Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 16 Miscellaneous Vehicular Crimes Victories

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – Reckless Driving – State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 16918) DEC 8, 2021 – (Scottsdale City Court No. TR2021-008788).

Ms. S was coming from her home in North Scottsdale to her job in central Scottsdale where she served as a CFO.  As she was driving in the middle lane down Shea Road heading toward 92nd Street, another car was revving its engine and continually speeding next to Ms. S’s vehicle at a close distance.  She became concerned, and sped up in order the pass the vehicle and get into the left lane.

At this time, a Scottsdale police officer was on a motorcycle and was conducting radar speed enforcement.  Subsequently, he pulled Ms. S over and stated that she was travelling 78 miles per hour in a 45 zone, and he then cited her for Criminal Speeding per ARS 28-701.02 (21 miles or more than the speed limit), and for a criminal Reckless Driving per ARS 28-693 (reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property).  The Criminal Speeding charge carried 3 points on a person’s license if convicted, and the Reckless Driving charge carried 8 points on a person’s license if convicted.

Ms. S then retained our services to challenge the Reckless Driving charge.  During our investigation efforts, while we were interviewing the Officer, it was discovered that there were high-power tension lines over that area where he was conducting his radar enforcement.  This could adversely affect his reading.  In addition, we challenged the calibration of his radar device.  In front of a Jury, all of these issues were brought forward and they ultimately returned a verdict of Not Guilty at Jury Trial.  As to the Criminal Speeding ticket, that was decided by the judge in what is known as a “bench trial,” which was conducted at the same time as the Jury Trial.  Ultimately, Ms. S paid a small fine and only had 3 points on her license.  Because she was found Not Guilty at Jury trial, this incident did not adversely affect her standing as a CFO of her company.

Approximately 3 years before ms. S hired our firm, she had been arrested while driving her vehicle. The police gave her a preliminary breath test which revealed no alcohol in her system. When ms. S refused to do field sobriety test’s, they arrested her and searched her vehicle. They found a tylenol bottle which contained various prescription drugs inside. They then charged her with dui drugs and possession of dangerous prescription drugs.

It was later shown that she did not have any impairing quantities of the drugs in her system while she was driving. In addition, she did have prescriptions for all of the medication found in her possession. At that time, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges “in the interest of justice”. However, this arrest still appeared on her record and was causing her problems with employment. She then hired us to have her arrest record cleared by way of a “notation on the record”. We were able to explain to the judge all of the proceeding facts, and he agreed with our motion argument, and issued a “notation of cleared person on the record.” this resulted in cleaning up her arrest record, and that prior arrest no longer appears when employers run background checks regarding ms. S.

NOT RESPONSIBLE/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL: FAILURE to YIELD to AVOID A COLLISION – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 6074) (Scottsdale City Court TR2006-000401): Mr. B was in his car with his wife at Stagecoach Road approaching Pima Road in Scottsdale, Arizona. After they had looked both ways, he made a right hand turn slowly, and another car struck him. The driver of the other car had a suspended license. At Bench Trial, we argued that the other driver did not have his headlights on and also was not paying attention as there was no skid on the roadway. The Judge agreed with us and Dismissed the charge of Failure to Control Speed to Avoid a Collision. Because of the seriousness of the accident, Mr. B would have been put at risk for an extremely large civil settlement if he would have lost at trial.

PARTIAL AQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL | Failure to yield/serious injury accident – State v. Ms. L. (DMC No. 8780) (Scottsdale City Court TR2008-034898): Ms. L. has been out earlier and had drank one beer.  When she was arriving home, she turned left into her apartment complex.  A motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed slammed into the side of her car and the passenger was tossed and seriously injured.  Ms. L. was charged with Failure to Yield/Causing a Serious Injury Accident and Speeding.  At trial we were able to obtain a Not Guilty verdict on the most serious charge of Failing to Yield and Causing a Serious Injury Accident.  She was only convicted of a civil Speeding ticket and given a small fine.

DISMISSED | POSSESSION of BURGLARY TOOLS/THEFT and FICTITIOUS PLATE – State v. Mr. K. (DMC No. 7870) (Maricopa/Stanfield Justice Court TR07-369): Mr. K. had been diagnosed with Asperger’s, and had become obsessed with concept of being a cat burglar. He was pulled over for having a fictitious license plate, and burglary tools and guns were found in his vehicle. When he relayed to the officer his fascination with the theory of being a cat burglar, he was charged with having a fictitious plate, a stolen gun and possession of burglary tools. We were able to present medical evidence to the County Attorney regarding Mr. K.’s mental impairment, plus they were not complying with the proper Discovery requirements, and they dismissed all charges against Mr. K.

NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL | AUTO DEALER WITHOUT a LICENSE – State v. Mr. L. (DMC No. 10194) (San Tan Justice Court TR2010-159658): Mr. L. was accused of properly owning a wholesale car dealership, and then improperly transferring ownership of those vehicles to a company that was not a licensed auto dealer. That company would then sell vehicles on EBay, thereby bypassing the need to pay any sales tax. His wholesale license only allowed him to sell to other wholesaler’s without paying sales tax. We were able to prove to the Judge that the transfer of title from his wholesaler to his unlicensed dealer business was not a “sale” under the statute. The Judge found Mr. L. not guilty of all charges.

DISMISSED | OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE DISMISSED – State v. Mr. F. (DMC No. 4996) (Tempe City Court 04-765642): Mr. F. was in downtown Tempe on Mill Avenue, when he ran across a street before the crosswalk signaled him to.  Traffic had to stop, and a bike patrol officer rode up and cited Mr. F. for “obstructing a public thoroughfare”.  Due to the age of Mr. F., and his clean criminal history, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge in exchange for community service.

Mr. L. was a student at Arizona State University who was with his roommate inside of the Big Bang Bar. When his roommate was confronted by the Manager, he was found to have a fake ID. Police were then called and Mr. L admitted that he gave his ID to his roommate so he could get into the bar. He was then cited with Unlawful Use of a Driver’s License under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-3478(2). We were able to convince the Prosecutor to dismiss the charge in exchange for Mr. L completing several alcohol awareness classes.

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).

Call Now Button