REDUCED | DUI Mr. S. was stopped for allegedly speeding, and was subsequently arrested for DUI. Although his breath test was above the legal limit, his performance on Field Sobriety Tests was outstanding. We were able to negotiate a plea to Reckless Driving with no jail.
(Chandler City Court No.:03-C-2191531CR): Mr. B. was involved in a traffic collision after he had been rear ended in a line of cars. He also admitted to drinking beer at a local bar, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Because Mr. B had a natural nystagmus (bouncing of the eyes combined with a BAC which was just above the legal limit), we were able to secure a plea to reckless driving with no days in jail.
State. Vs. Mr. H. (DMC No. 9374) (City of Phoenix Court No. 2009-900173801): Mr. H. was driving with a friend when his vehicle went into a ditch and crashed. When police arrived, they met with Mr. H.’s friend; Mr. H. told several different stories about what had occurred and who was driving. Independent witness stated that he heard the accident and came out to see two gentlemen walking quickly away from a black BMW. He heard one of the men say to the other man that he was going to come back to get his car before the police arrived. Due to the fact that the independent witness was not able to say which one of the two men was driving the car, combined with deviations in the alleged passenger’s story, we were able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss all charges.
Ms. K had recently moved to Arizona from California, and had purchased a new car. She had the temporary license plate taped on the window instead of mounted on her bumper. She was pulled over and cited for Failure to Display a License Plate under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-2354(A)(1). The Officer also cited her for No License in Possession under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-3169(A), and for No Registration in Possession per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-2158C. She had both of these documents and she had asked the Officer for a moment so she could find them. The Officer rudely responded “Tell that to the Judge”. When we explained what this Salt River Police Department Officer had done, the Prosecutor dismissed all charges.
Mr. F was driving his father’s car, when he was issues a photo radar ticket in the City of Tempe. We went into the hearing and presented a color copy of Mr. F’s father’s license. Because the gentleman in the license (who owned the car) appeared much older than Mr. F, the Prosecutor was required to present somebody who could testify as to the identity of the person in the photo radar ticket. The Prosecutor was unable to proceed, and they dismissed the Speeding ticket written under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-701(A).
Mr. H. was seen by DPS Officers with his vehicle off the roadway backed towards Sugarloaf Mountain Road. When they approached him, they saw that his girlfriend was in the vehicle and Mr. H. was partially out of the driver’s side. The Police eventually conducted a DUI investigated which revealed a .114 Blood Alcohol Concentration. Mr. H had 2 prior DUI convictions and a suspended license. He was subsequently charged with Felony Aggravated DUI under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-1383.
At Jury Trial, we were able to show that his car engine was not on. The vehicle had run out of gas and he was backing it up under his own leg power (combined with gravity) by allowing the vehicle to roll backwards. The Jury found that there was no “Actual Physical Control” of the vehicle, and he was found not guilty of all charges. He was originally facing a minimum of 4 months in Prison if he would have been convicted.
Mr. S was observed by a homeowner parked in front of his house and throwing what appeared to be garbage outside of the car, onto the homeowners lawn. Because it was 9:00pm at night, the homeowner called the Police. When the Police arrived, they observed Mr. S car with a flat tire and damage to the right side. Mr. S was in the passenger seat and had a cell phone in his hand. The engine was running in order to run the air conditioner (it was still 100 degrees outside), as it was summer time.
Mr. S appeared to be very intoxicated, and Police arrested him for DUI and searched the vehicle and found 1 empty and 1 partially full Vodka bottle. Mr. S. stated that he had blown his tire and had called AAA for assistance earlier in the night. Because Mr. S had a prior misdemeanor DUI convictions and his license was suspended, he was charged with Felony Aggravated DUI under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-1383(A)(2)
At Trial, we presented evidence that he had called AAA a couple of hours prior to the Police arriving. In addition, the Police could not prove whether he drank after driving or before (since the bottles were in his car). Lastly, we argued that he was in the passenger seat, therefore he was not in “actual physical control” of his vehicle. The Jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges, thus sparring Mr. S. from going to Prison. Because his BAC was so incredibly high (a .461 BAC – *not a typo), we refer to it on our website as “this is not a typo”. The Prosecutor who handled this case has earned the nickname from his coworkers of “typo”.
Someone had used Ms. W’s license when they received a DUI. Based upon the conviction, the Arizona DMV was going to suspend Ms. W’s driver’s privileges. At the hearing, we were able to present evidence that the person who was convicted of the DUI was not Ms. W. Although they were originally seeking to suspend her under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-1385, we were able to have the hearing vacated and Ms. W’s license was left intact.
Ms. S was captured in a photo radar ticket allegedly running a red light. We set the case to hearing, and the State was not able to present a witness to identify Ms. S as the driver of the vehicle. This was required, as she was cited under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-645(A)(3)(A). Because they could not satisfy the identification requirement, the Scottsdale City Prosecutor was required to dismiss all charges against Ms. S.
NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL: EXTREME DUI (.157 BAC), DUI, DWI & HIT and RUN – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 6649) (Phoenix City Court No. 3419699): Mr. C was involved in a Hit and Run accident in Glendale Arizona. After the accident, he was followed to John C Lincoln Hospital in Phoenix. While he was receiving treatment, a Phoenix Police Officer arrived on scene and questioned him. Mr. C stated that he was being chased by a man with a gun, and that is why he left the scene without stopping.
The Officer detected an odor of alcohol and then asked for a Blood Draw to be performed. Subsequently, Mr. C’s BAC was revealed to be a .157 and then he was charged with Extreme DWI, DUI, DWI and Hit and Run. At Jury Trial in the city of Phoenix, the Prosecutor could not prove that Mr. C was actually driving impaired by alcohol while in Phoenix. In addition, the Hit and Run and all observed driving took place in Glendale. Because of this, we made a Motion for a “Directed Verdict” after the State had closed their case with the Jury. That Motion was granted, and all charges were dismissed. Because the Jury had already been impaneled and trial had begun, jeopardy had been attached and all charges had been permanently dismissed.