Posted on August 09, 2022 in Legal

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.

There are still circumstances when someone could see the prior arrest, charge, or conviction. For example, a prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or someone doing certain background checks could still see the records.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 12, 2022 in DUI

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 12, 2021 in DUI

By Amanda Stafford, Esq.

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;

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 29, 2021 in Legal

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 10, 2021 in DUI

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 09, 2021 in Legal

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 09, 2020 in DUI

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 05, 2020 in Legal

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 05, 2020 in DUI

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

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 07, 2020 in DUI

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.

Continue Reading ››