The Statutes in Question

The statute that the court first examined is often called the “red-light statute,” and it requires cars to stop at red lights. Under an accompanying statute, the “enhanced penalty statute,” “[a] person is guilty of causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation if the person violates [the red-light statute] and the violation results in an accident causing serious physical injury or death.”

Essentially, the enhanced penalty statute means that if an individual violates the red-light statute, and if that violation leads to injury or death, the individual can face additional repercussions than he or she would face if only the red-light statute were in play. The enhanced penalty statute delivers harsher consequences for a driver that causes an accident at the intersection of a red light.

more Question Before the Court

In this case, the court had to decide whether the enhanced penalty statute applies to drivers who have not yet entered a red-light intersection. Here, a driver failed to stop at a red light and ended up bumping into the Jeep in front of him. The collision ultimately caused the Jeep driver’s death. The driver, at trial, argued that because he had not yet entered the red light’s intersection, he should not be subject to penalties under the enhanced penalty statute.

The higher court disagreed. Ultimately, said the court, when determining whether an accident resulted from a violation of the red-light statute, it’s appropriate to consider the accident as a “continuous event,” not as the single moment when the car is in the intersection. Because the accident includes both the moment prior to entering the intersection as well as the collision in the intersection, drivers who have not yet entered the intersection are, indeed, eligible for penalties under the enhanced penalty statute.

The court’s opinion means that drivers causing accidents are, at times, subject to higher penalties, and it serves as a reminder to only drive when you are of sound mind.

Are You in Need of a Phoenix Vehicular Crimes Attorney?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we work tirelessly to make sure your freedoms are protected, and we will not stop until you are satisfied with the outcome in your criminal case. For a free and confidential consultation with a Phoenix vehicular crimes attorney, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have a member of our team get in touch with you as soon as possible.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was riding as a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence. When the officer approached the vehicle asking about whether there are any weapons in the car, the defendant replied that there were none. However, as the officer shined a flashlight through the vehicle’s windows, he saw a shotgun barrel.

When confronted with the fact that there was a weapon in the car, the defendant told the officer that he meant to mention the shotgun, but he forgot. When asked, the defendant admitted that he handled the gun, that he was on felony probation, and that he knew he was prohibited from handling a weapon. The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 12 years in jail.

more What Are Your Rights During a DUI Stop?

It’s never easy to know how to act when you’re pulled over by the police. If a police officer starts asking questions about drinking and driving, you can easily fall into the trap of thinking you have nothing to worry about if you are not impaired. However, officers often use DUI stops and traffic stops to search for evidence related to other crimes. Thus, it is important to understand your rights during a traffic stop.

First, while you need to provide an officer with your driver’s license, insurance information and vehicle registration, you do not need to answer their questions. Of course, police officers are not going to tell you this, but your constitutional rights allow you to refuse questioning. By refusing questioning, you may raise the officer’s suspicions. It’s common for police officers to assume that anyone who was innocent would fully cooperate. However, unless they find evidence of a crime, they cannot arrest you or search your vehicle.

Next, you do not ever need to consent to a vehicle search. If an officer has probable cause to arrest you or search your car, they do not need your permission. Thus, if an officer is asking you for your permission, it is a good sign they do not have enough evidence at that point to arrest you (or to search your car). Don’t give them the permission they need to search your car lawfully, because it’s difficult to challenge a search after you consented to it.

Have You been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you were recently arrested for a DUI offense in Arizona, reach out to the Law Offices of James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran Phoenix DUI defense lawyer who cares deeply about each of his clients. With his help, you can work towards a compelling defense, regardless of the crimes charged. To learn more, reach out to the Law Offices of James E. Novak at 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

The Facts of the Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have You Been Arrested After an Arizona DUI Stop?

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

A recent opinion issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals is an example of a DUI case that came down to the credibility of the witnesses. In that case, the police received a call from a person explaining that a car had crashed into a home. The caller told police that they did not see the actual collision, but could hear it. They also relayed that there was an African American man on the scene wearing a white shirt, jeans, and a hoodie. There was no mention of anyone else in the car or at the scene.

Police officers arrived on the scene two minutes after the 911 call. Upon their arrival, officers saw the defendant, matching the description of the driver. Officers stopped the defendant, who dropped a set of car keys. The lock/unlock buttons on the car keys worked on the vehicle that was involved in the collision.

At trial, the defendant’s claim was that he was a passenger of the car and that the driver fled the scene immediately after the accident. The defendant testified on his own behalf and presented several witnesses. Another witness took the stand and, when asked who was driving the car, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A third witness testified that, on the day of the accident, the defendant had called her explaining that he was involved in an accident as a passenger, and that another man was driving.

Notwithstanding the defendant’s evidence, the jury convicted him of several DUI-related charges. The defendant filed an appeal. However, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, noting that the jury was free to come to the conclusion it did based on the evidence presented.

This case highlights the importance of properly preparing witnesses to testify when developing a defense strategy. Police officers testify frequently, and many are quite skilled at presenting their side of the story in a convicting manner. To counter an officer’s testimony, a witness must come across as reliable and credible.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you were recently arrested and charged with an Arizona drunk driving offense, give Attorney James E. Novak a call to see how he can help. At the Law Offices of James E. Novak, Attorney Novak skillfully represents clients facing all types of DUI offenses, helping them develop effective defenses to the charges. With his help, you can rest assured that you, your case, and your future are in good hands. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation today, call the Law Offices of James E. Novak at 480-413-1499.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

According to a recent news report, 1,726 law enforcement officers participated in a state-wide enforcement effort over the holiday. In total, police made over 11,000 traffic stops over July 3rd and 4th, and arrested nearly 300 people on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Of those, 62 of the arrests were for “extreme DUI” in which the driver’s blood-alcohol content is alleged to be greater than .15.

Police Were Looking for Reasons to Stop Drivers

Given that the state’s law enforcement officers were on high alert for drivers under the influence, it is likely that many of the traffic stops police made were motivated by “gut instincts” rather than articulable facts supporting a finding that the driver was under the influence. However, under Arizona law, police officers cannot pull over motorist for no reason or act on a hunch when determining which motorists to stop. Doing so violates the motorist’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Depending on the circumstances, a police officer must possess either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a motorist. In order to establish either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, a law enforcement officer must be able to point to articulable facts that would indicate a motorist is violating a traffic law or criminal statute.

Even if a traffic stop is valid at its inception, the stop may become tainted if the officer extends the duration of the stop beyond the time necessary to investigate the reason for the stop. For example, if a motorist is pulled over for excessive window tint, the police officer cannot request the driver take a breath test without evidence suggesting the driver was intoxicated.

If a police officer is unable to justify a traffic stop, or unable to explain why the length of a stop was extended, then any evidence obtained during that stop, including the officer’s observations of the defendant behind the wheel, may be suppressed in a pre-trial motion. Thus, it is no surprise that it is through a pre-trial motion to suppress that many Arizona DUI cases are won.

Have You Been Arrested and Charged with an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, Attorney James E. Novak may be able to help. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney with decades of experience representing clients charged with Arizona DUI crimes. He understands the seriousness of the consequences facing his clients and does everything he can to ensure that the allegations made against them have as little impact on their future as possible. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with a dedicated Arizona DUI attorney, call 480-413-1499 today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 28-1381
• Rodriguez v. United States

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: DUI And No Insurance: What You Should Know, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, May 1, 2018

Marijuana DUI: Financial Penalties in Arizona, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, April 1, 2018

Our DUI defense attorneys have helped countless people facing drunk driving charges, and the following tips on traffic stops will help you understand what to do in case you are pulled over.

Nervousness Is Normal, But Stay Calm

When you’re stopped by law enforcement, a bevy of thoughts may race through your mind. It might be easy to simply panic in such a trying situation. However, if you find yourself in such a situation, panicking should be the last thing that you do. Below are a few tips to keep in mind to help you how to handle a DUI stop

Be Polite and Courteous

No matter how agitated or unjustified you feel your DUI stop was, always stay calm and be polite to your officer. While you may be tempted to state your case, keep in mind that police officers are trained to control the situation, and as such, as equipped with a number of methods to do so. There is rarely any benefit to mouthing off to an officer, and doing so may ultimately find you in deeper trouble than you were originally in for your DUI stop.

Have Your License and Registration Ready or Easy to Find

Make sure you have your license and registration are both easily accessible. You are already in a precarious situation, and making it difficult to locate your paperwork will put you in an even more difficult situation to navigate as your officer processes your DUI stop.

Assert Your Rights Regarding Field Sobriety Tests

If a police officer asks you to perform a physical act to test your sobriety, feel free to politely decline. The only test you are required to take in this situation is a chemical test. However, it is not a punishable act to decline any additional tests to determine whether or not you are sober during your DUI stop.

Avoid Actions That Would Otherwise Result In a Traffic Stop

Many times people may be just at or slightly over the legal limit but something about their driving will result in cause for a traffic stop. Here are some basic things that lead to people to being pulled over regardless of intoxication:

• Broken are shoddy front or rear vehicle lights
• Missing or damaged license plates on either or both sides of your vehicle
• Reckless driving, including ignoring stoplights and/or street signs, and especially speeding
• Suspicious behavior, including swerving and weaving between lanes with abandon

Additional Points to Know During Your DUI Stop

The best way, of course, to avoid being pulled over for a DUI stop would be to avoid the situation altogether. If you feel you may be too impaired to drive, ask someone you are with to drive you home, or if you are in the comfort of a friend’s home, spend the night and drive home in the morning.

Speak with Our Attorneys About Your Legal Options

If you have been arrested for drunk driving and would like to learn more about your legal rights, be sure to contact our DUI defense lawyers today. During your visit to our law firm, we will be sure to fashion a defense strategy that helps get your charges dropped or reduces fines and other penalties that you may face.