Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Recently, an Arizona appellate court addressed the lower court’s new changes in procedure made in response to the Covid-19 public health emergency. The appellate court denied a defendant’s challenges to these changes, which included the option for potential jurors to appear by video instead of in-person and the decrease in peremptory strikes during jury selection.…

In a recent opinion written by an Arizona appellate court, a defendant appealed a lower court’s denial of his to suppress the physical evidence found in his backpack after a murder. The appellate court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress, finding that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment protections were not violated since the backpack…

Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion in an Arizona robbery and felony-murder case. In its opinion, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to preclude an identification made by a witness. The Facts of the Case According to the court’s opinion, the defendant and four other individuals…

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona drug case involving the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. According to the court’s opinion, an officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle with two passengers after noticing the vehicle swerve across the fog line of a highway in Arizona. During the…

Law enforcement agencies often use traffic stops or other small municipal code violations as a pretext to investigate a suspect for more serious criminal activity. Many arrests and convictions for serious crimes occur only after a law enforcement officer has stopped or detained a suspect for a less serious offense, and decided to expand the…

Over the past decade, more states are coming to realize the detrimental—and unfair—effects that result when applying existing laws. For example, laws imposing mandatory minimum punishments, the system’s failure to account for mental health issues (including addiction), and harsh collateral consequences that come along with a conviction have all started to get a second look.…

In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that hashish qualifying patients under the AMMA are permitted to possess and use hashish because the statutory definition of “marijuana” includes resin, and by extension, hashish. With evolving court opinions and rapid changes in legislation, this article outlines current laws associated with medical marijuana, alternative forms of cannabis; differences between cannabis, marijuana, and hemp; impacts of recent federal and state legislation, criminal penalties for violations; and criminal defense topics.

A DUI breath or chemical test is considered a protected search under the 4th Amendment. This requires police to have a warrant for probable cause in order to conduct a DUI breath, blood or urine test. This is the case, even if it is administered under Arizona’s Implied Consent Law. Arizona courts have held that if a person was coerced by the officer to take the DUI test then their consent is not voluntary (State of Arizona v. Valenzuela, 2016). Thus, an involuntary consent does not relieve police of the requirement to obtain a warrant.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case centered on the issue of whether the defendant’s consent to provide a blood test was voluntary or involuntary. This article outlines the recent Arizona Supreme Court opinion, Q. & A. surrounding Arizona’s Implied Consent Law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that when the prosecution uses drug courier profiling evidence for the purpose of substantially proving guilt, it is a violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Drug profiling is when the police officers observe a collection of behaviors typically recognized in law enforcement as being associated drug dealer conduct.
While police can use drug courier profiling evidence to establish reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate a person’s actions, this evidence cannot be used at trial largely to prove guilt. This is because by doing so, the defendant is essentially prosecuted for what others have done instead of what the defendant has done.

This article includes a discussion of the new aggravated factor law pertaining to masks and disguises; what constitutes a mask or disguise; other aggravated and mitigating factors in sentencing; the burden of proof for aggravated factors; examples of aggravated and mitigated factors; sentencing ranges, how penalties are imposed within them; and the role of a criminal defense attorney in the sentencing stage.