Source: http://duiblog.arizonaduicenter.com/tags/dui/
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 10:19:59
Document Index: 485694410

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', 'in fine']

: DUI : Arizona DUI Defense Blog
Home > DUI >
Posted on February 5, 2011 by Lawrence Koplow
Blood Testing Is About More Than A Machine
In DUI cases, an accurate blood test result requires more than just the blood tester to be working properly. A reliable test results requires more than than what the machine (the blood tester) provides. As shown below, see the machine is just a fraction of the process need to obtain an accurate and reliable result.
View more presentations from Lawrence Koplow.
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.
Tags: Arizona, Attorney, Attorney., Chemical Testing, DUI, Lawyer, Phoenix, Scottsdale
Posted on August 25, 2010 by Lawrence Koplow
Here is the math used in Arizona: INCREASED JAIL + DUI PROBLEM = REDUCED DUI PROBLEM. It makes perfect sense, right. Who would risk more than a month in jail for a few drinks.
Apparently - lots of people. Maybe even more people now, than when the penalties were previously lower. Unfortunately the State's math is flawed. Let me give you some anecdotal evidence.
Posted on June 10, 2010 by Lawrence Koplow
Scottsdale DUI: Home Detention Update
While the City of Scottsdale has approved a home detention program, it has not released any of the program's details. The most anticipated detail is the start date. As of yesterday, the start date has not been released. There has been speculation that it may not start until the end of summer. However, no one really knows. As soon as the details become available I will post them here.
Tags: Arizona, Attorney, DUI, Lawyer, Scottsdale, Scottsdale DUI, detention, home
Posted on February 22, 2010 by Lawrence Koplow
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?
Tags: Arizona DUI News, Attorney, DUI, Lawyer., Scottsdale
Posted on September 4, 2009 by Lawrence Koplow
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.
Tags: Aggravated, Arizona, Arizona DUI News, Attorney, Chemical Testing, DUI, DUI., DWI, Extreme DUI, Lawyer, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Super Extreme DUI
Posted on January 3, 2009 by Lawrence Koplow
Tags: AZ, Arizona, Attorney, DUI, DUI Videos, Lawyer, Penalties, penalities
Posted on August 22, 2008 by Lawrence Koplow
DUI Task Force This Weekend In Tempe, Arizona
Lisa Halverstadt of The Arizona Republic is reporting that the Tempe Police will have a DUI task force this weekend. Her article states:
Tempe police will have its DUI task force at Dorsey Lane and University Drive this weekend. This is the last weekend before the fall semester begins Monday at Arizona State University.
The task force command post, which will operate from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, will be located at the Tempe Fire Department/APS Joint Fire Training Center. The Tempe Police Department is collaborating with the Governor's Office of Highway Safety to host the anti-DUI effort.
Please be careful when driving this weekend.
Tags: Arizona, Arizona DUI News, DUI, Force., Task, Tempe
Posted on July 31, 2008 by Lawrence Koplow
3 Things I Wish People Knew Before Drinking & Driving
Tags: Arizona, DUI, DUI Penalties, DUI Prevention, Penalties, Phoenix, Scottsdale, prevention
Posted on June 30, 2008 by Lawrence Koplow
Tags: Arizona, Attorney, Boaing, Boatong, DUI, Lake, Lawyer, OUI, OUI., Pleasant, Promo
Posted on May 21, 2008 by Lawrence Koplow
Arizona DUI Bill May Have New Life
Luige del Puerto of the Arizona Capital Times is reporting that a proposed DUI Bill recently vetoed by Governor Janet Napolitano may have new life. The Arizona Capital times article states:
Lawmakers said they have found a way to revive a vetoed drinking-and-driving bill, minus the provision that prompted its rejection by the governor. The provisions of H2395 will be offered as a floor amendment to a House measure that deals with liquor licensing, lawmakers said. H2395 was vetoed by Gov. Janet Napolitano April 29.
This time, however, it doesn't include a provision that called for a six-month reduction of the interlock penalty for first-time offenders who met certain conditions. Napolitano has said the penalty reduction was the reason for her veto.
Sens. Linda Gray of Glendale and Jim Waring of Phoenix said the move has the support of House Speaker Jim Weiers and added they anticipate no problems for the amendment. The amendment would:
*Require the State Treasurer to deposit 5 percent of modified restaurant license fees into the DUI Abatement Fund.
*Increase penalties for operating a watercraft while intoxicated, bringing some parity between driving a motor vehicle and operating a watercraft.
*Fix a discrepancy in statute that arose from the passage of the DUI bills last year.
*Require DUI offenders to submit to alcohol screening, education and treatment before a suspended license will be returned.
*Expand the circumstances in which a police officer may serve a license-suspension order.
Tags: Arizona, Arizona DUI News, Attorney, DUI, Lawyer, Phoenix, Scottsdale
Posted on May 20, 2008 by Lawrence Koplow
Judge Suppresses Use of DUI Breath-Test Evidence
Kim Smith of the Arizona Daily Star has reported that a Tucson City Court judge has ruled prosecutors cannot use the results of breath tests administered to 49 people scheduled to be tried before him on DUI charges. Her article states:
If other judges agree with Judge Thomas Berning, prosecutors could find it hard to prosecute thousands of other DUI cases locally and statewide. "I'm optimistic the other judges will agree with Judge Berning. It's a well-written decision," said defense attorney Joe St. Louis. "This could be really big."
Last year, law-enforcement officers across Arizona began administering breath tests to suspected drunken drivers using a new machine called the Intoxilyzer 8000, St. Louis said. Almost immediately, defense experts realized the machines were sometimes providing "weird" or inexplicable results, St. Louis said.
In order to figure out what was going on, the experts said they needed to see the machines' "source card" or software. The software would also enable the experts to determine whether the results were accurate and reliable, St. Louis said.
"It's a Sixth Amendment issue," St. Louis said. "Defendants have the right to cross-examine and confront their accusers." Defense attorneys began demanding the software from prosecutors, arguing they have a constitutional right to the information. Because prosecutors revealed they didn't have access to the software, Berning ordered the machine's manufacturer, CMI, to provide the software.
When CMI refused, defense attorneys filed a motion on behalf of 49 defendants asking Berning to dismiss their cases completely, suppress the results of the breath tests or assess monetary damages against CMI. Prosecutors told Berning the software is "proprietary" and can't be ordered disclosed, and the law doesn't allow for the evidence to be suppressed. They also argued they had given defense attorneys everything they had in their possession. Late last week, Berning ruled the results of the breath tests should be withheld from jurors.
Prosecutors will still, however, be able to provide jurors other evidence that could prove a defendant's guilt, such as the results of field-sobriety tests, St. Louis said. Although she can't comment on pending litigation, city prosecutor Laura Brynwood said she plans to appeal the judge's decision.
Tags: 8000, Arizona, Arizona DUI News, DUI, Intoxilyzer, Testing, breath
Arizona law enforcement often uses breath-testing devices to determine the blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of a person suspected of DUI. The Intoxilyzer 8000 is commonly used in Maricopa County. When a person is suspected of DUI, he is generally requested to blow twice into an Intoxilyzer; this is referred to as “duplicate breath testing.”
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) has issued regulations for duplicate breath testing, which it defines as “two consecutive breath tests that immediately follow a deprivation period, agree within 0.020…of each other...”
In addition, the Department of Public Safety defines a deprivation period as “at least a 15-minute period immediately prior to a duplicate breath test during which period the subject has not ingested any alcoholic beverage or other fluids, eaten, vomited, smoked or placed any foreign object in the mouth.” Breath-testing experts have stated that the deprivation period is critical to the breath-testing process. (See Kurt Dubowski, “Quality Assurance in Breath-Alcohol Analysis,” Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 18, October 1994.)
Commonly referred to as “quality assurance” measures, the DPS regulations seek to prevent any factors from affecting the breath sample. Putting something in the oral cavity prior to the test could certainly change the results. Thus, law enforcement officials must prevent anything being put into a DUI suspect’s mouth prior to the breath tests.
When examining the breath test record, the starting and ending times of the deprivation period must be noted. A 15-minute time span wherein a person does not put anything in his mouth is not sufficient; the deprivation period must “immediately” precede the first breath test.
The record must not show any gap between the deprivation period and the first breath test. Moreover, the police officer who conducted the deprivation period should be questioned. If he cannot account for any gap in time, then the test fails to comply with DPS regulations and may be inadmissible.
Posted on March 5, 2008 by Lawrence Koplow
ARIZONA DUI LAWS PROHIBIT IMPAIRED DRIVING, NOT JUST "DRUNK DRIVING."
It is commonly believed that “drunk driving” is the reason for a DUI charge. However, DUI stands for “driving under the influence” of alcohol or drugs. Under Arizona law, you do not have to be “drunk” to be convicted of DUI. Rather, the law requires only that your driving be impaired by alcohol; Arizona law provides that you cannot drive if your ability to do so is impaired to any degree.
When you are arrested for DUI, you generally receive two types of charges. The first alleges that you were driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs to at least “the slightest degree.” Thus, to violate the statute, you do not have to be falling-down drunk. Rather, a slight impairment of your ability to drive, due to alcohol, violates the law.
The second type of charge you receive when arrested for DUI relates to your blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). For a basic DUI allegation, you’re charged with having a BAC greater than .08 percent within two hours of driving. If your BAC is greater than .150, you may receive an additional charge of Extreme DUI (or if above .200 a "super-extreme DUI.") These are sometimes referred to as “per se” charges, meaning that if the State can prove your BAC is above a certain limit, that alone proves a violation of the DUI statute.
Many “per se” violations are defended on the grounds that the means used to determine one’s BAC have a large range of accuracy. That is, even if the device used to test your breath or blood was working perfectly, your BAC may actually be lower than indicated. The State concedes that this range of accuracy exists. However, the real debate is over the extent of this range.
Let’s assume that an argument exists that expands this range of accuracy, or that some other flaw occurred in the testing process, that puts your BAC results below the per se limit of .08 percent. Does that mean the State cannot proceed with the DUI case? The State may still be able to prosecute the case, but it will be forced to rely on the charge that you were impaired to the slightest degree.
In practical terms, it would be very difficult for the State to proceed with the case if it cannot prove that your BAC was greater than .08. Moreover, there are certain legal presumptions regarding a person’s BAC that could further complicate the State’s case. However, the above situation illustrates a crucial point: You do not have to be drunk to be charged with DUI.
While I cannot remember a DUI client who was convicted with a BAC of less than .08, drivers should know that they do not have to be “drunk” to be charged with DUI. In addition, if you do get charged with DUI and end up beating the charge, the entire process will be costly and fraught with risk.
Thus, before you drink and drive, do not ask yourself “Am I too drunk to drive?” Rather, the question should be “Will the alcohol at all impair my driving?” Asking – and honestly answering – this question may keep you out of my office.
Tags: Arizona, DUI, DUI Arrests, Driving, Drunk
Posted on November 20, 2007 by Lawrence Koplow
Everyone's Blood is Not the Same
Law enforcement's primary method for determining if a person is driving under the influence of alcohol is a chemical test. That is, a police officer will take a sample of a susect's blood or breath. The chemical test assumes that the composition of everyone's blood is the same. Specifically, the test assumes that all people have the same hematocrit level. However, this assumption is incorrect.
The hematocrit level, or packed cell volume, is a measure of the proportion of blood volume that is composed by solids. Whole blood is composed of solid particles in liquid. the solid portion of whole blood contains: (1) white blood cells; (2) red blood cells; and (3) platelets. The liquid portion of the blood is known as plasma.
In this manner, if a man has a hematocrit level of .51, then his whole blood consists of 51% solids and 49% liquids (plasma). This solid to liquid ratio will effect the outcome of a blood alcohol concentration test. The reason is the liquid portion of the whole blood, the plasma, contains water. Alcohol is more susceptible of being dissolved in water than is the solid portion. Consequently, the liquid portion of the whole blood will have a higher concentration of alcohol than the solid portion.
Stated another way, the higher the hematocrit level (thus the less liquid) in the blood, the greater the concentration of alcohol in the liquid portion of the blood. Ultimately this means several people with the same amount of alcohol in their body, but different hematocrit levels, will have different test results.
Men and women have different average hematocrit levels. A normal hematocrit for a man is 45 (plus or minus 7%). Women have a normal hematocrit level of 42 (plus or minus 5%). There are numerous other factors that can effect a hematocrit level. However, a person's hematocrit is not proportional to body size.
Hematocrit ranges primarily effect breath alcohol testing. This is because in blood testing the blood is mixed with an internal standard (such as N-Propranol which has similar structure to Ethanol, but has a different number of carbons). In sum, varying hematocrit levels expand the range of accuracy in blood alcohol concentration testing. This expanded range of accuracy can be a valuable defense for a person accused of driving under the influence alcohol (DUI).
Tags: Blood, Chemical, Chemical Testing, DUI, Testing, Tests
Posted on November 15, 2007 by Lawrence Koplow
What If I Didn't Know My License Was Suspended
The most common way that a person is charged with aggravated DUI (felony DUI), is at the time when they are allegedly driving under the influence, their drivers license was suspended. As odd as this may sound, it is very common that a person did not know their license was suspended. This is because the procedures of Department of Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) are so complicated and confusing, that even most lawyers cannot figure them out. Thus, the difference between a felony DUI requiring a prison term, and a misdemeanor DUI requiring a short term of jail, can be the simple fact the person did not pay an $85.00 fee.
Most people think, "no problem, I will just explain that I didn't know my license was suspended." However, this explanation will not satisfy a prosecutor. This is because Arizona law does not require that you actually know your license is suspended to make the crime a felony. Thus, the strategy in defending these cases is to show the client did not deliberately ignore the status of his license.
Here is the basic law regarding aggravated DUI due to a suspended license. Aggravated DUI based on a suspended license requires proof that the defendant drove a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol while his license was suspended, and that he knew or should have known of the suspension. State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. at 489, 698 P.2d at 734.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-3318(A), the MVD must provide written notice to a licensee informing him when his license is suspended. The written notice must be sent by mail to the address provided to the Department on the licensee’s application, unless the licensee has notified the Department of a change in his address pursuant to § 28-448(A) (requiring licensees to “notify the department within ten days” of any change in address). § 28-3318(C). Moreover, pursuant to § 28-3318(D), “[s]ervice of the notice provided by this section is complete on mailing.” Furthermore, § 28-3318(E) provides:
Compliance with the mailing provisions of this section constitutes notice of the suspension, revocation, [or] cancellation . . . for purposes of prosecution under § 28-1383[.] The state is not required to prove actual receipt of the notice or actual knowledge of the suspension, revocation, [or] cancellation[.]
Although the law establishes a presumption that the licensee has received notice, and therefore has actual knowledge of his license suspension when the Department complies with the mailing requirement, this presumption is rebuttable and a person may demonstrate that he did not receive the notice. See State v. Jennings, 150 Ariz. 90, 94, 722 P.2d 258, 262 (1986). “[O]nce the state proves mailing of the notice of suspension, the state no longer has the burden to prove receipt of the notice or actual knowledge of its contents. The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that he did not receive the notice.” State v. Church, 175 Ariz. 104, 108, 854 P.2d 137, 141 (App. 1993).
Therefore, it is not enough for an attorney to merely argue the person did not know his license was suspended. Rather this is just the first step in the defense. The defense must also show the person did not deliberately ignore the status of his license.
Tags: Aggavated DUI, Aggravted, Arizona, DUI, Felony, Phoenix, Scottsdale
Posted on September 19, 2007 by Lawrence Koplow
New DUI Laws Start on September 19, 2007
What are the new DUI laws that go into effect today? Most people do not really know what our legislature has done to the DUI law. Effective today, Arizona probably has the toughest DUI laws in United States. There are significant penalties for first time offenders. An article written by the Arizona Republic's Linsey Collon provides a summary of the new changes.
This week Arizona will enact one of the toughest DUI laws in the nation. Hardest hit are first-time violators and a new class of "super extreme" DUI offenders whose blood-alcohol concentration registers 0.20 percent or above, which is more than double the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
Beginning Wednesday, new penalties include mandatory ignition-interlock devices for first-time offenders, increased fines and a minimum of 45 days in jail for super extreme DUI convictions.
The law was modeled after legislation passed in New Mexico in 2005 requiring interlock devices for all people convicted of driving under the influence. Officials there linked a 4 percent decrease in alcohol-related fatalities to interlock use in the year following the law's passage.
Although lawmakers hope for a similar result in Arizona, DUI attorneys say the higher stakes will lead to increased court caseloads and an extreme inconvenience in the lives of "super extreme" and first-time offenders.
The Arizona Motor Vehicle Division expects about 17,000 first-time drunken drivers in the coming year. They all will have to pass a breath test before getting behind the wheel.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, realizes the bill he sponsored may not win him votes in popularity, but he hopes the law will make Arizona's roads safer.
One Arizona State University student said during a recent chat with legislators " 'Gosh, that DUI bill is just ridiculous. Whose idea was this?' " Schapira said.
The negative response is understandable, he said, given that the penalties are meant to be strong deterrents.
Schapira, the Legislature's youngest member at 27, and his staff came up with a DUI bill earlier this year after learning about New Mexico's success. Although a victim of an alcohol-related crash in 1996, Schapira said he hadn't fully realized the problem of drunken driving in Arizona.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records show Arizona had the sixth-highest number of alcohol-related fatalities in the nation. There were 585 alcohol-related fatalities statewide in 2006, up 15 percent from 2005.
Overall, drunken driving has significantly decreased in the past 20 years, but the state has hit a plateau, said Ericka Espino, executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Arizona.
"Saturation patrols certainly help, as do sobriety checkpoints, and we're thankful," Espino said. "Unfortunately, Arizona's numbers are not going down. . . . We need to figure out what's going on. We truly believe ignition interlock is the solution for us: It takes the weapon out of the hands of the drunk driver."
The law, which was signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano in May, made Arizona the second state to require ignition-interlock devices for first-time offenders. Louisiana and Illinois also followed suit.
Interlock devices are wired beneath the dash of a vehicle and require a clean breath sample to start the car. Most units will prevent the car from starting if a blood-alcohol content of 0.03 percent or above is detected. A person has three tries to blow a clean sample before the device shuts down and requires a technician to recalibrate it.
About 100,000 people in the U.S. use the devices; about 7,000 of those are in Arizona, according to MVD records. Most, if not all, users in Arizona are repeat offenders.
The harsh new stance on drunken drivers has its share of detractors. Critics say interlock devices are expensive to maintain and provide a short-term answer to a long-term problem.
The offender pays for the device, which typically costs $100 for installation and about $80 a month to maintain. Most first-time offenders will have the device for 12 months. That cost is in addition to the more than $1,000 in fines imposed for a DUI conviction.
And studies have shown that while interlock devices are effective while in use, drivers tend to slip into old habits once the units are removed.
"We recognize that many offenders may have an alcohol dependency that underlies their drinking-and-driving behavior," said Anne McCartt, vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "Even if interlocks don't prevent drinking and driving when they're removed, it can reduce drinking and driving while they're installed, and we think that's important."
The article goes on to point out that the new law requires those charged with the new "super extreme" violations (BACabove a .200) must serve at least forty-five (45) days in jail. The likely result of these new penalties is that more people will take there there cases to trial. Since the penalties are so server for first time offenders, there is little incentive for a person to enter into a plea agreement.
Tags: Arizona, Arizona DUI News, DUI, Laws, New
Posted on June 23, 2007 by Lawrence Koplow
Lawrence Koplow, Drunk Driving (DUI) Attorney / Lawyer, Arizona
Arizona DUI attorney Lawrence Koplow is a former DUI and Vehicular Crimes prosecutor. Lawrence uses what he learned as a prosecutor to help his clients charged with drunk driving crimes. His practice, which is located in the Phoenix / Scottsdale area, is focused on DUI defense.
Arizona law is unique when it comes to the crime of DUI. Thus, it is important to understand exactly what conduct is illegal in our State. Under the current law, 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 defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body;
Under subsection one of the statute, it plainly states that a person has committed DUI when they are merely "impaired to the slightest degree" by alcohol. Thus, a person doe not have to be "drunk" to in violation of Arizona law.
The penalties for a first time Arizona DUI conviction are numerous. A conviction for a first offense DUI conviction is a class 1 misdemeanor. Consequently, the maximum jail sentence is six months; and the maximum fine is $2500. For most cases, the maximum penalties are very unlikely. On the other hand, the statute contains several other penalties. The following list outlines these potential penalties:
Mandatory minimum jail term of 24 hours (1 day)
Fine of not less than $250.00
May be ordered by a court to perform community restitution
An assessment of 500.00 to the prison construction and operations fund
An assessment of 500.00 to the state treasurer in the state general fund
Court ordered alcohol screening, education or treatment program
A DUI conviction also results in 8 points on a person's driver license. The accumulation of these points will result in the the Motor Vehicle Division of the Department Transportation requiring the motorist to attend Traffic Survival School. As stated above, a person will also have their driver's license suspended. The suspension is for a period of 90 days. However, a restricted license may be available after the first 30 days of the suspension.
These cases are complex and the penalties are harsh. If you are facing a DUI charge then feel free to contact Lawrence Koplow online, or call him at his Phoenix / Scottsdale area office at (602) 494-3444 to discuss your legal options.
Tags: Arizona, Attorney, DUI, Lawyer, Penalties., Phoenix, Promo
Lawrence Koplow, Aggravated DUI Attorney / Lawyer, Arizona
Aggravated DUI is one of the most serious vehicular crimes in Arizona. The crime is codified in subsection 28-1383 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. It is one of the few crimes that can require a mandatory prison term for first time felony offenders.
ELEMENTS OF AN AGGRAVATED DUI
Under Arizona law, a person is guilty of Aggravated DUI, sometimes known as felony DUI, if the person does any of the following:
Commits a violation of section 28-1381 (DUI), section 28-1382 (extreme DUI) or 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 as a result of violating section 28-1381 or 28-1382 or under section 28-1385.
Within a period of eighty-four months commits a third or subsequent violation of section 28-1381 (DUI), section 28-1382 (extreme DUI) or this section or is convicted of a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section and has previously been convicted of any combination of convictions of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section or acts in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section.
While a person under fifteen years of age is in the vehicle, commits a violation of either the DUI or extreme DUI statutes
(b) Commits a violation of section 28-1381 (DUI), or section 28-1382 (extreme DUI).
Aggravated DUI is a class 4 felony when the person is alleged to have committed a DUI while his license was suspended, revoked, canceled or restricted (including an ignition interlock). It is also a class 4 felony when it is alleged that the person committed a third DUI within 84 months. Moreover, Aggravated DUI is a class 6 felony when it is alleged that the person committed a DUI offense and there was a person under the age of 15 years old is in the automobile. It is also a class 6 felony to have a requirement of an ignition interlock device and while under arrest refuse to submit to any test chosen by a law enforcement officer pursuant to Arizona's implied consent law.
The penalties for an Aggravated DUI will vary depending on portion of the statute violated. For class 4 felony DUI cases: "a person is not eligible for probation, pardon, commutation or suspension of sentence or release on any other basis until the person has served not less than four months in prison." The minimum prison term can be raised to eight months in certain circumstances. The term of imprisonment will be followed by a term of probation. However, it is important to remember that a judge is not required to sentence a person to these stated minimum terms. While uncommon, a judge does have the discretion to sentence a person to a longer term of prison.
For the class 6 felony, prison is not mandatory. However, a person will have to serve a term of jail. The minimum term of jail will be based on the results of the person's blood alcohol concentration test. Thus, the minimum term of jail will be either one day or ten days (soon to be increased by the legislature.)
Beyond incarceration, there are several other penalties that come with an Aggravated DUI conviction. Below is summary of a few of the potential penalties:
Attend and complete alcohol or other drug screening, education or treatment from an approved facility;
Revocation of the person's driving privileges;
Require the person to equip any motor vehicle the person operates with a certified ignition interlock device;
Order the motor vehicle owned and operated by the person at the time of the offense forfeited;
Fine of not less than seven hundred and fifty dollars;
Pay an additional financial assessments.
If you are charged with an Aggravated DUI offense then feel free to contact Lawrence Koplow online, or call him at his Phoenix / Scottsdale area office at (602) 494-3444 to discuss your legal options.
Tags: Aggravated, Aggrvated, Arizona, Attorney, DUI, Lawyer, Promo