Starting in January, many new and beneficial changes are coming the license restrictions faced by people arrested or convicted of DUI. Some of those changes include:

1. Time to Request a Hearing

Currently, if you are arrested for DUI the officer will give you an admin per se/ implied consent form (usually your copy will be pink or yellow).  You have 15 days to request a hearing on the license suspension or your license will be automatically suspended.  Starting in January, that will change to 30 days. This gives people twice as long to request a hearing. These hearings can be a huge benefit and we at the Behan Law Group have been successful in defeating licenses suspensions at these hearings.

Arizona requires someone convicted of a ”Super Extreme” DUI (driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while having an alcohol concentration over .20) to serve 45 days in jail. The law also permits the court to suspend[1] all but 14 days if someone installs an ignition interlock device in any vehicle that they drive.

Many plea agreements, both in felony cases as well as misdemeanors, require that someone put an ignition interlock on a vehicle to reduce the time the person spends in jail. Previously, some courts read this to mean if you did not have a car you had to do more jail time than someone who had a car and who could install an ignition interlock device.  This also meant someone would be required to get a car and have an ignition interlock installed if they hoped to have reduced jail time.

Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that this interpretation was incorrect.  In State v. Kara Anne Stowe, the Court found that jail time could be reduced even without the installation of the ignition interlock device for a defendant who did not own a car and did not drive during the one year following their sentence.  In other words, there is no longer a requirement that someone go out and buy a car and equip it with an interlock device to receive the jail time reduction.  Now, the interlock only needs to be installed if that person is driving during the one-year period.

By Amanda Stafford, Esq.

Arizona has recently passed several laws recently aimed at breaking down the barriers created by criminal convictions. To learn more, check out our other posts on Certificate of Second Chance and Limiting the Use of Felony DUIs as Historical Priors. Arizona has passed a new law to help citizens who have been convicted of criminal offenses get their lives back on track. A.R.S. § 13-911, which takes effect on January 1, 2023, will allow many criminal records to be sealed.

What Does it Mean to Seal a Record?

Currently, if someone is arrested, charged, or convicted, it is a matter of public record. This means anyone can look it up online or in person. Record sealing removes the case from public access, limiting who is able to see the arrest, charge, or conviction.

By Amanda Stafford, Esq.

Arizona has just signed into law House Bill 2673. The changes will take effect on January 1, 2023, and will affect Arizona’s DUI laws in 4 ways. 

1. Aggravated DUI as a Lifetime Prior Felony

Before this new change, if someone had a conviction for aggravated DUI it was considered a lifetime prior felony. The State could use someone’s prior aggravated DUI conviction against them to request a harsher penalty if they were ever found guilty of another felony. Lifetime prior felonies could be used against someone forever. 

For example, if someone at 21 was convicted of an aggravated DUI and 50 years later had a new felony charge the State could use the prior aggravated DUI against them for a harsher sentence. With the new law change, the aggravated DUI is treated more like other felonies and can only be used against them “forever” if the person is being sentenced for another aggravated DUI. Aggravated DUIs can still be used for harsher sentencing in some circumstances and depending on the age of the conviction.

Have you ever found yourself at a DUI checkpoint and wondered why the police are allowed to stop you when you did nothing wrong?  You are not alone.  In fact, many states do not allow DUI checkpoints because they violate their state constitutions.

However, the United States Supreme Court has said DUI checkpoints are constitutional.  In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the Court considered the government’s interest in preventing alcohol related accidents, the checkpoints’ ability to achieve that goal, and the infringement on personal liberties and determined that the government’s interest was so strong that it outweighed the imposition on individuals.  Despite that statement, the Court went on to carefully curtail the scope of what the police can do at a checkpoint.

Amongst those qualifications are:

• The checkpoints must be well-lit, have proper signage, and any police presence should be obvious;
• There must be advance public announcement of the time and location of the checkpoints;
• The checkpoint must have a systematic plan for its operation leaving little to no room for discretion. For example, the plan dictates that the officers only stop every fourth vehicle; and
• The plan must be non-discriminatory. Officers may not choose to check vehicles based on the driver’s race, age, or other classification.

Even though less than 1% of drivers at checkpoints are arrested for DUI, checkpoints remain a popular tool amongst law enforcement officers in Arizona.  As we approach the holidays, police departments around the State will be setting up DUI checkpoints.

In a case that is sure to have a substantial impact on the way police handle misdemeanor encounters with individuals, in Lange v. California the Supreme Court rejected a categorical rule that enabled officers to enter a home without a warrant in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court preserved the sanctity and privacy afforded to the home by ruling that the flight of a suspected misdemeanant itself does not justify warrantless entry into a home and that, barring exigent circumstances (i.e., imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, escape from the home), an officer must get a warrant.

The case started with Arthur Lange catching the attention of a California highway patrol officer by listening to loud music and repeatedly honking his horn as he drove his car. The officer tailed Lange and tried to conduct a traffic stop. Being just a few seconds away from home, Lange continued to his driveway and parked his car in the garage. The officer followed him in and prevented the garage door from closing by sticking his foot under it. Upon talking to Lange, the officer noticed signs of intoxication and put him through field sobriety tests, where he was eventually arrested for DUI.

Lange sought to have the evidence obtained from the unlawful entry thrown out, but the trial court rejected his argument, as did the California Court of Appeals, which held, “the warrantless entry did not violate the Constitution because the officer was in hot pursuit.” The US Supreme Court, which found warrantless entry into the home to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment for a fleeing felon, had not definitively answered if that applies to suspected misdemeanants as well.

When it comes to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Arizona law holds truck drivers and other Commercial Driver’s License holders to a higher standard than regular drivers —even when they are off-duty.

When CDL drivers are behind the wheel of their commercial vehicles they can be arrested and charged with a DUI if they have a Blood Alcohol Concentration of .04 percent or higher, which is half the regular legal alcohol limit.

If the CDL driver is behind the wheel of a non-commercial vehicle, such as their personal car, then the regular .08 legal alcohol limit applies. However, a DUI charge can put a commercial driver’s employment at serious risk. Regular drivers facing a DUI can lose their license for 90 days (if they consent to a blood test), while commercial drivers can lose their license for up to a year. Additionally, if your regular driver’s license is suspended, then your commercial driver’s license is also suspended until the agency that revoked it restores it. This can cause CDL holders to lose the ability to work.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, with subsequent court rulings declaring any warrantless search is unreasonable. Courts have established a handful of exceptions to the warrant requirement. Some of these exceptions allow police to enter private property if there is a compelling and immediate reason why they would need to intervene, and do not have time to obtain a search warrant from a judge. If police observe a murder about to happen inside a private home or business, for example, they would be allowed to respond immediately under this rule.

The “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment is unique from other exceptions because it does not require an immediate, urgent reason for police intervention. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) that police were allowed to seize guns out of an impounded vehicle without a warrant based on a police claim that the guns were being removed to prevent them from being stolen. The court ruled that police should be able to perform duties that take care of the community, provided their actions are “totally divorced” from the investigation of a crime.

This decision meant that police could perform a warrantless search and/or seizure, without having probable cause—which is required for a warrant—as long as these actions are not connected to a criminal investigation. However, the Court emphasized in Cady the “constitutional difference between houses and cars.”

Arizona voters made history this November when they approved legalizing recreational marijuana. Beginning November 30, 2020, adults 21 years or older can legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana, with no more than five grams in a concentrated form, and can grow up to six marijuana plants at home, as long as the plants are within a lockable enclosed area and out of public view.

This ballot initiative, called Proposition 207, will give the Arizona Department of Health Services (AZDHS) responsibility for regulating marijuana retail stores and cultivation facilities. According to Ballotpedia, the passage of Prop. 207 also allows Arizonans who have been convicted of certain marijuana-related crimes such as possession, consumption, cultivation, and transportation to petition for the expungement of their criminal record beginning July 12, 2021.

Although the law has officially been passed, the rules regarding marijuana DUI prosecution are still undecided. In other states that have legalized the plant, the legal limit for driving while high is 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood.

When accused of a crime, everyone deserves a fair trial in court. That truth is embedded in the Constitution under the Sixth Amendment. But the COVID-19 pandemic has threatened the integrity of those trials, leaving defendants at risk. With jury trials slowly beginning again in Pima County, it’s important to understand the ways COVID-19 can impact your right to due process.

The widespread use of face masks has emerged as one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of coronavirus, though it can have a troubling impact in trial proceedings. Each state has its own policy on wearing face masks in courthouses, and Arizona’s is relatively lenient. The Arizona Supreme Court mandated face masks for court employees, visitors and participants, but a judicial officer can let a testifying witness remove or pull down their mask while testifying—if it’s deemed necessary and appropriate physical distancing measures are followed.

When trial participants wear face masks, it can infringe on a defendant’s rights because obstructing someone’s face makes it impossible to assess their demeanor, which is one of the four key elements in the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause within the Sixth Amendment states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

California resident Arthur Lange was driving home one day in 2016 when he caught the attention of a California highway patrol officer, who pursued him with the intention of giving a citation for playing music loudly and honking his car horn.

Instead of conducting a regular traffic stop, the officer followed Lange to his home where Lange parked his car in the garage and headed for the door. Without getting a search warrant or consent to enter the residence, the officer entered Lange’s garage by putting his foot under the garage door to block it from closing.

Upon talking to Lange, the officer believed he could smell alcohol on his breath and charged Lange with a DUI. In court, Lange argued that the officer’s entry into his garage without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.  When the police seize evidence illegally, the exclusionary rule usually operates to bar the government from using that evidence at trial

In Arizona, officers must draw your blood within two hours of you being pulled over for suspicion of DUI if they wish to use the blood results as evidence against you. That’s because the law says you cannot have a prohibited alcohol concentration within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of a car. The police are aware of this short window and will try to draw your blood as quickly as they can. However, in some cases, a driver’s blood is not taken until 2 hours after the stop. In fact, it is not unusual for testing to occur outside the 2-hour window.

Even if the police miss the two-hour window on drawing your blood, they can still try to use the results as evidence against you by relying on something called retrograde extrapolation. This scientific process determines if you had a BAC of .08 or higher within two hours of driving. Usually, the State will have a chemist testify using the blood result and guess backwards as to what your BAC would have been within two hours of driving.

However, retrograde extrapolation has been criticized by many experts in the field. Some argue that this method requires a chemist to make several assumptions. For example, chemists often assume that the alcohol was completely absorbed at the time of testing, or that the alcohol curve was charted correctly, or that the alcohol in your system was eliminated at an average rate. These are major assumptions that may be wrong and affect the results of the chemist’s BAC estimation.

 If you refuse to take a chemical test from an officer who suspects you are driving under the influence, your license may be suspended for 1 year.  The lawyers at The Behan Law Group will fight to keep your driving privileges in tact.  However, even if your license suspension is upheld for one year, there are still ways to be able to get you back on the road. 

Arizona allows drivers facing a one-year suspension to obtain a restricted driving permit, called a Special Ignition Interlock Restricted Driver’s License (SIIRDL) for the last 9 months of the 1 year suspension. This license is separate from an ignition interlock device and is voluntary.

Requirements:

In a state where the penalties for driving under the influence are severe, it is easy to become confused on your rights when being pulled over for a DUI. The Behan Law Group wants you to understand your rights if you are stopped and investigated for a DUI. 

What is a Field Sobriety Test and a Chemical Test?  In Arizona, officers use two different types of tests to check a driver for DUI: field sobriety tests and chemical tests. Field sobriety tests are subjective tests that an officer might ask you to perform on the side of the road, such as the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test, the One-Leg Stand Test etc. On the other hand, chemical tests check your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level by testing your blood, breath, or urine. Breathalyzers, urine samples, and blood draws are all types of chemical tests.

Can I refuse to take sobriety tests?  Yes and no.  While it’s true that you cannot be forced to take a sobriety test, there are some consequences for refusing.  The fact that refused can be used against you in court in some cases.

The Court applies these factors to determine if the driver had the immediate ability to drive away. If the Court believes that the driver had the ability to immediately drive off, then the Court often finds that the driver had actual physical control.

From recent high school graduates to college students, many underage drivers in Arizona are finding out that, while DUI consequences are certainly severe, it can be even worse if you receive an underage DUI.

If you have been charged with a DUI while under the age of 21, the following information is important for you to understand.

What are the Laws for Underage Drinking and Driving?  A.R.S. §4-244 (34) makes driving under the influence as a minor illegal. This underage DUI statute, which is titled “Minor Driving with Liquor in Body,”  is often called “Baby DUI” [insert link to statute] by police, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in Arizona.  

Many drivers facing a DUI charge in Arizona ask the same question: when are breath test results admissible as evidence against me? If you have been charged with a DUI, it is important to know the difference between the Portable Breath Test (PBT) and an Intoxilyzer:

Portable Breath Test (PBT).  This handheld device is often used by officer during the initial DUI investigation. However, because these tests are widely considered unreliable and inaccurate, the PBT test is not admissible to be used against you as evidence. Remember, you are not required to submit to a PBT test under any circumstances.  [internal link to pbt blog]

Intoxilyzer.  The second form of breath testing is through the Intoxilyzer 8000, which Arizona uses as its breath test device. However, unlike the PBT, the results from the Intoxilyzer 8000 can be admissible as evidence against you in court.

 If you have been pulled over on a suspicion of drinking and driving in Arizona, an officer may perform a blood draw on you to test for either alcohol or drugs. If your blood has been drawn, the officer will obtain two vials to test by the State’s crime lab. However, whether your blood was drawn or a sample of your breath was captured, you have a right to have your blood independently tested.

 Both the Constitution and Arizona Law discuss that a DUI suspect has the right to obtain an independent blood alcohol test. A driver must be allowed to counter the state’s scientific evidence of intoxication with the defendant’s own scientific evidence.

 There are many challenges to a blood draw. For example, blood contamination, improper storing, incorrect labeling, improper collection, and a break in the police’s chain of custody are all ways to show that the blood evidence against you may have been compromised.

 In Arizona, the police can impound your car up to 30 days in some DUI cases. This applies even if the owner of the car was not present when the driver was cited for the DUI. Arizona Revised Statute §28-3511 is the law that allows the police to take your car. The law allows the police to impound the car if the driver:

1.     Did not possess a valid driver license;

2.     Had a revoked, suspended or canceled driver license;

Arizona has harsh DUI penalties, even for first offenders. Arizona was also one of the first states to require a driver convicted of a DUI to install an ignition interlock device. If convicted with a DUI, a driver will be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device at his or her own expense, in addition to paying fines and undergoing mandatory driving education and counseling. If you are facing a DUI charge, you should be aware of how Arizona’s ignition interlock devices may apply to you.

Determining Whether Interlocks Apply.  Ignition interlock devices only apply if the driver was convicted of an alcohol-related DUI, and do not apply if the driver was under the influence of another substance, such as marijuana or prescription drugs.

How the Device Works.  An interlock device requires a driver to blow into the device before the vehicle can start. If the device detects a prohibited level of alcohol, usually .02 or higher, the device registers a failure, and .the car will not start.