This qualifies as absurd. A 200 feet pursuit. What a waste of police resources.
Quoted from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92028605:
North Pole man clipped for DUI on riding mower : NPR
NORTH POLE, Alaska June 24, 2008, 10:06 pm ET
The case in the article quoted below is a good example of how framing and viewpoint can drastically impact a prosecution, the level of the charge, and the collection of evidence. In cases where there are two potential defendants and one defendant is needed as a witness against the other, prosecutors can and sometimes do engage in selective prosecution based on which potential defendant they deem more culpable, or, sometimes, on which case they think their best chances for success rests.
Quoted from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/25/20080625crash0625.html:
A question of justice in deadly accident
The case underscores the sometimes-subjective process that authorities use in determining whom should be prosecuted in a crime, particularly after a fatal accident when witness accounts vary.
If you get pulled over for a DUI in the Phoenix area, you won’t have the possible honor of having your friendly Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputy assisted by posse-member O’Neal.
Whatever the naughty word was that Sheriff Joe took offense to, I would hazzard a guess that Shaq is on record saying it more than once in the past, and more than once before he was initailly admitted to the posse and the made a colonel.
That opens the question of what kind of background checks really go into our citizen posse here in Maricopa County. This Shaq things is silly, but the questions it raises are serious.
Quoted from http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-shaq-kobe-rap&prov=ap&type=lgns:
Shaq gets slapped by sheriff for rap about Bryant – NBA – Yahoo! Sports
PHOENIX (AP)
Here are the results of the most recent Tucson DUI sobriety checkpoint. They contacted a huge number of people to arrest 22. Whether this is the best use of police resources in an attempt to arrest drunk drivers in Tucson is certainly open to debate.
The part of this article that I find interesting is that the average BAC of those arrested in this Tucson DUI event was .151, which is extreme DUI. Is this because the average person above the legal limit had the good sense to avoid the checkpoint? And only the "extreme" people were out of it enough to drive right into it?
In my practice, I would guess that the average BAC that I see is around .150 or so. So it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the average in Arizona.
Quoted from http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/88993.php:
City checkpoint nabs 22 on suspicion of DUI
Tucson police staffing a sobriety checkpoint over the weekend stopped 1,209 motorists in the midtown area, arresting 22 on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, police said in a news statement. Of the 22 arrested, seven were cited on suspicion of extreme DUI, Sgt. Timothy Reese said. Under Arizona law, a motorist is presumed impaired with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent and is presumed extremely impaired with a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent. The average blood alcohol level of the 22 arrested motorists was 0.151 percent, Reese said.
Poor guy. This is really sad. While it may be unlawful to drive a wheelchair on the highway while six times the legal limit, I would guess that there are more constructive things to do in a case like this than to prosecute.
Quoted from http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC36032520080623?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=22&sp=true:
Man in wheelchair charged with drunk driving | Oddly Enough | Reuters
CANBERRA (Reuters) – Police in Australia have charged a man for drink driving in a motorized wheelchair after he was found to be six times over the legal alcohol limit, local media reported on Monday.
Police in the tropical northern Queensland city of Cairns said the man had a blood alcohol reading of 0.31, and was so drunk he was asleep at the controls of his motorized wheelchair in a turning lane of a major highway.
“It beggars belief,” Police Inspector Bob Walters told the Cairns Post newspaper, adding wheelchairs, bicycles, horses and skateboards were all considered to be vehicles under the state’s road laws.
“It’s unlawful, it is unacceptable and people should realize it could lead to a fatality,” he said.
Other motorists on the four-lane highway had to swerve to avoid the wheelchair, police said.
It never ceases to amaze me when anybody gets two DUIs during the same drinking episode. Add to it the fact that this was a prosecutor, and you have quite a story. Not much to say here that isn’t obvious or already said.
Quoted from http://www.lvrj.com/news/20595859.html:
ReviewJournal.com – News – Nye County district attorney cited for DUI after two wrecks
Nye County District Attorney Robert Beckett is facing a drunken driving charge in California — and what figure to be some uncomfortable questions from his constituents — after crashing two vehicles on the same desert highway six hours apart.
Beckett, 49, totaled his county-issued sport utility vehicle in the first rollover accident, which occurred about 1:30 p.m. Sunday on California Route 127 just south of Shoshone, Calif.
Then, after catching a ride back to his home in Pahrump in a tow truck, Beckett headed back out on the same highway in the family van, only to crash again at 7:35 p.m. about 35 miles south of the first accident scene.
The California Highway Patrol officer called to the scene of the second wreck reported smelling alcohol on Beckett’s breath.
We are pleased to announce that we have taken the next step towards opening our second office, which will be in Tucson, Arizona. We except the law office to open its doors in early 2009. In the meantime, we will continue to practice in both the Phoenix and Tucson areas out of our Scottsdale office. When the Tucson office opens in early 2009, we expect to merge with another well respected Phoenix area DUI defense firm.
We are also pleased to announce the acquisition of a Tucson phone number. Our Tucson clients will no longer need to use the 480 number, and can now reach us at (520) 232-2225. This is an exciting time for our firm, and we look forward to continuing the great service we have given to our clients over the past nine years.
Quoted from http://www.duiattorney.com/Arizona/tucson-dui.html:
Tucson DUI Attorney – Arizona DUI Lawyer
Tucson DUI Lawyer
“Pima County Justice Court Building”SO YOU’VE BEEN ARRESTED FOR DUI IN TUCSON: You probably already have your court date, unless you are being charged with a felony. Assuming you were arrested by the Tucson Police Department or the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, you may have given a breath sample, a blood sample, or both.
This is a very good idea. A think a lot of people would pay the convenience charge to avoid the long wait times at the government run MVD offices. It should also relieve some of the pressures on the state run offices.
Quoted from http://www.wickenburgsun.com/articles/2008/06/11/news/news16.txt:
The Wickenburg Sun – Wickenburg, Arizona: News
Understanding that people often do not want to wait in line and want superior, quick service when transacting motor vehicle business, Vickie Bowling, Deanie Echols, and Wendy Echols decided to open a business and serve Wickenburg customers.
Out West Titles & Tags is an authorized third-party provider for the Arizona Vehicle Department (MVD). The company handles most motor-vehicle transactions such as inspecting, licensing and registration, and trip permits on behalf of the MVD. The company charges the state MVD fees plus a convenience charge ranging from $5 to $20 for the most complicated.
Third-party MVD contract offices are designed to give convenient service to the customer and reduce the wait times at the regular MVD offices. They are used both by individuals and businesses.
The movement to speed up the administration of DUI cases in Arizona has some extreme implications for justice. There is a rule, known as the right to a speedy trial, which is found in Rule 8 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. It guarantees a defendant the right to be brought to trial within 180 days. This rule is for the benefit of the accused, so that they are not exposed to the stress of prosecution any longer than necessary, and so that witnesses who may be able to testify on their behalf remain available.
But there is a difference between giving a defendant a right to a speedy trial and forcing a speedy trial down the throats of litigants. The problem is that investigations in DUI cases, which are sometimes as scientifically complex as DNA cases, often takes much longer than 180 days to develop. Often times overworked prosecutors offices are slow to get discovery to DUI defense lawyers, and crime labs prefer to concentrate on analyzing evidence rather than documenting their processes and giving interviews to defense lawyers.
So if we keep packing judicial selection boards with people who will empower judges beholden to a system of fast-food DUI process in Arizona, justice will suffer. DUI cases are not assembly line. Each one is unique and takes the personal time and attention of lawyers for both sides. If the system of justice in DUI cases is compromised, then it will be easier to abdicate our system of justice in other cases. I believe that our system of justice which guarantees the accused the right to prepare and present an adequate defense is the backbone of our freedom and society. If we give that up in the name of cramming cases through in the DUI arena, it will set a dangerous prescedent.
So I urge Mr. Knoblock to exercise caution when appointing judges, and look for the fairness in the candidates, not the speed and efficiency with which they can process drunk driving cases.
Quoted from http://www.bensonnews-sun.com/articles/2008/06/17/news/snews.txt:
Cochise County Superior Court Presiding Judge Wallace R. Hoggatt has appointed Joseph P. Knoblock to the county’s Judicial Merit Committee. The merit committee reviews grievances and appeals related to the Judicial Merit System.Knoblock is Justice of the Peace for Justice Court 3 which includes the greater Benson area. He has been on the bench since January 2006, and also serves as the county’s associate presiding JP and as Benson City Magistrate.
In other court news, Justice Court 3 has been selected to take part in a test project involving the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s photo radar enforcement program. Appeals of tickets issued in the Benson area through the DPS photo program will be heard by Judge Knoblock.
Knoblock’s court is also working with the Arizona Supreme Court on a project to speed up the handling of DUI cases. The goal of the project, says Knoblock, is to process 95 percent of all DUI cases in 180 days or less.
Under regular court procedures, some DUI cases can be repeatedly postponed, delaying the adjudication process up to a year. Knoblock says benefits of the project’s streamlined procedures include reduced court costs and a quicker referral of defendants for counseling.
Arizona has long been ahead of other states in its willingness to allow officers to extract blood against an arrestee’s will if the person refuses to submit to a breath or blood test when the officer asks.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Organization (NHTSA), which publishes extensively on the subject of DUI, put out a study of search warrants in DUI cases. Arizona was one of the main states studied.
The article is an interesting read and worthwhile to anybody who tries to understand the answer to the question of "it’s only a misdemeanor DUI, how can they get a warrant and tie me down and take my blood?"
DUI search warrants are speading throughout the country. Arizona, as usual, is on the forefront of police tactics that seem invasive and over the top (see officer blood draws for another example). However, in time, what Arizona does the rest of the nation, at least in DUI law, seems to eventually accept.
For all of its benefits in the practice of DUI law, misdemeanor courts in Washington State lack something that misdemeanor courts in Arizona have. That is the ability of an attorney to waive the client’s presence at the arraignment and enter please of not guilty for the client in DUI cases.
When I used to practice DUI law in Washington State I, along with many other private attorneys, would spend hours waiting for cases to be called in court, simply to tell the judge what was already a foregone conclusion, that the client would plead not guilty. In Arizona DUI cases, most courts will allow trusted private attorneys to waive the client’s presence at each hearing until the DUI case is concluded. This frees that DUI attorney’s time to investigate the case, interview the police and other witnesses and do things that are much more meaningful than sitting around on hard court benches waiting for a case to be called.
I am usually the first to say that Arizona should look to Washington State DUI law and procedure to make improvements, but in the case of arraignments, it is Washington State that should take a clue from Arizona.
Quoted from http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6iXsebIyLAOD0WvQHyiQ6vpuDJg:
The Canadian Press: Seahawks linebacker Tatupu enters not guilty plea to DUI charge
KIRKLAND, Wash.
The article below is a good example of a defense lawyer using the strategy of attaching just one of the elements in a DUI case.
It is entirely the state’s burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. So if, in the typical DUI case all of the following aren’t proven, then a jury should find the DWI defendant not guilty.
If they fail to prove every element, then the law mandates a not guilty verdict.
Quoted from http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article628470.ece:
Lawyer says client wasn’t at wheel in DUI fatalities – St. Petersburg Times
As Stephen went on trial Monday for their deaths, his lawyer conceded that, yes, his client’s maroon Chevy pick-up was involved. And yes, his client was drunk in those early morning hours of March 26, 2006.
But defense attorney Kenneth Foote said the state will not be able to prove that Stephen was the one behind the wheel.
Mrs. Snoop Dogg got busted for DUI in California over the weekend. If she had been arrested for DUI in Arizona, there is a good chance that she would have been asked the take a blood test, and a blood test forcibly administered to her if she refused. This brings up an interesting point:
If you are pulled over for DUI in Arizona and the police take your blood and initially look for alcohol, the crime lab may also screen that blood for the presence of illegal drugs. If any prohibited drug (or its metabolite) is found in the blood, they can add an additional count of DUI by drugs. There is no requirement in Arizona that the person be impaired by drugs, only that evidence of a prohibited drug is present in that person’s system.
Quoted from http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur44378.cfm:
EURweb.com – Black Entertainment | Black News | Urban News | Hip Hop News
*A mug shot of Snoop Dogg’s wife Shante Broadus is not something one would expect to ever see, but there it was all over the Internet Saturday night after she was popped hours earlier for suspicion of DUI.
“Boss Lady,” as she is know, was driving alone when she was stopped by police at about 12:15 a.m. Saturday in Fullerton, California, which is located south of Los Angeles in the O.C.
In Arizona DUI cases, shaming is now a serious part of the DUI penalties in many jurisdictions. Below, from Sierra Vista is an example. There are many other examples in Phoenix and Tucson, and throughout Arizona. If you face an Arizona DUI, make sure you are aware of the publication potential of any conviction that you may get before you agree to any sort of plea bargain.
Quoted from http://www.svherald.com/articles/2008/06/15/news/doc4854cb1fc71b7576586686.txt:
Sierra Vista Herald | The Bisbee Daily Review
The following are sentencings in Cochise County Superior Court, as provided by the court system. The listings include disposition date, charge and sentence. “Monetary” can be a fine or restitution, or both.
I have had several responses to my Arizona DUI article in American Chronicle arguning that it is not illegal to drink and drive in Arizona, but really it is. To clarify, it is NOT illegal to have a drink or drinks in Arizona and then drive. It is against the law to be impaired by alcohol to the slightest degree while driving. The problem is the political climate. What does it really mean to be impaired to the slightest degree? I could give you the legal and technical definitions, but where the rubber meets the road in these cases is where the jury deliberates.
In courtrooms throughout Arizona, from Tucson to Phoenix, from Yuma to Flagstaff and everywhere in between, almost every day, juries are asked to decide whether somebody who drank and then drove was impaired. The public relations campaigns by MADD and the state government are taking their toll, and more and more frequently juries come into Arizona DUI cases thinking that the person is guilty because they drank and drove.
Quoted from http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/65045:
American Chronicle | New Arizona DUI Laws: Arizona Still Most Punative On Drunk Drivers
An Arizona DUI is a serious charge, as is a drunk driving arrest anywhere in the United States. But Arizona’s harshness of penalties surprise many. Businesses in Tucson and Phoenix, where the public transportation system is difficult, may suffer serious downturns as the public becomes more aware of the downside risk of driving after drinking. There is no easy solution to the issue of drunk driving, and Arizona’s approach will one day be viewed as either draconian or visionary. Only time will tell. In the meantime, if you have anything to drink in Arizona, best to stay off the roads.
Use of this site is subject to our disclaimer and terms of use.
Copyright 1999-2009 - DUIAttorney.com LLC
