On Tuesday May 6th, 2014, the Arizona Court of Appeals announced a ruling that bars the city law enforcement from arresting someone solely on the basis of being incapacitated by alcohol in public. The ruling was pre-empted by a 1972 state law that prohibits criminalizing someone for "being a common drunkard or being found in an intoxicated condition."
The United States Supreme Court recently issued another blow to the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizures. The ruling caused controversy when they declared that a vehicle may be stopped based on an anonymous 911 tip.
People are often confused by the difference between city jails, county jails and prison. While these facilities are similar there are several important differences.
The filing of motions on legal issues is part of the art of "lawyering." In the DUI arena, most motions are intended to either suppress (i.e., keep out) evidence for various constitutional violations, or to dismiss the case in its entirety due to lack of evidence, procedural error, bad-faith prosecution, or hundreds of other reasons. All of these motions, and the numerous other types that are filed on a daily basis, ultimately are used as a tool to both protect and enforce our clients' rights.
In every DUI case, the first thing that the State must prove before they even start presenting any evidence about blood, breath, or urine results is driving or actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The determination as to whether a person is driving is obvious, and is usually demonstrated by a police officer testifying that they saw the Defendant drive a vehicle. Proving actual physical control of a vehicle is somewhat more complicated, and there are numerous different factors that a court takes into account to determine whether a person whom, although was not driving the vehicle at the time of their impairment, was in actual physical control of the vehicle. (For further information on actual physical control see our previous blogs).