Arizona jails and prisons have measures in place to assure no criminal activity in progress related to the defendant’s communications.
Authorized jail and prison officials screen a suspect’s mail, and record their telephone calls in jail.
The information they obtain may be used to prosecute pending or future criminal charges. The exception to this would be privileged communications between a defendant and their criminal attorney.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that enhanced sentencing does not apply if the victim is fictitious.
Under Arizona’s Dangerous Crimes against Children statute (DCAC), a person convicted of a sexual crime against a child is subject to enhanced sentencing. These penalties are severe and designed to provide greater punishments to those convicted of the offenses.
The question for the Court in this case was whether or not enhanced sentencing should be imposed under A.R.S. § 13-705(P) (1), when there was no actual victim.
If you were arrested for domestic violence or assault, the prosecution may attempt to use profiling evidence or “cold” expert witness testimony against you.
Profiling evidence and “cold” expert witness testimony is not always admissible. The decision about admissibility is a decision for the court. When making this determination the court will consider the rules of criminal evidence, content, relevance and objectivity of the testimony.
If improper witness testimony is admitted, it can potentially lead to an unfair guilty verdict. Therefore, proper challenges should be made as to the admissibility of planned expert witness testimony.
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals drug case, the court considered a defendant’s conviction for narcotic drug trafficking charges. The defendant was sentenced to a presumptive five-year term of imprisonment and appealed the conviction.
The defense argued that (1) the drugs found in his car should have been suppressed, (2) improper profile testimony was admitted, and (3) the sanction imposed for a Batson violation wasn’t adequate.
Drug trafficking charges are multi-facet in nature, and challenges can take place on numerous fronts. In this article three types of challenges will be discussed:
Currently the state of Arizona limits circumstances in which firearms can be carried onto school grounds.
Unless specifically outlined by law, carrying a loaded firearm on any school grounds will result in criminal charges under Arizona’s Weapons Misconduct law A.R.S. 13- 3102(12).
This article outlines the weapons misconduct laws related to guns on school grounds, threatening and intimidation (assault) laws; and criminal defense for weapons misconduct and assault charges.
You cannot be arrested solely for a non-criminal traffic violation in Mesa, AZ.
However, that changes if you fail to stop or try to elude police when you are signaled to pull over. Failure to stop violates Arizona’s unlawful flight laws.
The most important thing you can do when you realize police are signaling you to stop, is to pull over safely and promptly.
What is a Frisk?
A frisk in the context of a law enforcement search is also known as a pat-down.
It is less intrusive than a full body search. The purpose of a frisk is to ensure an officer’s safety by confirming that a suspect encountered by police is not armed and dangerous.
If you have criminal charges, it is likely that you will be faced with the decision of whether or not to take your case to trial. As an alternative to trial, you may be offered a plea deal or participation in a deferred prosecution program.
Last year Maricopa County Superior Court reported that of 99.8 percent of terminated DUI and criminal cases, only 2.2 percent went to trial.
The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) reported similar statistics in 2016. The USSC reported 97.3 percent of criminal cases were resolved without trial, while only 2.7 percent went to trial.
In Arizona police are permitted to request a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw, from a DUI suspect who is unconscious under A.R.S. §28- 1321.
The blood draw may be unconstitutional if an individual’s rights are violated in the process.
Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the unconscious clause is permissible only when invoked non-routinely, under exigent circumstances that are case-specific.
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a person has the right to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures.
This protection extends to a DUI blood test. Consequently, police need a suspect’s consent or a search warrant to obtain a blood sample for a DUI investigation.
Without the person’s consent or a search warrant, it is unlawful for the police to collect a DUI blood sample.
Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
