476 DUI Arrests Made Over Memorial Day Weekend
The number of DUI arrests over the Memorial day weekend were up substantially from last year. 476 total DUI arrests were made statewide, including 129 for Extreme DUI. Last year over the same period the numbers were 291 DUI arrests including 79 Extreme DUI arrests. If you have been charged with DUI or underage drinking offense, read my earlier post “Charged with DUI or Underage Drinking Offense, Now What?” here: http://vigilaw.com/?p=141 or call for a free consultation 602-443-0415.
John Vigileos
Vigileos Law Office, PLC
DUI Roundup Underway
A joint task force encompassing several Arizona law enforcement agencies has begun a roundup of DUI suspects that will go through the weekend.
Read the article here:
Right to counsel in DUI cases
If you are arrested for a DUI in Arizona, you will be asked to submit to a chemical test of the police officer’s choosing (blood, breath or urine). The officer will inform you that if you refuse to submit to the test your driving privileges in AZ will be suspended for one year under Arizona’s “Implied Consent” statute. This is true. So what should you do? Don’t refuse, but tell the officer in no uncertain terms that you would like to speak with an attorney to advise you on your decision. The Arizona Supreme Court has made it very clear that the officer must provide you with the opportunity to speak with an attorney prior to taking the chemical test if so requested, unless doing so would disrupt the investigation. If you don’t have an attorney in mind, the officer should provide you with access to a telephone and a telephone book and allow you a reasonable amount of time to locate an attorney. The denial of access to counsel in DUI cases is much more significant than in other types of criminal cases. An officer’s denial of your request to speak with an attorney after a DUI arrest, in most cases, should result in a dismissal of all DUI charges against you. You should always be polite and courteous with law enforcement, but you should tell them early and often that you want to speak with an attorney before answering any questions or submitting to any chemical tests.
Wild West Update: AZ legalizes exhibiting firearm in response to threat of non-deadly force.
You may have heard of Arizona’s new gun law going into effect tomorrow that will make it legal for concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns into bars. Well, the wild, wild west keeps getting wilder. A less publicized bill is also becoming law tomorrow that will legalize the exhibition or display of a firearm in response to the threat or use of non-deadly physical force. This self-defense justification was previously only available if deadly physical force was being threatened or used. Even though this new law seems to go against the common sense adage of most responsible gun owners that you don’t threaten someone with a weapon unless you intend to use it, as a defense attorney, I am glad to have a new justification defense available for my clients charged with gun crimes. Still, I can’t help being perplexed by the mixed messages that the citizens of Arizona are getting when it comes to the use of a firearm. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) is running a gun crime awareness campaign that is getting a lot of air play these days. It warns about the severe consequences for the illegal use of a deadly weapon, and they aren’t kidding — the gun crime policies at MCAO are harsh and unforgiving. While the legislature is now telling you it’s okay to feel free and easy about flashing your Glock at that maniacal road rager to back him off, don’t be so sure that the people who investigate and charge the crimes (the police and the prosecutors) are going to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to applying this new defense. Even though the maniacal road rager threatened you first, in our hypothetical, once you flash your gun he is the one who is calling 911 to report that there is a maniac on the road (you) who cut him off and pointed a gun at him. When the police pull you over and find you with a gun, do you think they are going to be sympathetic to your side of the story. Short answer: NO. You are getting charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a dangerous felony offense which carries mandatory prison time. The good news is, the legislature told you that what you did was not illegal. The bad news is, that’s known as a “defense” and the prosecutor doesn’t care what your defense is, at least until he or she has been bludgeoned with it by an aggressive trial attorney, and that is exactly what you are going to need. Hopefully, you will never find yourself in this unfortunate position. If you do, call my office for a free, confidential consultation.
John Vigileos
Attorney at Law
(602) 443-0415
Defending the criminally accused against the heavy hand of the state
I am commonly asked, “isn’t it hard to defend criminals?” One answer is that I am not defending criminals, I am defending the constitution, because if the rights of the criminally accused are not protected, then the state is, in effect, given free reign to violate the constitutional rights of all citizens.
Imagine, for example, that the police mistakenly believe that there is a large quantity of marijuana in your house. Officers in paramilitary gear storm your house in the middle of the night, point high powered rifles in your face, and order you and your spouse to the ground. Your children are traumatized. Your life is turned upside down, and it was all because of a mistake. It was a bad tip, wrong address maybe, and there really was no probable cause to justify this violent action by the state. If you think this sounds like an unlikely scenario, click here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091701680.html
So, what’s the remedy for such searches conducted without probable cause? Individual officers are granted broad immunity for conduct carried out in the performance of their duties. Civil lawsuits against the state are difficult and costly. The primary remedy for such abuses is found, not in civil law, but in the criminal system, and that remedy is suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search. If no evidence is found, there is usually no remedy for the bad conduct of the police. “Sorry about that, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, looks like your clean, we’ll be on our way now.” But because the police know any evidence discovered as the result of an illegal search will usually be inadmissible (if a competent defense attorney gets a hold of the case) they are generally careful to comply with constitutional safeguards before executing a search. If the rights of the criminally accused are not protected, then the police will have no incentive to be cautious with the rights of the rest of us. This is not because police officers are bad people or corrupt, but because they are under pressure to obtain results and will take the path of least restistance to obtain those results, as is human nature. If there were no constitutional requirement for search warrants, believe me, the state would never bother to obtain one.
But there is another answer to the question about the difficulty of defending “criminals”, and that is that the premise is all wrong. My clients are not “criminals”. While no criminal defense attorney has the luxory of representing only the factually innocent, simply being accused of a crime does not make you a “criminal”. In most cases, even those who have violated the law do not deserve to have that stygma attached to them. Most of my clients have never been accused of a crime before and are shocked at how brutal and unforgiving the criminal justice system is. They do not identify themselves as “criminals” and are glad to have at least one person who recognizes them as just a human being who deserves to be defended against the heavy hand of the state. Representing a criminal might be hard, but helping a human being is easy.
A study in how the heavy hand of the state can tear a part the lives of good people can be found in the story of Lisa and Anthony Demaree who, after attempting to develop innocent photographs of their children, were investigated for child sex crimes.
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/19/20090919walmart0919.html
John Vigileos
Attorney at Law
(602) 443-0415
52 arrested at Tempe sports bar for underage drinking
This latest round-up of 52 alleged underage drinkers at Tempe’s “Hail Mary” sports bar follows the arrest of 85 Tempe college age partiers at the Vue Apartments two weeks ago. For guidance on what to do if you are charged with DUI / DWI, Minor in Consumption, Minor in Possession, or any other alcohol related offense, read my earlier post here: http://vigilaw.com/?p=141.
Source: www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2009/09/15/20090915tr-hailmarys0915.html#comments
John Vigileos
Attorney at Law
(602) 443-0415
Why you should never consent to a search by a police officer
“Law and Order” episodes and old “Dirty Harry” movies would have us believe that the only reason people ever assert their 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the state is because they are criminals with something to hide. Police officers often ask citizens to consent to searches of their persons, vehicles or homes without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. A common refrain is “go ahead, I have nothing to hide.” But whether you have anything to hide or not, by waiving your right to be free from intrusive searches you are leaving yourself wide open to the kind of governmental overeaching that the constitution was designed to protect you against. The case of Elvira Zatarain is a case in point. Ms. Zatarain consented to a search of her purse after being pulled over by a Pima County Sheriff’s Deputy. The deputy found crystals that Ms. Zatarain obtained from a psychic who identified them as white quartz stones. The deputy suspected that the crystals were methamphetamine. A field test verified Ms. Zatarain’s assertion that the crystals were not an illegal substance. Ms. Zatarain was arrested and charged with a crime anyway: “possession of an imitation controlled substance”.
“Zatarain, a mother of two, was in Pima County Justice Court Thursday morning, where she was told she could plead guilty and receive a sentence of drug counseling and a $130 fine. However, she declined the offer, saying she’s never used drugs and that there was nothing sinister about the crystals.” Source: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/308555.php
Labor Day Task Force Nets Nearly 1,000 DUI Arrests
The multi-agency DUI task force operating in Phoenix and the East Valley has made nearly 1,000 arrests through September 5. 315 of the arrests are reported to be for Extreme DUI and 106 for Underage DUI or Underage Drinking and Driving. The task force will end tomorrow. Of course you should always drink responsibly and you should never drive if you are impaired by alcohol. But if you are ever questioned by a police officer who suspects you of driving while impaired, it is important that you protect your rights. The ONLY information that you should provide the police before consulting an attorney is your name and state issued identification, registration and proof of insurance. DO NOT voluntarily submit to any tests UNTIL you have been given the opportunity to call your attorney. If you are being investigated for possible DUI tell the police the following:
1) I DO NOT want to answer any questions or speak with you without my attorney present.
2) I DO NOT want to take ANY tests UNTIL I have had an opportunity to call my attorney for legal advice. EMPHASIZE: I am not refusing the tests, I just want to consult my attorney FIRST.
3) I WILL NOT consent to a search of my person, my car, my home, or my property.
John Vigileos
Attorney at Law
(602) 443-0415
Your Case Matters: Fighting the Culture of Cynicism in the Criminal Justice System.
Those of you unfortunate enough to be caught up in the grinding gears of the criminal justice system know too well what a dehumanizing experience it is. Prosecutors, probation officers, judges and even many defense lawyers, show a callous and often mean spirited disregard for your plight and your welfare. To the uninitiated it is a shock to your system, and to your world view. Nobody in the courthouse cares in the least what personal tragedies you may have suffered. Whatever accidents, circumstances, sorrows or mistakes (yours or the police and the prosecutor’s) that led to your being charged have no bearing on the narrow question of whether the state can convince a jury that you are guilty. In this context, the constitutional presumption of innocence offers little comfort. This callousness is deeply ingrained in the institutional culture of the criminal justice system. Political pressure and fear of being labeled as “weak on crime”, have created a nearly universal mindset amongst judges that the benefit of every doubt must be given to the prosecution, not the defense. Prosecutors neglect their duty to pursue justice above winning cases because of pressure from above and wrongheaded policies geared toward statistical efficiency. Too many defense attorneys have allowed this culture of cynicism to infect their view of their clients and, consequentially, they lack the motivation and desire to mount an effective defense.
No matter how or why you have gotten here, the system is not your friend. If you are fortunate enough to have never been caught in the grinding gears of this machine, and you abide by the conventional view that everyone in the system likely deserves their fate, consider a few facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations, courtesy of the Innocence Project:
•There have been 242 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• 17 of the 242 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,019.
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 104 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php#
DNA evidence is rare in most cases. Unreliable eyewitness testimony, false confessions, and faulty forensic science form the basis of many wrongful convictions that cannot be disproven by DNA evidence that does not exist.
Wrongful convictions are the prime, but not the only example, of how the culture of cynicism in the criminal justice system fosters dysfunctional and counterproductive outcomes for individuals, families and society. Other examples include excessive incarceration rates, lengthy prison sentences for non-violent offenders, disproportionately harsh sentences for minorities, and a misplaced emphasis on incarceration as a deterrent versus rehabilitative alternatives.
For the effective legal advocate, having an awareness of these systemic problems is the first step to effecting change within the system one case at a time. In practice, this means your attorney should fight, not just with his head, by pursuing every tenable legal, procedural and technical defense on your behalf, but with his heart against the culture of cynicism that pervades the criminal justice system. Your background and story should matter to your attorney because our stories connect us through ordinary human empathy and compassion. Your attorney, after all, is the only person on your side in this battle, and you need to know that his head and heart are in the fight with you.
John Vigileos
Attorney at Law
(602) 443-0415
