Phoenix DUI Law Blog

May 13, 2020

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Suppress in Arizona DUI Case Based on Dashcam Footage, Appellate Court Affirms

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion affirming a trial court’s decision to grant a defendant’s motion to suppress in an Arizona DUI case. The case required the court to review the state’s claim that reasonable suspicion supported the traffic stop. After viewing dashcam footage from the officer’s vehicle, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion. The appellate court affirmed.

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.

April 27, 2020

The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Reducing the Number of Arizona DUI Arrests

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

To prevent against the spread of the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19 as it has come to be known, Governor Ducey signed an executive order requiring schools close, many businesses close, and residents stay inside their homes except for certain specified reasons. The Governor’s order, referred to as “Stay Home, Stay Healthy, Stay Connected,” went into effect on March 30, and is scheduled to end on April 30. As of April 25, 2020, the Governor has not made any indication as to whether the order will be extended. However, for weeks now, people across Arizona have been required – for the most part – to stay at home. Not surprisingly, the stay-at-home order has had the unintended effect of significantly reducing the number of Arizona DUI arrests.

According to a recent news report, from January to April of last year, there were a total of 7,500 Arizona DUI arrests. However, for that same period during 2020, the number of DUI arrests dropped nearly 33 percent to just over 5,000. Not only that, but serious traffic accidents that require an investigation have dropped by more than 75 percent, according to the Arizona State Police.

Of course, the reduction in Arizona drunk driving arrests does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of enforcement or that law enforcement officers are cutting drivers a break. Rather, most attribute the reduction to the fact that bars and restaurants are closed and that there are fewer people on the road. Also, people are required to follow social distancing protocol, so even drinking in social settings has significantly decreased.

April 13, 2020

Arizona Court Rejects Defendant’s Argument to Suppress Evidence in Recent DUI Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In March of this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case involving the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that was recovered during the traffic stop that led to his arrest. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the police illegally seized him after they found out that he did not have any warrants for his arrest. However, the court rejected the defendant’s argument, allowing the admission of the evidence.

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.

March 26, 2020

Court Discusses the “Operation” Element of an Arizona DUI Offense in Recent Opinion

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

Before someone can be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When it comes to Arizona DUI charges, the prosecution must show not only that the driver was intoxicated, but also that they were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. This is commonly referred to as the “operation” element. Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case discussing the operation element, and what the prosecution must prove to sustain a conviction.

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer was on routine duty when he noticed a vehicle pulled over to the side of Interstate 10, with its flashers on and with the rear of the vehicle protruding into the roadway. As the officer approached the car, he could see that the driver was asleep and that there was a child unbuckled in the back seat. The officer opened the door and found an open can of beer, and the remains of a twelve-pack. The car was off, but the key was in the ignition, the car was in drive, and the hood was warm.

When the officer asked the defendant to get out of the car, he noticed that the defendant was unsteady and had bloodshot, watery eyes. The defendant told the officer he was not driving the car and that he “just pulled over.” A chemical test revealed that the defendant was intoxicated, and he was then arrested and charged with drunk driving.

March 6, 2020

Crucial Facts about Arizona Drug DUIs

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In Arizona, it is against the law to drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Routinely, clients facing Arizona DUI charges are surprised to see that their blood or breath contained as much of a substance as the test results indicate. Thus, this post is dedicated to informing motorists about the length of time that many of the most common drugs stay in the human body. To start, it is important to note that alcohol is the only drug that police can detect through a breath test.

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

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

February 26, 2020

The Operation Element of an Arizona DUI

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

When the government brings a criminal case against a citizen, it is the government’s burden to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Specific to Arizona DUI cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was intoxicated and that they were in physical control of a vehicle. This second element was the recent focus of a state appellate decision.

According to the court’s opinion, a family was traveling northbound on Interstate 17 when the driver saw headlights drifting off and on the road. A few moments later, the driver could see that the headlights sharply veered off the road and it appeared as though the vehicle was rolling. The driver made a U-turn to see if anyone needed help.

One of the family members in the vehicle saw the defendant about ten feet away from a damaged pickup truck. When the family stopped, the defendant approached them and asked them not to call the police. The defendant asked for a ride to the next exit, assuring the family that he was not in need of medical attention. However, the defendant was bleeding, and the family called an ambulance.

February 13, 2020

Credibility in Arizona DUI Cases

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

One of the most important roles of a judge or jury overseeing an Arizona DUI case is to weigh a witnesses’ credibility. Not every witness is completely accurate in their recollection of the events they testify about. It may be that a witnesses’ memory is imperfect, or that they are biased in some way. Bias does not always need to be intentional. In fact, it is common for witnesses to have an unconscious bias one way or another based on their beliefs or associations.

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.

January 27, 2020

Motions to Suppress in Arizona DUI Cases

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In any Arizona DUI case, the defendant can file a motion to suppress certain evidence. When a motion to suppress is filed, it is the prosecution’s burden to prove that the evidence it is intending on using at trial was lawfully obtained. Often, Arizona motions to suppress focus on statements that were made prior to an arrest, a police officer’s observations of a motorist, or physical evidence that was obtained as a result of a traffic stop. An Arizona motion to suppress can also keep chemical test results or formal, recorded statements out of evidence.

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:

The defendant was driving a motor vehicle;

January 14, 2020

What Is Retrograde Extrapolation in an Arizona DUI Case?

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

When someone consumes alcohol, their blood-alcohol content (BAC) will increase over time, before it starts to decrease as the alcohol dissipates from their blood. For many Arizona DUI offenses, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s blood was above the legal limit. Thus, police officers will often try to take a driver’s blood as quickly as they can; however, in some cases, a driver’s blood is not taken until a later time. Typically, blood must be drawn within two hours of the time when the defendant was driving.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case discussing a process called “retrograde extrapolation” by which a chemist can estimate what a person’s BAC was at a specific time by looking at what their BAC was at a later time. The process is used by prosecutors to estimate what a defendant’s BAC would be at the time they were driving. Prosecutors will especially rely on this technique when they were unable to take a defendant’s blood within the two-hour time frame

According to the court’s opinion, witnesses observed the defendant get into a car accident between 4 and 6 p.m. After the accident, the witnesses noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol and seemed off balance. Police officers arrived on the scene at 8 p.m, and the defendant’s blood was taken at 9 p.m. The results indicated that the defendant’s BAC was .336. Because the defendant’s blood was not taken until between three to five hours after the accident, prosecutors called an expert witness to explain the concept of retrograde extrapolation, and provide the jury an estimate of the defendant’s BAC at the time of the accident.

December 26, 2019

The Right to a Jury Trial for Arizona DUI Offenses

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

The United States and Arizona Constitutions each provide the citizens of Arizona with many important rights when they are charged with a crime. As a matter of constitutional law, the protections provided by federal law act as a floor, meaning that states cannot offer their citizens fewer rights. However, states can choose to provide citizens with additional rights through a state statute or constitution.

In the case of the right to a jury trial, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, this has been interpreted to mean all defendants facing charges of “serious” crimes.

Many states have abolished the distinction between serious and non-serious crimes when it comes to the right to a jury trial, and they allow for all defendants to demand a jury trial, regardless of the seriousness of the charge that they are facing. However, while Arizona state law provides some additional protections for criminal defendants, state law does not allow jury trials for all defendants.