Our DUI Attorneys Offer Experienced Legal Representation
DUI, also known as driving under the influence, is a serious crime in Arizona. The Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tucson area, Arizona DUI attorneys with Phillips and Associates represent people charged with DUI.
At Phillips & Associates, we are one of Arizona's largest defenders of DUI cases. In the Phoenix area, we presently have more than twelve attorneys who limit their practice to exclusively DUI and criminal defense. Our experienced legal team includes some attorneys who are Board Certified as Specialists in Criminal Law by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. We also have attorneys who were former judges, and several attorneys who were former prosecutors. Some of our other experienced attorneys have limited their criminal practice to defending the rights of the accused.
Our Phoenix DUI attorneys believe in an aggressive defense and are dedicated to protecting individual rights. We feel this is necessary because Arizona's DUI statutes are zealously enforced and provide substantial punishments. Our attorneys work hard to negotiate the best possible deal for their DUI defendants. When a plea bargain cannot be negotiated, our DUI attorneys provide experienced legal representation for their defendants at trial. We will not recommend that a client plea guilty to DUI unless, after our investigation, we believe such a plea would be in our client's best interest.
Read about our latest case results and explore our website to learn more about DUI and representation with Phillips and Associates. To schedule a consultation with our Phoenix, Arizona DUI attorneys, contact us.
- DUI - Frequently Asked Questions
- Types of DUI Cases
- Your Rights in a DUI Case
- What Happens to your Driver’s License
- DUI Testing
- DUI Process
- DUI Penalties
- Related Crimes
- DUI Attorneys Fees
New changes in Arizona DUI Laws will take effect this month
Recently the Governor of the State of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, signed two bills into law. Ninety days after the close of sessions this year, these new changes will come into effect and will affect all individuals convicted of Driving Under the Influence.
Under Senate Bill 1252, by statute, judges would have their discretion to suspend a portion of the jail time imposed by law taken away, for first offense conviction of an Extreme Driving Under the Influence (ExtDUI) violation. This would mean that anyone convicted of an ExtDUI (Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.15 or greater), would be jailed for the full 30 consecutive days as required by statute and not have all but 10 days suspended- as has been the case in numerous previous instances.
In addition, the Senate Bill would allow the judge to order the person, convicted of a first ExtDUI offense, to not consume alcohol for a period of 30 days or more, as would be demonstrated through continuous alcohol monitoring or twice daily alcohol testing of the individual. On a second conviction, within 7 years, of an ExtDUI, the court may order this depravation period to be 90 days, with the same monitoring provisions in effect. In both instances, the judge may extend the period of continuous alcohol monitoring. There is no specific wording within the statute as to how long the judge may extend this penalty.
Under Senate Bill 1029, there are new penalties for Driving with an Alcohol Concentration of 0.20 percent or greater, in addition to the requirement of the installation of an Ignition Interlock Device for any person convicted of Driving Under the Influence.
Senate Bill 1029 now requires a person convicted of Driving with a BAC of 0.20 or greater, on a first offense, to serve not less than 45 consecutive days in jail and pay a fine of not less than $500.
On a second offense, within 7 years, the convicted person would serve not less than 180 days in jail, with 90 days to be served consecutively, as well as pay a fine not less than $1000.
Additional mandate is the installation of a Certified Ignition Interlock Device for a minimum of 18 months, if the person is found guilty of Driving with a BAC of 0.20 percent or greater. This period is increased to 24 months if the person is found guilty of a second offense DUI. The Senate Bill also mandates the installation of a Certified Ignition Interlock Device for 12 months if a person is found guilty of driving with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
Finally, the Senate Bill states that a person is not eligible for probation or suspension of execution of sentence unless the entire sentence has been served.
These two bills coming in such close proximity to each other, express the State's commitment to making anyone convicted of driving under the influence pay the most for their crime. All these changes are anticipated to come into effect mid-September 2007.
Latest Case Results
HUNDREDS OF DUI CASES INVALID
Hundreds of Phoenix DUI cases will be dismissed after the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear arguments over a controversial alcohol breath test. “This is huge,” said Gary Kula of the Phoenix Public Defender’s Office, who represented some of the 630 defendants with pending cases. Kula said there may be hundreds of other cases backed up in Arizona. The court’s 4-1 decision Wednesday to not hear the case ends a nearly three-year controversy over the use of evidence from the Intoxilyzer 5000 and means Phoenix prosecutors have run out of appeals. As a result, hundreds of misdemeanor drunken-driving cases must be dismissed for lack of evidence. “This is not a good thing because some drunk drivers will be walking away,” said Paul Badalucco, chief of the City of Phoenix Prosecutors Office’s appeals bureau.
Questions over the Intoxilyzer 5000 evidence surfaced in 1999, when about 200 defense attorneys filed legal challenges to the way the breath test records were being kept and disclosed by the Department of Public Safety crime lab as far back as 1995. Defense attorneys argued that records of the maintenance on the machines and the result of quality assurance tests were being withheld by the lab. “This could have been information that challenged the breath-test results, but the defense never had it,” Kula said. But prosecutors have said that the maintenance and quality assurance test records were irrelevant. Badalucco also said that no judge ever said that readings related to a particular defendant were inaccurate.
Because crime labs changed their procedures in 1999, misdemeanor drunken-driving cases filed since that time are not affected. Public defender Christopher McBride, who represented some of the defendants who are now off the hook, said he has mixed feelings. “As a society we have a tremendous problem with alcohol-related traffic accidents,” he said. “It is sad to see that the cases were jeopardized by the state’s failure to comply with the rules of fair play.” The situation resolved in Tempe, Glendale and other Valley cities where prosecutors did not battle the case all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court. But the Phoenix Prosecutors Office dug in its heels, asking the high court this week to reinstate breath-test evidence related to the use of the Intoxilyzer. February 15, 2002
CAUTION: All legal matters, including DUI cases, have their own specific factual and legal circumstances that highly influence the result in each case. The same results will not necessarily be obtained in similar cases.
| Attorney | Client | Court | Case Type | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JW | EDM | Chandler City | Ext. DUI | Reckless w/ no MVD suspension |
| JW | DN | N. Mesa JP | DUI, DUI Drugs | State dismissed after Motion to Supress filed offered 4.244.33 |
| MY | SC | MVD | MVD hearing | Suspension voided |
| MY | DS | Maricopa Superior Court | Manslaughter | Charges turned down by MCA |
| MY | CH | MVD | MVD Hearing | Suspension voided |
| DW | DH | Tempe City | DUI | DUI dismissed plead to civil charges |
| DW | RP | E. Mesa JP | Ext. DUI | Motion to dismiss granted/lack of disclosure by State |
| JT | MM | Maricopa Superior Court | Aggravated Assault | Motion to Remand Granted |
| JT | JL | Maricopa Superior Court | Arson | Bond reduction granted from 54k to 18k |
| GT | MV | Phoenix City | Reckless Driving | Not guilty at trial |
| GT | DF | Phoenix City | DUI | Dismissed DUI |
| GT | JS | Phoenix City | Underage DUI & DUI | Both dismissed by negotiation |
| JM | DA | Phoenix City | DUI | Not guilty at trial |
| JM | JG | Phoenix City | Assault (DV) | Dismissed with prejudice |
| DM | MJ | Tempe City | Contracting w/o license | Motion to dismissed negotiated |
| DM | CH | Tempe City | Ext. DUI by minor | Regular DUI |
| JMB | NJ | Mesa City | DUI | Open container & 2 civil |
| JMB | NG | Mesa City | DOSL | Not guilty at trial |
| LM | SG | Glendale City | Reckless driving false info | Dismissed at trial because jurisdiction issue |
| LM | AA | Wickenburg | DUI | Reckless driving |
| LM | DL | Superior Court | Theft of Automobile | Dismissed - eye witness issue |
| LL | RB | Scottsdale City | Hit & Run | Civil ticket & fine |
| LL | MH | Scottsdale City | Reg. DUI | Reckless with no jail |
| AH | JS | Superior Court | Sex with child under 14 | Attempted sex probation, no jail |
| ME | ZB | Peoria City | DUI | Reckless Driving |
| ME | SV | Phoenix City | Ext DUI | Motion to supress granted |
| GB | EG | San Luis City | DUI | Plead to speeding |
| GB | WJ | Tolleson City | Criminal speed | Dismissed at trial |
