This year marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona, 1966.
Since that time, police have been required to read suspects their Miranda rights while in custody before they are interrogated.
The Miranda principle has faced many legal challenges, including when police are required to read the rights.
Can an Arizona Police Officer’s misreading of a clear and unambiguous law give rise to reasonable suspicion, thereby making a stop lawful?
This was a question for a recent Arizona Appeals Court to decide. In the case, the court considered whether a deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop a driver because the officer thought the rear display light on his vehicle was unlawful.
This article takes a closer look at how defense successfully challenged an unlawful police stop due to the police officer’s mistake of law with these topics:
The Arizona Supreme Court recently considered a case involving the question of whether or not the smell of marijuana was enough to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant.
The Court needed to evaluate this issue in light of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).
The AZ Supreme Court ruled that Marijuana odor can establish probable cause, unless there are other facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the suspect’s activities were compliant under the AMMA.
The aftershocks still linger following U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s eruptive and indignant dissent in this case:
“The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong…”
– Justice Sonia Sotomayor, US Supreme Court
The incident began with an unlawful police stop of a man leaving a private residence.
The suspect was arrested after the police officer learned the suspect had an outstanding warrant.
Illegal drugs were found in the suspect’s possession, after the officer searched him.
The search was conducted incidental to the arrest, as a result of the outstanding warrant for a traffic violation.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that even though the stop was unlawful, it was not flagrant.
So they allowed the drug evidence to be admitted and used against the suspect to prosecute the illegal drug possession charges.
In this article we outline the case, the U.S. Supreme Court decision, and how it impacts your 4th Amendment rights, especially if you have an outstanding warrant for arrest. Continue reading
Is this too difficult to imagine?
You’ve just been released from prison. You are struggling to become a productive member of society.
You’re looking for job, and trying to get your life on back on track.
So far, no employer has been willing to hire you, due to your criminal record.
You’ve sold nearly everything you own, including your car to pay outstanding debts, and to try and make ends meet.
Day after day you wait for the bus to take you to town so you can continue your job search.
Then one day, you are approached by a man while waiting for your bus. The man asks you if you will purchase $20.00 of crack cocaine. He offers to pay you $10.00 to do the deal.
You hesitate, and think that selling drugs again was the last thing you ever intended to do.
Weary, desperate, and hungry, you err in judgement and agree.
The man takes you to buy the drugs from an acquaintance. You buy the cocaine for him. You give him the cocaine, and he pays you.
Following the exchange of drugs and money, the man immediately arrests you.
You now face returning to prison, and serving 8 to 10 more years for selling illegal drugs while on parole.
The man who approached you at the bus stop was an undercover police officer. You were clearly entrapped.
But you will not have a chance to gain an acquittal based on the entrapment defense, without doing this one very important thing…
That is, if you wish to challenge the charges by utilizing the entrapment defense, you must admit to the substantial elements of the crime.
In simple terms, you will need to admit that you committed the criminal act for which you were charged.
You are confused by this. It goes against everything you understood about your 5th Amendment rights and protections against self-incrimination. So you do not admit to the crime.
But the fact is, it doesn’t matter how much police deception or inducement was involved. Unless you are prepared to formally admit to the substantial elements of the crime, either in testimony or stipulation, the entrapment defense will not apply.
You are convicted and sentenced to return to prison to serve 9 more years. Your freedom was short lived.
Not only is this scenario imaginable, but the the high court of Arizona recently heard a case with similar circumstances. This statutory requirement was affirmed in that case.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the entrapment defense afforded under A.R.S. 13-206, is reserved for cases in which the defendant admits to the substantial elements of the crime.
In this article we examine the often misunderstood entrapment defense, and include the following featured topics:
Summer holds inherent risks of danger for outdoor drinking because the sun increases the effects of alcohol.
Heavy drinking combined with excessive sun exposure causes fluid loss, fatigue, dehydration, exhaustion, severe sunburn, alcohol poisoning, and impaired driving charges.
Other potential injuries and criminal charges occur as a result of excessive drinking including auto, boating, ATV, or motorcycle crashes; burns, drownings, assaults and violent crimes and DUI charges.
In Arizona high BAC levels call for harsh penalties in the event of a conviction. This article will provide insight into Arizona laws and penalties for Extreme DUI and Super Extreme DUI charges.
The Governor of Arizona recently signed HB 2419 into law amending Arizona’s stalking law A.R.S. section 13-2923.
The new law makes it easier for individuals to be arrested and charged with stalking.
Under the amendment, persons are exposed to significant penalties for a wider range of conduct.
This article includes discussion on the following topics:
Arizona drivers currently found guilty of DUI charges are required to install and use an ignition interlock device (IID).
It doesn’t matter that their DUI did not involve alcohol. It doesn’t’ matter that they never used alcohol a day in their lives.
Requiring a person convicted of a drug DUI to install and submit to an IID screening before they can start their vehicle, never made a lot of sense.
This was particularly true if the driver didn’t drink alcohol, considering that current IID technology does not allow for detection of drugs in a person’s body.
Current IID technology is limited to detection of spirituous liquor on a person’s breath during exhalation.
It may have served a punitive purpose; but it did nothing to prevent a driver from driving impaired due to drugs.
This however, is about to change.
Arizona’s SB 1228 has passed. It will allow for judges to have some discretion as to whether or not to impose installation and use of an IID for Drug DUI convictions.
This article provides a comprehensive look at Arizona’s Ignition Interlock Device Program and other related topics included:
In the recent ruling the Arizona Supreme Court considered a Fourth Amendment issue and Arizona’s implied consent law in DUI case.
The cases centered around two primary issues. The first was whether or not consent to a warrantless search was voluntary, after suspect agreed to submit to it, only after the officer instructed him repeatedly about the law.
The next question for the court was whether or not the advisement by the police officer was given in good faith when the officer believed that his conduct was lawful and not in violation of the suspect’s 4th Amendment rights.
This article provides a case overview, legal principles that applied, and the additional related resource information:
Questions before the Court
The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure afford parties the right to request a change of judge before trial. But these rights are not without limitations.
In a recent case, an Arizona appellate court reviewed a defendant’s conviction for misconduct involving weapons. The appeal centered around two arguments, one being the defendant’s request for a new judge.
First, defendant had requested a peremptory change of judge under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.2, which was denied by the trial court.
Secondly, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence used to obtain the conviction.
In this article we will also, take a closer look at the arguments, and summarize three concepts related to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for trial, which were addressed in this case:
We will also discuss the proceedings, final ruling, the right to bear arms, procedural and evidentiary challenge in trial, and criminal defense for weapons charges.
Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog