DUI Law - Arizona Says Illegal Stop for One Brake Light Means Dismissal of Charges

In State of Arizona v. Fikes, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 6318947 (Ariz.App. Div. 2) a police officer observed that the brake light located at the top rear of Fikes's vehicle was not working and stopped him for violating A.R.S. § 28–939. The vehicle's two other brake lights were working. The officer observed no other traffic infractions, nor did the officer articulate any other reason for the stop. After stopping the vehicle, the officer discovered Fikes had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Fikes moved to suppress all of the evidence obtained from the traffic stop on the grounds the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The trial court denied the motion and evidence of the investigation was presented at trial. After Fikes was convicted and sentenced, he appealed.

On appeal, the defendant claimed that the statute only required one working stop lamp, and he had 2 of 3 in working condition. The statutes read that: “A person ... shall not drive a vehicle on the highways unless it is equipped with a stop lamp that meets the requirements of § 28–939.” A.R.S. § 28–927. Section 28–939 is titled “Signal Lamps and Devices,” sets forth some technical requirements for stop and other lamps, and provides in relevant part: “If a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, the lamp or lamps shall: 1. Be maintained at all times in good working condition. 2. Not project a glaring or dazzling light.”

The court found that the statute only required one working lamp, and so they reversed the conviction. At oral argument, the state contended the legislature could have wanted to require all installed stop lamps to work because a non-functioning stop lamp could confuse other drivers. In response, the court wrote:

"However, the legislative history does not indicate that the legislature was concerned with this possibility. And nothing in the record indicates any other driver was or could have been confused here. The state also claimed this decision could discourage police officers from stopping dangerous vehicles under a public-safety or community-welfare exception. See, e.g., State v. Mendoza–Ruiz, 225 Ariz. 473, 240 P.3d 1235 (App.2010); State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 234 P.3d 611 (App.2010). But the officer here did not testify that he was motivated by public safety or community welfare." Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!

DUI Appeal of the Day - Hearing Officer's refusal to authorize subpoena improper

In Florida Dept of Hwys and Motor Vehicles v. Auster, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 5391552 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.), the defendant sought to challenge her suspension for refusing a breath test, based upon her claim that she had timely recanted her refusal to submit to a breath test. In that regard, she sought to subpoena the breath technician to confirm her claim. The hearing officer, upon whose authority the subpoena must issue, refused to authorize the same. She then lost the hearing, and appealed. On appeal, the court stated:

A hearing officer is expressly authorized to issue subpoenas for officers and witnesses identified in the documents submitted by a law enforcement officer pursuant to section 322.2615(2). See § 322.2615(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Here, Caner was identified in these documents. Furthermore, according to DHSMV's own rules, the procedural due process rights afforded a driver seeking formal review of a license suspension under section 322.2615 include “the right to present evidence relevant to the issues, to cross-examine opposing witnesses, to impeach any witness, and to rebut the evidence presented against the driver.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 15A-6.013(5). The question of whether Auster timely rescinded her refusal to submit to a breath test is a relevant issue.

Continuing, the appellate court held that:

Where the witness' expected testimony would be relevant to the issues within the limited scope of the review hearing and would not be clearly cumulative, due process considerations require the hearing officer to issue a subpoena if the hearing officer has the authority to do so.

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!

Flawed blood draw procedures in DUI cases not uncommon

Image via WikipediaEvery jurisdiction has specific procedures in place for DUI blood draws. These procedures exist for a very good reason: to prevent improper draws that could result in flawed test results and the subsequent conviction of innocent people. However, it's not uncommon for local police departments to ignore the important procedures in place and allow unlawful blood draws to occur. This recently happened in Tracy, California. As explained in this Recordnet.com article, for almost 8 months, the Tracy Police Department allowed firefighters to draw blood from suspected drunk drivers. This occurred even though California law specifically excludes firefighters from drawing blood for DUI cases since they are not certified paramedics. According to the article, this error is expected to have an impact on pending and closed DUI cases:

Gil Somera, a Stockton attorney who has defended clients charged with driving drunk, said the validity of the blood sample is vital to a DUI case.

"It is probably the most important component of the evidence," he said.

Somera said the fact that the blood was drawn by firefighters could affect closed cases.

A similar issue was encountered in Indiana last year, resulting in a change to the state's DUI laws, as described in a recent WIBC.com article:

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a year ago the law doesn't let a lab technician do your blood-alcohol test -- the law says "certified phlebotomist," and Indiana has no such certification. In March, legislators eliminated that language, and said anyone with the proper training, including a lab tech, can take blood -- but they still have to follow established protocols, or be under the supervision of a doctor.

However, even after the Indiana law was amended to expand the classifications of people authorized to draw blood, local police departments still allowed unqualified people to draw blood for DUI cases. As explained in the article, in one recent case, an unsupervised and unqaulified lab technician drew blood in the absence of any protocols. Accordingly, the blood test results obtained from the blood draw have been held to be inadmissible, resulting the dismissal of the DUI-related charges pending against David Bisard. The danger of DUI blood and breath testing is in the inaccuracy. There is so much room for error, whether from faulty equipment, errors in the underlying software programming, calibration errors or human error in obtaining the breath or blood sample. These cases are further examples of how error-prone these procedures can be and just go to show that what at first glance might appear to be a fool-proof case against someone accused of DUI, in many cases, is just the opposite.

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!

Is "erratic driving" alone cause for a DWI investigation?

Image via Wikipedia

A few weeks ago we asked a similar question. In that case, an Illinois driver, the son of the local mayor, ran into stationary cars in a parking lot and then drove off from the scene of the accident. When police tracked him down later that evening, a breathalyzer test was not issued since there were no outward signs of intoxication. In a remarkably similar case, a DuPage County Judge, Kenneth L. Popejoy, was likewise not required to submit to a breathlyzer test. As reported in a Daily Herald article, on the evening of June 29th, a number of witnesses allegedly called 911 after seeing Judge Popejoy run into a parked vehicle, run a stop sign and nearly hit a jogger. When police arrived at his home, he refused to answer any questions. According to Glen Ellyn Deputy Police Chief Bill Holmer, because he showed no signs of intoxication, he was not investigated for DUI:

"We can't compel him to take (a breathalyzer test)," Holmer said, adding: "There weren't any of the typical signs of impairment that we look for, such as smell or slurred speech. None of that was apparent."

In the article, Don Ramsell, of our office, agreed with Holmer's assessment of the situation:

Wheaton DUI and criminal defense attorney Donald Ramsell said that while police have a responsibility to investigate why a driver fled without reporting an accident, there's no cause to give a Breathalyzer or field-sobriety test without an odor, impaired speech or some other indication of alcohol.

"It would be improper to administer a breath test if you have no outward sign of alcohol consumption," Ramsell said. "It's illegal to fish for a crime."

Although Judge Popejoy was not charged with any DUI-related offenses, he was charged with charged with reckless driving, failure to give information after striking an unattended motor vehicle and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. The investigating police departments contend that preferential treatment was not a factor in the decision not to pursue a DUI investigation, and it is noted in the article that both towns "have handled recent high-profile DUI arrests of public officials, such as those of a Glendale Heights cop and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's daughter." Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!