Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Articles Posted in Marijuana Laws


Why Two Appeals Court Rulings Contrasted: Justices Review Effects of AMMA on Marijuana Odor on Probable Cause.

In late July, two different Appeals Courts in Arizona released contrasting opinions involving appeals to dismiss the Marijuana evidence due to lack of probable cause for the search.

In both cases the defendants argued that the effects of Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) were that the smell of Marijuana should not be used for determination of Probable cause.

In one case the conviction was reversed.  In the other case the conviction was affirmed.  Here we find out why they differed.

Arizona Appeals Court Ruling – Case #1 (No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0181)

On July 20, 2015, the Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two issued the first ruling.

The Court considered the effect that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) had on probable cause to for issuance of search warrant, based on an odor of Marijuana.

In this case, the Appeals Court ruled that the scent of marijuana alone was insufficient evidence of criminal activity.

Therefore, it was not adequate to justify probable cause for search and seizure warrant.

The Appeals Court held that in order to satisfy the probable cause standard, the scent of the Marijuana would need to be combined with other evidence or facts, which were not presented in this case.

Case #1 Overview 

The incident arose from a search warrant requested by police officers after they reported smelling a strong odor of marijuana from a multi-unit warehouse.

The judge issued the warrant, finding that the odor served as probable cause for search.

Prior to Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) which passed in 2010, the courts recognized that the smell of marijuana indicated the probability of criminal activity, because Marijuana in any form was unlawful.

When the police arrived at the warehouse and entered, they found it empty.

So they requested a second warrant, to enter another building nearby based on the odor of Marijuana traced to that building.

The magistrate granted another warrant to search the second building.

In the second warehouse, they found dozens of marijuana plants and growing equipment.

They discovered that that young child and defendant both resided there.

The defendant was charged with child abuse, possession of marijuana for sale, production of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the marijuana scent was not enough to establish probable cause of criminal activity.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that the AMMA didn’t affect probable cause determinations.

The defendant was convicted of the charge, and sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which imposed a 3.5 year term.

The defendant appealed his convictions arguing that the AMMA should change the probable cause analysis with respect to the smell of marijuana.

One effect of the AMMA was that Marijuana may be lawful in other places now, for example, where it’s cultivated.

As a result, it is in both possession as well as other places where Marijuana is considered lawful.

And other circumstances now exists besides “mere possession itself”  where criminal conduct v. non-criminal activity must be determined.

Based on this rationale, the Court ruled that multiple circumstances should be considered along with the marijuana odor factor, in order to determine if police have sufficient probable cause for search.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that probable cause exists when a reasonably prudent person, based on the facts known to the police officer, would be justified in concluding that the items sought are related to criminal activity and will be found in a particular location.

The Court held that the odor of Marijuana does not necessarily mean that criminal activity has happened or will happen.

Lawful operations that take place under the AMMA such as medical marijuana dispensaries will cause the buildings in which they occur to smell.

Accordingly, the court found that the smell of marijuana is now insufficient by itself to provide probable cause for a search warrant for a building.

There must be some circumstantial evidence of criminal activity beyond the mere smell of marijuana in order to find probable cause.

The court expressly limited the holding since it was the odor of Marijuana from a building that raised suspicion that a crime was in process, and not actions of a suspect.

The Appeals Court did not address the issue of whether the smell itself constituted reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop or detention.

The Justices noted that despite the protections under the AMMA, smoking Marijuana in or in an automobile can still suggest a crime has occurred as prohibited; as well as smoking Marijuana in public prohibited under A.R.S. 36-2802.

Therefore the smell of marijuana smoke in public places or from a vehicle may still give rise to probable cause and reasonable suspicion for investigation, depending on a reasonable assessment of the circumstances.

Arizona Appeals Court Ruling – Case #2 (No. 1 CA-CR 14-0072)

The second case  opinion filed July 23, 2015, heard in Arizona Court of Appeals Division One, was an appeal for misdemeanor possession or use of marijuana.

During the proceeding in Maricopa County Superior Court, the defendant’s motion to dismiss a warrantless search of his vehicle was denied, resulting in the conviction.

 Case #2 Overview 

The Appeals Court found no error in denying the suppression of the evidence and affirmed the conviction.

This incident arose after police on routine patrol noticed a vehicle had window tinting darkness in violation of Arizona window tinting laws.

When they approached the vehicle they smelled a strong odor of Marijuana coming from inside of the vehicle.

The officer asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle. The defendant complied  without incident.

The police officer then searched the vehicle, and noticed an empty prescription medication bottle in the center console.  He opened it and smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana.

Under the driver’s seat the officer then found what was described as a “marble size’ amount of unburnt marijuana.

Police arrested the suspect.  Following the arrest, the suspect’s Miranda Rights were read.

At that point the suspect admitted that the pill bottle that contained the burnt marijuana belonged to him.

During the lower court proceedings the defendant argued that automobile exception to the search based on “plain smell of marijuana” doctrine no longer authorizes police to search vehicles, due to the enactment of Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) A.R. S. 36-2801.

The Superior Court denied this argument citing the Plain Smell doctrine.

“Plain smell” standard adopted in State of Arizona v. Harrison, which holds that the AMMA does not eliminate the “Plain Smell” Doctrine.

The Court also rejected the argument by the defendant that under protections of the AMMA Police must presume that any odor of marijuana they smell is lawful, and no longer an incriminating characteristic to establish probable cause of a crime.

The Appeals Court recognized that under the AMMA laws of Arizona A.R.S 36- 2811 a registered and qualifying patient is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalties for use as long as are using in accordance with the provisions of the AMMA law.

The Justices also noted the impacts that the Medical Marijuana Law does not have:

  • The AMMA does not immunize suspects from being subject to searches under the Plain Smell Doctrine.
  • The AMMA does not disqualify the plain smell of marijuana to be used as sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for search in Arizona.
  • The AMMA does decriminalize marijuana in the State.
  • The AMMA does not reduce the significance of Marijuana as an indicator of criminal activity.

The Appeals court held that the defendant did not show how the AMMA would extend immunities to him in this case.

The Court reviewed the “Plain Smell” Doctrine adopted by Arizona, that includes a three prong test. The doctrine makes the warrantless searches legal under the doctrine when the following criteria is met:

  • The officer is lawfully in a position to smell the evidence;
  • Incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
  • The officer had lawful right of access to the evidence Arizona Baggett, 2013.

The Justices noted that there was no challenge to the fact that the officer was lawfully in a position to smell the marijuana, possessed lawful access at that time,  or that the marijuana odor constituted sufficient probable cause that a crime was in progress or had been committed.

This information verifying that the three three-prong-test standards were met during lower court proceedings.

Thus, the Appeals court ruled that the Superior Court did not error, in denying the motion to suppress.

Therefore the decision of the lower court to deny the motion to suppress, and the convictions were affirmed.

Analysis and Discussion: Comparison of Two Contrasting Verdicts; and Marijuana Odor as Probable Cause

The two Appeals Courts did, in fact, have conflicting opinions in one primary challenge in both cases.

That was whether or not the AMMA effects or dismisses marijuana Smell to be used as a determinate for probable cause.

(1) In the first case, the Appeals Court ruled that the AMMA did impact the plain smell doctrine and whether or not it could be used to determine probable cause.

The first Appeals Court ruled in its case, that under the AMMA where Medical Marijuana is legal, there is potential to smell Marijuana in a number of places such where it is lawful such as where it is being cultivated, stored, or sold. This was not the case before AMMA enactment.

In the first case the source of smell was a warehouse, which narrowed the ruling to the context of the inside of a building.

Use of Marijuana in a vehicle, or in public is prohibited under AMMA and Arizona Law.  Use of a Marijuana in a vehicle is still suggestive of criminal activity such as impaired driving.

These factors were paramount because to the Appeals Court decision to vacate the convictions.

(2) In the second case the Appeals Court rejected the idea that the AMMA impacted the “Plain Smell Doctrine” when determining probable cause for search; and that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not immunize suspects from being subject to “Plain Smell” of Marijuana being sufficient for probable cause to search.  It only provides protections from arrest prosecution and any penalties.

Further, the source of the Marijuana smell was a vehicle, reinforcing their decision affirm the convictions since use in a vehicle is prohibited under AMMA;  Arizona Statute; and is still suggestive of criminal activity.

Marijuana smoke on a public road to still constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause in the context of a vehicle search.  There are still some points that may need clarification.

The fundamental circumstances in the two cases are different, meaning it is unlikely that any changes in police policy related to Marijuana odor evidence at this point.

If in the first case, the odor of the marijuana had originated from an automobile, or while the suspect was in public, then a conflict in verdicts would have existed in Arizona case law.

It seems only a matter of time before these or other cases involving Probable Cause for Search based on Plain Smell of Marijuana cases end up in the Arizona Supreme Court.

Arizona and all other states progressing in Marijuana passage in some form, can expect repetitive ad continuing disputes that impact them at a state-wide level.

The state will continue to progress in setting forth laws or precedent guidelines that address the impacts the AMMA will have on reasonable suspicion or probable cause determinations in the future.

Considering the fact that the Federal laws still prohibit Marijuana under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, it is unlikely that they would agree to hear State Court disputes involving Marijuana.

So for now and unless the cases are heard in the Arizona Supreme Court, the Appeals Court decisions will be looked to as precedent cases.   And each case will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Criminal Defense for Marijuana Crimes in Mesa AZ  

Marijuana and other Drug crimes in Arizona are very serious.  Even if a person is a qualified Medical Marijuana user, they may also be exposed to criminal charges if they are accused of violating the AMMA laws.

If you face Marijuana or any of drug charges it is crucial that you consult a criminal defense attorney to discuss your defense options and retain them for your charges. There may be defenses that can be used to challenge the charges.

In the cases above challenges were raised in the following areas:

1) Constitutional – Fourth Amendment Rights Violations for unlawful search and seizure;

2) Evidentiary –  Motions to dismiss evidence based on no probable cause for search; and

3) Statutory Challenges – Effect of AMMA on “Plain Smell” of Marijuana Doctrine to determine probable cause.

To protect your rights, and avoid self-incrimination, you should not make any statements to police regarding the charges until you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

James E. Novak, Drug Crimes Defense Attorney, is a former prosecutor, experience trial lawyer, and dedicated drug defense attorney.  If retained he will provide you with a strong defense for your charges.

James Novak, of The Law Office of James provides a free consultation for active criminal charges and serves Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale Arizona.  Call today for a confidential and free consultation at (480) 413-1499.

Additional Resources

A.R.S. § 36-2801 (Arizona Medical Marijuana Act)

Arizona 13-3925

Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona

Other Articles of Interest

Violations of “Search and Seizure” Laws: How they Impact Prosecution, July 23, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Warrant Needed To Collect DNA If Arrested, June 9, 2013

Yes, You Have Constitutional Rights At An Arizona Checkpoint, July 5, 2014 Continue reading

Possession of 2-4 pounds indicator of commercial dealings. Convictions call for mandatory prison.

131369_pot_of_gold.jpgCultivation or manufacture of marijuana for non-medicinal purposes (or growing outside the strict guidelines provided in connection with medical marijuana cards) remains a felony in Arizona. Those arrested and prosecuted for felony marijuana manufacturing can face serious punishments at sentencing.

There have been several significant arrests in Phoenix and Tucson for cultivation of marijuana recently. In mid-May, Tucson police found a house where 356 marijuana plants in various stages of growth were growing. They also found $18,000 in cash. On June 3, 2013 a canine unit from the Arizona Department of Public Safety found a driver carrying 7 pounds of marijuana. After arresting him, the Arizona Department of Public Safety searched his house in Phoenix and found 100 marijuana plants as well as handguns and growing equipment.

Marijuana cultivation for non-medicinal purposes is not only illegal, but can also be physically dangerous. On June 6, 2013, a marijuana grow house with about 1 dozen marijuana plants caught fire. The firefighters observed lighting, heaters, and Styrofoam insulation. Equipment used to grow marijuana can require an enormous amount of electricity.

As a result of the equipment used to grow large quantities of marijuana, circuits can get overloaded and wires get overheated, resulting in a fire. An entirely sealed room may require a dehumidifier, which also consumes electricity. Failure to control humidity can lead to mold or rotted wood. If propane powered generators are used, there is also the chance of explosion. Depending upon the circumstances, causing a fire and the ensuing property damage or injury to a person can lead to additional civil or criminal penalties beyond those levied for marijuana manufacturing.

Marijuana cultivation for non-medicinal purposes carries different punishments based on the dried weight of the marijuana. In addition to jail or prison time, those convicted of marijuana cultivation must also pay $750 in fines. If convicted of cultivating an amount less than 2 pounds, sentencing may be for a Class Five felony. As a first offense, marijuana manufacturing can be punished with prison for between 6-2.5 years in custody. A judge may offer a first time offender probation instead. If the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions, incarceration times increase even for this small amount.

If convicted of cultivating a quantity of marijuana with a dry weight of 2-4 pounds, the cultivation is a Class 4 felony that carries a mandatory prison sentence of 1 to 3.75 years of incarceration. With one prior felony conviction, the mandatory prison range is 2.25-7.5 years prison. The amount of mandatory prison time increases the more prior felony convictions a defendant has.

Marijuana cultivated in an amount that exceeds 4 pounds dried is a Class 3 felony with a mandatory prison sentence of 2-8.75 years in prison. This amount can increase up to 25 years of incarceration with two prior felony convictions.

Other penalties may apply in a situation involving a marijuana grow room or outside crop. A defendant may be charged not only with manufacture or cultivation, but also possession, sales, or trafficking depending upon the circumstances. As mentioned above, there may be property damage or other problems associated with a grow room.

There are several defenses to a charge of cultivating marijuana that an experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to raise. A number of these have a constitutional basis and involve the police following flawed procedures. For example, if the police coerced you into making a confession or failed to read you your “Miranda rights,” the evidence obtained this way is not admissible at trial. Similarly, where search warrants were not obtained or obtained improperly, they may violate Fourth Amendment rights.

Under certain circumstances, people are arrested and charged who were not aware of marijuana cultivation. This may happen, for example, on a rental property if marijuana is growing outside in a small part of a garden.

If you are arrested for manufacturing marijuana or for another marijuana-related offense, you should retain an attorney knowledgeable about these types of cases to defend and protect your rights. Contact The Law Office of James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a free consultation.

Additional Resources:

Arizona Drug DUI Laws
Arizona Drugs Defined Under Criminal Code
Mesa AZ Police Department

More Blogs

Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law Stands Ground, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, June 4, 2013
Marijuana DUI: The Impact of Montgomery v. Harris, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, March 13, 2013

But Medical Marijuana Card Holders Not without Risk

540325_plantator.jpgAlmost three years after passage, Medical marijuana remains controversial in Arizona. Medical Marijuana was legalized in 2010 through voter passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). The purpose of the AMMA is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, so that they can obtain necessary relief.

AMMA allows patients to get a registration identification card to show law enforcement officers that they are permitted to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Visitors from another state that recognizes medical marijuana, like California, with equivalent cards are also protected.

Notwithstanding these state protections, some law enforcement officers refuse to recognize the card. Federal law, which trumps state law, does not recognize or permit a medicinal use for marijuana. An appellate case heard earlier this year further legitimized medical marijuana cards, but the facts of the case illustrate that it there are still risks from a legal perspective to be a medical marijuana user in Arizona.
In the case, a California driver (the defendant) was stopped when she entered Arizona. The authorities found and seized marijuana and other contraband. The State filed drug charges against the driver, dismissing them only after she produced proof of permission to use marijuana for medical purposes. The Superior Court ordered that the driver’s marijuana be returned.

The State appealed. It argued that the superior court could not order the sheriff to return the marijuana and that Arizona law not only requires “summary forfeiture” of any marijuana seized by law enforcement, but the sheriff could not return the driver’s marijuana or risk violating federal law and getting prosecuted.

The appellate court reasoned that law enforcement officers did not seize the marijuana in connection with a drug offense, since the driver was permitted to possess marijuana for medical purposes. Nor could the State win on the grounds that it could keep marijuana that came into its possession. This was because to do that would require either bringing civil forfeiture proceedings, or to be holding drugs possessed in a crime. Since AMMA decriminalized medical marijuana, the latter situation did not exist.

The State also argues that the AMMA did not expressly require them to return marijuana from a qualifying patient. The appellate court disagreed. It noted that no penalty could be placed on a qualified patient under the statute.

The State had also argued that the sheriff could be prosecuted for transferring marijuana under federal law. This, too, the appellate court repudiated. Federal law “immunizes” law enforcement officials who follow a court order.

The State’s final argument was that the superior court could not order that the driver’s marijuana be returned to her because her possession was a federal crime. The appellate court declined to decide whether federal law preempted AMMA for purposes of adjudicating this case. There was no actual or threatened prosecution of the driver under federal law, and the State was not a party with a personal stake who had standing to argue that federal law prevented the driver from possessing the marijuana. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the superior court.

It’s clear that this will not be the last time a defendant will have to deal with a situation in which state law enforcement attempt to ignore AMMA. Officers may continue to arrest drivers, requiring them to come to court to fight the charges brought against them.

Additional Resources:

Arizona Drug DUI Laws

Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

Arizona Drugs Defined Under Criminal Code

Continue reading

On July 29, 2012 Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer denied the request to halt implementation of the Medical Marijuana Law voted in by Arizonans in November 2010.
Governor Brewer stated in a letter to the Yavapai County Attorney, that she is “duty-bound” from such halt because “the voters approved it”. Approximately 29,500 people have received their Medical Marijuana cards.
The letter signed by Arizona County Attorneys in 13 Counties, including Maricopa County, requested an immediate halt due to the following concerns:

• Arizona Medical Marijuana laws are preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”);
• Imminent threats of seizures and closures of dispensaries in Arizona by the U.S. Attorney exist;
• State employees involved or who participate in conduct that is in violation of Federal offenses is compelling enough to take immediate action to halt of ADHS licensing.

Despite the fact that Governor Brewer did not support the passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), she feels strongly she has a duty to support its’ existence which was voted into law by the people of Arizona. She stands on firm ground with her decision, and will move forward with implementation until and unless she is notified by the higher Court that State employees will be prosecuted by administration of the law within their duties.

Arizona Laws

As it stands now Medical Marijuana laws allow for, among other things the following provisions:

• No limit exists as to the amount an approved and licensed dispensary may grow;
• Qualified Patients with valid Medical Marijuana cards may purchase 2.5 ounces every two week.

Arizona Drug DUI and Marijuana DUI Laws

All medical marijuana users should understand that although they are qualified users, with valid cards, that do not prevent them from being arrested for Drug DUI.
Under A.R.S § 13-3401, any person “driving impaired to the slightest degree” due to the influence of alcohol, drugs, or Marijuana, they may still be charged with a DUI. The other fact to keep in mind is that Marijuana stays in the blood stream much longer than alcohol. So even in small amounts, it may show positive on DUI blood or chemical testing days or even weeks after it was smoked or ingested.

Consequences of DUI with Drugs or Marijuana DUI

If you are arrested in Arizona for a Drug DUI, or Marijuana DUI you should consult a criminal defense attorney to discuss your matter and defense options. Penalties for Marijuana DUI Convictions are as severe as those for Alcohol related DUI charges. They carry mandatory jail sentencing; suspension of driver’s license; probation; alcohol/drug education, counseling and screening; fines, fees, and assessment costs. You should retain proper legal representation for your charges. They will make sure your rights are protected; that you are treated fairly; and work to get the best resolution in your case. Favorable outcomes may include dismissal of charges, reduction of sentencing; avoidance of jail or other harsh penalties.

Continue reading

Arizona Marijuana DUI Defense
The passing of Medical Marijuana Prop 203 does not affect Arizona’s Drug DUI laws.
The fact that you may be a qualified card holder to use Marijuana (pot, weed, grass, cannabis) does not give you immunity against the strict Arizona DUI laws. If you are stopped by the police and determined to be driving “impaired to the slightest degree” with Marijuana in your system, you may be arrested or charged with an Arizona DUI. If you have been arrested or charged with a Drug DUI or Marijuana DUI you should consult an Arizona drug defense, criminal defense, or DUI lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your Arizona DUI charges and defense options.

Arizona Marijuana DUI Laws
Arizona Law prohibits use of driving a vehicle while “impaired to the slightest degree”, due to any drug, alcohol, vapor releasing, intoxicating, or toxic substance in the body. Arizona DUI laws are strict.

Even if you are a certified card holder for Arizona medical Marijuana use, or you have taken any other drug legally prescribed by a licensed physician, or an over-the-counter drug at your local drug store, A.R.S. 28-1381 3.B. will apply. Below are portions of the
Arizona DUI drug laws:
Arizona Revised Statutes
“A.R.S. 28-1381. Driving or actual physical control while under the influence; trial by jury; presumptions; admissible evidence; sentencing; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree….

3. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person’s body…

B. It is not a defense to a charge of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section that the person is or has been entitled to use the drug under the laws of this state.

C. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor….”
(Cited in Part: Arizona State Website

Arizona DUI with Marijuana Testing | DUI Marijuana evidence
The most common way Arizona police test for DUI with Marijuana is through blood testing and Urine testing. Both are controversial with regard to the test results and may be argued by your marijuana DUI defense lawyer as to whether or not they are admissible or should be suppressed as improper evidence depending on many circumstances. The prosecution will usually insist without justifiable circumstances that the blood or urine testing is accurate and admissible as evidence to use against you. A good Arizona defense Attorney will examine the evidence to determine if a compelling argument can be made to suppress it and file the proper motions.

Arizona Marijuana DUI Penalties
Arizona has some of the toughest laws in the country for Drug DUI and any DUI. Below are jail or prison guidelines for DUI convictions. Note this chart does not include other penalties, fines, fees or punishments that apply for Phoenix DUI convictions. References are from A.R.S. 28 – 1381, 28-1382, and 28-1383:

• First DUI (non-extreme) .08+ BAC……………… 24 Hours in Jail
• Second DUI (non-extreme) .08+ BAC……………..30 Days in Jail
• First DUI Extreme .15+ BAC ……………………. .30 Days in Jail
• Second DUI Extreme .15+ BAC……………………. 120 Days in Jail
• First DUI Super Extreme .20+ BAC……………….. 45 Days in Jail
• 2nd Super Extreme .20+ BAC……………………..180 Days in jail
• Felony DUI (with aggravated classification)……4 Months in Prison
Arizona Marijuana DUI Defense Attorney
The criminal justice system in Arizona is a maze of procedures, protocol, turbulent legislation, and is not empathetic to persons charged with DUI, or DUI with drugs of any kind. The job of the Arizona prosecution is to convict you. They are not there to help you or to examine defense strategies to help you defend yourself. The judge can not do anything to help you unless proper motions and compelling arguments in your defense are presented through the proper legal channels. You will need a strong criminal defense attorney, Arizona DUI lawyer or criminal defense attorney in Arizona. There is too much for you at stake to go unrepresented by a proper Arizona DUI lawyer. They will be the your ally you need to protect your rights, make sure you are treated fairly, defend you, and do everything possible, to try to get your charges dismissed, reduced or the otherwise best outcome in your case.

Continue reading