Our Location

40 N. Central Ave, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
January 1, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 10 Felony Aggravated DUI Pre-Charge Victories, 111 Felony Aggravated DUI Pre-Charge Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, 908 Phoenix DUI Wins, Case Victories

State v. Mr. M. (DMC No. 7077)

NOT CHARGED | FELONY AGGRAVATED DUI (.110 Breath) (DMC No. 7077) (Phoenix Police Department): Mr. M. was stopped for an alleged DUI and cited in the Phoenix City Court. It was discovered by the City prosecutor that Mr. M. had a prior DUI, and he also had children in the car who were under 12 years of age. They decided to dismiss charges and route it to the County Attorney’s Office for felony DUI prosecution. We were able to show the County Attorney that although Mr. M. had left the scene of a minor traffic accident, he did not know there was actually any damage. We also showed that when he was arrested for possible DUI, they did not have enough probable cause for the arrest, even though he later provided a breath test of a .110. Although Mr. M was originally facing prison, we prevented any charges from being filed against him.

December 20, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1600 Probation Violation Victories, 2100 Superior Court Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Ms. R (DMC No. 9095)

DISMISSED – Probation Violation, State v. Ms. R. (DMC No. 9095) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2006-109586): Ms. R was on probation for Burglary (a Class 3 Felony), when her Probation Officer filed a Petition to Revoke her Probation due to various violations. We were able to show that Ms. R was on Standard Probation and not Intensive Probation, so a violation of Term 17 (Consumption of Alcohol) would not result in an Automatic Revocation. In addition, there was only an admission of alcohol consumption, and not any hard evidence. The State then moved to Dismiss the Petition to Revoke, even though Ms. R was facing a potential of years in prison.

November 27, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1000 Complete Jury Trial Acquittals / All Criminal Charges, 2100 Superior Court Victories, 50 Assault/Violent Crime Jury Trial Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, Case Victories, Jury Trial Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Ms. L. (DMC No. 11667)

Not Guilty / Complete Acquittal / Felony Aggravated Assault (2 Counts) – State v. Ms. L. (DMC No. 11667) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2013-102278-001):

Ms. L. had called 911 due to a domestic violence dispute in her home in Mesa, Arizona where her roommate had assaulted her.  Two Mesa Police Officers arrived and eventually claimed that Ms. L. assaulted them.  One officer claimed that Ms. L. pushed him, and the other claimed that Ms. L. spit on him.  Knowingly touching a police officer with the intent to insult, injure, or provoke him/her is a Felony Aggravated Assault.  The entire incident was captured on video from a mounted camera on one of the officer’s shoulders.  After jury trial in which the attorney from our firm showed through testimony of various witnesses that the police officers lied both in their police reports and on the witness stand Ms. L. was found not guilty on both charges by the jury of her peers.

November 19, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 46 Theft Pre-Charge Victories, 47L Shoplifting Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. K (DMC No. 7082)

NOT CHARGED | SHOPLIFTING – Ms. K. was observed at a Dillard’s store in the Scottsdale Fashion Square.  She was stopped approximately 100 meters outside the store by store security and they found various items of clothing that still had security tags on them in her bag.  They obtained her information, then released her and contacted police.  Because the police hadn’t actually interviewed Ms. K., in addition to some of the issues regarding her being detained and questioned, we were able to keep any charges from being filed against Ms. K.

November 19, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43A Fraudulent Schemes Pre-Charge Victories, 46 Theft Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. C (DMC No. 7085)

NOT CHARGED | EMBEZZLEMENT/THEFT – Ms. C. was Treasurer of a local homeowner’s association.  She was accused of taking $7,500.  The Homeowner’s Board was suspicious and was asking to check the books.  We were able to get involved, get all the money paid back and keep this from going forward to the police for charges.  Ms. C. would have been facing potential years in prison.

November 19, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 41 White Collar Crime Victories, 47J Forgery Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. V (DMC No. 7089)

NOT CHARGED | FORGERY – Ms V. was a registered nurse who worked for a doctor’s office and was addicted to prescription pills.  She had apparently taken the doctor’s prescription pad and forged scripts for various narcotic drugs.  With our involvement, we were able to convince the prosecutor’s office not to file charges.

November 19, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43A Fraudulent Schemes Pre-Charge Victories, 46 Theft Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 7091)

NOT CHARGED | EMBEZZLEMENT/THEFT – (DMC No. 7091) State v. Ms. S.: Mr. S. worked in an AM/PM convenience store and he was accused of stealing money from the register.  He admitted that he stole about $200 per month, which totaled $1,000.  Later, allegations went up to $20,000 stolen over the course of a year.  Because the surveillance cameras did not actually show Mr. S. placing money in his pocket and due to the fact that their insurance company had reimbursed the store’s owners, we were able to keep charges from being filed against Mr. S., and prevent him from facing multiple years in prison.

November 18, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Blog

How to Find an Interlock Device for your Car

This is a Guest Post from Barry Saunders owner of Ignition Interlock Company, Quick Start AZ.

Are you in need of an interlock device for your car? If so, you are probably interested in having one of these installed for one of two reasons:

  • You have been required to do so by law due to a recent conviction of driving under the influence
  • You realize you have a problem with drinking and driving, and are attempting to fix your issue before it gets you into trouble

Either way, you need to realize that there are steps you can take to find the best interlock device for your car.

What is an Interlock Device?

An Ignition Interlock Device (IID) or Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) checks your blood alcohol concentration before allowing you to start your vehicle.

If the alcohol analyzed in your system from your breath is above legal limits,  the IID will disable your ignition system, rendering your vehicle inoperable. Even after you have passed your initial breath test to start your car, the system will at random times require another breath sample. For a failed breath test in a moving vehicle, an alarm (e.g., honking horn , flashing lights) will sound and will not turn off until the vehicle comes to a complete stop and the ignition turned off.

How to Find the Best Interlock Device

It is one thing to say you are going to purchase an interlock device, but another thing entirely to find and install the one that is best for you and your vehicle.

When searching for an interlock device, pay close attention to the many models that are currently on the market. There are several to consider, so you want to take your time and be patient before making a final decision. Making the wrong choice can prove very costly.

Here are standard factors to consider when searching for the best interlock device:

  • Product Features
  • Reputation for Reliability
  • Ease of use
  • Product Support
  • Price

The latest models of the best interlock devices have as standard features these essential functions:

  • Adjustable breath sample volume which is essential for those with breathing difficulties like asthma.
  • An understandable clear bi-lingual user interface with text and voice messages.
  • Remote Lockout Override via phone to reduce expensive towing and service calls.
  • Durable ergonomic construction that fits well in your hand and in your vehicle with no small parts to break off easily.
  • Vehicle Mechanic Mode for easy car servicing by a phone call. This option is used if the vehicle requires automotive (non-Interlock) service by a mechanic.
  • Breath alcohol validation via ethanol specific fuel cell technology that eliminates problems with failed tests attributable to cigarette smoke or vehicle exhaust. Fuel cell units are considered the ‘gold standard’ of all alcohol monitoring units.
  • Redundant buttons in the event that any of the controls used to operate the unit becomes inoperable, the remaining buttons will assume that function.

Questions to Ask yourself

Now that you have some basic information as to the features to consider when buying an interlock device, there are sure to be a few questions on your mind. Here are several questions to ask and answer before making the crucial buying decision:

  • Does the interlock device have a reputation for being 100 percent reliable?
  • Is there an authorized dealer in my area that can offer installation services?
  • What is the process for using the interlock device, and will I receive training from the company that installs it on my vehicle?

When you answer these types of questions, among others, you will find it much easier to make a final decision on which device to purchase.

At this point, you should have a better understanding of how to find an interlock device for your car.

 

About the Author: Barry Saunders

Barry Saunders is the founder and owner of www.QuickStartAZ.com. QuickStart Ignition Interlock AZ is the premier ADOT certified provider for your Ignition Interlock Device. As Arizona’s exclusive INTERLOCKCUP PROVIDER, his clients can avoid the embarrassment of an interlock device.

November 16, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 4AA DUI Drugs Reduced, 909 Scottsdale DUI Wins, Case Victories, City Court Victories, Scottsdale City Court Victories

State v. Mr. V (DMC No.)

REDUCED | DUI (Scottsdale City Court No.: 200312810CR): Mr. V. was stopped for allegedly weaving in and out of his lane. He subsequently stopped and the officer stated he had slurred speech. He also stated he took allergy medication and had two (2) more pills than the recommended dosage. He was subsequently arrested for DUI in Scottsdale, and a warrant was obtained in order to draw his blood. Although his blood test came back above the legal limit, we were able to convince the prosecutor that any impairment observed was due to allergy medication. An offer to reckless driving was obtained with zero days in jail.

October 20, 2013
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1300 Bench Trial Victories, 1300A Complete Bench Trial Acquittal / All Criminal Charges, 15A Vehicular Homicide Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 2A Vehicular Crimes Bench Trial Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 79G Manslaughter Victories, Case Victories, Phoenix City Court / Phoenix Municipal Court Victories

State v. Ms. K (DMC No. 11498)

Not Guilty / Complete Acquittal at Bench Trial – Vehicular Homicide / Misdemeanor Manslaughter – State v. Ms. K (Oct. 20, 2013) (DMC No. 11498) (Phoenix City Court – 4636123):  Ms. K was traveling with a friend in her vehicle when she was headed south bound on 59thAvenue.  She began making a left hand turn when a motorcycle zoomed up on the left hand lane headed north bound, and had struck the back quarter panel of her vehicle. The motorcyclist died on the scene. Ms. K was then investigated and charged with Vehicular Homicide/Misdemeanor Manslaughter per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-672 (A4).  We became involved in the case, and we interviewed the numerous Officers and civilian witnesses who were involved.

The key witness was a driver of a construction truck who was headed north bound in the middle lane.  He had dark tinted windows and a large vehicle.  He stated that the victim was on his motorcycle following him at approximately 45 miles per hour.  He stated that just prior to the intersection where the collision occurred, the motorcycle snapped into the left lane, and “opened it up” to 70 miles per hour.  This was occurring right as Ms. K was making her left hand turn.

At Bench Trial, we introduced evidence that Ms. K’s view was blocked by the truck.  This was confirmed by the truck driver.  In addition, we were able to show that the victim in the case was driving recklessly on his motorcycle, and he was a major causation of the accident. The Judge agreed and Acquitted Ms. K on all criminal charges.

1 … 107 108 109 110 111 … 177
Call Now Button