Extreme DUI Penalties Enhanced

In 2007, Arizona’s State Legislature passed two extreme DUI bills which conflicted with one another. One bill prohibited judges from reducing the extreme DUI minimum 30 day jail sentence, while the other bill permitted judges to reduce the sentence.

To resolve this conflict, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1004, which takes away a judge’s discretion to suspend any portion of a jail term for a person convicted of extreme DUI.

The Arizona Republic has reported:

Lawmakers moved swiftly Thursday to make more penalties for extreme drunken driving mandatory, a change designed to bring two conflicting provisions of the law into agreement.

Judges no longer would have discretion to waive a portion of the 30-day sentence required for first-time extreme-DUI offenders as well as a portion of the 120-day sentence mandated for second offenders. Judges now can waive 10 days of the first-time sentence and 60 days of the second-time sentence if the offender has completed a court-ordered education, treatment or substance-abuse-screening program.

…The bill passed the Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee on a unanimous vote.

As stated in the example above, a first time extreme DUI conviction in Arizona previously required a minimum 30 day jail sentence, of which 20 days could be suspended, provided the defendant successfully completed an alcohol or drug screening (and any recommended treatment.)  So persons convicted of extreme DUI actually only had to serve 10 days. The sentencing language usually read Defendant is sentenced to 30 days of jail and 20 of those days will be suspended upon successful completion of a drug and alcohol screening. Under the new bill, persons must serve the full 30 days.

San Francisco police shortage

San Francisco and the Bay Area in California is experiencing a shortage of police recruits as the number of officers retiring has increased significantly in the last few years.  This has created a need for the police force to curtail certain activities, including DUI sobriety checkpoints, as well as enforcement problems when DUI cases get to court.

Nothing has been proposed in the short term to deal with this problem.  Any one else seeing this trend?

If You Thought The New Arizona DUI Laws Were Tough, Wait Until You Hear What Other Drivers Are Doing To DUI Suspects In Scottsdale, Arizona

There has been a lot of publicity regarding the new Arizona DUI laws. These new laws have created some of the toughest penalties in the nation. However, it appears that drinking and driving in Arizona could result in something worse than jail.

Mark Flatten of the East Valley Tribune is reporting that a man shot a hit-and-run suspect in Scottsdale, Arizona.

An attempt to block a fleeing hit-and-run suspect ended with a gunshot in Scottsdale Saturday.

Martin Ezekiel, 23, of Phoenix was arrested on charges of aggravated assault after he fired a shot into a truck that had been involved in an accident a short time earlier, wounding the passenger, according to Scottsdale police.

The truck driven by Adbul Muhammad, 28, of South Carolina, struck another vehicle about 1 a.m. Saturday in a Phoenix parking lot and left the scene, according to police reports. Ezekiel and Shawn Azzarello, 24, of Phoenix, witnessed the accident and followed Muhammad’s truck into Scottsdale, eventually blocking it in a parking lot at 15550 N. 78th St. When the truck backed toward Ezekiel’s vehicle, he fired a single shot, striking an unidentified passenger in the right forearm, according to police reports. Both vehicles then left the area but were later stopped by police.

Ezekiel was arrested on charges of aggravated assault, and Azzarello for DUI and drug possession. Muhammad was arrested for DUI.

The unidentified gunshot victim was taken to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn. His wound was not considered life threatening.

I guess having to use an ignition interlock device is not as bad as being shot. Who knew that it could get worse for people suspected of DUI in Arizona?

Harrisonburg Virginia DUI Lawyer Creates Legal Rights Card

Harrisonburg Virginia DUI Lawyer Robert Keefer has designed a business card that informs people of their Constitutional rights. Keefer, who has garnered national publicity for his aggressive attacks on DUI breathalyzer machines, designed his card out of concern for a lack of understanding of one’s basic constitutional rights on the part of his many college age clients, most of whom were students at James Madison University.

In his 24 years in practice, Keefer found himself regularly defending individuals in Harrisonburg and Rockingham County courts who would incriminate themselves in DUI, underage possession of alcohol, or possession of drugs cases. He designed and began handing out his “Keefer card” around Harrisonburg, especially at Madison.

The Keefer card reads:

I Want My Lawyer!

If I’m not under arrest, let me go.

Do not question me. I assert my

5th Amendment privilege. I DO NOT

consent to any searches or entry into any

property. I DO NOT consent to any tests

except under DUI Implied Consent.

I Have An Ignition Interlock Device, Now What?

All DUI convictions in Arizona now require an ignition interlock device for at least a year. Practically speaking, this means that a person will be forced to “blow” into the device to show there is no alcohol in his or her  system every time he or she starts a car, and approximately every 15 to 30 minutes while the vehicle is operating.

There are also several Arizona statutes relating to the interlock device once it has been installed in a vehicle.  Failure to comply with these laws can result in either: (1) an extended interlock period; and/or (2) a driver’s license suspension.  Below is a summary of the requirements that apply to a person who has already had an interlock device installed. 

First, there are several reporting requirements for those required to have an interlock device.  The Motor Vehicle Division’s website mandates that:

Once installed in your vehicle, the CIID [Certified Ignition Interlock Device] must be calibrated and inspected by a certified installer every 30 days for the first three months and then every other month for the duration of installation requirement. The inspections make sure the device is working properly and detect any issues of non-compliance…

Moreover, under § 28-1461, a person must provide proof of compliance with an ignition interlock device to the department at least every 90 days.  If a person fails to submit proof of compliance, the person’s license will be suspended indefinitely until he or she proves compliance with the guidelines. See A.R.S. § 28-1463.  Most people rely on the interlock company to comply with these requirements.  I strongly recommend that a person audit the interlock company to make sure they have complied with the mandatory reporting requirements.  If the company fails to appropriately comply with the reporting requirements, the person will face the prescribed penalties. 

Second, the interlock device must be installed by an authorized installer. This issue usually arises for non-Arizona residents. For example, a Massachusetts resident visits Arizona and receives a DUI conviction. He returns to his home in Massachusetts and gets an interlock device installed in Massachusetts.  To comply with Arizona law the person should confirm the company is authorized by Arizona’s Motor Vehicle Division (there are national companies authorized out of Arizona.) Simply getting the device installed by a non-authorized company may not comply with the Arizona requirements.

Third, the person must have an interlock device in any vehicle he or she drives. For example, if a person owns two vehicles, that person cannot simply drive the car that does not have the interlock.  The person should view the interlock requirement as a restriction of his or her entire driving privileges.  Thus, the device must be in any vehicle they drive.   

Fourth, there is also a restriction from providing a person with a interlock requirement a vehicle.  Arizona law provides:

Except in cases of a substantial emergency, a person shall not knowingly rent, lease or lend a motor vehicle to a person whose driving privilege is limited pursuant to section 28-1381, 28-1382, 28-1383 or 28-3319 unless the motor vehicle is equipped with a functioning certified ignition interlock device…

On the other hand, a person with the interlock requirement: "who rents, leases or borrows a motor vehicle from another person shall notify the person who rents, leases or lends the motor vehicle to the person that the person has specific requirements for the operation of the motor vehicle and the nature of the requirements." Consequently, attempting to rent a car without the device will not satisfy Arizona law.

In the final analysis, the post-installation interlock requirements are numerous.  The penalties for non-compliance are harsh.  Therefore, if a person is required to install the device, he or she must become familiar with all terms of compliance, or the restriction may go well beyond the initial one-year term.

DUI in the San Francisco Bay area

Let’s hear your DUI experiences or those of your friends or family, from the San Francisco California Bay Area!  We can learn and grow from individual stories, and make the best defense even better.

New Jersey Judge Get DWI

A New Jersey Municipal Court judge is accused of trying use his influence to avoid DWI charges. He allegedly told the policeman that pulled him over that he would rule against him whenever he appeared in his court. The police officer was not swayed however and the judge eventually gave a breath test result of .22.

Read more about the New Jersey Municipal Court Judge.

New Jersey DWI Checkpoints

Police need to have a reason to pull you over in the first place…or do they? Checkpoints have become more and more prevelant throughout this country over the last decade or so. In general for a motor vehicle stop to be legal a police officer must have seen you violate the law in some way. Checkpoints are the exception to that rule.

You have probably seen or been a part of them yourself…you drive up and see a line of cones and officers stopping what appears to be everyone. Well checkpoints require more than just some cones and a uniformed officer or two. State vs. Kirk was the case out of New Jersey establishing that under state law a checkpoint is unconstitutional unless procedures are in place. Checkpoints need to be planned well in advance to establish these procedures which include, information that shows that the choice of location for the checkpoint is supported by data, proper police supervision, proper warnings to drivers, and proper procedures for how many cars will be stopped and in what pattern.

Checkpoint issues involve a detailed analysis of both state and federal constitutional law. Read more about New Jersey DWI checkpoints.

New Years Eve DWI Arrests in New York

Newsday is reporting at that 27 drivers were arrested in Nassau County for DWI between noon on New Year?s Eve and 9:00 a.m. on New Year?s day. This is actually down from last years reported 42 arrests in Nassau during the same time period.

LEYRITZ: What if the former Yankee was back in New York?

As everybody knows by now Jim Leyritz has been charged with DWI and DWI that Causes a Death in Forida. The question posed today is what would happen if the same incident had occurred here in New York. Generally, in most DWI cases that result in a death the defendant is eligible to receive little or no jail time and probation. But New York has been cracking down recently. For example, many will remember the Heidgen case in which the defendant was charged and convicted of murder because the prosecutor believed that his actions constituted a ?depraved indifference to human life?. There is also a new law enacted in New York charging the crime of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. To be convicted the State must prove a BAC over .18 or more than one death or that the driver was suspended for another DWI related charge. It appears Leyritz would not have to face this charge under the facts but for Sophia Santos, the first person charged under this new law, she must face up to 25 years in prison.