Categories

Drivers in Arizona who are convicted with driving under the influence (DUI) charges for the first time will receive a “slightly gentler” sentence, starting January 1st next year.

A new state law set to take effect when the New Year comes in will reduce the amount of time that first-time offenders are required to have an ignition-interlock device on their vehicles, from one year to six months.

Interlock devices prevent vehicles from turning on if alcohol is detected in the driver’s breath. Arizona is known as among the toughest states when it comes to DUI laws, as it is one of only 15 that require first-time offenders to have interlock devices.

The length of time that an interlock device is used varies by state, and with the reduction, Arizona joins the ranks of Oregon, New Jersey, and Missouri, which require interlock devices for a period of six months.

The change was proposed early this year by Sen. Linda Gray of Glendale, who said that while she still believes in requiring interlock devices, she thinks that six months is long enough to teach a lesson.

The Arizona Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), however, opposed the change to the law. Since Arizona required first-time offenders to have interlock devices, the number of DUI fatalities has decreased, and MADD Arizona program specialist Kelley Dupps said that they will be monitoring whether the new law will cause an increase in the number of DUI fatalities.

Dupps said: “We definitely feel the interlock law has made a huge difference in the DUI fatalities in Arizona… Interlocks allow offenders to get back on the road and drive safely while the community can rest assured that they are driving safely.”

If you’ve been charged with DUI in Arizona, it’s very important that you contact an Arizona DUI lawyer to discuss your legal situation.

Source

Arizonans will not get to vote whether they want to preserve the right of a jury trial for those charged with drunk driving.

Attorney Clifford Girard told Capitol Media Services on Friday he will be unable to gather the necessary 86,405 signatures to put the question on the 2012 ballot by Tuesday’s deadline. The failure means that a new law stripping defendants of that right will take effect as scheduled this coming Wednesday.

But Girard said that is not the end of the fight. He promised to challenge the new law, arguing the Legislature is ignoring constitutional rights.

Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, who ushered the change through the Legislature, said there is no reason for the time and expenses of a jury trial for what, in the broad scheme of criminal laws, is a relatively minor offense.

Girard, whose practice includes representing those accused of breaking the drunk-driving law, said he and Tucson attorney Stephen Barnard initially tried to use volunteers to gather the signatures to refer the issue to the ballot. Girard said he quickly learned that doesn’t work.

“You can’t do it unless you use paid circulators,’’ he said.

Source

A recently approved Arizona bill — that has not yet been signed into law — will ease potential penalties facing those charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs for the first time. Those lessened penalties come with a steep price tag, however. In exchange for reduced consequences, offenders lose the otherwise automatic option of choosing a jury to hear their case at trial instead of a judge. First-time DUI defendants would still have the right to request a jury trial, but instead of their request being granted, it would be decided upon by the trial court judge.

Other Changes to the Law

In addition to losing the automatic right to choose a jury trial rather than a bench trial, other changes are coming to Arizona DUI laws if this bill becomes law. For starters, judges would have the right to sentence a convicted offender to time already served in jail instead of the current minimum 24-hour mandate. The law would also lessen the amount of time that people convicted of DUI for the first time would be forced to maintain an ignition interlock system in their cars. Ignition interlock systems are used to ensure that drivers do not get behind the wheel while intoxicated. They require the driver to submit to a Breathalyzer-type test to check for alcohol before the vehicle will start.

Prosecutors and some lawmakers hail the changes, saying that requiring defendants to actively seek a jury trial — thus lowering the number of jury trials that actually take place — will save millions of taxpayer dollars every year. Defense attorneys are worried, however, that removing the jury trial element will prevent defendants from being able to really “have their day in court” before an impartial jury, instead forcing defendants to rely upon a jaded judge who may or may not actually be fair-minded.

This is absolutely absurd! It’s like they’re saying, ” We’re lessening the penalties, but assuring we get your money.” Sure, the law leaves it up to a judge to grant a jury-trial, but this, in my opinion, shouldn’t even be up for debate. And if this law does pass, which it seems like it will, where will this end? Comments and opinions welcome below!

If you’ve been accused of DUI in Arizona, you should promptly contact an Arizona DUI attorney to discuss your legal options.

Source

Two big, emotional issues collided at the Legislature: the scourge of drunken driving and the right to trial by jury.

But you didn’t know.

First-time, non-extreme DUI defendants have lost the right to request a jury trial.

But the public didn’t find out until after Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill.

Is this a good move or a bad one? What does it mean for public safety? For justice? How does it square with the state Constitution?

We never had a chance for debate.

Like so much legislation this year, it all happened too fast, too far under the radar.

The restriction on jury trials was a last-minute amendment to Senate Bill 1200, which dealt with penalties for driving under the influence. It was part of the onslaught of bills in the pell-mell race to end the session on April 20.

Here was legislation about core values. We should have had a chance to explore them.

In the real world, the right to a jury trial has practical limitations. No one expects a full-blown courtroom drama over a jaywalking charge.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional right doesn’t apply to minor crimes with a maximum punishment of six months in jail. Arizona justices have used a somewhat broader standard for the state Constitution (most notably for sex offenses that require registration).

Low-level DUI cases, however, wouldn’t seem to qualify.
read more…

A bill approved by the Arizona Legislature would end misdemeanor DUI defendants’ automatic right to a jury trial for a first offense.

The legislator who sponsored the bill called the jury change reasonable because other changes in the bill ease potential penalties for first-time DUI offenders, while a defense attorney called the change an “appalling” loss of a protection for defendants.

With the change, a judge would decide whether to grant a request for a jury trial. The alternative is for a judge to hear the case. People charged with repeat offenses still would have a right to a jury trial.

The jury trial change was inserted in a 50-page bill dealing with DUI laws.

The change was among many made without any substantial explanation during a House floor session April 14. Republican Rep. Vic Williams of Tucson, the lawmaker who offered the amendment with the jury change and numerous others, said only that it “makes the bill much better.”

The House formally approved the bill Monday, and the Senate followed suit Tuesday afternoon. The Legislature adjourned its session early Wednesday morning, and the bill is now among 168 measures awaiting action by Gov. Jan Brewer by May 2.
read more…

Driving while under the influence doesn’t just mean that you’ve exceeded the allowable blood-alcohol threshold. In Arizona, you can be arrested even if you had a drink but are not legally intoxicated.

Typically, a driver can be charged with a DUI offense if his blood-alcohol content (BAC) is .08 percent or higher. In Arizona, however, two provisions in the state’s criminal traffic law allow police to charge drivers with DUI even if their BAC is less than the legal limit.

According to the provisions, a driver can be charged with lower BAC levels if seen driving erratically. Since some drivers are impaired after having one drink versus others after several drinks, the laws take into account the fact that each individual absorbs alcohol differently. The varying tolerance levels give police the ability to cite someone for DUI even if the BAC is within the legal limit. The same reasoning goes for someone operating a vehicle if impaired by drugs or other substances.

“Impaired to the slightest degree,” as it’s described, gives police officers the right to arrest an individual no matter what the BAC determines.

In addition, police can arrest a driver with a BAC at or above the legal limit up to two hours after the individual has driven a vehicle. So if an individual appears to be impaired while walking down the street, and police determine he or she was previously driving within the past two hours, the person can be charged. The laws are part of an aggressive effort by police and legislators in Arizona to curtail drunk or impaired driving.

Looking for an Arizona DUI attorney?

Source

Most of the time when legislators propose changes to the existing DUI laws, they are planning to increase the penalties. Making the punishments for DUI harsher is an easy way to appear tough on crime, and few people are willing to speak up for the interests of those who have been accused of drunk driving.

However, some Arizona state legislators are taking a different approach. Sen. Linda Gray, who has worked for more than a decade to increase the penalties for DUI, has proposed a bill that would reduce the penalties for first-time DUI offenders. A separate bill proposed by Rep. David Burnell Smith would go even further.

Currently under Arizona law, the first time an individual is convicted of a DUI offense, he or she is required to install an ignition interlock device for one year. Under Sen. Gray’s bill, this time period would be reduced to six months. Rep. Smith’s bill would eliminate the ignition interlock requirement completely for first-time offenders.

This shift comes, in part, with the recognition that requiring the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device for a full year imposes a significant burden, and one that is arguably unfair and unnecessary for first-time DUI offenders. Those who are required to install these devices must pay an initial fee for installation as well as a monthly maintenance fee.
read more…

Come on, Arizona. Don’t start retreating in our successful campaign against drunk drivers.

The state, though notorious for questionable legislative publicity of late, is right on the mark with regard to its drunk driving laws, and has one of the nation’s toughest reputations on the books. A first offense costs an offender $1,500 in fines and surcharges right off the bat. Jail time is a must, as is a 90-day-minimum suspension of driving privileges. Also, the court may order the installation of an ignition interlock device – at, of course, the offender’s expense.

The punishments severely increase with each subsequent offense. However, the first-offense punishments are up for debate.

State Sen. Linda Gray (R-Glendale) proposed SB1200, which would reduce the penalties for first-time offenders by decreasing ignition interlock requirements from a year to six months. It passed the Senate and is now ready for consideration in the House where Rep. David Burnell Smith (R-Scottsdale) sponsored a companion bill, which entirely eliminates ignition interlock device requirements for first-time offenders. Smith, an attorney who specializes in DUI defenses, told The Arizona Republic that interlock devices are “financially unfair” to first-time offenders.
read more…

An Arizona lawmaker who helped pass one of the nation’s toughest DUI laws is now pushing for changes that critics say would defang it and put lives at risk.

The bill introduced by Republican state Sen. Linda Gray would cut from one year to six months the amount of time a DUI interlock device must be used by first-time offenders in Arizona. The interlock device — basically, a breathalyzer attached to the starter of a vehicle — prevents motorists with a blood alcohol level higher than .08 percent, from turning on their engine.

Gray, who has championed tougher DUI laws for the past 13 years, says six months is a long enough punishment. At the same time, she says her bill strengthens the law by adding other restrictions.

But Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and interlock companies fervently oppose Gray’s bill.

“We don’t understand why we want to take a law that is working for our state and change it,” Kelly Larkin, executive director of MADD, told FoxNews.com.

Larkin said since the inception of the law in 2007, DUI fatalities have plunged in Arizona by 46 percent while it has fallen by 20 percent in the rest of the country.

“Arizona has the strongest interlock law on the books,” she said. “If we start lowering our standards, what are the states around us going to think? We want them to be as safe as we are.”

Jay Lopez, the owner of Ignition Interlock of Arizona, said the state should be focused on strengthening the law rather than weakening it by reducing the interlock requirement.

“If it’s not broke, why try to fix it?” he said. “We should be focusing on the problems we have right now with compliance.”

According to Gray, only about 30 percent of first-time offenders have met the requirements to get the interlock and complete the program. The law currently prevents those out of compliance from renewing their driver’s license. Her bill prevents first-time offenders who don’t comply with the penalties from renewing their vehicle registration as well.

“That’s how we’ll try to increase compliance,” she said.
read more…

It will soon be legal to use marijuana for medical purposes in Arizona, and that prompted reader Harold Moberly to ask how the new law could affect driving privileges.

“Anyone given permission by the state of (Arizona) to use medical marijuana should have their driver’s license revoked as I think it is still illegal to drive under the influence of drugs such as marijuana. Was there some exemption in the new law that says they also now have the right to have a driver’s license and use pot regularly?” he wrote.

It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and a person who is “impaired to the slightest degree” is subject to arrest, said Lt. Lew Bentley, Tucson Police Department’s traffic division commander. That doesn’t change if they have a prescription or doctor’s permission for the substance that is impairing them, he said.

“It is a violation of the DUI laws to operate a motor vehicle when you are impaired, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin or any one of several other substances including prescription drugs,” he said. “Even if a person has a prescription for marijuana, it is still illegal to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence if their ability to operate it is impaired by the slightest degree. The same holds true for other prescription drugs.”

That said, he’s hoping that medical marijuana comes with the same warnings about not operating a vehicle or other heavy machinery when using the drug, Bentley said.

Moberly sees it as a preventative measure.

“If they had to forfeit their license, it would sure cut down on the people with sore fingers that need medical marijuana, and only the people that really need help would be getting it. It is bad enough that we are not a whole lot harder on drunk drivers, and now we could be turning a whole lot more impaired drivers onto our roads,” Moberly wrote.

Bentley responded to that point by saying the state and local authorities don’t revoke licenses just because a person has a prescription for any other drug, “so I don’t believe we could do that with marijuana prescriptions.”

Source