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.

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.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer in Arizona stopped a speeding vehicle driven by an acquaintance of the defendant. Once the officer stopped the car, he noticed the defendant sitting in the back seat with an alcohol container by his feet. The officer searched the vehicle and began a DUI investigation, all the while noticing that the defendant seemed “abnormally nervous.” Upon a thorough search, the officer discovered a 122-gram bag of methamphetamine in the glove box and a smaller bag in the console. He also found a glass pipe. Later, the defendant was charged with possession of dangerous drugs for sale, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of alcohol in a motor vehicle.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the drugs should be suppressed because the officer did not have permission to search his vehicle. He maintained that because the officer did not have probable cause to conduct the search, the incriminating evidence should not have been used at trial.

more The Decision

The court disagreed, finding instead that the officer had probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant said that during the trial, the officer changed his testimony so it seemed like he had glimpsed the alcoholic container with a substantial amount of liquid at the defendant’s feet. Previously, said the defendant, the officer had testified that the container was empty. If there was nothing actually in the container, according to the defendant, the officer did not have enough reason to search the car, and the conflicting testimonies were grounds to suppress the evidence.

The court concluded that regardless of how much alcohol was in the container, the officer had probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle. Because other evidence at trial indicated there was alcohol in the container, the officer’s testimony about the container was unimportant. No matter which testimony was true, it was acceptable for the officer to search the car and for the court to use the incriminating evidence. Importantly, this decision reinforces the fact that if a defendant is stopped for a DUI, they can end up being charged with much more serious crimes if the officer discovers drugs or other illegal substances.

Have You Been Charged with Drug Possession Following a DUI Stop in Arizona?

If you or a loved one have been charged with drug possession after being stopped by a police officer for an Arizona driving under the influence offense, there could be legal defenses at your disposal. Attorney James E. Novak is ready and willing to help fight your case. As a reputable criminal defense lawyer with a proven track record and over 20 years of experience, Attorney Novak is dedicated to advocating on your behalf. For a free consultation, call the Law Office of James E. Novak at 480-413-1499.

An Arizona drunk driving charge must be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the prosecution must present evidence proving each element of every crime that is charged against a defendant. In the case of an Arizona DUI case, this typically requires the prosecution prove:

1. The defendant was driving a motor vehicle;
2. While under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Each of these elements may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. For example, an Arizona DUI offense can be proven either by an officer testifying that a motorist was observed to be under the influence based on the motorist’s actions, or through the introduction of chemical test results.

In this example, an officer’s testimony may be circumstantial evidence of a motorist’s intoxication because the officer would not likely know for certain whether the motorist was intoxicated and would be basing that belief off of the surrounding circumstances. On the other hand, the results of a chemical test would be considered direct evidence of intoxication.

Depending on the situation, both direct and circumstantial evidence can be suppressed. The suppression of direct evidence is often more straightforward because it involves the question of whether the police officer obtained the evidence lawfully. In other words, were the defendant’s rights violated in any way when the officer obtained the evidence? If so, the motion should be granted and the evidence excluded.

Suppression of circumstantial evidence can be more complicated, although it is still possible. Using the example above, a court may suppress an officer’s observations of a motorist if the officer was only able to make those observations through unlawful means. For example, assume a police officer pulls over a motorist without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and then automatically asks the driver out of the car to perform a field sobriety test. Even if the driver fails the test, there may not have been any justifiable reason to stop the car or ask the driver to perform a field sobriety test. Thus, the officer’s observations may be suppressed. Additionally, any chemical tests, if they were performed, would also be suppressible under this scenario.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested for drunk driving in Arizona, contact Attorney James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a veteran Temper DUI defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona DUI offenses. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the serious charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Clearly, police officers are not able to obtain a warrant when they witness someone commit a crime. Therefore, courts have determined that if a police officer has probable cause to believe that someone has broken the law, the officer can stop and arrest them.

Sometimes, however, police officers have a belief that a crime has been committed, but cannot be sure. In these situations, a police officer can stop a citizen, ask them questions, and conduct an investigation so long as they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to justify this type of stop, an officer must be able to point to articulable facts supporting the officer’s belief that the person stopped was involved in criminal activity.

more How Police Use Evidence of Intoxication to Justify Searching a Car

While police are supposed to rely on objective information, in reality, this is not always the case. Police routinely act on “hunches” that are based on simple – and often incorrect – stereotypes. While this is not legal, it happens. For example, an officer might think a motorist is too young to have such a nice car. That “hunch” by itself cannot be the basis for a traffic stop; however, if the officer claims he believed the driver to be intoxicated a traffic stop is justified.

Thus, it is not uncommon for an officer to justify the stop of an individual they believe to be involved in criminal activity by claiming that the person was intoxicated. However, as noted above, the officer must be able to point to facts supporting this conclusion. If an officer cannot do so, the stop may be invalid and any evidence recovered as a result of the stop can be suppressed. As a recent case illustrates, sometimes officers will bootstrap their intoxication observations with claims that the driver was also very nervous.

In some cases, an officer’s cited reasons for his suspicion may not make sense, calling into question whether the basis of the traffic stop was legitimate. For example, if an officer claims to smell marijuana smoke emanating from the vehicle at a stop light, it would stand to reason that there would be marijuana in the car. If no marijuana is found, that may cast doubt on the officer’s credibility.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested for driving under the influence in Arizona, you should contact the dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a preeminent Tempe DUI attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI cases. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381
• 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Court Discusses Spousal Privilege in Recent Arizona DUI Case, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, December 11, 2018

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

The Facts of the Case

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

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

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

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

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

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

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

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381

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

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

Many police “fishing expeditions” begin with an officer stopping a motorist they believe is engaged in illegal activity for unjustifiable reasons. For example, a stop may be based on the way the person looks, or an aggressive – but not necessarily illegal – traffic maneuver. The same is true for a police officer’s reasons to search a car.

Of course, police are permitted to pull a motorist over for a traffic violation and may search a car when there is evidence of criminal activity readily observable inside the car. One of the most common reasons police officers use to justify both traffic stops and searches of a cars is a belief that the driver was intoxicated. However, evidence of intoxication is notoriously suspect because it is subjective and there is often a major lack of documentation.

For example, the odor of alcohol on a driver’s breath dissipates, as does the smell of freshly burned marijuana in a car. However, these are common reasons an officer uses to justify the search of a motorist’s car. Police use these tactics to initially justify a search in hopes that they find something. Once a substance is found, officers can then tailor their paperwork (and any subsequent testimony) according to what they found.

In a recent case, police stopped a motorist based on a belief that he was under the influence. This belief was formed when the police officer saw the driver driving five miles per hour under the speed limit and make a few unnecessary lane changes. Once the vehicle was pulled over, the police officer began asking questions to the motorist about drug trafficking, took the motorist’s pulse, and ultimately asked to search the car based on a belief that the motorist was either trafficking drugs or was under the influence.

The court upheld the officer’s search of the vehicle, although it occurred almost an hour after the motorist was pulled over. The court explained that the officer provided documentation of his reasons for both the initial stop as well as his decision to search the car.

The Importance of Witness Credibility in Arizona DUI Cases

Many Arizona DUI cases come down to the credibility of a police officer. While police officers are trained to testify credibly regardless of the underlying facts, they can often be caught off guard. Thus, in these cases, it is important to have an experienced Arizona DUI defense attorney assist in the preparation of a case in order to expose potential biases or inconsistencies in an officer’s story.

Have You Been Arrested for in Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak to discuss your case. Attorney Novak has decades of experience representing those who have been charged with Arizona DUIs, and other related offenses such as drug possession. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you’re facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 13-3925

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

Nearly 300 DUI Arrests Were Made in Arizona over 4th of July Weekend, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 9, 2018

The Facts of the Case

A witness happened upon a vehicle that had crashed into a business’ entry gate. The witness saw the defendant turn off the engine and then slump over the wheel. The witness called 911, and the fire department came to assist the defendant.

The fire department personnel found the defendant unconscious, with no visible trauma, behind the wheel. They removed the defendant and took him to the hospital, where several tests were conducted, and again, no visible trauma was noted. The defendant was hooked up to a ventilator while doctors tried to figure out what was wrong with him. Hospital staff took the defendant’s blood for medical purposes and securely stored it. A nurse noted that the defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol.

Police, having heard the nurse’s observation that the defendant smelled of alcohol, retrieved a tube of the defendant’s blood and tested it. The defendant was then charged with DUI.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood evidence, arguing that the police seized his blood without a warrant or his consent. The trial court rejected the defendant’s argument and denied his motion. The defendant appealed.

The Appellate Decision

The court began its analysis by noting that the Fourth Amendment can come into play in blood-draw cases at three times: 1.) when blood is actually taken, 2.) taking blood and testing it, and 3.) taking the results of blood tests. In this case, the court explained the second situation was implicated because the police took blood that had been taken for medical purposes and conducted their own test.

Regardless of which of the three situations the police action implicated, the court explained that police must either obtain a warrant to seize a suspect’s blood or establish that there was probable cause as well as an exigency requiring the blood to be seized in advance of obtaining a warrant. The court explained that such an exigency is rarely present in a situation in which blood has already been taken and properly stored, since police could easily obtain a warrant and then test the stored blood at a later date.

Here, the court held that the warrantless testing of the defendant’s blood was done in violation of his constitutional rights because the police lacked exigent circumstances excusing their failure to obtain a warrant. Thus, the court ordered that the blood-test results be suppressed.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, contact dedicated Tempe DUI defense lawyer James E. Novak. Attorney Novak has decades of experience representing those facing DUI and related charges. To learn how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• Birchfield v. North Dakota

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

Nearly 300 DUI Arrests Were Made in Arizona over 4th of July Weekend, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 9, 2018

Sometimes motorists are pulled over without sufficient cause. That could be ground for dropping charges or adjusting penalties. Let’s examine how probable cause and reasonable suspicion figure into drunk driving cases.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion for DUI Stops

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are both key factors involved in traffic stops for drunk driving.

• Probable Cause – In the context of drunk driving cases, probable cause refers to logical evidence of someone’s potential intoxication that warrants a traffic stop. The evidence can take a number of different forms.

• Reasonable Suspicion – Reasonable suspicion is a much lower bar than probable cause. This is essentially a presumption that a crime has been committed or is being committed based on an informed hunch by the police officer.

Keep in mind that police officers only require reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. Probable cause is necessary to make an arrest.

Examples of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

Below are some examples of actions that may lead to probable cause or reasonable suspicion on the part of law enforcement:

• Erratic or Reckless Driving – If a person weaves while on the road or drives in a reckless manner, an officer may have reasonable suspicion of the driver’s sobriety or state of mind.

• Admission by the Driver – If during a traffic stop a driver admits to being drunk or makes allusions to being intoxicated in some way, this may be probable cause for an arrest.

• Witness Statements – Witnesses may report a drunk driver on the road, providing details of the vehicle and the license plate. This can often be a good reason for law enforcement to at least stop a vehicle and question the driver.

• Failing a Sobriety Test – If a driver fails a breathalyzer test during a stop, this is often considered probable cause for a drunk driving arrest.

• Refusal to Submit to a DUI Test – By refusing to submit to a DUI test in the field, Arizona law states that drivers will face license suspension for one year, with the officer being able to obtain a warrant for arrest and the motorist to undergo a DUI test.

What If There Is No Sufficient Cause or Suspicion?

There are cases in which a driver may be interpreted as weaving or driving erratically, yet these circumstances may have little to do with intoxication. Roads may be slick or bendy, resulting in issues with vehicle control. The wrong vehicle may be pulled over because of an anonymous tip or due to an officer’s error.

When a vehicle is pulled over without any reasonable suspicion, this can be grounds for a legal defense in a drunk driving case. By working with an attorney on these matters, you can craft a sound strategy that emphasizes the nature of the traffic stop and the ensuing DUI charges. This can result in the charges being dropped or for penalties may be reduced. A drunk driving defense attorney can offer sound guidance throughout the legal process.

Learn More About Your Legal Options

For more information about your legal options following a drunk driving arrest, be sure to contact an experienced criminal defense and DUI attorney today. The team at our firm will help you get a fair shake from the law and ensure your rights were not violated.

This commitment to fairness and proper legal process is extremely important when it comes to drunk driving cases and crafting strong DUI defense strategies. In a number of cases, the DUI charge comes down to questions of probable cause.

What Is Probable Cause?

Probable cause is an important part of many traffic stops, whether they involve drunk driving or any other sort of need to pullover a driver. In essence, probable cause refers to a reasonable belief that the driver in the vehicle or passengers in the vehicle have engaged in illegal activity of some kind that then warrant arrest.

Examples of Probable Cause

One example of probable cause is if a driver, upon being pulled over, demonstrates slurred speech, fails a field sobriety test, and also has a BAC over the legal limit with results obtained through a breath test. In this situation, there is a probably cause to arrest the driver since it appears from this evidence that the driver is driving while drunk.

If an officer does not have probable cause for arrest, your DUI arrest is unjust and the officer may have violated your Constitutional protections.

What Is Reasonable Suspicion?

There’s another threshold that needs to be considered when it comes to traffic stops. That consideration is known as reasonable suspicion. In the the context of DUI cases, reasonable suspicion means that an officer must have a valid reason to think that the driver of a vehicle is intoxicated.

Examples of Reasonable Suspicion

An example of this is if a driver is being reckless, speeding, runs a traffic signal or sign, or demonstrates other kinds of dangerous behaviors. It is then reasonable for a police officer to pull over the driver.

Keep in mind that if a driver is abiding by all traffic laws and has demonstrated no reason to be pulled over, the officer may have lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and may have violated the driver’s Constitutional rights and protections.

How Are Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause Related?

Putting it together, an officer needs reasonable suspicion to pull you over, and then needs probable cause to make an arrest. When reasonable suspicion and/or probably cause are absent during a traffic stop, that can be used as a form of DUI defense. In fact, this covers a number of cases in which a driver demonstrated no need to be pulled over in the first place (not even a seat belt violation or an issue with brake lights) or any reason to be arrested.

How a Drunk Driving Attorney Can Help You

Fighting and contesting an unjust drunk driving arrest can be complicated and time consuming. When you work with a skilled DUI defense attorney, the bigger legal questions and procedures will be your defense attorney’s concern. We will fight diligently on your behalf to make sure the system works right for everyone and that you are given a fair shake from the law.

Contact The Law Office of James Novak

To learn more about your legal options following a drunk driving arrest, it’s of the utmost importance that you contact a skilled DUI defense attorney today. The team at The Law Office of James Novak will fight diligently for you in your time of legal need.