Newspapers love to write about DUI cases, laws, and procedural issues. Apparently people enjoy these stories, and they seem to show up in batches, often with local law enforcement DUI stats input such as in Payson/Gila County and Tuscon/University of Arizona.

There may be some value in the warnings against the risks and hazards of drunk driving. If these articles encourage people to seek alternative transportation when drinking, then no one would argue that that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, these articles often have strange, misleading, and downright false facts and quotes. This may be because reporters don’t always have the subject matter expertise to parse through complicated legal facts. Or it may be that the editing process oversimplifies certain information to the point of making it illogical and incomprehensible.

One such example is where Assistant Payson Town Attorney Tim Wright is quoted as saying:

Wright said the field sobriety test is not a pass-fail.

“An officer has to look at the totality. Do they think they are impaired to the slightest degree?” he said.

It is true that an officer looks at the totality of evidence in determining impairment, and whether to arrest someone. Factors often cited by police officers in DUI arrests such as  “unsteady on his/her feet”, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and smelling of alcohol are entirely subjective assessments that make one wonder, compared to what?

However, standardized field sobriety tests as designed by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are absolutely as pass-fail. The very point of the studies done behind these tests is to establish objective statistical evidence that someone who fails these tests has a legitimate statistical likelihood of being impaired.

And that objective assessment critically depends on officers administering and scoring these tests exactly as designed. For example, on a 9 step walk and turn test (heel to toe), the officer is specifically looking for 8 clues as to possible impairment. If an individual misses 2 or more elements of the test, that person is said to have failed the tests, and is 68% likely to have a BAC of over .10.*

The details in these cases really do matter.

And it is not to suggest that the Attorney quoted was mistaken, I’m sure he knows the facts. It is much more likely that it was an error in reporting or quoting. It’s simply a fact that these news accounts frequently conflate fairly complicated legal issues.

But, yes, apparently, people like these stories, and they sell newspapers.

–

If you are facing a DUI / drunk driving charge in Arizona, please give us a call and get a free legal consultation on the charges you are facing. We can help you figure out your next move, and suggest the best alternatives: whether you should fight the case, or try to work out a deal.

* Ref: Divided Attention Testing

A controversial new program by the Arizona Department of Public Safety is now underway, where 100 mobile photo vans and fixed cameras are automatically scanning for speeders, and issuing tickets through the mail.

In a concession to critics, traffic tickets issued by these automated systems will not be subject to points that can impact your license status, or insurance rates. According to statements issued, if you simply pay the speeding fines ($165 plus a 10% surcharge), no other fees or penalties are assessed.

Gov. Janet Napolitano shrugged off suggestions that this is a pure revenue driven effort. She claims that statistics show that when these camera systems are deployed, accidents go down, and public safety is enhanced.

Update: Much more here.

In an important case for DUI defense lawyers, a judge in Arizona ruled that the manufacturers of the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machine must turn over the systems source code to defense attorneys.  The results code have a significant impact on possibly hundreds pending cases where this evidence is used.

Source code, or computer code, is the software that provides instructions about how a system operates and makes calculations. Litigation over access to breath test machine source code has been active in many other states, including Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Tennessee.

The decision is based on the rights of a defendant to confront his accuser. Since these breath test machines are essentially a “black box” that spits out a magic number that can convict a person of a crime, it is reasonable for the defense to be able to understand exactly how these devices calculate this number.

The judge also determined that there were no trade secrecy issues, since the machine itself is not patented, and the source code was not copyrighted. CMI, Inc has until October 27th to turn over the source code, however in similar court battles in other states, the company has consistently refused to do so, even under the threat of fines and sanctions from the court.

The attorney arguing on behalf of the state seemed to imply that the fact that the machines are accurate is somehow self-evident, comparing it to “turning on a light switch”, and that it is easy to see if it works. This is a silly comparison;  with a light switch, you know exactly what and how you are measuring a positive reading.

Anyone who has ever worked on, developed, or tested hardware or software systems understands that thorough testing is absolutely necessary for any complex systems. Results under different user conditions can often be unpredictable and surprising. That’s why technology companies have huge testing departments, that run software and hardware through rigorous testing under a wide variety of conditions, and compares results to known benchmarks.

Attorney James Nesci, the lead counsel on the case added that the machine has “never been tested on humans in Arizona, only simulations”. In addition, CMI, Inc., the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer, refuses to even sell the device to anyone but law enforcement agencies. It has been otherwise imposible for defense lawyers to do even cursory analysis and independent testing on these machines.

—

If you are facing a drunk driving charge in Arizona, please call our attorneys immediately for a free case evaluation and legal consultation.

—-

Further Reading on Breathalyzer Source Code issues and litigation

Arizona Daily Star

Tuscon Citizen (and here).

Slashdot

Ars Technica

Lawrence Taylor

Already considered to be among the toughest in the nation, Arizona’s drunk driving penalties get even tougher with new legislation aimed at reducing judicial discretion in sentencing. Under the new law which goes into effect on 9/26/2008, any first offense DUI offender who take a breathalyzer and registers about a .15% BAC faces a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail. If that breath test machine result is above a .20%, the mandatory jail sentence jumps to 45 days.

These are extremely severe penalties for someone with no prior offenses, and no injuries or damage of any kind. The implications if this are several:

• More aggressive legal challenges to breath test machine accuracy are likely. After all, the difference between a .14 and a .15 is one month of your life. Can these machines be trusted to be accurate enough to pronounce judgment with these kinds of life altering consequences? There are many reasons to doubt their accuracy.
• Also because of these severe penalties, the business of Arizona DUI defense lawyers like us are likely to increase. After all, the downside to fighting the case becomes minimum if you are facing jail time for a plea. Even a drunk driving arrest with very bad facts for the defendant becomes worth fighting in front of a jury. Even a 10 or 20 percent chance of winning the case makes sense. So expect courts and jury rooms to get busier with these cases.

Clearly the Arizona legislature thinks the threat of these extreme DUI penalties will bring down the number of drunk driving incidents in the state. That is an open question. But there will be unintended consequences, too. And this law will certainly result in disaster for good, decent people who may have had a single episode of bad judgment. The consequences of one bad decision, where no one even gets hurt, can be a loss of a persons job and their livelihood.

And it can happen to anyone, as evidenced by the wide cross-section of perfectly decent people our attorneys have defended in these cases.

—

If you’ve been charged with a DUI offense in Arizona, whether it is a high BAC case or not, it’s obvious that the state is determined to punish you as severely as possible under the law. You need the best DUI defense you can find if you are to maintain your rights under the law, and your very freedom. Please contact our attorneys immediately to take advantage of our free consultation on any drunk driving charge in Arizona.

—

More references for this story:

Yuma Sun

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office announced another raid on a local business with suspected employees using fraudulent identities to enable them to work. The arrests happened at a candle making company, and resulted in 65 arrests total, 23 of which were felony identity theft charges.

As noted previously, identity theft and criminal impersonation are frequently charged against undocumented immigrants who are using fraudulent identities to be eligible to work in Arizona and around the US. It will be interesting to learn why the many of these people were charged with the more serious felony of identity theft, instead of criminal impersonation, a misdemeanor. Typically the difference is the perceived intent, and what the person intended to do with the stolen social security numbers.

Identity theft and carries a maximum penalty of 2 1/2 years in jail under Arizona law. If found guilty, the people charged who are not legal US residents will very likely be deported.

While these laws clearly do apply in illegal immigration cases, it is a debatable point as to whether this form of law enforcement is a rational answer to the larger problems of immigration. It is a federal problem that should be addressed on a national level, rather than on a piecemeal basis around Arizona criminal prosecutions.

—

If you are charged with fraud, identity theft, or related criminal charges in Arizona, please contact our attorneys for a case evaluation and free legal consultation.

The man behind the web site thedirty.com (formerly dirtyscottsdale.com), Hooman Karamian, a web site dedicated to posting pictures of drunk and rowdy locals has plead guilty to an Extreme DUI charge in Scottsdale, AZ city court. He was arrested in January and charged with extreme DUI and reckless driving. His BAC test result was .165%, more than twice the legal limit of .08%, and above the threshold of .15% which is categorized as an “extreme DUI” under Arizona drunk driving laws.

As a result of the guilty plea, Karamian will pay more than $2000 in fines and court fees, and will spend 4 days in the Tent City jail in Phoenix, AZ. He will also attend an alcohol screening and education program, as required by Arizona DUI laws for drunk driving convictions.

His sentence is considered typical and reasonable for a plea agreement for a first offense extreme DUI charge, but most DUI lawyers.

Naturally, there is considerable irony about this many being convicted of a DUI, when he makes his living publishing photos and accounts mocking those in his current situation. However, no doubt the publicity surrounding his arrest and conviction will ultimately be very good for his business.

As with anyone convicted of a criminal charge in Arizona, we wish him the best of luck in the future, and hope he avoids any future encounters with Arizona law enforcement.

—

If you are facing a drunk driving, DUI, and particularly an Extreme DUI charge in Arizona, please contact out attorneys for a free case evaluation and legal consultation. There is no charge or obligation for our advice. You will get the benefit of our experience in defending and fighting DUI charges in all Arizona criminal courts. Call or contact us today to take advantage.

Workers at a Tuscon restaurant were sentenced to time served in jail time for criminal impersonation. They are also in the process of being deported for using fraudulent social security cards to secure their employment.

There were at least 11 employees at the Panda Express that were using social security cards not associated with their legal names and identities, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Criminal impersonation can be a felony class 6 misdemeanor class 1 charge under Arizona law ARS 13-2006 Chapter 72 431R.

Criminal impersonation, identity theft, aggravated taking the identity of another, and related charges can be very complicated under Arizona criminal law. If you are charged with a criminal fraud, or related offense in Arizona, please contact our defense attorneys for a free consultation. We’ll be happy to discuss your case with you, and work through possible legal defenses and options to fight the charges and avoid the most serious outcomes.