Search AZ DUI Help
Free DUI Case Evaluation
DUI in Arizona
Tests / Studies
- How DUI Conviction Affect Your Employment in Arizona?
- Field Sobriety Tests: Breath & Blood Test
- Common DUI Penalties in Arizona
- Car Insurance Language: Why are Policy Terms so Confusing?
- Blood, Breath or Urine Test Refusal Cases
- Possible Penalties for Extreme DUI and Super Extreme DUI
- Refusing DUI Breath Test: Cases
- DUI: Blood and Urine Cases
- Legal Update on DUI, DWI, Extreme DUI
- DUI Pharmaceuticals
- Legal revise on DUI, DWI, Extreme DUI
- Possible Punishments for DUI/DWI
Disclaimer - Results depend upon factors unique to each case and that results in one case do not predict similar results in others.
Sponsored Video: Denial of Right to Counsel
State v. Penney – In this case, Penney, was pulled over and subsequently arrested for an Aggravated DUI. Once in police custody, Penney requested to speak with an attorney. He was placed in a room with a phone and a phone book however Penney discovered that all of the attorney pages had been removed from the phone book. Despite his request, the officers refused to provide him with another phone book that included the attorney pages. Penney was never able to contact an attorney to seek the advice he needed. Based on this, Penney filed a pre-trial motion arguing that the officers violated his right to counsel. The Lower Court agreed and dismissed the case. The State appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the Lower Courts decision that the refusal to provide Penney with a phone book that included attorney numbers was a violation of his right to counsel. However, the Court remanded the case for a determination on whether dismissal or suppression of the evidence was the proper remedy.
State v. Fikes – In this case, Fikes, was pulled over for having one of three of his brake lights out. He filed a pre-trial motion based on the argument that A.R.S. 28-939 only requires a person to have one stop lamp in working condition. The Lower Court denied the motion and Fikes was convicted of aggravated DUI after trial. This appeal followed where Fikes again argued that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the statute does not require that all installed stop lamps be kept in good working condition but rather that only one needs to be in good working condition.
State v. Britton – In this case, Britton, filed a pre-trial motion based on the belief that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull the Defendant over because a Mesa police officer did not have the authority to stop a car for the mere violation of a city ordinance for parking in a handicap parking spot without a proper license plate. The lower court granted the motion to which the State appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed indicating that, because a city has the authority to establish requirements for off street parking, pursuant to A.R.S. 9-462.01(A)(4), they have authority to enforce the same.