Phoenix DUI Law Blog

September 16, 2021

Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Aggravated DUI Conviction

In order to obtain a conviction for a DUI offense, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a blood-alcohol level at or above the legal limit at the time the defendant was operating a motor vehicle. Because police usually rely on a non-portable breath alcohol analyzer or a blood test to prove intoxication, defendants are often not tested until several hours after they have been stopped by police. When a test result after arrest demonstrates a blood alcohol level below the legal limit at the time of the test, police and prosecutors rely on a scientific technique known as retrograde extrapolation to estimate a defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time they were operating a motor vehicle. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed the aggravated DUI conviction of a defendant whose blood alcohol level had been estimated using retrograde extrapolation.

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

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

August 31, 2021

Consequences of an Arizona DUI Conviction

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

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a common crime in Arizona. However, there is an often-held misunderstanding about the serious consequences an Arizona DUI conviction can carry. Contrary to popular belief, these are not minor traffic offenses. DUI cases are taken very seriously by Arizona law enforcement, prosecutors and judges, and a conviction for a DUI offense can have lifelong consequences.

The seriousness of a DUI arrest depends on a few things. Most notably, whether you have a prior conviction for a DUI. Generally speaking, first-offense DUIs are less serious than subsequent offenses. For example, the punishment for a first-offense DUI is ten consecutive days in jail, a fine of at least $250, and mandatory community service. In addition, you will need to install an ignition interlock device on your vehicle before you can drive again. If you are convicted of a second DUI, then the punishment you face will increase significantly. For example, the jail time the comes along with a second offense increases to up to 90 days in jail. However, if you participate in drug or alcohol classes, you can have a portion of that sentence suspended.

In addition to the criminal penalties associated with a DUI conviction, you can also suffer a host of collateral consequences. Collateral consequences are the non-criminal aspects of a conviction that impact your life, often making it much more challenging to get a job, attend school, or obtain certain benefits. For example, if you are convicted of an Arizona DUI, employers can refuse to hire you, and you may not be eligible for certain professional licenses. Landlords may also ask you on a rental application if you have ever been convicted of a crime, which impacts their decision of who to rent to.

August 24, 2021

Arizona Court Upholds Defendant’s Aggravated DUI Convictions in Case Involving a Minor

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

Recently, an Arizona appellate court affirmed a lower court’s convictions of a defendant in a DUI case involving a minor passenger. The defendant appealed the lower court’s decision, arguing that there was a fundamental error in the record. The appellate court found that there was no fundamental error because the court proceedings were properly conducted and afforded the defendant all of his constitutional and statutory rights. The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. Operating a vehicle while under the influence and with a minor present in the vehicle results in heightened penalties in the state of Arizona.

The Facts of the Case

On the night of the incident, a police officer was driving on a highway and observed a vehicle stopped on an exit ramp. The defendant was the driver, and his eight-year-old son was also in the car. According to the arresting officer, the defendant stumbled while getting out of the car and spoke with slurred speech, prompting the Arizona Department of Public Safety Troopers to investigate. The troopers observed the defendant’s bloodshot watery eyes and the smell of alcohol, and the defendant’s subsequent field sobriety tests indicated he may be under the influence of alcohol. The troopers administered a blood test, revealing the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) to be 0.187, which is above the 0.08 threshold and thus indicates driving while impaired.

July 1, 2021

Court Finds Proof of Defendant’s Knowledge of Interlock Requirement Was Required Element in Recent Arizona DUI Case

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

After an Arizona DUI conviction, drivers must often install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle before having their driving privileges reinstated. An ignition interlock is a small device installed near the steering column that requires a driver to blow into a tube before starting their vehicle. If there is any alcohol on the driver’s breath, the car will not start. Ignition interlock devices are designed to prevent those with a DUI conviction from getting behind the wheel after having anything to drink. In Arizona, for those required to install an interlock device on their vehicle, it is a crime to drive a vehicle without one.

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

The Facts of the Case

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

June 24, 2021

Defendant Appeals Arizona Drug DUI Conviction Based on Inflammatory Evidence

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

An appellate court recently issued an opinion in an appeal stemming from a case involving a woman convicted of an Arizona drug DUI offense. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms after a jury convicted her of several drug and driving offenses. Amongst several issues, the defendant appeals arguing that the trial court improperly admitted an inflammatory photograph of the victim. The case arose from an incident where, while allegedly under the influence of several intoxicants, the defendant drove her vehicle around Tucson, causing several collisions. The accidents resulted in damage to seven vehicles, injuries to one victim, and the death of another.

The defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a photograph of the victim. The photograph was a picture of the victim when she was alive and unrelated to the accident. The defendant contends that the photograph “inflamed the jury,” resulting in a prejudicial error. In this case, the trial court did instruct the jury not to be “influenced” by sympathy or prejudice.

Under Arizona law, a defendant may establish a fundamental error by proving that the error:

May 26, 2021

Court Affirms Six-Year Sentence for Drug Possession Following DUI Investigation

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

Recently, a state appellate court issued a hard-to-swallow opinion in an Arizona drug possession case. The case illustrates police officers’ power when conducting a traffic stop, especially while investigating DUI charges.

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.

May 5, 2021

Appellate Court Allows Defendant’s Statement, Finding Any Error in Its Admission Was Harmless

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

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case involving a defendant who was alleged to have caused a serious accident while under the influence of methamphetamine. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court failed to exclude a statement used against him at trial. However, the court refrained from weighing in on whether the statement was admissible, finding instead that, even if it was improperly admitted, and error it caused was harmless. The case illustrates the importance of raising and preserving all valid arguments at trial.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant entered an intersection without stopping at a stop sign and while traveling over the posted speed limit. As the defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection, it struck an SUV that had the right-of-way. There were three passengers in the defendant’s vehicle. One died, and two others were seriously injured. The driver and two passengers in the SUV were also injured.

The defendant, who was also injured in the accident, was taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, a detective hand-cuffed the defendant to the hospital bed and unsuccessfully attempted to interview him. Later, as the detective was out of view but within earshot, he heard the defendant tell a nurse that he had taken methamphetamine earlier in the day.

April 27, 2021

The Importance of Credibility in an Arizona DUI Case

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

One of the most important issues in many Arizona DUI cases is the credibility of the witnesses who take the stand. While some cases involve only police officer witnesses, other times the defendant decides to testify in their own defense or presents a defense witness. When the testimony of two witnesses differs, the finder of fact (either the judge or the jury) must determine which witnesses’ testimony is more credible.

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.

April 13, 2021

Implications of Legalization of Recreational Marijuana on Arizona DUIs

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

In January, several Arizona dispensaries began selling marijuana to legal adults who do not have a medical marijuana card. The move came after voters approved Arizona marijuana sales. Motorists must understand that despite the legalization of recreational marijuana, they may still be arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI. Notwithstanding the presumed increase of Arizonans consuming marijuana, the State reports a decrease in the overall number of drug-related DUI arrests. However, the director of Arizona’s Governor’s Office of Highway Safety stated that the numbers might be slightly misleading because the data is incomplete.

In Arizona, the State can charge and prosecute individuals for DUI drugs under two main statutes, ARS §28-1381(A)(1) and ARS §28-1381(A)(3). Under the first statute, it is illegal for an individual to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any alcohol, drug or inhalant. A charge under this statute may occur when the motorist is impaired to the “slightest degree.” The second statute provides that it is illegal for one to drive a motorized vehicle under the influence of any drug or its metabolite. This statute encompasses substances such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and prescription medications being used illegally. Under the statute, a person does not need to exhibit actual impairment; instead, they may be guilty by solely having the drug or its metabolite in their system.

Although marijuana and its THC component are legal to use recreationally, issues may arise if the person exhibits even slight impairment. Arizonans may not need to present a medical marijuana card to defend themselves against certain DUI charges, but they may still face impairment charges. Many charges stemming from marijuana DUIs may hinge on whether someone is too impaired or high to drive. Issues often arise because, unlike alcohol, marijuana requires a blood test. However, where alcohol tends to metabolize quickly and goes away within a matter of hours, marijuana and its accompanying THC may remain in one’s system for days after the effects have dissipated.

March 26, 2021

Can an Arizona DUI Conviction Affect a Child Custody Determination?

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

When thinking about the possible consequences of an Arizona DUI conviction, the most commonly feared repercussions involve infringements on your freedom, such as jail time, probation, or the suspension of your driver’s licenses. However, Arizona DUI offenses carry a host of other collateral consequences that can also have a significant impact on your life. One common question facing those who are arrested for DUI offenses involves the impact a conviction could have on their ability to obtain or maintain custody of their children. While a conviction alone is not likely to result in someone losing custody of their children, it can play into the court’s decision.

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

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