SB 1070 Ruling

 Judge Bolton granted a partial preliminary injunction regarding SB 1070.

Judge Bolton has ruled and the docket entry in USA v. AZ reads:

 “Order granting in part and denying in part the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section 1, Section

 2(A) and (C)-(L), Section 4, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2929, the portion creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), and Sections 7-13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED preliminarily enjoining of the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer from enforcing the following sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section

 2(B) creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928 (C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A) (5).” 

 Signed by Judge Susan R. Bolton on 7/28/10.

 For more information visit:

http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=32544

Beauchamp Law Office has a proven track record of success.

Of the 127 client cases on the Beauchamp Law Office Web site, over 100 have been dismissed, leaving defendants free of all penalties.

The types of charges that made up the 127 listed client cases include: DUI; extreme DUI; super extreme DUI; second offense DUI; underage DUI; disorderly conduct; criminal trespassing; criminal damage; armed robbery; possession of marijuana (class 6 felony); reckless driving; prostitution; theft; assault; aggravated assault; disorderly conduct; class 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 felony; trafficking of stolen property; criminal speed; drugs; sexual abuse; unlawful discharge of firearm; resisting arrest; criminal damage; shoplifting; prescription drug possession; attempted theft of credit card; fraudulent use of credit card; taking identity of another; endangerment; hit and run fixture and driving on revoked driver license.

What does this mean? It means that we have a track record of positive results. This means you get the representation you deserve to have. You and your case get the attention that they deserve. You and your DUI case will be defended through any necessary means, even if this means taking your case to trial.

We have a highly skilled team, trained to know how to get you and your DUI case favorable results.

While Beauchamp Law Office cannot guarantee that any and every charge will be dismissed, in most cases we have been able to reduce our client’s penalties. Probation, a $300 fine, traffic school and 120 days-in-jail reduced to only 10 days in jail are some great examples of this.

We encourage you to visit us at  http://www.phoenixarizonaduilawyer.com/case-results.html for more details on our case results and to view the complete list of results we have obtained for cases that may be similar to yours. And remember, if you need an experienced DUI lawyer, call Beauchamp Law Office today.

With such strict DUI laws, it’s no wonder Arizona jails are seeing an influx of inmates in recent years. But full jail cells mean empty pockets for taxpayers, and Scottsdale city leaders look for ways to trim costs.

Estimated costs for holding a single inmate for one year is at minimum $20,000. Nationwide, billions of dollars are spent to house, clothe and feed inmates, a large majority of whom have committed petty crimes.

So Scottsdale legislators are looking to cut costs and are considering house arrest for those who have been convicted of driving drunk. Ankle monitors may soon be an option for Scottsdale’s convicted drunken drivers.

These home detention programs aren’t new. In fact, Arizona law has allowed a city or town to create such programs for years, and most Valley city courts already have similar programs. But Scottsdale City Court officials are finally ready to make such a program for its jurisdiction.

On a second offense, DUI offenders are sentenced with about 180 days in jail. That’s roughly $9,000 worth of costs for the city to incarcerate that person for that period of time.

The home-detention and electronic-monitoring plan is scheduled to go before the Scottsdale City Council on its April 27 consent agenda. If approved, court officials hope to have a program in place by summer.

Scottsdale is estimated to pay Maricopa County jails about $3.5 million for the coming fiscal year if nothing changes. A home-detention program is projected to save from $600,000 to $1 million per year.

Officials see the advantage in this type of program to be that home detention helps drunken driving offenders keep their jobs and, in turn, they will be more able to reimburse the court for jail costs.

Certain convicted drunken drivers wouldn’t be eligible, such as a violent person or someone who poses any other additional danger. Also ineligible would be anyone with a domestic violence conviction or if they are unemployed. But he estimates as many as half of Scottsdale’s DUI defendants could participate.

A device would be placed on the person’s home telephone line to determine whether the person is home. The ankle bracelet allows the offender to be away a certain number of feet away from the house.

If they are not home when they say they are, the monitoring company makes a call. Then they notify the court that they weren’t in compliance. Offenders would also have to take a breath alcohol test once a day.

Ultimately, home detention is an option in sentencing.

They’re not free. They still have to stay home, but people would better be able to go on with their lives and able to keep their jobs.

This post was intended to provide general information only and is not intended as specific legal advice. You should not rely upon this information alone, but should consult legal counsel regarding the application of the laws and regulations discussed and as applied to your specific case or circumstance.

A DUI driver who killed a teenage female in 2008 received his sentence last week.

Manuel Contreras-Galdean, 33, pleaded guilty last year to one count each of manslaughter and aggravated assault for the Nov. 15, 2008, collision that killed 16-year-old Kelly Tracy of Mesa and injured her brother Matthew Tracy, then 17, as he was driving them to Highland High in Gilbert.

Contreras-Galdean has been sentenced to 14 years in prison with credit for time served, and four years of probation – the maximum sentence allowed under terms of his plea agreement.

Mesa police said on the day of the accident, Contreras-Galdean was driving with a blood-alcohol content above 0.19 percent. That’s two-and-a-half times the legal limit; additionally, he had been on cocaine.

Contreras-Galdean was allowed to speak to the judge last Friday, the day of his hearing. He asked for leniency and rehashed the events that day as he recalled them.

“I was hoping today to remove this burden – this burden I’m carrying knowing I’m not the criminal the prosecution made me out to be,” he said through an interpreter.

The aggravating factor the court found reprehensible was the fact that Contreras-Galdean had a DUI in 2001 (in Utah) and a DUI in 2007 (in Tempe).

Judge Trujillo gave Contreras-Galdean 496 days of credit for time in jail already served. He acknowledged that the probation may not be served because Contreras-Galdean, a Mexican immigrant whom prosecutors said has lived illegally in this country for several years, is faced with deportation.

Kelly is survived by her parents and siblings Matthew, Michael, Jason, Kaitlin and Jessica.

Remember guys, drinking and driving is no joke and neither are the penalties for getting charged. You can hurt yourself, your loved ones and the loved ones of people you don’t even know.

Please be safe and before you get behind the wheel, think about others and not just yourself.

This post was intended to provide general information only and is not intended as specific legal advice. You should not rely upon this information alone, but should consult legal counsel regarding the application of the laws and regulations discussed and as applied to your specific case or circumstance.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees our right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by what’s referred to as probable cause.

If that’s so, then doesn’t it seem a bit unconstitutional for law enforcement to put up DUI checkpoints? After all, what is their probable cause for stopping and questioning each car on the road?

Good question—a question that was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz—where the Michigan Supreme Court deemed DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.

So just what are the arguments for and against DUI checkpoints being constitutional?

Former Chief Justice Rehnquist (active at the time) began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a “seizure” within the language of the Fourth Amendment. He recognized the validity in the state of Michigan initially ruling checkpoints unconstitutional, but went on to explain why the Supreme Court wouldn’t hold it as such.

Rehnquist continued to say that DUI checkpoints are only a minor invasion of one’s rights, and that something needed to be done about the “carnage” on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The “minimal intrusion on individual liberties,” Rehnquist wrote, must be “weighed” against the need for — and effectiveness of — DUI roadblocks.

Rehnquist’s justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were “necessary” and “effective.”

In other words, Rehnquist argues that the ends justify the means.

The dissenting justices argued that police are without probable cause to stop individual drivers.

Justice Brennan wrote, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving… is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion… The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly, but the Michigan Supreme Court did not fall in line.

Michigan decided though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, DUI checkpoints were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant.

“If you won’t protect our citizens, we will,” was the message Michigan sent to Justice Rehnquist. A small number of states have since followed Michigan’s example.

In the state of Arizona, DUI checkpoints are constitutional…just another reason you should never drink and drive!

This post was intended to provide general information only and is not intended as specific legal advice. You should not rely upon this information alone, but should consult legal counsel regarding the application of the laws and regulations discussed and as applied to your specific case or circumstance.

Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to review a Court of Appeals case pertaining to implied consent law for persons arrested for suspicions of DWI.

Whether or not a warrant should be required prior to a blood test in a DWI arrest is what’s causing the debate.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a recent Court of Appeals decision on the issue. In that recent case, the court had decided that failure to resist a blood test did not constitute consent. In other words, as it stands right now, simply because a person doesn’t blatantly refuse a blood test, does not mean the person has given his/her consent.

The individual under arrest, according to the court, has a right to understand the implications of refusal and verbally and explicitly consent to or refuse the test.

This sounds a bit like how the Miranda Rights came to be…law enforcement providing individuals with an explicit explanation of their rights.

In this case, the Court of Appeals went on to define the state’s “implied consent” law. It stated clearly that a motorist, though he or she will consent to losing the privilege to drive, still maintains the right to withhold consent for a warrantless search.

The Court of Appeals says the law in question is called “implied consent” because drivers are subject to a civil driver’s license suspension if they refuse to have blood drawn.

But the ruling says motorists clearly still have the right to withhold consent for a non-warrant search.

This post was intended to provide general information only and is not intended as specific legal advice. You should not rely upon this information alone, but should consult legal counsel regarding the application of the laws and regulations discussed and as applied to your specific case or circumstance.

PHOENIX — A new Arizona court ruling says authorities must obtain a search warrant to conduct a blood test of a DUI suspect unless the suspect clearly consents to have blood drawn.

The State Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that it wasn’t enough under state law that a man apparently didn’t object when officers moved to take a blood sample while in a police DUI van.

The court notes that the law in question is called “implied consent” because drivers are subject to a civil driver’s license suspension if they refuse to have blood drawn.

But the ruling says motorists clearly still have the right to withhold consent for a warrant-less search.

The Court of Appeals sent the case back to a lower court for a finding on whether the man involved actually consented.

Reported by: Associated Press
Last Update: 9/01 1:07 pm
Copyright 2009 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.