Phoenix DUI Law Blog

March 11, 2021

Arizona DUI Charges Based on a Driver’s “Physical Control” Over a Vehicle

Arizona law recognizes driving under the influence (DUI) as a violent crime, and violations of the law may result in hefty penalties and incarceration. For example, recently, a court issued an opinion stemming from an Arizona defendant’s appeal of his DUI conviction. The case arose after police responded to a welfare check of the defendant sitting in a vehicle outside of a restaurant. According to police, a database search revealed that the man had a suspended license and was required to have an ignition interlock device in his vehicle. Police testified that the defendant appeared intoxicated, refused a field sobriety test, and did not have an interlock device in his vehicle. The defendant told police that a friend drove him between bars, but he could not provide the friend’s contact information. A subsequent blood test determined that the defendant’s blood-alcohol level was over the legal limit.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with several DUI offenses, and in the alternative, the State alleged actual physical control of a vehicle under the influence. The jury convicted the defendant of all counts. Amongst several issues, the defendant argued that he should not have been convicted of actual physical control because the indictment did not include those charges.

Under Arizona law, Statute 28-1381(A)(1), it is illegal to drive or have actual physical control while under the influence or impaired. Specifically, a person may not maintain control or drive a vehicle if they are under the influence of liquor, any drug, any vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance, or any combination of these substances. Courts will determine whether a party had “physical control” by examining a host of factors. Some relevant factors include:

February 24, 2021

The “Actual Physical Control” Element of an Arizona DUI Case

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

Everyone knows that drunk driving is against the law. However, the elements of a DUI offense are not always straightforward. One of the most misunderstood elements of an Arizona drunk driving offense is the requirement that the prosecution proves a defendant was in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. A recent state appellate decision discusses what the prosecution must prove to meet its burden under the “actual physical control” element of a DUI offense.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, police officers received a call for people sleeping in a car. Police officers arrived on the scene, and noticed that the vehicle had been in an accident. Officers woke the passenger up without issue, but the defendant was “in and out of it,” and exhibited signs of intoxication, including slurred speech and confusion.

Police officers administered field sobriety tests, the results of which led them to believe the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Subsequently, the police arrested the defendant, who then told them that he had driven to the store to buy some food, and fell asleep after pulling over. Police ordered chemical testing of the defendant’s blood, which indicated he was under the influence of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

February 10, 2021

Court Affirms Defendant’s DUI Conviction in Recent Arizona Drunk Driving Case

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

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case, affirming the defendant’s conviction. The case illustrates the challenges of successfully litigating an appeal, as well as the importance of vigorously defending against all allegations at trial.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a group of police officers was eating in a restaurant, when someone approached the officers, informing them that a motorist was committing traffic violations. One of the officers left the restaurant, got into his car, and witnessed the defendant run a red light.

The officer turned on his lights and sirens to conduct a traffic stop; however, the defendant did not stop. The defendant led the officer on a chase. According to the officer, the defendant committed “too many traffic violations to count.” When the defendant turned the wrong way down a one-way road, another officer put spike strips down in an attempt to disable the defendant’s vehicle. However, when the defendant saw the officer in the road, he swerved towards the officer. The officer jumped out of the way to avoid being hit.

January 27, 2021

Court Rejects Defendant’s Claim the Prosecution Failed to Preserve Important Evidence in Recent Arizona DUI Case

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

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case involving the defendant’s claim that the prosecution failed to preserve evidence that would have shown police violated his rights. However, ultimately, the court concluded that the video, at best, could provide “potentially useful” evidence, but could not show that he was not guilty of the charged offense. Thus, the court rejected the defendant’s claim and affirmed his conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer heard tires squealing and observed a car take off at a high rate of speed. The officer pulled over the car, which the defendant was driving. The officer noticed that the defendant smelled like alcohol, and arrested him, and took him to a booking facility.

Police asked the defendant to perform two sobriety tests, which he did. They then informed the defendant of his Miranda rights, at which point the defendant invoked his right to consult with an attorney. The officers explained the consequences of refusing a breath or blood test, and the defendant again insisted on having counsel present. Police officers then obtained a warrant to take the defendant’s blood, which revealed he had a blood-alcohol concentrate of .121, well over the legal limit.

January 13, 2021

Court Rejects Defendant’s Claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Recent Arizona DUI Case

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

The role of an Arizona DUI defense attorney is to defend his or her client at every step of the case. Initially, this means conducting a thorough investigation into the case, diligently reviewing the state’s evidence, and creating a compelling defense. Once the trial starts, however, a defense attorney’s role expands, requiring they keep an eye on the prosecution.

The role of a prosecutor is to “seek justice.” However, as history shows, sometimes prosecutors step out of line, either by withholding valuable evidence, trying to use prejudicial evidence, or making inflammatory comments to the jury. Defense attorneys are critical in keeping prosecutors in check, by objecting to their unfair tactics.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona drunk driving case, discussing the defendants’ claims that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant entered a roundabout without yielding the right of way to a police cruiser. The officer initiated a traffic stop, and the defendant sped away. The chase reached speeds of 120 miles per hour before the defendant stopped the car and got out. The officer commanded the defendant to get on the ground, and he complied, at which point he was arrested.

December 23, 2020

Arizona Finds Witness Statements Were Improperly Admitted, but Affirms Defendant’s DUI Conviction

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

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona drunk driving case, discussing the defendant’s challenges to certain statements admitted at trial. Ultimately, the court held that, while the statements should not have been admitted, the defendant failed to show that admission of the statements constituted a “fundamental error.”

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, witnesses watched as a car drove into their driveway and crashed into their vehicle. There were three people in the car, the defendant, his girlfriend, and another male. One of the witnesses identified the defendant as the driver. However, in the witness’ statement to the police, the description of the driver matched both the defendant as well as the other male in the car.

When police arrived, the witness again identified the defendant as the driver, as did several of the witness’ housemates. The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI. He then told police that he had been drinking, he was driving at some point, but he did not get into an accident. His defense at trial was that he was not the driver.

December 4, 2020

Court Rejects Motion to Suppress Identification in Recent Arizona DUI Accident Case

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

Late last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI accident case discussing the defendant’s motion to suppress an identification made by witnesses to the accident. Ultimately, the court determined that the witnesses’ identification was not unduly suggestive, and even if it was, the defendant could not show that he was prejudiced as a result of the identification. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a car crashed into a tree right outside of a school. Two school employees were notified of the crash, and walked outside to see the defendant inside the car in the driver’s seat. The witnesses saw the defendant try to drive away, but when he couldn’t’ get his car to move, he exited the vehicle. The witnesses told the defendant to stay on the scene, but he walked away towards a nearby convenience store.

One of the witnesses left briefly to get his car keys. He located the defendant a short time later, and called 911. The witness told police that the driver of the car had on jeans and a dark T-shirt. Not long after the 911 call, an officer stopped the defendant because he matched the description. The officer noted that the defendant appeared to be intoxicated. As the officer was waiting for the witness to come to make an identification, the defendant admitted to being the driver. When the witness showed up, he identified the defendant as the driver, and the officer arrested the defendant. Another witness provided police with photographs and a video of the defendant leaving the scene of the accident.

November 25, 2020

Enhanced Arizona DUI Patrols Over the Holidays

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

Arizona ride-sharing and cab services are a popular way for residents to enjoy holiday festivities without the risk of impaired driving. However, as COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the state, people are understandably concerned about the various health and safety issues associated with ride-sharing services. In turn, individuals may be more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol, especially around Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Eve. As a result, Arizona law enforcement increases their DUI patrols during the holiday season.

Driving under the influence can have a serious impact on a motorist and anyone in their path. In addition to causing severe bodily injury and death, driving under the influence (DUI) in Arizona can result in hefty penalties, criminal charges, and incarceration. In addition to alcohol, driving under the influence includes any substance that may impair a person’s ability to operate a vehicle safely, such as both illegal and prescription medication. According to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), there are nearly 5,000 alcohol-related collisions, resulting in over 250 deaths every year.

Prevention is the most important step that an Arizona motorist can take to avoid causing serious injuries or death to themselves and another. However, the inherent nature of alcohol consumption is that it impairs a person to make wise judgments. Individuals attending holiday events should plan ahead to make sure that they have safe transportation. Further, Arizonians should avoid drinking while driving, which may be an issue during this time of “drive-by” celebrations and holiday gatherings.

November 4, 2020

Court Rules on Evidentiary Issues in Case Involving Arizona DUI Car Chase

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

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a case involving an Arizona high-speed chase that ended with the driver being arrested and charged with several serious offenses, including aggravated assault, criminal damage, unlawful flight, and aggravated driving under the influence. At trial, the defendant wanted to introduce evidence that an officer involved in the case had been sanctioned for violating a police policy prohibiting an officer from engaging in a chase after witnessing only a traffic offense. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence may have been relevant to the case, but the lower court’s failure to admit the evidence was a harmless error.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer pulled over the defendant for a traffic violation. The defendant initially pulled over, but then drove off. The officer hopped back in his car and followed. The officer called in back-up as he chased the defendant.

The defendant continued to drive above the speed limit, and eventually drove into a residential neighborhood. The officer who initiated the traffic stop parked his car at the subdivision’s exit, to prevent the defendant from leaving. The defendant crashed into the officer’s car, got out of the car, and ran. He was later apprehended.

October 23, 2020

What Happens if You Refuse a Breath Test in an Arizona DUI Traffic Stop?

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

One of the biggest fears for most motorists is seeing the red-and-blue lights of a police officer’s patrol car flick on in their rear-view mirror. While the process of getting pulled over is stressful for anyone, this is especially the case for those who have had a drink or two. For many motorists, the thought of refusing a breath test crosses their mind. However, there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to Arizona breath test refusals. In this post, we discuss what a refusal is, and its legal significance.

Arizona has what is called an “implied consent” law. Under this law, motorists agree to submit to a breath test when they are pulled over by a police officer, and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that they are intoxicated. Of course, a police officer cannot physically force someone to take a breath test. So, motorists always have the ability (not necessarily the right) to refuse a test.

When someone refuses an Arizona breath test, that starts a series of events in motion that cannot be undone. As soon as someone refuses a breath test, the officer will take their driver’s license, and their driving privileges will be suspended. The length of the suspension will depend on how many times the driver has refused in the past: