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.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, at around 2 a.m., an officer was on patrol in an area that was known as a road used by drunk drivers. The officer noticed the defendant pass by, traveling about 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. The officer noted no other traffic infraction.

When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and the car smelled of alcohol. The defendant admitted to having something to drink, but explained that he was not feeling the effects of the alcohol. The defendant understood all the officer’s questions and responded in a clear manner. However, the officer then performed a horizontal nystagmus test to determine if the defendant was intoxicated or tired.

After noticing that the defendant’s eyes did not smoothly track, the officer asked the defendant out of the vehicle and performed additional field sobriety tests, culminating in a breath test. After the results of the breath test indicated that the defendant’s blood-alcohol content was over the legal limit, the officer arrested the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that at the time the officer asked the defendant to get out of the car, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was impaired by alcohol. The defendant focused on the distinction between having a little to drink and then driving, which is legal, and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. The defendant claimed, at most, the officer had a reasonable suspicion that he had consumed alcohol, but not that he was impaired.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument, finding that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s decision to remove the defendant from the vehicle was justified. The court relied on the following facts:

• the time of night;
• the location of the traffic stop;
• the car was speeding;
• the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot;
• the odor of alcohol coming from the car;
• the defendant’s admission to consuming alcohol earlier that evening;
• the result of the horizontal nystagmus test

The court found that all these factors, when considered together, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you recently were arrested and charged with an Arizona drunk driving offense, contact attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Police officers routinely make mistakes that can result in the inadmissibility of evidence, making it impossible for prosecutors to prove their case. Attorney Novak is a respected Tempe DUI defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI offenses, including first-time DUI arrests. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation to meet with Attorney Novak and discuss your case, call 480-413-1499 today.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a trooper pulled over the defendant for following another vehicle too closely. Upon observing the defendant, the trooper believed the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and requested he consent to a blood draw. The defendant denied the request, and the trooper then obtained a warrant to draw the defendant’s blood. Ultimately, the defendant was arrested for DUI.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant presented evidence showing that the trooper who arrested him resigned during an investigation into alleged misconduct during the trooper’s DUI arrests. Evidently, the trooper faced allegations that he “arrested suspects without probable cause and filed reports containing false information.” The defendant also presented evidence that the trooper included the wrong date and time on the paperwork he generated related to the defendant’s arrest. The defendant argued that these facts, viewed together, cast doubt on the reliability of what the trooper claimed he observed.

The trial court rejected the defendant’s motion, and the defendant was ultimately convicted of DUI. The defendant then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion. The court explained that, while the state carries the ultimate burden to show that a traffic stop was legal, the defendant must first establish a prima facie case supporting the suppression of the evidence. Here, however, the court concluded that the defendant failed to present a prima facie case of suppression.

The court held that, while the investigation into the trooper’s conduct may have cast some doubt over the reliability of his observations, the defendant did not “establish irrebuttable evidence the trooper’s stated basis for arresting him lacked credibility.” The court explained that it was up to the trial judge to weigh the credibility of the trooper, and it was not up to the appellate court to review that credibility decision. The court was also unconcerned about the trooper including the wrong date and time, explaining that it was akin to a typographical error.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona drunk driving offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona DUI offenses, including those challenging the legality of an Arizona traffic stop. 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.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the defendant was driving shortly after 2 a.m. when he was pulled over by a police officer, who claimed that the defendant did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign. During the stop, the officer observed evidence suggesting the defendant was intoxicated, and the defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with DUI.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant showed the dashcam footage from the officer’s vehicle, arguing that he came to a complete stop and that there was no basis for the traffic stop. The prosecution argued that the dashcam footage was not a good representation of the officer’s perspective, and that, according to the officer, the defendant admitted he should have come to a complete stop sooner than he did. The defendant did not acknowledge making that statement, and it could not be heard on the video. The prosecution told the judge that the officer was available to testify, but he was not called by the prosecution.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, finding that there was no traffic offense committed, and thus, there was no reason to stop his vehicle. The prosecution appealed the trial court’s ruling.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant. The court noted that the prosecution could have called the police officer to testify at the hearing, but choose not to do so. Additionally, the video was not presented to the appellate court. Thus, the court explained that, “where evidence is not in the record on appeal, we assume it would support the trial court’s decision.” The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the trial court should have called the officer to testify, explaining that the burden rested with the prosecution and that it was the court’s error for not calling the witness. The court also held that it was the prosecution’s burden to ensure that the appellate record contained all the necessary evidence, including the video. Ultimately, the court assumed that the dashcam video would have been helpful to the defense, and affirmed the granting of the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona misdemeanor DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a knowledgeable and dedicated Arizona criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI cases. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend your freedom from the charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 today to schedule a free consultation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer observed the defendant driving a vehicle ten miles per hour under the speed limit on a rural road in Pima County. The officer also noticed the defendant swerve out of his lane once, and then pull off to the side of the road. The officer pulled behind the defendant and approached the vehicle to conduct a welfare check.

The officer noticed an open case of beer in the defendant’s car. When the officer asked how the defendant was feeling, the defendant responded that he was okay, and that he pulled over because he needed to urinate. At this point, the officer noticed a smell of alcohol emanating from the defendant. The defendant provided his identification, and the officer requested over the radio for a fellow officer to run a check for warrants.

As the officer was waiting for a response, he engaged in casual conversation with the defendant, noticing that the defendant’s speech was slurred. The defendant also admitted to drinking two beers. The officer heard back that the defendant did not have any warrants, but then called for a sheriff’s deputy based on his observations that the defendant may be intoxicated. The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant argued that any evidence seized by the sheriff’s deputy should be suppressed because he was illegally detained once the initial police officer determined he did not have any outstanding warrants.

The Court’s Opinion

The court disagreed with the defendant, denying his motion to suppress. The court noted that, while an officer must have reasonable suspicion to hold a motorist while another officer responds to the scene, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated. The court explained that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer reasonably concluded that the defendant might be drunk. The court pointed to the open container of beer, the smell of alcohol coming from the defendant, and the defendant’s slurred speech. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that an officer needs to have specific training or experience to give import to these observations.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona misdemeanor DUI, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a knowledgeable and aggressive Tempe criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona DUI cases, including those involving questionable searches and seizures. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation to speak with Attorney Novak today, call 480-413-1499.

In a pre-trial motion, the judge will always be the one making the credibility assessment, as these motions are litigated in front of the judge. However, credibility issues can also arise at trial. In a recent appellate decision, the court affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress after the trial court found the arresting police officer was credible despite seeming inconsistencies in his story.

According to the court’s opinion, an officer noticed that the defendant was driving with a license plate light that was not working. The officer pulled the defendant’s vehicle over and smelled alcohol coming from the defendant. The officer also noted that the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and that his speech was slurred. The defendant was arrested for DUI, and then consented to a blood draw, which revealed his blood-alcohol content to be over the legal limit.

After viewing the officer’s dash camera footage, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the chemical test results. The defendant claimed that the dashcam footage showed that his license plate light was illuminated. At the motion, the officer testified that the only reason why the license plate light looked illuminated was that the officer was shining his spotlight at the rear of the defendant’s vehicle.

The court acknowledged that it could not tell from the footage whether the light was out, but denied the defendant’s motion based on the un-contradicted testimony by the officer that he could not see the license plate from 50 feet away (which is what the law requires). The court explained that an officer only needs to have a reasonable suspicion that a motorist violated a traffic law to pull over their vehicle for further investigation. Here, the court held, the officer’s testimony that he could not see an illuminated license plate light from 50 feet away was a sufficient basis for the traffic stop. Thus, the defendant’s chemical test results were not suppressible.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona extreme DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Tempe criminal defense attorney who has significant experience handling all types of Arizona DUI cases. Attorney Novak aggressively defends his clients’ rights from the moment he begins to work on a case, up through trial, and at every stage in between. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend your freedom from the allegations you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

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.

The article lists a few other interesting facts:

• 109 motorists were arrested for extreme DUI, with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) in excess of .15
• 149 motorists were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs
• The average BAC among all motorists arrested for DUI was .144
• 3,200 law enforcement officers were part of the enforcement effort
• This year arrests increased from 2018, when 483 people were arrested for DUI over Memorial Day weekend
• Both 2019 and 2018 showed a decrease from the 552 DUI arrests made Memorial Day weekend in 2017

While Arizona law enforcement frequently targets motorists over Memorial Day weekend, they have also been known to focus their efforts on other major drunk-driving holidays, including Thanksgiving weekend, 4th of July, New Year’s Eve, and Saint Patrick’s Day.

When police decide to step up DUI enforcement efforts, individual police officers too often go out of their way to look for and arrest drunk drivers. Even when there may not be a reason to do so. Motorists should always keep in mind the following tips when dealing with overzealous police officers looking to make an arrest:

• Do not give the officer any reason to fear for his or her safety: After stopping the car, turn it off and put your hands on the wheel. If it is dark out, consider turning the interior lights on so the officer can see inside the vehicle.
• Be careful what you say: Try not to argue with the police officers regarding the basis of the stop. At the same time, you do not need to speak unless spoken to. And avoid admitting to anything.
• Know your rights: If an officer asks you out of the car, they must have a reasonable suspicion that you (or a passenger) committed a crime. Police officers do not need a warrant to search your car after a DUI arrest, but must establish probable cause to do so.

Of course, every person, police officer, and traffic stop is different, so the above tips are just general advice and do not constitute legal advice for any particular situation or arrest. Anyone who has been arrested for an Arizona DUI should consult with a dedicated criminal defense attorney immediately.

Do You Need an Attorney?

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for assistance. Attorney Novak is an experienced Tempe criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling a wide range of DUI cases, including DUI checkpoints, extreme DUIs, and DUI accident cases. To learn more how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you face, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• • A.R.S. 28-1382
  • A.R.S. 28-1381

Reasonable Suspicion Required to Stop a Car

For a police officer to initiate a stop, the officer must have an objective belief that the person is involved in some illegal activity. When it comes to pulling over a motor vehicle, Arizona courts have held that an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the operator is engaged in illegal activity.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer observed the defendant make a “fairly fast turn,” and ran the vehicle’s tag. Upon doing so, the officer learned that the owner of the vehicle had a driver’s license that had been revoked. Using his on-board computer, the officer viewed two pictures of the vehicle’s owner.

Evidently, the officer then pulled up alongside the vehicle the defendant was driving and compared him to the photograph of the car’s owner. The officer determined that the defendant was the owner of the car, and initiated a traffic stop based on the belief that the defendant’s license was revoked. As the officer was interacting with the defendant, he noticed signs of intoxication and the defendant was arrested on DUI charges.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that he had a suspended license. The defendant argued that the officer’s testimony that he was able to get close enough to see the defendant was not credible.

The court dodged the credibility issue raised by the defendant and held more broadly that “reasonable suspicion exists to stop a vehicle when an officer discovers that the owner of the vehicle has a suspended license.” The court explained that reasonable suspicion does not mean that the officer has to be certain that the defendant was engaged in wrongdoing, only that there is an “objective basis to believe that criminal activity might be occurring sufficient to justify further investigation.” The court explained that an officer does not need to rule out the potentially innocent explanation of another driver – other than the owner – operating the car when the owner’s license is suspended or revoked.

Have You Been Arrested on Arizona DUI Charges?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, contact Attorney James. E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a preeminent Arizona DUI defense attorney with extensive experience handling a wide range of complex and challenging cases. Attorney Novak stands up for his clients by zealously advocating for their rights during every stage of the proceeding. To learn more, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381
• A.R.S. section 28-3473

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: What Are Miranda Rights and How Do They Apply in Arizona DUI Cases?, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, October 3, 2018

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

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 police officer first noticed the defendant’s vehicle because it was traveling 10-15 miles per hour below the posted speed limit. The officer began to follow the defendant, and observed the defendant’s vehicle cross the fog line and travel back and forth from one side of the lane to the other. The officer also witnessed the defendant stop short at two intersections. At all times, the defendant’s vehicle stayed within the lane of travel and maintained a speed between 10-15 miles per hour below the speed limit.

A few moments later, the defendant made a wide left-turn, again staying within his lane. However, after the turn, the officer testified that the defendant started to make “drastic moves . . . like an S,” crossing the fog line and driving into the painted median. The officer pulled the defendant over and eventually arrested him for DUI.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to pull him over. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion and he then appealed to a higher court.

The Appellate Decision

On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. The court explained that, under A.R.S. section 28-729, a driver must “drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” The question was whether the defendant’s consistent drifting within his lane combined with a sudden and momentary departure from his lane constituted a violation of section 28-729.

The court explained that while “brief, momentary, and minor deviations outside the marked lines” cannot be the basis for a traffic stop, the defendant’s driving warranted the traffic stop. The court noted that the defendant was traveling 10-15 miles per hour under the speed limit, was consistently drifting within his lane of travel, stopped short at two intersection, made a wide turn and then crossed over the fog line into the center median. This, the court held, was not merely a “brief, momentary, and minor” deviation, and thus denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Contact a Skilled Arizona DUI Attorney

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, you may have several defenses available to you. In some cases, the evidence obtained by the police that would be used to prove intoxication at trail was seized illegally. In such cases, this evidence cannot be admitted at trial and the case could be dismissed. Attorney James E. Novak has extensive experience handling Arizona DUI cases, and is keenly familiar with the constitutional rights afforded to all citizens to be free from illegal searches and seizures. He puts this knowledge to use for his clients through zealous advocacy at every turn. To learn more, call Attorney Novak at 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 28-729

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.