The editorial is written by Laura H. Nirider, the co-director of the Center of Wrongful Convictions of Youth at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. In it she states the obvious, that the undocumented, potentially hours-long grillings of criminal suspects is a wrongful conviction waiting to happen.

She offers the case of Debra Milke as an example. Milke was convicted in 1990 for soliciting the murder of her four-year old son. The only evidence against her was a detective’s claim that she had confessed. Milke denied confessing and there was no recording to prove it. Her conviction was eventually overturned but only after she spent years on Arizona’s death row.

“Even setting aside the possibility of police misconduct, there are plenty of other reasons for police to record interrogations,” explains Nirider. “For one, it protects police from baseless claims of misconduct.”

If misconduct doesn’t happen behind closed doors, a recording would eliminate the accusations or at least offer convincing evidence against them.

In addition, it can aid in interrogations. One officer explains in Nirider’s article that recording questionings helps him do his job more effectively.  “In addition to the detective not having the distractions of note-taking, the absence of notes frequently makes the subject more at ease and does not alert him/her to key phrases, which may be of special interest at a later time,” explained the unnamed Gilbert police officer.

Interrogations are recorded in 19 states. It’s the law. In Arizona, however, no such law exists. Some officers are voluntarily recording their interrogations, but those officers are obviously not the ones who are likely to use questionable interrogation techniques.

When you are accused of a crime and are interrogated by police, it could be your word versus theirs. But, you could also demand an attorney, ensuring someone is there to hear the entire thing and to help you get the best outcome possible.

If you are accused of a crime and are facing charges, contact my offices today to discuss your legal options and how we can help.

But, several defense attorneys and their clients in Scottsdale are calling foul on local cops for the use of a machine being used to determine the level of intoxication. They say the blood analysis is faulty and is giving bad results, potentially resulting in DUI convictions when they weren’t warranted at all.

According to CBS 5, one such defendant had drank two “small beers” before getting in his vehicle. But when the officer that pulled him over tested his blood, it came back with a reading of 0.131%, much higher than the legal limit of .08. As a result, he was arrested and charged with driving drunk.

In court, a jury found the defendant not guilty in large part due to the glitch his attorney found in the device used for testing.

The issue is being called a “software glitch” and could be linked to numerous drunk driving cases in the area. Just how wide of an impact this discovery may have is as of yet unknown.

“What we’re seeing is the machine going and repeating itself, getting duplicate results, duplicate results, and then turning itself off,” said one lawyer connected to the case.

As for the police department, they have yet to comment on the specifics but have only reiterated that their lab is accredited and has “met or exceeded the rigorous standards set by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors.”

A group of attorneys has gotten together to uncover the problem and are waiting on a ruling this week from a judge that may determine jurors in 11 different pending DUI cases cannot hear BAC test results from the lab.

If you are facing DUI charges, properly calibrated alcohol detection devices is only one part of your possible defense. There are many strategies for successfully fighting a DUI charge. Contact our offices today to discuss the specifics of your case and how we might be able to help.

The Supreme Court of the state has been asked to take up a case that would challenge the current marijuana DUI law. As it stands, someone can be charged and convicted of DUI even if they haven’t smoked pot in several weeks.

To understand how, we need a quick science lesson.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive component in marijuana. This is the stuff in pot that makes you “high”. Something called Carboxy-THC is a metabolite of THC, but it is not active and its presence doesn’t mean you are high. As a matter of fact, Carboxy-THC can remain in the bloodstream for up to a month after smoking marijuana.

Blood tests used in DUI cases where the driver is suspected of using marijuana detect both THC and Carboxy-THC. And the law allows either to stand as sufficient evidence of marijuana-intoxication. In other words, it would be completely possible for you to smoke last week and be arrested this week because your blood contains Carboxy-THC.

The case in question before the Supreme Court did just that. A defendant was arrested and charged for DUI even though he wasn’t high. The trial court judge dismissed the initial charge, saying “it doesn’t make sense to prosecute people with no evidence they’re under the influence,” according to the Associated Press.

But, an Appeals Court reversed his decision. Now the high court of the state will decide if it’s a case they want to hear or if the Appeals Court ruling will stand.

A decade ago marijuana laws were not figuring as prominently in the media or the justice system. Pot was illegal, period, and was viewed as a serious drug. But things are changing and attitudes with it.

The vast majority of Americans want to be able to choose for themselves if they will smoke marijuana. And when there are laws restricting its use, they want those laws to be fair and concise.

If you are charged with a marijuana offense, whether it’s DUI or possession, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss your case.

Scottsdale Inventions has created the technology that will allow police or federal agents to shock people into submission. While the design is outlined in handcuffs, they say it could be applied elsewhere as well. And even more troubling, their device would allow the administration of sedative drugs.

According to their patent application, the device is a “system for restraining detainees through devices attached to the detainees and configured to administer electrical shocks when certain predetermined conditions occur.”

Those “predetermined conditions” could be when the detainee moves outside a preset perimeter, ie too far away from supervision or their house arrest location. They could also be set to go off when a detainee becomes physically resistant, recognizing the jostling associated with a fight.

The company assures those who may be frightened at the potentials of this device, that safety mechanisms will be built-in. This will prevent the detainee from “receiving too much current too quickly”. It may even have sensors that will evaluate just how much current a particular person can bear without it being potentially fatal, alerting officials if the detainee has a heart condition, for instance.

As if that isn’t enough, the device would include a “drug delivery system,” that could deliver sedatives, irritants (like pepper spray), or chemical restraints. In this way, if the shocking doesn’t work, the cops could just drug the suspect.

One might wonder what would propel a company to make a device like this. Like all business ventures, the makers saw a potential market. Anyone with their eyes on police-related news would recognize the growing militarization of our cops, and they would see that things are getting more and more extreme. Why not, then, take a risk on developing a device that this increasingly frightening police world might one day want?

Police already have handcuffs; they already have tasers; and, they are working to make it possible to take blood draws from unwilling suspects. So, how far of a reach is it to combine a tool that would serve all functions?

Hopefully we are a long ways from police using something like this. But, the fact that the patent application has been filed shows that it may be coming.

If you are arrested by the police for a serious crime, there’s a chance you will be shocked into submission. Even the act of handcuffing can seem forceful and even violent. When you are charged with an offense, you need someone on your side at every juncture. Contact our offices today to discuss how we might be able to help.

As late as March 6, Rep. Tom Forese (R-Chandler) was set to argue his a bill in front of the state House that would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before using a drone in surveillance operations. His bill made it through House Committee on Feb. 20.

Support for the measure was overwhelming on both sides of the aisle.

“State lawmakers of both parties have realized this issue is critical in voters’ minds, and they’ve decided to take a stand for privacy,” said Trevor Timm with Electronic Frontier Foundation. “In all my work at EFF, I’ve never seen anything that so unites the left and right. I think it underscores that this is a nonpartisan issues that has struck a chord with people.”

On March 7, however, news reports indicated an about-face in Forese’s take on drones. He want from proposing cops get warrants to leaving things “as is” and instead creating a committee to “study the matter further”.

On March 8, on the floor of the Legislature, Forese voluntarily gutted the bill. What would make a lawmaker assumingly committed to civil liberties change his mind in such dramatic fashion? One word—money.

Arizona currently stands to become one of six sites for testing of unmanned drones. The Federal Aviation Administration announced they were looking for such sites and being chosen would certainly be a windfall for the state. The industry is a multi-billion dollar one, and it is growing.

As it was written, Forese’s bill could have made this opportunity more difficult.

The amended version of Forese’s bill, the one that keeps Arizona police agencies free to use drones without warrants, passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 54-5.

When asked about the change of heart, Forese said that concerns expressed by law enforcement officials spoke to him, that there were “many valid reasons for police to be able to use drones without first having to go to court.” He compared drones to helicopters, only with cameras on board that “indiscriminately record everything.”

When lawmakers can overlook potential violations of privacy and allow the possible infringement on citizens’ rights, all for money, we have to wonder who is really running things—the politicians or the cash. Regardless of the amount of money that drones could bring into the state, we have to ask what is their true cost.

Police agencies in Arizona can use drones if they have them, and right now it isn’t clear which agencies own the “toys” and which are already employing them. Still, you have rights. If you are accused of a crime, you need someone on your side who understands these rights and can help you fight to clear your name.

In Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan, the court overturned a superior court ruling that basically said you can’t prosecute people for DUI if they are not under the influence. It would seem an obvious statement. But, for whatever reason, the appeals court judges decided any marijuana in the bloodstream was enough for the charge.

A little science is in order for the sheer stupidity of this ruling to make sense. There are two forms of THC that are present after smoking marijuana. Hydroxy-THC is what causes impairment and makes you high. It doesn’t last as long in the body. Carboxy-THC, however, is an inactive metabolite—it doesn’t make you feel a thing—and it stays in the body for months.

As reported by AllVoices.com,

The appeals court also cited its own rulings in earlier challenges to Arizona’s DUI laws. “The legislature intended to create a ‘per se prohibition’ and a ‘flat ban on driving with any proscribed drug in one’s system,” the court said. “We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not.”

What does this mean for medical marijuana users? That remains to be seen. If the law allows you to smoke marijuana, you will likely have evidence of that marijuana in your body, whether you are high or not. Essentially, the appeals court ruling says that whether you are registered to use pot or if you are an (illegal) recreational pot smoker, you should probably stay off the road. Period. Indefinitely.

The ruling will be appealed to the state supreme court, so we will have to wait and see how the justices see the law and its original intent. One can only hope that they’ve studied common sense and the English language in addition to law. Because determining you don’t have to be under the influence for a charge of marijuana DUI in Arizona  isn’t only an error in grammar, it’s an obvious example of the government’s hell-bent attempt to criminalize as much as possible.

If you are charged with a marijuana offense in Arizona–whether it’s possession, distribution, or driving under the influence—we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss your case and the options available to you.