The U.S. Supreme Court previously held that Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking on a driver’s vehicle comprises a search under the 4th amendment. This means that police need a warrant to conduct GPS tracking on a vehicle owned or driven by a suspect when the vehicle is legally in their possession. Earlier this year, the…
Continue reading ›Arizona jails and prisons have measures in place assure no criminal activity in progress in communications. These procedures enable officials to screen mail, and record telephone calls involving the suspect. The content of mail or phone calls can be used prosecute pending or future criminal charges. This article includes three things to keep in mind to help you avoid self-incrimination; How to invoke your rights; Aggravated Assault Penalties in Arizona; and How to resolve your criminal charges.
Continue reading ›The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that enhanced sentencing does not apply if the victim is fictitious.
Under Arizona’s Dangerous Crimes against Children law (DCAC), a person convicted of a sexual crime against a child is subject to enhanced sentencing. These sentencing guidelines are harsh and designed to provide greater punishments. Dangerous Crimes against Children in Arizona for those offenses described under A.R.S. 13-705 for which calls for enhanced sentencing. It applies when a person 18 years or older is convicted of committing specified offenses against children between ages of 12 to 15 and under, depending on the particular offense listed under the law.
Profiling evidence is sometimes used by the prosecution to help jurors decide on the facts as well as credibility of witnesses.
Profiling expert testimony is not always admissible and is a decision for the court. Consideration is based upon the rules of criminal evidence, and the content of the expert witness’s planned testimony. If improper witness testimony is admitted, it can potentially lead to an unfair guilty verdict.
Arizona Courts may also consider admissibility of “cold” witness testimony in which an expert offers an opinion on general principles without applying them to the facts of a case. This article takes a closer look at the admissibility of “cold” expert testimony and profiling evidence in the prosecution of domestic violence charges..
Challenges for drug trafficking charges can be made on several fronts. Here are three uncommon defenses used in a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case:
1) Batson Challenge (Trial procedure defense)
2) Search was not within scope of consent (Constitutional challenge)
3) Contesting of expert testimony on drug-courier profiling (Evidentiary challenge)
This article also provides a case summary, penalties and criminal defense for drug trafficking charges in Mesa AZ.
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). Under A.R.S. § 13- 3102 (I) (1) Arizona law provides an exception, to weapons misconduct laws if the firearm within the person’s possession or vehicle was not loaded with ammunition. In this case ammunition was not in the chamber. However, there was ammunition in the magazine which holds the shells for the purpose of feeding the chamber repeatedly.
The defendant argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it does not define the word “loaded”, and that some states define it more narrowly.
The Arizona Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the trial court which held that “loaded” includes not only the bullets contained in the firing chamber. Rather, a gun is also considered to be loaded if ammunition is contained within the cylinder, magazine, or clip of a firearm. The court cited a number of case precedents for relied upon by both sides which concluded this holding.
The Appeals Court concluded that a law is not constitutionally vague simply because the State Legislature decided not to define it more technically or narrowly. This article outlines the weapons misconduct at school laws, assault laws that apply; penalties; situations in which guns are permitted on school grounds; and criminal defense for charges.
5 Things You Should Know about Your Rights in a Police Stop and Arrest . In Mesa AZ you cannot be arrested on the basis of a non-criminal traffic violation.
However, that changes if you fail to stop or flee when police signal you to pull over for the matter. Fleeing from police or failure to stop are in violation of criminal unlawful flight laws. The most important thing you can do when you see flashing lights or hear the siren is to pull over safely and promptly. In the least you should slow down and find a way to signal to police that you see them and intend to pull over. Otherwise you could create probable cause for your arrest.
Recently, an Arizona Appeals Court ruled on whether or not a search warrant was required for police to follow a driver into a private driveway for a stop that began on a public road. It held that though a person is not subject to arrest for a civil traffic violation, failure to stop or comply with police does result in creating probable cause for arrest. The following case summary provides the Appeals Court’s majority opinion and basis for their decision to allow the evidence which reaffirmed the conviction. This article also provides a recent Arizona case ruling, and a list of 5 important questions and answers related to your rights at a stop, and defending subsequent criminal charges.
Arizona Supreme Court decisions have potential to influence future case decisions when similar questions for the court arise. The Court held that a person can be frisked if the officer has a reasonable belief that a person is armed with a concealed weapon and is dangerous; and if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is the process, or about to commit a crime.
This is consistent with prior federal and state court decisions. However, in this case the focus was on the question what circumstances give rise to reasonable suspicion. The court emphasized that police are not justified in frisking someone just because they happen to be in a high-crime area at the time of an encounter. In addition to the case overview, this article answers basics questions about laws and rights involving a police pat-down search or frisk.
The Court also clarified that a frisk of someone, is not justified if it is done because of something someone else did, as long as the person with whom they are conversing has not given them reason to believe they themselves are breaking the law.
If you have criminal charges, you will likely face a decision of whether or not to accept a plea deal, or enter a diversion program. This is because most criminal and DUI cases are resolved or terminated before trial. Maricopa County Superior Court reported that 97.8 percent of criminal cases filed in 2016 were resolved or dismissed, while only 2.2% went to trial.
This trend of increased plea bargains and deferred prosecution arrangements is on the rise and has been reported on the upswing on a federal level as well. The United States Sentencing Commission reported that 97.3 percent of criminal cases were resolved with the defendant entering a guilty plea, and 2.7 percent by trial. Defendants still have the right to trial. However, many choose to enter a plea agreement or deferred prosecution program to avoid the uncertainties of trial and to avoid the risk of being sentenced to harsh or maximum penalties.
Prosecutors are encouraged to pursue plea agreements and to offer diversion programs to reduce court caseloads, and to preserve resources needed to conduct a trial.
In any event, it is a good idea to become familiar with these arrangements so that if you are faced with a proposal, you can make informed decisions about whether or not to enter into these arrangements.
In this article we will discuss plea agreements, deferred sentencing, and how a criminal defense attorney can assist you in obtaining the best outcome in these arrangements.
In Arizona police are permitted to request a nonconsensual blood draw, without a warrant, from a DUI suspect who is unconscious under A.R.S. §28- 1321.
The provision does have limitations, and the blood draw can be unconstitutional if an individual’s rights are rights are violated in the process.
The Arizona Supreme Court held ruled that the unconscious clause is permissible only when invoked non-routinely, under exigent circumstances, and are case-specific.
In a recent case, the AZ Supreme Court ruled held that a DUI blood test taken under the unconscious clause was unconstitutional.
The Court ruling was decided based on the grounds that conditions were not exigent, and the test was requested due to a systematic procedure, rather than individual circumstances. Under the good faith exception, evidence collected in violation of Fourth Amendment privacy rights can still be admitted at trial if the police acted in good faith.
But the court also determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply.
In this article we will discuss the decision, what means for Arizona drivers, how to protect your rights, and what happens if your rights are violated.
