Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

Phoenix DUI Lawyers

1. Arentz, Robert: DUI & DWI Law
2. DiPietro, Brian: Drunk Driving Offenses DUI / DWI Driving or actual physical control while under the influence (DUI / DWI); It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances: While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree. If the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle. While there is any drug or its metabolite in the person's body. If the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle that requires a person to obtain a commercial driver license and the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more. It is not a defense to a charge that the person is or has been entitled to use the drug under the laws of this state. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. A person using a drug prescribed by a medical practitioner who is duly licensed pursuant to law is not guilty of violating this section. In any prosecution for a violation of this section, the state shall allege, for the purpose of classification and sentencing pursuant to this section, all prior convictions of violating this section, section 28-1382 or section 28-1383 occurring within the past thirty-six months, unless there is an insufficient legal or factual basis to do so. At the arraignment, the court shall inform the defendant that the defendant may request a trial by jury and that the request, if made, shall be granted. In a trial, action or proceeding for a violation of this section other than a trial, action or proceeding involving driving or being in actual physical control of a commercial vehicle, the defendant's alcohol concentration within two hours of the time of driving or being in actual physical control as shown by analysis of the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance gives rise to the following presumptions: If there was at that time 0.05 or less alcohol concentration in the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance, it may be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor. If there was at that time in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.08 alcohol concentration in the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance, that fact shall not give rise to a presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but that fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If there was at that time 0.08 or more alcohol concentration in the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance, it may be presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Driving or actual physical control while under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor; It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state if the person has an alcohol concentration as follows within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle: 0.15 or more but less than 0.20, and 0.20 or more. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor. Aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence; A person is guilty of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs if the person does any of the following: Commits a violation of this section while the person's driver license or privilege to drive is suspended, canceled, revoked or refused or while a restriction is placed on the person's driver license or privilege to drive. If a person is convicted, the court, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law, shall order the motor vehicle owned and operated by the person at the time of the offense forfeited. Operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft or water skis under the influence; emergency response; A person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances, who causes an accident that results in an appropriate emergency response and who is convicted of any DUI is liable for the expenses of that emergency response. The expenses of an emergency response are a charge against the person liable for those expenses. The charge is a debt of that person. The public agency, for-profit entity or not-for-profit entity that incurred the expenses may collect the debt proportionally. The person's liability for the expenses of an emergency response shall not exceed one thousand dollars for a single accident. The liability imposed under this section is in addition to and not in limitation of any other liability that may be imposed. Blood and breath tests; If blood is drawn, only a physician, a registered nurse or another qualified person may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or drug content in the blood. The qualifications of the individual withdrawing the blood and the method used to withdraw the blood are not foundational prerequisites for the admissibility of a blood alcohol content determination made pursuant to this subsection. If a law enforcement officer administers a duplicate breath test and the person tested is given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for an additional test, a sample of the person's breath does not have to be collected or preserved. The person tested shall be given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for any physician, registered nurse or other qualified person of the person's own choosing to administer a test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer. If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a test or tests, whether or not a sample was collected or a search warrant, evidence of refusal is admissible in any civil or criminal action or other proceeding. The issue of refusal is an issue of fact to be determined by the trier of fact in all cases. Notwithstanding any other law, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated the DUI law and a sample of blood, urine or other bodily substance is taken from that person for any reason, a portion of that sample sufficient for analysis shall be provided to a law enforcement officer if requested for law enforcement purposes. A person who fails to comply with this subsection is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. Drunk driving is known by a variety of names such as: driving under the influence (DUI) driving while impaired (DWI) operating under the influence (OUI) operating while impaired (OWI) driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) driving while under the influence (DWUI) The purposes of Arizona criminal law In order to preserve and protect the rights of crime victims to justice and the right of the people to safety, it is a fundamental purpose of the criminal law to identify and remove from society persons whose conduct continues to threaten public safety through the commission of violent or aggravated felonies. This is accomplished by deterrance, which is comprised of two types. Specific deterrance seeks to discourage individuals already convicted of crimes from committing crimes in the future. General deterrance trys to deter all members of society from engaging in criminal activity. The goal here, is to make the public fearful of committing the prohibited conduct for fear of discovery and punishment The idea is that as punishment increases, so does compliance, and therefore less crime. Another purpose is by way of incapacitation. Incapacitation does not seek to deter criminal conduct by influencing people's choices, but to prevent criminal conduct by restraining those who have committed crimes. Retribution is another purpose of the criminal law. Retribution is society's vengeance for committing the crime. Punishment through the criminal justice system is society's method of avenging a wrong. This is the concept of "an eye for an eye." Under Arizona criminal law, rehabilitation is not a purpose of the criminal law. In other states, rehabilitation can be a function of the criminal law. The theory behind rehabilitation is that if the criminal is subjected to educational and vocational programs, treatment and counseling, and other programs, it is possible to alter the person's behavior to conform to society's expectations.
3. Beauchamp Law Offices: If you have been charged with a misdemeanor or felony criminal offense, it is necessary to consult with an aggressive attorney immediately. If you are convicted of a felony, it can carry consequences that will alter your life in several detrimental ways, from prison time, to probation, to community service, to finally a conviction that will remain on your record permanently.
4. Keyt, Richard: Why a Person Accused of DUI in Arizona Should Hire a Former Maricopa County Prosecutor to Review the Facts to Determine if a Costly Legal Defense Would be a Waste of Money by Norman Keyt, Arizona DUI Attorney Arizona DUI defense attorneys charge thousands of dollars for a DUI case. Five thousand dollars is a common fee for an experienced DUI defense attorney with some firms charging up to ten thousand dollars. Even though we all know there is no Òfree lunchÓ, Òfree consultationsÓ are frequently part of the marketing program for these law firms. But is it worth it? Can all DUI cases be successfully defended in court? The truth is that very few can be successfully defended. It may not make sense to pay thousands of dollars to defend a case you just canÕt win. We recommend a different, more reasonable approach to a DUI case. We call it a ÒPersonalized Defense EvaluationÓ or ÒPDE.Ó Why is it so Hard to Defend a DUI Case? The Arizona legislature and ArizonaÕs DUI defense lawyers are engaged in a never ending tug of war. Every year DUI defense lawyers make new cracks and fissures in the DUI laws. In the next legislative session, the legislature seals them up. The legislature continues to make the punishment for DUI more and more severe. The legislature has virtually eliminated a judgeÕs ability to suspend the harsh DUI punishments. At the same time, a driverÕs chances of successfully defending a DUI charge have gone down dramatically. In the past, defense attorneys working with facts favorable to the driver, could successfully negotiate sentencing concessions with prosecutors. The prosecution would offer plea bargains favorable to drivers. Today, prosecutorÕs offices have rigid plea guidelines based on the blood alcohol content (BAC) of the driver. They have done this because alcohol testing methods have become more reliable and difficult to challenge. Prosecutors will only vary from plea guidelines on cases with serious legal or factual weaknesses. The truth is that very few DUI cases can be successfully defended in court. In most cases, the driver will get the same pre-trial plea offer from the prosecutor whether or not the driver hires a lawyer. The prosecutor simply looks at the BAC number and makes a plea offer based on the BAC. Federal and State Governments have invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars to attack drunk driving since the 1960s. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has worked closely with the states to develop uniform methods of enforcement, DUI enforcement procedures and local police training. The NHTSA has been the moving force behind the development of scientific procedures and scientific devices, such as breathalyzer machines, to fight drunk driving. For example, the standard set of field sobriety tests, like the finger-to-nose test, given by police officers on the street after a DUI traffic stop were developed by the NHTSA. Each test is based on scientific studies and the ÒcluesÓ the police officer records as he grades the driverÕs performance relate directly to the scientific studies. The standard field sobriety tests give very reliable indications of the degree of a driverÕs impairment. The NHTSA provides grants to state and local governments to make sure police officers are properly trained to administer the tests and detect the clues. After a police officer makes a DUI stop he will ask the driver a series of questions that may seem pretty insignificant to the driver at the time. For example, the officer asks ÒWhere were you coming from?Ó and then ÒWhere were you going?Ó Why does the officer ask such seemingly inconsequential questions? Because NHTSA studies show that drunk drivers are frequently way off course. These questions frequently identify a driver who is going in the wrong direction or in some fashion Òlost.Ó ThatÕs a very good indication that the driver is impaired. This battery of questions that police officers routinely ask stopped drivers is called the ÒAlcohol Influence Report.Ó Every question on the Alcohol Influence Report is there because the NHTSA studies show that they can provide good evidence of impairment. Another reason it is so difficult to defend DUI cases is the increasingly sophisticated scientific equipment used to determine blood alcohol content. Intoxilyzer machines, which determine BAC from a breath sample, have become more and more reliable. They used to be mechanical devices that were difficult to maintain and keep calibrated. In the past, a police departmentÕs failure to maintain or keep the machine accurately calibrated resulted in many dismissed DUI cases. Modern Intoxilyzers, like the Intoxilyzer 8000 in widespread use in Arizona, are less mechanical devices than they are computers. They are easier to maintain and easier to calibrate. There are fewer successful DUI defenses based on bad readings of breath samples than there were in prior years. In addition, more and more police departments are taking blood samples. Blood samples yield a very accurate, difficult to contest, BAC reading. The deck is stacked against the driver. Most DUI cases canÕt be successfully defended in court. Prosecutors give standard plea offers in DUI cases based on BAC readings and BAC readings are difficult to contest. Are There DUI Cases that can be Won? The Personalized Defense Evaluation Since most DUI cases canÕt be successfully defended, spending a lot of money on your defense may not be a good idea. But, some cases can be defended. An analysis of the facts and circumstances as they relate to several key topics by a qualified DUI defense attorney can determine whether or not the case can be successfully defended. I call this evaluation of the governmentÕs case against the driver a ÒPersonalized Defense EvaluationÓ (PDE). This is very different than the ÒFree ConsultationÓ you get from the law firms that advertise on television. ItÕs impossible to evaluate a case without collecting all the evidence the government has against you. The PDE is performed only after we have all the governmentÕs evidence in our possession and a detailed chronology of events from the driver and any witnesses. How Does the PDE Work? LetÕs start with how the traditional process works and compare it to the PDE process. Traditionally, the process works like this. You hire a defense attorney and pay your fee. The attorney makes an ÒappearanceÓ in the case and goes to your first or second court date with you. After the court appearance called the ÒarraignmentÓ the government is required to ÒdiscloseÓ all the evidence they have against you whether or not you have hired an attorney. If youÕve hired an attorney, the government gives the ÒdisclosureÓ to your attorney. Your attorney then reviews and evaluates the governmentÕs evidence against you. In his evaluation of the case, the attorney also considers your recollection of events leading to the DUI arrest. Traditionally, it is at this stage of the process, after evaluating the strength of the governmentÕs case, that your attorney would attempt to negotiate a favorable plea agreement with the prosecutor. But with modern reliable scientific evidence and rigid prosecutor plea policies, this is where the process has changed. Today, in the vast majority of cases you will get the same plea offer without a lawyer that you get with a lawyer. But sometimes the government makes a mistake. These mistakes can form the basis of a successful DUI defense. If the government violates a driverÕs constitutional rights you have a defense. If the government makes mistake collecting scientific evidence you can have a defense. If the government makes a mistake testing or preserving the evidence you can have a defense. HereÕs how the PDE process works. Our limited objective is to evaluate the governmentÕs case against you and give you an opinion on whether or not the case can be defended. If the case can be defended we refer you to qualified DUI defense attorneys to defend the case in court. These defense attorneys will give you a credit on their fees for the cost of the PDE. The PDE process requires that you go to the arraignment without an attorney and plead Ònot guilty.Ó Many city prosecution offices now take ÒdisclosureÓ packets to arraignment and give the packet of evidence to the attorney or if the defendant (driver) is not represented by an attorney, the packet is given to the defendant. If the arresting city or county does not provide ÒdisclosureÓ at arraignment you must make arrangements with the prosecution representative at the arraignment to obtain the ÒdisclosureÓ packet. In some cases it is available to be picked up at a certain location, or in other cases the prosecution will mail it to the address you designate. At the arraignment, you will be given a court date four to six weeks after arraignment. This is typically called a ÒPre-trial Conference.Ó As soon as possible after arraignment, you get the governmentÕs ÒdisclosureÓ packet to the Keyt Law Offices to begin the PDE analysis. The Personalized Defense Evaluation The facts and circumstances in each of the following areas are analyzed in relation to the law to determine if the driver has a possible defense: bullet Was there a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying a traffic stop by the police officer? bullet Is there an ÒActual Physical ControlÓ issue in the case? bullet Did the officerÕs conduct during the traffic stop violate the driverÕs Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights? bullet Was the officer qualified to administer the field sobriety tests and were they correctly administered? bullet Was there probable cause to arrest the driver? bullet Was there a violation of the driverÕs Fifth Amendment right to remain silent? (Miranda issues) bullet Was there a violation of the driverÕs Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel? bullet Are there implied consent/admin per se issues in the case? bullet In breath testing cases: Are there issues relating to the reliability or accuracy of the testing device? Are there issues relating to the sufficiency of the breath sample? Are there issues relating to the driverÕs ability to obtain an independent test of the breath sample? bullet In blood testing cases: Are there issues relating to the qualifications of the phlebotomist who drew the blood and the handling and preservation of the blood after the draw? Are there chain of custody issues for the blood sample? Are there issues relating to the driverÕs ability to obtain an independent blood test on the sample? bullet Do the facts of the case raise a valid ÒRelation BackÓ defense? Police officers may not stop drivers unless they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. ÒPretext stopsÓ are not legal. The officer must have some facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity is afoot. It may be possible to challenge the entire DUI case if there was no reasonable basis for the stop. The question of whether or not the police officer made a legal stop depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are, quite literally, an unlimited number of factual situations; each case is different. Lawyers look to prior cases that have been appealed to a higher court, from a trial court, to provide guidance on questions about the application of the law to different fact situations. Appeals courts review the facts and circumstances of lower court cases and write published opinions about whether or not a particular fact situation was or wasnÕt a legal stop. Lawyers can compare the facts in these written opinions to their clientÕs cases and come to a conclusion about whether or not the stop in their clientÕs case was legal or illegal. Sometimes people are cited for DUI when they are found sleeping in their car while the car is parked on the street, a driveway or parking lot. Is that legal? Again it depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. For lawyers, this is called a question of ÒActual Physical Control.Ó Just as there are host of appeals court cases addressing the factual situations of police traffic stops, there are a number of appeals court cases addressing the factual situations concerning ÒActual Physical Control.Ó Can a police officer search your car after a traffic stop? Sometimes they can legally search your car and in other fact situations it would be illegal. Here again the facts and circumstances make all the difference. If an officer makes an illegal search, any evidence the officer discovers can be thrown out by the court. Any ÒfruitÓ or evidence obtained from the search can also be thrown out. All DUI defendants get arrested. But how and when a driver gets arrested can make a difference. Under the United States Constitution, a police officer canÕt make an arrest unless he has reasonable, trustworthy, information that leads him to believe that an offense has been committed and the person who is being arrested is the one who committed the offense. Once a suspect is arrested, the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel become critically important. These rights Òkick inÓ when a suspect is arrested. Sometimes a driver can be ÒarrestedÓ before the officer actually says, ÒIÕm placing you under arrest.Ó It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. If you are handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car before the officer says, ÒIÕm placing you under arrest,Ó are you in fact under arrest when youÕre put in the car? Would it make a difference if you asked for a lawyer at the time the officer was putting you in the back of the car and the officer ignored your request? It might. What about the Fifth Amendment? DonÕt people have a right to remain silent? How is it legal for police officers to ask a driver all the questions on the Alcohol Influence Report? DonÕt the police have to read a driver Miranda warnings before they can ask any questions? If so, when must the police read you the Miranda warnings? This is just a glimpse of some of facts and circumstances that must be considered in evaluating a DUI case. A careful review of the facts, the sequence of events leading to the arrest and the timing of any Miranda warnings or requests for counsel must be made in the course of evaluating a DUI case. If the government violated the driverÕs constitutional rights, it can lead to the dismissal of a DUI case. On the other hand, if the government did everything by the book, chances are the driver will have no defense to DUI charges. The Keyt Law Offices Personalized Defense Evaluation can potentially save people charged with DUI thousands of dollars. It makes sense to have your case analyzed for possible defenses before paying an attorney thousands of dollars to represent you in court.
5. Loefgren, Douglas: Many circumstances lead to crime. There are even cases where the accused is wrongly charged, or a harsher-than-deserved punishment is sought for the accused.