court explained that, in large part, the trial court reversed its ruling and allowed much of the evidence leading up to the stop. The court held that the court’s decision to preclude any evidence was harmless, as the defendant could argue his defense.

To be sure, this is an unusual drunk driving case. However, it shows the importance of litigating all pretrial motions to create a favorable landscape as possible. In most cases, this will involve a defendant seeking suppression of certain evidence; however, in some cases, a defendant may want certain evidence to come in to give the jury a complete picture of what happened.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI offense?

If you are facing an Arizona drunk driving offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak has been effectively representing clients in all types of DUI cases for decades, and knows what it takes to defend against a drunk driving charge successfully. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call 480-413-1499 today.

In Arizona, not all DUI offenses are created equal.

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

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

For example, a first time Arizona DUI offense can result in the following punishments:

• Up to 10 days in jail
• Up to a $1,250 fine
• Participation in alcohol treatment and education
• Installation of an ignition interlock device
• Mandatory community service

A second-offense DUI in Arizona carries stricter penalties, including:

• Up to 90 days in jail
• Up to a $3,000 fine
• 12-month driver’s license revocation
• Participation in alcohol treatment and education
• Installation of an ignition interlock device
• Mandatory community service

For an Arizona Extreme DUI, the penalty goes from up to 30 days in jail with a $2,500 fine for a first offense, to 120 days in jail, a $3,250 fine, and the mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device for a second offense.

In some cases, a third-time DUI or extreme DUI offense will constitute an aggravated DUI. However, as mentioned above, even a first-time offense may result in an aggravated DUI charge. Aggravated DUIs are punishable by up to two years in jail and a three-year license suspension.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona drunk driving crime, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran DUI defense attorney, with years of experience handling even the most complex and challenging Arizona DUI cases. With his assistance, you can rest assured that you are in good hands at every step in the process. Attorney Novak represents clients facing all types of DUI offenses, including first-time DUIs and aggravated DUIs. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation today, call 480-413-1499 today.

First DUI Offense

As with every other state, it is unlawful for an individual under the influence of a controlled substance (i.e., alcohol or drugs) to operate a vehicle in Arizona. To determine whether someone suspected of a DUI is actually under the influence, law enforcement will test his or her blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Generally, if a driver’s BAC is measured at 0.08 or greater, they are considered to be guilty of driving under the influence. However, if the driver is under the age of 21, they may be found guilty of a DUI if there is any alcohol in their system.

If convicted, a first time DUI offender faces a penalty of at least ten days in jail, and a fine of no less than $1,250. In addition, the driver will have their driving privileges suspended for 90-days. To have driving privileges reinstated, the driver may have to undergo alcohol screening, education and treatment plans, and have their vehicle equipped with a certified ignition interlock device. On top of that, a person may also be required to perform community service. This may sound severe, but keep in mind that this is only for a first-time offense with no aggravating circumstances.

more Aggravating Factors

Certain factors increase the severity of potential penalties for a DUI conviction. The first of these is whether the driver has past DUI offenses on their record. An individual with a prior DUI conviction will face a minimum of 90 days in jail and a $3,000 fine. A conviction would also result in a 12-month revocation of their driving privileges. Furthermore, the driver may still be required to complete classes, have an ignition interlock device installed in their car, and complete community service hours.

Another factor increasing potential DUI penalties is the BAC of the driver at the time of the incident. If the driver’s BAC is measured at 0.15 or higher, they may be charged with an extreme DUI. Someone accused of an extreme DUI faces a minimum of 30 days in jail and a minimum fine of $2,500. These penalties also increase if the driver has past DUI offenses on their record. Each subsequent extreme DUI offense carries with it a potential minimum sentence of 120 days in jail and a $3,250 fine.

Finally, another category of DUI offense is an aggravated DUI. This category applies where any of the following was true when the offense occurred: (1) the driver’s license is suspended or revoked at the time of the offense; (2) it is the driver’s third DUI offense in seven years; (3) a person under the 15 was a passenger in the vehicle; (4) the person was under an ignition interlock device requirement. An aggravated DUI carries the most severe incarceration penalty — up to two years in state prison. That is in addition to license revocation for 12-months, and any of the other potential punishments and requirements listed above.

Collateral Consequences

The punishments imposed by a court are not the only negative consequences of a DUI conviction. The stigma of a criminal conviction is also likely to have a lasting effect on anyone found guilty of a DUI. This stigma can lead to the loss of opportunities for employment, housing, and even community involvement. While the punishments handed down by the court will end, these consequences will last as long as the record does.

Are You Facing a DUI charge in Tempe?

If you are facing an Arizona DUI case, it is crucial to understand what is on the line. Arizona drunk driving convictions can carry significant consequences that can potentially follow you for life. Attorney James E. Novak is a former prosecutor and one of Tempe’s highest-rated DUI attorneys. He uses his decades of experience to ensure that your interests are protected at every step of the process. Call 480-413-1499 today to schedule a free consultation.

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.