Scottsdale DUI: Changes in the Scottsdale Courts

What is going on in Scottsdale?  In the last 30 days two judges have been let go by the City Counsel.  What is coming next? 

No Consent, No Warrant, No Blood

Some things in life seem obvious. It is hotter in the summer. It is colder in the winter. The government must get a warrant to stick a needle in your arm before they forcibly take your blood. However, this last presumption has not been so obvious in Arizona.

For years in Arizona, attorneys have been arguing that law enforcement must get a warrant before taking your blood during a DUI investigation. Unless, of course, the person “expressly consents” to the blood draw. However, many Arizona courts have held that, under Arizona law, we should "imply" your consent to the blood test. Thus, there is no need to ask for your consent, nor to get a warrant before taking blood.

In most DUI cases, officers ask the person suspected of DUI if they will consent to the blood draw. The officer will explain that if you refuse to give consent, a one (1) year license revocation will be triggered. Moreover, the officer will likely inform you that they will also get a telephonic warrant, in a matter of minutes, and forcibly take your blood. Consequently, the majority of people do give consent to the blood draw. This scenario is perfectly legal.

However, every year I see a number cases where law enforcement just takes the person’s blood without asking for consent. They merely say "give me your arm" and take the blood. Most experienced DUI officers will not engage in such conduct. Yet this situation keeps occurring. And until now, many courts have upheld the officer's actions.

On September 1, 2009, the Arizona Court of Appeals stated the obvious.  They held that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant to take a DUI suspects blood - unless the person “expressly agrees” to have their blood drawn. The Court reasoned:

Arizona’s Implied Consent Law, A.R.S. § 28-1321, requires the State to obtain a warrant before drawing a blood sample from a DUI suspect unless the suspect “expressly agree[s]” to submit to the blood test. A.R.S. § 28-1321(B), (D) (Supp. 2005).

We hold that the “express agreement” required by the statute must be affirmatively and unequivocally manifested by words or conduct, and may not be inferred from a suspect’s mere failure to communicate clear objection to the test.

In sum, there is nothing “obvious” about Arizona DUI laws.

Follow Arizona DUI Law Updates on our Twitter Feed

You can keep track of all the news about the Arizona DUI laws by watching our Twitter Feed. 

Drunk In Charge Of A Vehicle - Don’t Be Caught Out

By Richard M Jenkins

It is common knowledge that to drive on a UK road with excess alcohol in your system, more than 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 milliliters of breath, in a criminal offense.

Anyone convicted of driving with excess alcohol in their system will be disqualified from driving for a minimum of 12 months. If the person has had a similar conviction within the last 10 years then the driving disqualification will be for a minimum of three years.

The total length of the ban will depend on several factors the most important being the amount of alcohol within the system. As the minimum disqualification is mandatory any hardship such as loss of employment due the ban will not be taken into account.

Certain “special reasons” however can be used to argue against a disqualification. For example maybe the driver in question has moved their vehicle only a short distance, from roadside to driveway or may have been dealing with a true emergency. Although technically this is enough to warrant prosecution it may be possible to argue “special reasons” not to disqualify. Such “special reasons” however can not guarantee a ruling against a ban. The law here is complex and each case can only be judged on a case to case basis.

It is not so widely known that a driver can also quite easily be prosecuted for being drunk in charge of a vehicle. The law states that anyone who is in charge of a vehicle on a road or other public place having consumed excess alcohol is guilty of this offense. This can lead to a discretionary ban, a fine or ten penalty points. You can be charged with this offense for simply having the keys to a vehicle whilst having excess alcohol in your system. This means if you sleep in a parked car whilst having consumed excess alcohol you can be charged. Even sitting in your car with excess alcohol in your system is enough to get you arrested. You only defense if you are arrested for this is to prove that there was no likelihood of you driving the vehicle whilst excess alcohol was still in your system.

These two offenses can be committed either on a road or other public place. This means any area the general public have access too. This could be pub car parks or shopping car parks. Even private roads have been held to be “other public places”.

For more driving advice see the http://www.driving-test-success.com driving test and driving schools website. A site for learner drivers providing guides on topics such as the http://www.driving-test-success.com/theory/theory_test.htm driving theory test and http://www.driving-test-success.com/passed/car_insurance.html cheap young drivers car insurance.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_M_Jenkins

Maricopa County Jail Lawsuit

The Phoenix New Times is reporting that a judge has ruled against Sheriff Joe Apraio in the latest suit about the treatment of his inmates in the county jails. (…)

Forensic Problems Nothing New - But Still Shocking

The LA Times is reporting that the LA Crime Lab's fingerprint analysis is responsible for implicating innocent people in crime due to faulty "science."
They describe a messy crime lab where evidence sits around in piles, is disorganized, or worse. (…)

Light Rail In Phoenix - The antidote for DUI?

Proponents of the Phoenix light rail system that is deep into construction claim that the project will reduct DUI cases by offering people an alternative mode of transportation to and from downtown for cultural and sporting events. (…)

Why Intoxilyzer Source Code Matters In DUI Cases

In DUI cases the state wants everybody to believe that the Intoxilyzer machine has been tested. (…)

Courts complicit in framing future DUI murder charges?

There is an interesting post on Lawrence Taylor's DUI Blog about linking previous DUI convictions to a future murder charge.  According to Mr. (…)

DUI Breath Tests: The audacity of corporate America

The quote below
is attributed to Tucson DUI Attorney James Nesci as reported by the Citizen. Mr. (…)

Next Page »