It's true - Arizona has reduced the penalties for DUI convictions.  Here are some of the highlights:

• The interlock requirement has been reduced from 12 months to 6 months (for first time non-extreme DUI.)

• The mandatory jail requirements have been modified / reduced.  There is a lot of legalese with this particular change.  I will do a detailed post on the specifics soon.  However, you should know the judges now have more discretion to reduced jail time for both extreme and non-extreme DUI convictions.

• Home detention (an electronic ankle bracelet) will now be available in justice courts and the judges now have some more latitude to utilize these ankle bracelets instead of long jail sentences;

• Certain driver's license suspensions now allow for restricted driving permits that previously did not;

There are a lot more changes in the new law.  The legislature, without a public debate, removed the statutory right to jury trial for non-extreme DUI cases.  However, all extreme DUI charges and all second DUI charges still have an automatic right to a jury trial.  There may still be a right to jury trial in regular DUI cases under Arizona's common law.  In any event, the jury trial has not disappeared - there will be a big legal fight to come on this issue.

I will be posting additional details on the new laws in the coming days.

Lawrence

Usually the government only puts safeguard in place to prevent machine errors.  Consequently the majority of the blood testing process will go unchecked and subject to human error.       

• current Arizona charges and penalties,
• changing enforcement standards for DUI charges based on jurisdiction (Scottsdale, for example),
• measurement and testing,
• drug-based DUI charges - both legal prescription and illegal,
• differing charges while a child is in a vehicle, and
• timelines for resolution of DUI charges.

The entire interview, along with my answers to various phone-in questions, is now available as a downloadable podcast, starting at the 11:00 minute mark.

Many thanks to Jay Lawrence and KTAR for having me.

A few weeks ago I was sitting in an arraignment with a client waiting for our case to be called.  Before the judge started calling cases he told the packed court room about Arizona's DUI penalties.  After going through the sentencing schemes he also made the following disclosure in open court. He stated, these DUI penalties have become harsher and harsher ever since he had been practicing law (and by grey color of his remaining hair that appeared to be a long time). "However, my courtroom still stays full." He went on to say that "we all know" the new DUI penalties have not reduced the number of DUI cases but it is the law.  "Fair or not these are the laws I am required to follow."

Well it is not everyday a judge, in open court, makes such a candid admission.  Moreover, the judge's speech was absolutely correct about the Arizona DUI laws.  Those of who are involved in Arizona DUI cases, "all know" the math is wrong.  We all know, law enforcement included, raising penalties does not reduce the number DUI cases.  One reason is the real consequence of a DUI is not jail, but taking someone's life.  If that is not enough to stop someone from driving impaired, then long jail terms that no person really knows the specifics of (until after they are charged), certainly will not have a great impact.

However, I have an idea of what may work.  In part two of this post I make my case for how I believe we should address the problem.  That is, if we are serious about solving it - which I hope we are.


Lawrence Koplow

DUI stands for driving under the influence. However, years ago Arizona, like many other states, changed its DUI laws to cover situations where the person was not actually driving. Instead, to be guilty of DUI, a person just needed to be "controlling" a vehicle. The classic example is the vehicle stopped in the middle of the road and the driver is passed out drunk. That is an obvious case of someone controlling a car without driving.

However, there are many situations, where it is not so obvious that a person is "actually controlling" a car. There has been a growing debate regarding as to what it means to be "controlling" a car in a DUI case. For example, people can legally use their car as a shelter after they have been drinking alcohol.  Someone who sleeps in their properly parked car after getting drunk is not "controlling" their car for purposes of Arizona DUI law. However, if they put the key in the ignition to turn on the air condition, does that action create a DUI? The Arizona Supreme Court Case recently attempted to end the debate in the case of State v. Zaragoza.

Zaragoza was convicted on an Aggravated DUI charge after he was found at an apartment complex:

•    Sitting in his car
•    The engine was off
•    His hand on the wheel, and
•    The keys in the ignition,
•    Alcohol in his system

Zaragoza claimed that he had no intention to drive, but only to sleep in his car. He claims the reason the keys were in the ignition was to roll down the window, and turn on the radio. 

He appealed his conviction based on the argument that the jury was provided inappropriate instructions regarding the law of actual physical control of vehicle.

The Arizona DUI statute does not define what “actual physical control” of a vehicle is, and there have been varying types of jury instructions on the meaning of this phrase through-out the courts. 

The Arizona Supreme Court took this case, and attempted to clarify the law’s definition. They stated that actual physical control has nothing to do with the intent of the driver to move or use the vehicle, but the actual and imminent danger to the him/her self or others at the time alleged to have control. This means that all facts must be looked at together in order to appropriately determine if there was an actual or imminent danger.

The Court also held that in this case, the instructions did not mislead the jury, but that they may have misstated the law. Because of the variations in instruction, and the result of Zaragoza's case, the Arizona Supreme Court decided to provide a new jury instruction for future cases.

The new instruction will be published in Part II of the blog post.

If you need assistance or additional information about an Arizona DUI case, please contact the Koplow Law Firm Online or by phone at (602) 494-3444.

Lawrence Koplow

I was in the Scottsdale City Court yesterday when I heard a Judge discussing the much anticipated Home Detention Program.  It appears that they have finally implemented the program.  Here are the minimum qualifications based on the information I was given at court.

• The date of your offense must be after May 27, 2010; and
• You must start your self-surrender date on or after October 1, 2010

There may be some exceptions to the time restrictions if your attorney can demonstrate a serious medical condition. Since the program is so new (as a matter of fact, several of the court clerks did not even know it had be approved yesterday) I am sure there will be some additional details and restrictions.  In addition, keep in mind: (1) admittance into the program is not automatic.  The judges have already hinted that not everyone will be receiving the benefit of this program; (2) there will still be an initial term of jail for anyone accepted into the program.  Thus, this program is for lengthier terms of incarceration.

If you need assistance or additional information about a Scottsdale DUI case, please contact the Koplow Law Firm Online or by phone at (602) 494-3444.

Lawrence Koplow

• United States Tax Law Encourages Drunk Driving - I guess we have to give credit to a very clever accountant.

• DA Appeals Ruling in Massachusetts DUI Blood Testing Case - It should be obvious to any prosecutor that to get laboratory results into evidence, there needs to be a someone to testify to them.  I am sure I just jinxed this attorney by making this statement.

• Minnesota DWI Lawyers Pissed about Urine Cases: What Happens When Judges Assume the Role of Scientist - This post is very technical.  There is an excellent discussion regarding urine testing.  More importantly, the post has a great title.

• DUI Innocence Project: 93% Wrong-False Use of Roadside Tests Can Lead to False Arrest  - This post presents a very good idea and a clear presentation of the truth about field sobriety testing.

• And Introducing The Unethical Attention-Whoring Crappy Douchebag Lawyer - This is the most entertaining post of the month by far.

 If there are any DUI lawyers that think I should have put their post here, let me know. 

Thanks,

Lawrence

So normally I don’t write posts like this, because I don’t give flyin’ rat’s ass. But lately, I’ve seen a string of hits in my Google Alert for “public defender” (yes, that is one way I keep up with relevant news) from some “let me help you on the internet by giving out free advice” sites.

The most recent one popped into my RSS reader this evening and it followed the same tenor of the others: Don’t opt for a public defender because they’re overworked, don’t have resources, etc. In other words, the same BS that smarmy “defense lawyers” use to scare clients into giving them money…

Towards the end of the post, Gideon concludes:

The problem is that sites like these come up on the first page of a Google search for something like “should I hire a private lawyer or keep my public defender” (and trust me, I get a lot of hits with similar search terms).

Another site that comes up? New lawyer darling Avvo.

So yeah. Douchebag.

Gideon, you had me at douchebag. More importantly, as someone who only does private work, I completely agree with your position. I know plenty of public defenders that do an outstanding job. Moreover, if I were going to make my own top ten list of attorneys you don’t want to represent you – you would not find even one public defender on it.