Disclaimer - Results depend upon factors unique to each case and that results in one case do not predict similar results in others.

State v. Penney – Yellow Page ads constitute Right to Counsel

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.

Read the full State v. Penney case here.

State v. Fikes – Only one working tail light needed in Arizona

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.

Read the full State v. Fikes case here.

State v. Britton – DUI in Handicap Parking is still a DUI

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.

Read the full State v. Britton case here.