Police agencies throughout Arizona, including Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tucson are participating in the efforts, which include DUI checkpoints and saturation patrols.
Throughout the state they made 700 stops. Of the 120 DUI arrests, there were 12 felony DUIs and 115 misdemeanors. There were also 13 minors arrested.
"This time of year police agencies in Arizona pool their resources towards DUI enforcement," said Arizona DUI lawyer Stewart Bergman, whose practice in Scottsdale focuses on defending people accused of DUI throughout the greater Phoenix area. "It is not unusual to see a Gilbert Police Officer patrolling in Scottsdale, or a Scottsdale Officer working in Glendale or Phoenix."
While the pooling of police resources makes it easier for law enforcement to concentrate on any given area in the state, it can create logistical problems.
"After a large task force event, you might see a DUI case charged in Scottsdale Municipal Court because the arrest was made there. But then you have a Gilbert Police Officer who made the stop and took a blood sample. Gilbert sends their blood samples to the Chandler Crime Lab for analysis. So you end up with a prosecutor's office like Scottsdale using Chandler and Gilbert city witnesses in the prosecution."
The logistical difficulties of getting several law enforcement agencies to cooperate and coordinate during a DUI prosecution can provide an advantage to the defense, especially when the DUI defense attorney is on top of the situation and make appropriate and frequent requests for discovery. Because of the administrative slowdowns, there is often times more opportunity to get favorable deals.
"It is never worth it to drink and then drive in Arizona," says Bergman, "because we see cases getting charged where the person is well under the legal limit."
Under Arizona DUI Law, the police can charge a person with being impaired to the slightest degree even if the person is well under the legal limit of 0.08 percent body alcohol concentration. And prosecutors are capable of getting convictions for DUI when the persons alcohol level is as low as a 0.06, or 75 percent of the legal limit.
"Task force events are about more than pure public safety," explained Bergman. "They are about numbers, and between and within some police departments, they may even be about competition. Because of this, even if you know you are okay to drive but have had drinks, if you can find another way to get home it is a cheap insurance plan against getting a DUI."
A first offense Arizona DUI can carry up to a minimum of 45 days in jail, depending on the alcohol level, and comes with loss of driving privileges, ignition interlock devices and heavy fines.
Source
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Flawed DUI lab procedure nearly ruins man's life
This is an egregious case, but one that should make everybody who trusts crime labs and forensic scientists with other peoples' lives and freedom.Unlike many DUI lawyers who only and always publicly emphasize victories, I am of the mindset that it is just as valuable for the public to learn about my defeats. Perhaps by hearing what went wrong in one of my cases, a person facing a DUI charge, or a DUI defense lawyer may be in a better position to avoid a similar fate.
The case I'm talking about went to a jury trial. Like all Mesa Arizona DUI cases, the deck was stacked against my client from the start. I also had a very good deal on the table which cut my client's jail time by 2/3, from 30 days down to 10 days in jail. My client rejected the deal, and I can't say I blame her for taking the chance.
The facts of the case were not bad, as far as DUI cases with blood tests go:
No bad driving - my client was stopped at a DUI checkpoint.
Marginal field sobriety tests on some of the tests, poor result on others.
A blood test result of 0.082, which is just above the legal limit of 0.080, and subject to a 5% margin of error that the state's crime lab will admit to under oath, bringing the possible true result down below the legal limit of 0.080.
Now for the bad facts:
A very experienced Mesa DUI officer, who is a nice guy and testifies very well. He also happens to be an instructor of other police officers in the standardized field sobriety tests.
An inability for me to put my client on the stand.
My client submitted to an interview and made it sound like she didn't have anything to drink in the last hour before the stop (which would have cast more doubt on the accuracy of the state crime lab's calculations).
On the stand the criminalist for the state essentially testified that the 0.082 is subject to a 5% margin of error, and that he couldn't say beyond a reasonable doubt that the result he produced was in fact reflective of an actual alcohol level of 0.080 or greater.
Still, the Mesa jury was undaunted and found her guilty of having an alcohol level of 0.080 or greater.
The problem began during jury selection. The judge asked the jurors a simple question that goes something like this:
In Arizona it is not illegal to have a drink or drinks of alcohol and then drive. Knowing this, how many people think that it's illegal to drive after drinking?
Slightly fewer than 1/2 of the potential jurors raised their hands. Of those, I think three or four eventually ended up on the jury that decided my client's fate.
To tie my misadventure in my Mesa Arizona DUI case in with Mr. Taylor's entry, it seems to me that in the current climate crime labs have little to lose by proffering shaky results. For one, most defendant's don't have the blood reanalyzed. If they do, most still come back above the legal limit even if not exactly spot-on to what the crime lab reported. And even a result under the legal limit in most states still indicates a presence of alcohol, which in most states is still good enough to expose the person to a conviction for DUI while impaired to the slightest degree.
The defendant in Mr. Taylor's post had no alcohol in his system. In DUI cases, that is almost as rare as the unicorn. But when it does happen, it threatens to turn everything that most citizens ignorantly take for granted about their friendly local forensic crime lab.
Source
The case I'm talking about went to a jury trial. Like all Mesa Arizona DUI cases, the deck was stacked against my client from the start. I also had a very good deal on the table which cut my client's jail time by 2/3, from 30 days down to 10 days in jail. My client rejected the deal, and I can't say I blame her for taking the chance.
The facts of the case were not bad, as far as DUI cases with blood tests go:
No bad driving - my client was stopped at a DUI checkpoint.
Marginal field sobriety tests on some of the tests, poor result on others.
A blood test result of 0.082, which is just above the legal limit of 0.080, and subject to a 5% margin of error that the state's crime lab will admit to under oath, bringing the possible true result down below the legal limit of 0.080.
Now for the bad facts:
A very experienced Mesa DUI officer, who is a nice guy and testifies very well. He also happens to be an instructor of other police officers in the standardized field sobriety tests.
An inability for me to put my client on the stand.
My client submitted to an interview and made it sound like she didn't have anything to drink in the last hour before the stop (which would have cast more doubt on the accuracy of the state crime lab's calculations).
On the stand the criminalist for the state essentially testified that the 0.082 is subject to a 5% margin of error, and that he couldn't say beyond a reasonable doubt that the result he produced was in fact reflective of an actual alcohol level of 0.080 or greater.
Still, the Mesa jury was undaunted and found her guilty of having an alcohol level of 0.080 or greater.
The problem began during jury selection. The judge asked the jurors a simple question that goes something like this:
In Arizona it is not illegal to have a drink or drinks of alcohol and then drive. Knowing this, how many people think that it's illegal to drive after drinking?
Slightly fewer than 1/2 of the potential jurors raised their hands. Of those, I think three or four eventually ended up on the jury that decided my client's fate.
To tie my misadventure in my Mesa Arizona DUI case in with Mr. Taylor's entry, it seems to me that in the current climate crime labs have little to lose by proffering shaky results. For one, most defendant's don't have the blood reanalyzed. If they do, most still come back above the legal limit even if not exactly spot-on to what the crime lab reported. And even a result under the legal limit in most states still indicates a presence of alcohol, which in most states is still good enough to expose the person to a conviction for DUI while impaired to the slightest degree.
The defendant in Mr. Taylor's post had no alcohol in his system. In DUI cases, that is almost as rare as the unicorn. But when it does happen, it threatens to turn everything that most citizens ignorantly take for granted about their friendly local forensic crime lab.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)