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.
What is Reasonable Suspicion?
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard of proof in criminal law recognized throughout the United States.
It refers to the justification needed by police to make an investigative stop.
A medical marijuana cardholder can raise an affirmative defense when charged with driving under the influence under § 28-1381(A)(3).
Recently, an Arizona appellate court considered an important case where the Justices reviewed what it takes to prove this affirmative defense.
This article sheds light on some important related criminal law and defense topics:
In Arizona, we recently learned of a tragic story.
Police officers answered a domestic dispute, and the suspect was fatally shot by police.
When the officer arrived on scene, he encountered a woman outside a home.
No one who drinks expects to get a DUI or be the victim of an alcohol related disaster.
It is important to remember that others on the road may be driving dangerously due to drug or alcohol impairment.
Often people who have been drinking, lose track of how much they are drinking, and have not planned for an alternative ride home or arranged for a designated driver.
In any criminal trial, the timing in which the defense theory is presented to the jury, is equally as important as the defense itself.
In a recent case decided by the Arizona Supreme Court, the defendant was charged with Marijuana transportation, and challenged the charges using Arizona’s Dress defense.
The defendant testified that smugglers armed with weapons, forced him to carry large bundles of Marijuana into the Arizona desert.
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
Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
