Reviewed by James Novak, an Arizona DUI and criminal defense attorney and Founder at The Law Office of James E. Novak. Last updated August 31, 2026.
Arizona charges extreme DUI under A.R.S. § 28-1382(A)(1) when a driver’s alcohol concentration is 0.15 or more but less than 0.20 within two hours of driving, and subsection (K) classifies the offense as a class 1 misdemeanor.
James Novak defends extreme DUI charges in the Scottsdale and Chandler city courts, the Gilbert and Mesa municipal courts, and the justice courts across Maricopa County.
James Novak prosecuted DUI cases in Maricopa County before he spent two decades defending them, and extreme DUI is the charge where that history does the most work. The first thing I look at on one of these cases is rarely whether the client had been drinking. It is the number, how the number was produced, and whether the State can tie it back to the time the client was actually driving.
That focus matters more here than on a standard 0.08 case, because on an extreme DUI the reading does two jobs at once. It establishes the offense, and it selects the sentencing tier. A driver who wants to understand where this charge sits among the rest of Arizona’s DUI charges and penalties should start with that double role, and my office builds most extreme DUI defenses around it. The broader Arizona DUI defense framework on this site covers the stop and testing rules these cases share with every other DUI.
Extreme DUI is not a separate kind of impaired driving. It is the same conduct as a standard DUI, charged under a statute that attaches higher mandatory minimums once the alcohol concentration reaches a set figure. A.R.S. § 28-1382(A)(1) makes it unlawful to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more but less than 0.20 within two hours of driving, where that concentration results from alcohol consumed before or while driving.
The upper bound in that sentence is not decoration. A reading of 0.20 or more falls under § 28-1382(A)(2) and is charged as super extreme DUI, which carries a 45-day minimum instead of 30. Describing the extreme tier as covering 0.15 and above collapses two tiers into one and understates what a driver at 0.21 is facing, which is why the statute states both a floor and a ceiling.
The two-hour language in A.R.S. § 28-1382(A) is the other half of the definition and the part most often overlooked. Arizona does not measure the alcohol concentration at the moment of driving. It measures the concentration within two hours of driving, which means the State’s case rests on a sample taken at the roadside or the station and on the inference connecting that sample to the earlier moment behind the wheel. Alcohol absorption is not instantaneous, so a driver whose concentration was still rising can test above the tier threshold on a sample drawn after the driving ended. That gap is contested ground in every extreme DUI case where the reading sits near a boundary.
A first conviction under § 28-1382(A)(1) carries a minimum of 30 consecutive days in jail, and the statute states that the driver is not eligible for probation or suspension of the sentence unless the entire term is served. That is the figure most drivers encounter first, and taken alone it overstates what a well-handled first offense usually produces.
The reduction provision: A.R.S. § 28-1382(I) operates notwithstanding the 30-day minimum. At the time of sentencing, on a conviction under subsection (A)(1), the judge may suspend all but nine days of the sentence if the driver equips every vehicle they operate with a certified ignition interlock device for 12 months. On a super extreme conviction under (A)(2) the same provision leaves 14 days rather than nine. The trade is explicit in the statute, and it is available at sentencing rather than afterward, which is the single most important scheduling fact on this page.
| Consequence | First extreme DUI, § 28-1382(D) | Second within 84 months, § 28-1382(E) |
|---|---|---|
| Jail minimum | 30 consecutive days | 120 days, 60 of them consecutive |
| Available reduction | All but nine days may be suspended with a 12-month interlock, § 28-1382(I) | Subsection (I) is written against the subsection (D) sentence and does not reference the subsection (E) minimums |
| Fine | Not less than $250 | Not less than $500 |
| Abatement fund assessment | $250 | $250 |
| Prison construction fund | $1,000 | $1,250 |
| Public safety equipment fund | $1,000 | $1,250 |
| Community restitution | May be ordered by the court | At least 30 hours, ordered |
| Driving privilege | Certified interlock required under § 28-3319 | Revoked for at least one year |
| Traffic survival school | Required | Required |
The assessments deserve their own note, because drivers budget for the fine and are surprised by the rest. Beyond the fine of not less than $250, § 28-1382(D) adds a $250 assessment to the driving under the influence abatement fund, $1,000 to the prison construction and operations fund, and a further $1,000 to the public safety equipment fund. The statute exempts the last two from any surcharge. Subsection (D)(2) also fixes the order of payment, directing that the fine, any restitution, and incarceration costs be satisfied before the abatement assessment in paragraph 3.
A second extreme DUI within 84 months moves the case into § 28-1382(E), where the minimum becomes 120 days with 60 served consecutively, the fine doubles, community restitution becomes mandatory at 30 hours, and the driving privilege is revoked for at least one year. After 45 days of that revocation period, subsection (H) makes the driver eligible for a special ignition interlock restricted driver license.
How Arizona counts the 84 months decides more cases than the number itself suggests. Under § 28-1382(F), the dates the offenses were committed are the determining factor, irrespective of the sequence in which the offenses were committed. A driver whose older case resolved after a newer one still has a prior here, because the statute looks past the order of the convictions to the order of the conduct. Subsection (G) narrows the count from the other side, excluding a conviction arising out of the same series of acts. A prior from another jurisdiction counts as well, if the conduct would have violated § 28-1382, A.R.S. § 28-1381, or A.R.S. § 28-1383 in Arizona.
One procedural feature of these cases surprises almost every client. A.R.S. § 28-1382(C) requires the court, at arraignment, to inform the defendant that a trial by jury may be requested and that the request, if made, shall be granted. The statute puts the burden on the court to raise the subject and makes the request binding rather than discretionary. That combination shapes what a case is worth in negotiation well before any trial date is set.
Whether the nine-day provision under § 28-1382(I) is on the table depends on decisions made at sentencing, and the interlock term that comes with it runs for 12 months afterward. My engineering background is what I bring to the breath and blood evidence that sets the tier in the first place. The Arizona ignition interlock device requirements are worth reading before any plea is entered.
An extreme DUI turns on a number, so the evidence that matters is the evidence that produced the number and the evidence that connects it to the driving. Four categories carry most of the weight.
The breath instrument’s records come first. A certified instrument has calibration and maintenance intervals, quality assurance checks, and an operator whose observation period must be documented. An instrument’s margin of error is a known quantity rather than a theoretical objection, and near a tier boundary it is decisive in a way it never is on a 0.08 case. A reported 0.15 with a reading uncertainty that reaches below the threshold is a different case from a reported 0.19.
Where blood was drawn instead, the chain of custody, the qualifications of the person who drew it, the preservatives and storage of the vial, and the laboratory’s own analysis records replace the instrument records. The retrograde extrapolation question sits on top of both routes. The State frequently has to argue backward from a sample taken well after the stop, and the assumptions built into that calculation, including drinking pattern and absorption rate, are assumptions rather than measurements.
The stop itself remains the foundation. An officer needs reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and probable cause for the arrest, and the standardized field sobriety tests have administration protocols that are frequently departed from in the field. Suppressing the stop reaches every piece of evidence that followed it, including the reading that set the tier.
My defense of an extreme DUI case usually starts at the boundary rather than at the question of guilt. Moving a case from the 0.15 tier down to a standard misdemeanor DUI under § 28-1381, or from super extreme down to extreme, changes the mandatory minimum before any argument about the stop is reached. That is a fight about measurement and about what the State can prove regarding the two-hour window, and it is won with records rather than with argument.
The engineering degree earns its keep in exactly this work. I read calibration logs, maintenance histories, and quality assurance records the way I read the interlock datalogs in a compliance case, looking for what the instrument actually did and when it was last verified. Having prosecuted these cases in Maricopa County, I also know how the State assembles the file and which parts of it tend to be thin.
Sentencing structure is the other half of the work. Because § 28-1382(I) is available at sentencing and requires a 12-month interlock commitment in exchange, a client needs to understand the trade before the hearing rather than during it. I work that provision into the negotiation from the beginning, alongside the screening and education requirements that Arizona attaches to every DUI disposition.
The days right after an extreme DUI arrest are when evidence is still recoverable and when several deadlines are still open. Concrete actions worth taking now:
No. A.R.S. § 28-1382(K) makes a violation of the extreme DUI statute a class 1 misdemeanor, and that classification holds for both the 0.15 tier and the 0.20 tier. A DUI becomes a felony in Arizona through A.R.S. § 28-1383, which turns on circumstances such as a suspended license, a third violation within 84 months, or a passenger under 15, rather than on the alcohol concentration alone.
Some jail is mandatory, but the statutory floor is not the whole picture. A.R.S. § 28-1382(D)(1) requires not less than 30 consecutive days for a first violation of the 0.15 tier. A.R.S. § 28-1382(I) then allows the judge, at sentencing, to suspend all but nine days of that term if the driver equips every vehicle they operate with a certified ignition interlock device for 12 months.
The dividing line is 0.20. A.R.S. § 28-1382(A)(1) covers an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more but less than 0.20, and A.R.S. § 28-1382(A)(2) covers 0.20 or more. The tiers carry different minimums, at 30 consecutive days against 45, and the reduced sentence available under subsection I is nine days on the lower tier and 14 on the higher one.
A.R.S. § 28-1382(F) states that in applying the 84-month provision, the dates of the commission of the offense are the determining factor, irrespective of the sequence in which the offenses were committed. Convictions can therefore arrive in an order that has nothing to do with how the offenses count. A.R.S. § 28-1382(G) separately excludes a conviction arising out of the same series of acts from being treated as a second violation.
A reading near a tier boundary is where the instrument’s margin of error carries the most weight, because the number decides which sentencing tier applies rather than only whether the driver was impaired. A.R.S. § 28-1382(A) also measures the concentration within two hours of driving rather than at the moment of driving, so the State has to connect the tested figure back to the time behind the wheel.
An extreme DUI charge in Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, or Scottsdale is decided largely by evidence that exists right now and degrades quickly. I have defended Arizona DUI charges for more than 20 years, I hold four advanced degrees including engineering and psychology, and I have written three books on defense strategy. Call my office at (480) 413-1499 for a free initial consultation, available 24 hours a day, or use the Maricopa County DUI defense contact page to reach me.