Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 8066)

Mr. C was previously convicted of a DUI and order to install an Interlock Device on his vehicle for 1 full year. Prior to the end of the year, Arizona MVD requested an additional year be added on to Mr. C’s requirement. They claimed that the Interlock Device recorded a “request” and a “refusal” after a passed test. We were able to show them that the device would make requests after the car was shut off, and was recording false refusals. The Arizona Administrating Hearing Board agreed, and they did not extend Mr. C’s Interlock Device requirement for another year.

Call Now Button