Our Results

ARS § 13-1304(B)(1) (Domestic felony assault) ARS ? 13-1204(A)(8) (Domestic felony assault)

Former girlfriend accussed NCAA athlete of assaulting her. At an early hearing, we obtained dismissal of one charge and subsequently negotiated an advantegeous plea that avoided jail time and preserved the client's professional basketball career.

A.R.S. § 28-1381 (DUI)

Police claimed that client made illegal ?wide? right turn from Fourth Avenue to Speedway). Officer claimed that our client smelled of alcohol, had poor balance and failed all field sobriety tests. We challenged the police claim that he observed a wide right turn and therefore traffic stop was illegal.

A.R.S. § 28-3306 (Threat to Public Safety/Suspension)

State suspended license of 80-year old client for eight speeding tickets convictions within a two-year period.

DUI; A.R.S. §§28-1381(A)(1) and 1381 (A)(2)

Police stopped our client for 'no license plate light'. We moved to suppress, presenting expert testimony that our client's license plate light was indeed working at time of stop.

DUI; A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1) and (A)(2); Hit and Run, A.R.S. ? 28-662.

Police claimed our client committed hit and run, ran a stop sign, smelled like alcohol, had poor balance, and failed two of the three field sobriety tests. We discovered that police had actually given our client three HGN tests, and he had passed the first two.

DUI; A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1) and 1381(A)(2)

Police stopped a university student because a taxi was 'honking' at him, and claimed he smelled of alcohol, failed two field sobriety tests, and was over the legal limit. We moved to suppress, arguing that the stop was unconstitutional.

DUI; A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1) and 1381(A)(2)

Military professional found passed out in roadway, fled from police who tackled him, and claimed he had slurred speech and BAC of .148. We took the matter to a jury trial.

DUI; A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1) and 1381(A)(2)

Police claimed our client was speeding and had slurred speech, was unsteady, failed all field sobriety tests, and had a BAC of .149/.138. We moved, repeatedly, to suppress all evidence based on illegal detention.

Possession of Narcotics; A.R.S. § 13-3408, a class 4 felony

Police found our client in possession a large quantity of Tylex, a controlled substance. We presented evidence to the Pima County Attorney?s office that our client possessed a valid foreign prescription for Tylex and other pain killers that he took due to injury as an athlete.

ARS §§ 28-1381; 1382 (DUI)ARS...... (speeding)

Police claimed client was speeding, smelled of alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, swayed, had slurred speech, and a blood alcohol level of .11. .

DUI; A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1), 1381(A)(2); Criminal speeding

Police claimed our client was criminally speeding (+20), smelled like alcohol, failed her field sobriety tests, and blew well over the legal limit. At trial, we presented evidence the police video did not support police observations, and the police may have manipulated breath machine.

DUI; A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1) and 1381(A)(2)

Police stopped client, for making a ?wide? right turn. We presented expert testimony that the turn radius at that intersection was (3rd Ave./6th St) narrow.

Felony Burglary; A.R.S. §13-1802 (Occupied Residential Structure)

Fraternity member entered sorority house to steal composite photograph.

DUI; A.R.S. § 28-1381, A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(2); BAC .149/.144

Police claim, our client swerved so badly in the roadway that he almost struck the curb twice, then crossed the lane divider, smelled like alcohol, failed his field sobriety tests and admitted he drank ten shots of Absolut Vodka. Jury trial ensued.

Extreme DUI A.R.S. § 28-1381 (A)(2) (BAC .169/.171)

Military personnel arrested for extreme DUI when found sleeping in automobile with engine running.

DUI ARS § 28-1381 (a)(1); §28-1381 (a)(2); improper turn ARS 28-751.2

Police stopped our client, a university student, for an improper left turn. Police then claimed our client smelled like alcohol, swayed while walking, failed all 3 field sobriety tests, and had a breath alcohol concentration of .136/.134.

Felony Resisting Arrest A.R.S. § 13-2408(a)(1)

University Student, an All American defensive back, was stopped by police for 'jaywalking.' Police claim that our client then broke police officer's sunglasses. The police officer tackled our client, claiming he was resisting arrest. Our client steadfastly maintained his innocence, turning down several plea offers, including one for a misdemeanor.

DUI A.R.S. § 28-1381(a)(1); § 28-1381(a)(2); A.R.S. ? 28-729.1 (failure to stay within one lane)

University student stopped by police for "weaving in and out of lane" and "almost striking the curb." Police claim he failed two 2 field sobriety tests, smelled like alcohol, and had a breath alcohol concentration of .144/.149. When the state failed to disclose COBRA data, we moved to preclude breath testing results. The trial court granted our motion.

DUI A.R.S. § 28-1381(a)(1); A.R.S. § 13-8182.

When a visiting professional was stopped at DUI checkpoint, he did poorly on three field sobriety tests, smelled of alcohol, and admitted to drinking.The firm moved to preclude blood results. The trial Court granted our motion.

DUI Domestic Violence; Assault with injury ARS § 13-1201(A)(1) and ARS §13-3601 et seq

Our client, a full-time undergraduate student at the University of Arizona, was charged with seriously assaulting and injuring a former romantic partner, and criminally damaging her property. A special prosecutor was assigned and the matter came before the court for a two day trial. The trial judge precluded two defense witnesses, including the only independent percipient eyewitness. On appeal, the Superior Court granted our request for a new trial, vacating conviction, and reversing the trial judge's order of preclusion.

DUI A.R.S § 28-1381(A)(1); A.R.S § 28-951(1)

Police claimed our client, an active-duty military professional, made an "improper" wide right turn, smelled of alcohol, had a flushed face, watery bloodshot eyes, poor balance, and failed all three sobriety tests. We filed a motion alleging that our client's 4th amendment rights had been violated by University of Arizona Police Department. The County Attorney's Office, after considering our motion and other issues, dismissed the case.

DUI A.R.S § 28-1381(A)(1) and A.R.S § 28-1381 (A)(2); speeding A.R.S ? 28-701(a) unsafe lane usage A.R.S ? 28-729.1

Police claimed that our client was slow to respond to a green light, "sitting at the intersection for approximately five seconds" and then not moving "until after someone came up behind . . . and honked the horn." When she finally did move, police claim our client was then speeding (54 mph in a 40 mph) while her vehicle was "continuously" drifting over the right lane divider. Our client reportedly also smelled of alcohol, had a flushed face, bloodshot watery eyes, poor balance, and failed two of three field sobriety tests. The matter was set to a two day jury trial. Immediately before trial the prosecutor dismissed.

Attempted possession of marijuana A.R.S ? 13-3405(A)(1); A.R.S ? 13-3415(A) (drug paraphernalia)

Out client entered the fixed Border Patrol check point on Interstate 8 east of Yuma, Arizona. A government canine alerted to the vehicle and a subsequent warrantless search ensued, revealing secreted marijuana and paraphernalia. Our client and his passenger made post-Miranda admissions.

DUI A.R.S. § 28-1381 and A.R.S. § 28-751(1)

Police claimed that our client made an improper right turn (starting from the median lane in a four lane road), smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, 6/6 "cues" of HGN (horizontal gaze nystagmus) and 4 of 8 "cues" on the walk and turn test. Breath test reading was a .102. The firm filed a motion alleging that our client's 4th Amendment rights had been violated by the police. The City Attorney's Office, after considering our motion, dismissed the case.

Super Extreme DUI § 28-1382(a)(2); (BAC .20) (45 days minimum in jail); Minor operating motor vehicle with liquor in body, A.R.S. § 4-244.34 (2 year mandatory license suspension); Minor in possession of liquor § 4-244.41.

Police claim that our client ran a red light while driving with both head lights off at 1:30 a.m., had slurred speech, 8 of 8 possible "cues" on the walk and turn test, 6 of 6 on HGN, and a BAC of .20. We filed a motion for sanctions based on the State's failure to timely disclose breath tests, and police reports of the stop officer. The day before jury trial, the State offered a plea to reckless driving.

Criminal Speeding, A.R.S. § 28-701.02 (a)(2) [more than 20 mph over limit in residential/commercial area].

Police stopped client for driving 71 mph in 35 mph zone several blocks from University of Arizona, using calibrated radar. Prosecutor refused to enter plea negotiations. At trial court found our client not guilty of criminal charge, reducing matter to civil speeding.

DUI A.R.S. §28-1381 (a)(1) & 1381 (a)(2)

Police claimed defendant drove in lane of on-coming traffic, smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, failed HGN test, and had a BAC of .124/.119. The firm filed motions based on the State's failure to disclose a video of the defendant's driving, that the State originally claimed may not exist, and COBRA data for the breath machine, which our firm believes contains important information concerning the reliability of the machine. The State moved to dismiss case before trial.

Disorderly conduct A.R.S. § 13-2904

Police claim that in a road rage incident our client followed the victim to the victim's house, parked right outside his driveway, shouting obscenities. After surviving probable cause determination, and refusing to offer diversion, the State moved to dismiss on the eve of trial indicating it does not intend to refile.

Extreme DUI A.R.S. § 28-1383 (BAC .180; DUI A.R.S. § 28-1381 (A)(1); 1381 (A)(3)

Police claimed defendant ran two stops signs, drove left of center, exhibited slurred speech, was unsteady on feet, did poorly on the field sobriety tests and had replicate readings on the Intoxilyzer 8000 of .180/.198. At trial we demonstrated that the COBRA data for the Intoxilyzer 8000 used revealed a series of electrical/voltage problems, some of which went unreported.

Premeditated First Degree Murder A.R.S § 13-1105; Attempted Sexual Assault A.R.S §13-1406

The firm filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court alleging inter alia, that the imposition of the death penalty violative of due process, because the trial judge became impermissibly enmeshed in the proceedings, raising an unacceptable risk of judicial bias. On appeal the United States District Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit in a published decision granted Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, vacating the death penalty on grounds claimed.