The two (2) most often seen defenses to First Degree Murder are “Self-Defense” (i.e., Justification) and “Supervening Cause”. Self-Defense would involve the use of deadly force in order to protect oneself against a person who is threatening or using deadly force against them. In regards to a “Supervening Cause”, this would include an error by emergency treating personnel, or a hospital error which caused the person’s death. These cases are so complex that they require a litany of defense tools. For example, private investigators; gunshot residue experts; DNA experts; accident reconstruction experts; human factors experts, just to name of few. David Michael Cantor is “Death Penalty Qualified”. This means he has “first-chaired” and has been substantially involved in Capital Murder Trials in the past.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a First Degree Murder charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Defense Lawyer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Defense Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Defense Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Defense Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

The key to defending a charge of Child Abuse / Vulnerable Adult Abuse is to demonstrate first and foremost that any alleged abuse was not done “intentionally” or “knowingly” and remove them from the most serious punishment range (i.e., “Lack of Intent” or “Lack of Knowledge”).

The vast majority of Child Abuse cases are charged under the “recklessness” and “negligence” standards. The key is demonstrating that a person was not “reckless” and that their conduct was not a “gross deviation” from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. In regards to “negligence”, it must be shown that the person’s care was not a “gross deviation” from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. For example, if you are at the park and your child is playing on the jungle gym, and happens to fall off and break their arm, most people would agree that you have not engaged in a “gross deviation” from the standard of conduct or standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in that situation. The same applies to other household injuries. A mother or father cannot be expected to be next to their child 24 hours a day. Sometimes children are playing and they just accidentally injury themselves (this happens every day).

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Child Abuse charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

The key to defending Possessing Manufacturing Equipment is demonstrating that you did not “knowingly” possess the equipment (i.e., “Lack of Knowledge”). In other words, if you live in a household with multiple roommates and you were unaware that your roommates were engaging in this type of activity, then this can be a defense to the charge. It will need to be shown that your fingerprints are not on the chemicals or the manufacturing equipment itself. These defenses also apply to Manufacturing of Dangerous Drugs (not just possessing the equipment). Even if a Defendant has knowledge that his roommates are engaging in this type of activity, as long as they do not knowingly participate and facilitate the illegal enterprise, then they are not guilty of Manufacturing Dangerous Drugs, nor are they guilty of Possessing the Manufacturing Equipment. This of course assumes that the equipment is not in their actual bedroom and it was located out in a garage area or other separate location.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Manufacture of a Dangerous Drug charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Arizona Criminal Law Attorney, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Arizona Criminal Law Attorneys are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Arizona Criminal Law Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Arizona Criminal Law Attorney David Michael Cantor.

The main defense to Illegally Controlling or Illegally Conducting an Enterprise/Racketeering (RICO) is “Lack of Knowledge”. This occurs when a person is merely an employee of a business, or a non-involved partner who is basically “duped” into managing a business whose proceeds are the result of an illegal activity. This is very similar to the defenses used in Money Laundering, however, it may also involve a person selling land or investment contracts which they do not realize are actually unregistered securities. In addition, a person may well believe all of the materials that have been placed in an advertising brochure without realizing that there are misstatements and fraud involved.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a RICO or Racketeering.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled RICO Attorney in Arizona, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its RICO Attorneys in Arizona are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our RICO Attorneys in Arizona know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact RICO Attorney David Michael Cantor.

The most common defense utilized with regard to Assault or Domestic Violence Assault is “Self Defense” or “Justification”. In most assault situations, the alleged “victim” will often be the one who makes the first aggressive movement towards the person who has been charged. This usually occurs when alcohol is involved. For example, if the alleged victim is impaired by alcohol, and then attempts to push you or grab you, if you simply pull away they may lose their balance and injure themselves. You now automatically become the prime suspect because you were not injured, but they were.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Domestic Violence charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Defense Attorney, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Defense Attorneys are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Defense Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Defense Attorney David Michael Cantor.

The most often seen defenses to a Kidnapping charge will be based on “Consent”, or “Lack of Intent”. These charges are normally brought up in domestic disputes where a family member or a child is taken by one parent in a vehicle, or they are not allowed to leave the house during an argument. This particular charge is probably “over-charged” by the Prosecutor more than any other serious felony in Arizona. It will be important to interview as many friends and family members as possible to demonstrate the on-going relationship between the parties. For example, if parents are simply fighting within the household and a child or third person gets scared, this does not necessarily rise to the level of “placing a third person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury to the victim”. It is very important to prevent the Prosecutor from turning a simple Domestic Violence situation (i.e., a misdemeanor) into the very serious felony of Kidnapping.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Kidnapping charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Lawyer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

One of the strongest defenses to Prostitution is “Entrapment”. Entrapment occurs when an undercover Officer gets a person to agree to something they would not ordinarily agree to by coercing them or overbearing their will. For example, if an undercover police officer utilizes the service of a “private dancer” or “escort”, and then begins offering extremely large amounts of money to induce the dancer or escort into a sex act, this can be argued as Entrapment. Many times these “private dancer” services do not allow any type of touching or physical contact between the dancer and the patron. However, the old adage “everyone has their price” sometimes is utilized by the Officer to the dancer’s disadvantage. Other times, Officers “jump the gun” and make an arrest prior to an actual agreement taking place. It is important to see whether money actually changed hands, or whether there was any initial physical contact which would indicate that a true act of Prostitution was about to take place.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Prostitution charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Law Lawyer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Law Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Law Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Law Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

Many times these Child Molestation charges arise during the pendency of a divorce proceeding. In other words, the Defendant’s soon to be ex-spouse, or an angry teenager who wants her father or step-father “out of the picture”, will make up these false allegations. It is important to challenge these charges immediately by reviewing how the report was initially received; obtaining any CPS reports which were prepared; questioning any forensic interviewers which may have talked to the child; obtain any divorce paperwork that may have previously been filed; and potentially obtain a polygraph of the Defendant in order to show that he is, in fact, innocent. All of these procedures must be done rapidly, because once a person is charged, they are “non-bondable” and will sit in jail until the case resolves. This means that if you have a million dollars in your pocket, you will still sit in jail until these charges finalize. This is why these allegations are so dangerous when they come in the context of a divorce proceeding.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Child Molestation charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Law Attorney, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Law Attorneys in Arizona are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Law Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Law Attorney David Michael Cantor.

The key to defending a charge of Child Abuse / Vulnerable Adult Abuse is to demonstrate first and foremost that any alleged abuse was not done “intentionally” or “knowingly” and remove them from the most serious punishment range (i.e., “Lack of Intent” or “Lack of Knowledge”).

The vast majority of Child Abuse cases are charged under the “recklessness” and “negligence” standards. The key is demonstrating that a person was not “reckless” and that their conduct was not a “gross deviation” from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. In regards to “negligence”, it must be shown that the person’s care was not a “gross deviation” from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. For example, if you are at the park and your child is playing on the jungle gym, and happens to fall off and break their arm, most people would agree that you have not engaged in a “gross deviation” from the standard of conduct or standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in that situation. The same applies to other household injuries. A mother or father cannot be expected to be next to their child 24 hours a day. Sometimes children are playing and they just accidentally injury themselves (this happens every day).

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Child Abuse charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

With a Reckless Driving charge, it must be shown that a person drove with reckless disregard for the safety of “persons or property.” If other vehicles were no nearby (i.e., within “striking distance”), then it can be argued that nobody was put at risk. The same would apply for property. If it did not appear that a person was going to strike any other property (such as parked cars, buildings, fences, etc.), then this can serve as a defense. Merely driving fast and weaving in and out of traffic does not qualify as Reckless Driving. In fact, it might qualify as “Aggressive Driving” or “Drag Racing”, but not “Reckless Driving”. It is important to try to argue for the lesser charge of “Aggressive Driving” because that is a civil violation (not a criminal violation), and therefore, no jail time can be imposed. In addition, the Judge cannot suspend your driver’s license for an Aggressive Driving, whereas they can suspend it for a Reckless Driving. It will be important to interview all potential witnesses who were nearby (or passengers in your car) in order to demonstrate that you were not driving recklessly.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Reckless Driving charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Defender, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Defenders are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Defenders in Arizona know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Defender David Michael Cantor.

The key to defending an Arson charge is showing that a person did not “intend” to burn a structure or property, but that they also did not “knowingly” do so (i.e., “Lack of Intent” and “Lack of Knowledge”). For example, if a camper merely lights a campfire, and then it unintentionally spreads out of control, this would not necessarily qualify as Arson. In addition, there are numerous household accidents which could result in a structure being burned to the ground. The problem arises when an insurance company unfairly attempts to shift the blame onto the Defendant, rather than paying off an expensive claim. It is important to analyze all aspects of the Detective’s report to determine whether they have misconstrued any of the evidence. It may also be necessary to utilize our own investigator in order to look for faulty wiring, faulty gas line hook-ups, defective appliances, and things of this nature.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for an Arson charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Phoenix Criminal Attorney, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Phoenix Criminal Attorneys are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Phoenix Criminal Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Phoenix Criminal Attorney David Michael Cantor.

The main defenses for Underage Drinking and Driving are:

• “No Reasonable Suspicion to Stop” Officers are not permitted to stop or detain someone based on pretexts regarding race, religion, gender, age, sexual preference nor on a host of other possible unjustifiable reasons.
• “No Actual Physical Control” If a person has had too much to drink, pulls off the roadway, leaves the engine running with the A/C or heater on, and attempts to “sleep it off”, then they are not in “actual physical control” of their vehicle and are not guilty of DUI, DWI, or Underage Drink and Drive.
• “No Probable Cause for Arrest” If an officer did not have probable cause that a person had consumed alcohol, then the arrest will be invalidated (i.e. if the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) were improperly administered). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has set forth guidelines regarding FSTs. The tests should not be given if the suspect:
  • is 50 pounds or more overweight
  • has any back, hip, leg, knee, or ankle injuries
  • has any disability effecting balance
  • is wearing shoes with heels two (2) inches or higher

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for Underage Drinking and Driving.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Arizona Juvenile Attorney in Arizona, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Juvenile Attorneys in Arizona are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Juvenile Attorneys in Arizona know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Arizona Juvenile Attorney David Michael Cantor.

There are many defenses to DUI, DWI, & Extreme DUI charges. If Stopped for DUI, DWI or Extreme DUI in Arizona:

DO:

• Do Ask to speak with a DUI Lawyer in Arizona immediately!
• Do show your drivers’ license, registration and proof of insurance.
• Do ask to be released to obtain an independent blood test from a hospital.
• Do behave courteously.

DON’T:

• Don’t agree to take a Breath, Blood or Urine test until calling and talking with a DUI Lawyer in Arizona!
• Don’t answer questions or agree to be videotaped.
• Don’t take the eye test.
• Don’t admit anything or take coordination tests.
• Don’t try to talk your way out or be rude.

*These do’s and don’ts apply to most, but not all situations.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a DUI, DWI or Extreme DUI in Arizona.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled DUI Attorney in Arizona, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its DUI Attorneys in Arizona are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our DUI Attorneys in Arizona know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact DUI Attorney David Michael Cantor.

The most often seen defense to Burglary is “Lack of Intent”. This defense is accomplished by demonstrating that although a person may have been in a place where they did not have permission, they were not there with the intent to commit a felony. This shifts the serious charge of Burglary down to the less serious charge of Trespass. Another defense is demonstrating “Mistake of Fact”. This sometimes occurs when a person has been drinking, or they are unfamiliar with an area, and they accidentally walk into the wrong apartment or household. Another defense is demonstrating that the Defendant was merely on another person’s property in order to seek permission to use the telephone or garner some other type of assistance, but the owner of the property called the police before the Defendant had a chance to explain himself. It is important to interview all witnesses involved and produce documentation of the Defendant’s good character in order to demonstrate that the case does not warrant being charged as a Burglary.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Burglary charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Arizona Theft Lawyer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Arizona Theft Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Lawyers are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Arizona Theft Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Arizona Theft Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

First offense misdemeanor:
Regular DWI or DUI in Phoenix – The penalties for a first conviction of non-extreme DWI or DUI in Phoenix are: a mandatory minimum of 10 days in jail – 9 days can be suspended only upon completion of mandatory attendance at alcohol screening (approximately $200); any recommended classes (approximately $400); and a minimum fine and surcharge of approximately $2100.00. The maximum can be six (6) months’ jail. In addition, the Court now must order one year of a mandatory breath test interlock device being attached to your steering wheel, which requires you to blow into the device every time you start your car. In addition, you must then continue to blow into the device every 15 minutes to keep your car’s ignition on! Lastly, if the court chooses, they can order “more than twelve months” of an interlock device in severe cases.

Extreme DUI in Phoenix – .15% and above BAC; first offense mandatory minimum 30 days jail and no days can be suspended; this means you must serve all 30 days in jail – day for day; a $2500.00 fine and alcohol classes double; one year of a mandatory breath test interlock device being attached to your steering wheel after all suspensions are completed (at a cost of $1500). Once you start your car, you must then continue to blow into the device every 15 minutes to keep your car’s ignition on! Lastly, a judge may order a person convicted of Extreme DUI in Phoenix not to consume alcohol for a period of thirty days or more by requiring them to wear a continuous alcohol monitoring device on their ankle, or blowing twice daily into a telephonic breath testing device. The court, in its discretion, may also extend this period of continuous alcohol monitoring.

Super Extreme DUI in Phoenix – .20% and above BAC; first offense mandatory minimum 45 days in jail and no days can be suspended. This means you must serve all 45 days in jail-day-for-day!; a $2500.00 fine and alcohol classes (presumably at least 36); 18 months of mandatory breath test interlock device being attached to your steering wheel after all suspensions are completed (at a cost of over $2000.00). Once you start the car with the device, you must then continue to blow into the device every 15 minutes in order to keep your car’s ignition on! Lastly, the judge can order you to not consume alcohol for a period of ninety days or more and require you to wear a continuous alcohol monitoring device on your ankle, or blow into a telephonic breath testing device twice a day.

There are harsh penalties associated with DUI, DWI and Extreme DUI in Phoenix charges. However, there are many defenses to DUI, DWI and Extreme DUI in Phoenix charges and depending on the facts surrounding the individual case – Dismissal or Acquittal is possible.

About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about a DUI in Phoenix, visit our site.

• DUI (A.R.S. §28-1381 (A)(1)) Driving Under the Influence of intoxicating liquor (or drugs).
• DWI (A.R.S. §28-1381 (A)(2)) Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08% or greater within two hours of driving.
• EXTREME DWI (A.R.S. §28-1382) Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.15% or greater within two hours of driving.
• SUPER EXTREME DWI (A.R.S. §28-1382(D)(1)) Driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.20% or greater within two hours of driving.

The key to defending against the charges of DUI in Arizona is knowing the difference between these three.

The DUI in Arizona charge, by itself, does not require a breath reading. It deals with suspicion of driving while under the influence, according to the manner of driving, physical and mental symptoms of impairment, or verbal admissions.

The DWI charge does not require that the accused have a BAC of .08% or greater “at the time of driving”. Many defendants plead guilty if their breath or blood test is above a .08% (or .15% if Extreme DWI, or .20% if Super Extreme DWI). The ordinary citizen does not realize the test results only show their BAC at the time they were tested and NOT at the time they were actually behind the wheel. As it will be explained in the “Possible Defenses” section, there is a way to mathematically calculate what your true BAC level was “at the time of driving”. This math formula is known as a “retrograde extrapolation”. If your BAC is found to be below a .08% (or .15% if Extreme DWI, or .20% if Super Extreme DWI) “at the time of driving”, this is a possible defense.

The Extreme DWI charge is the same as the DWI charge except it requires the BAC to be .15% or greater. The punishment for Extreme DWI is 10 times more jail time than a regular first offense DUI or DWI.

The Super Extreme DWI charge is the same as the DWI and Extreme DWI charges except it requires the BAC to be .20% or greater. The punishment for Super Extreme DWI is 45 times more jail time than a regular first offense DUI in Arizona or DWI. This is true even if it is your first DUI offense ever!

By citing drivers under two or three laws, DUI in Arizona (A.R.S. §28-1381 (A)(1)), DWI (A.R.S. §28-1381(A)(2)-[BAC of .08% or higher]), and Extreme or Super Extreme DWI (A.R.S. §28-1382, if applicable) the State gets multiple chances to convict. If convicted of one or both DUI or DWI, the punishment is the same. If convicted of Extreme DWI or Super Extreme DWI, the punishment is much more severe (See the Possible Punishments section).

Legal Update on DUI, DWI, Extreme DUI in Arizona
As of 7/17/00 the Legislature passed a law stating that this is only a defense to the DUI in Arizona charge, not the DWI or the Extreme DWI charges. However, DUI Arizona lawyers are currently challenging this change in the law as unconstitutional. This has already been successfully reversed in Delaware and Pennsylvania. Many DUI Arizona attorneys are currently challenging this law in the Appellate Courts.

About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about a DUI in Arizona, visit our site.

One of the most often seen defenses to Theft is “Consent”. This will occur when two (2) people have an agreement or an understanding regarding the use of a piece of property, money, or a credit card. Then when the relationship goes bad, one person may simply accuse the Defendant of some type of “Theft”. This is often seen in situations involving roommates, boyfriends and girlfriends, spouses and business partners. Other times “Consent” is seen where one person loans another person money and they are told “pay me back by the 15th, or I will hold on to your motorcycle until you pay me”. The other person then states “no problem”, and when they cannot pay the person back, they are then surprised to see that their motorcycle has actually been taken as collateral. It is important to interview all people who may have been witnesses to the “Consent” in order to demonstrate to the Prosecutor that this is not a true theft.

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Theft charge.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Arizona Theft Attorney, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Arizona Theft Attorneys are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Arizona Theft Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Arizona Theft Attorney David Michael Cantor.

Terry v. Ohio
Two men hover around a street corner, seemingly waiting for no one. They pace up and down the block and stare in a store window. A law enforcement officer suspects that the two men are contemplating a robbery. The officer decides to investigate but lack probable cause. He identifies himself as a police officer and makes reasonable inquiries. The officer then conducts a carefully limited search of the men’s clothing in an attempt to discover weapons.

This case has had a huge effect on criminal defense in Arizona because the Supreme Court validated this conduct. The Court held that the tempered act of an officer who in the course of investigation had to make a quick decision about protecting him and others from danger.

United States v. Place
In the case of United States v. Place, the Supreme Court held that a 90-minute holding of luggage was unreasonable, as was the police officer’s failure to tell the defendant where their luggage was going, how long it would be held and how it would be returned. Impermissibly, the seizing had intruded on both the defendant’s interest with proceeding in his itinerary and his interest in his luggage. This case had a great effect of criminal defense in Arizona. At the same time, the Supreme Court was careful to emphasize that, although the Constitution did not allow such seizure of the luggage, exposure to a highly trained canine would not constitute a search.

The Court pointed out that the canine sniff does not require the opening of luggage, which also had a drastic affect on criminal defense in Arizona. The court added that the manner in which the information is obtained through a canine sniff is less intrusive than a typical search. No other investigative procedure is able to gather information so carefully and reveals a degree of information that is considered so modest. Thus, in spite of the fact that a canine sniff tells the officers something about the content of the luggage, the information that is obtained is limited. Although, seizing the individual’s luggage was not permitted, subsequent exposure to a highly trained canine did not constitute a search under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
The case of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond also had a drastic effect on criminal defense in Arizona. In this case the city was operating checkpoints on random roads in an effort to block unlawful drugs. The Supreme Court held that stopping an individual’s vehicle is a seizure with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and is unlawful without probable cause, which was lacking in this case. The Courts decision that the walk-around was invalid because it had arisen from a roadblock that violated the fourth amendment had a great effect on criminal defense in Arizona

Illinois v. Caballes
The decision in Illinois v. Caballes stemmed from an Illinois state trooper’s stop of a motorist for speeding and greatly affected criminal defense in Arizona. Concededly the stop was based on probably cause and was considered lawful. A second trooper soon arrived with his narcotics-detection dog and walked this dog around the care while the first officer wrote a ticket. When the dog alerted the troopers to the trunk they searched it and found marijuana.

Finally, the moment had arrived to put some bite into the dictum in Place, i.e., that a canine sniff is not a search; a ruling that again had a drastic effect on criminal defense in Arizona. A divided supreme court held that, due to the fact that the dog sniff was performed only on the exterior of the care while the motorist was legally seized for speeding, any intrusion of his privacy expectations did not infringe about his rights. During a concededly lawful stop, a dog sniff reveals that only the location of contraband passes muster under the Fourth Amendment.

This article has discussed the major Supreme Court case that affect canine sniffs and the fourth amendment and how these cases affect criminal defense in Arizona. These four cases all have different rulings on the Fourth Amendment and determine how law enforcement officers are allowed to conduct searches and seizures.

About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about an Arizona Criminal Defense, visit our site.

Below is a partial list of Possible Defenses for DUI, DWI, or Extreme DUI in AZ:
“No Reasonable Suspicion to Stop” Officers are not permitted to stop or detain someone based on pretexts regarding race, religion, gender, age, sexual preference nor on a host of other possible unjustifiable reasons.

“No Actual Physical Control” If a person has had too much to drink, pulls off the roadway, leaves the engine running with the A/C or heater on, and attempts to “sleep it off”, then they are not in “actual physical control” of their vehicle and are not guilty of DWI or DUI in AZ.

“No Probable Cause for Arrest” If an officer did not have probable cause that a person was actually under the influence of alcohol, then the arrest will be invalidated (i.e. if the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) were improperly administered). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has set forth guidelines regarding FSTs. The tests should not be given if the suspect:

• is 50 pounds or more overweight
• is 65 years of age or older
• has any back, hip, leg, knee, or ankle injuries
• has any disability effecting balance
• is wearing shoes with heels two (2) inches or higher

Remember, you always have the right to refuse Field Sobriety Tests (i.e., the “physical” tests). Do not believe the Officer if he tells you otherwise!

If the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) or “eye test” was given by an officer not yet certified to give that test, it will be inadmissible in a DUI in AZ case.

Note: if the only basis for arrest is refusing to perform FSTs, then the arrest will be invalidated.

“Denial of Right to Counsel” When arrested for DUI, DWI, or Extreme DUI in AZ, upon requesting a DUI in AZ Lawyer, the police must get you to a phone as soon as it is reasonably possible. If they ignore your request, or wait too long, this could be grounds for dismissal. (See also THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT-USE IT! Section).

“Inaccuracy of the Breath or Blood Testing Device” The AZ Department of Health Services (DHS) has set forth rules for the proper maintenance of breath testing devices. They must be calibrated to within a 10% accuracy range every thirty-one (31) days. In addition, the machine goes through a seven (7) test Standard Quality Assurance Procedure (SQAP) every ninety (90) days. If any of the maintenance checks are “out of tolerance”, then all breath tests given during the time interval between the two maintenance checks will be inadmissible. The prosecutor will not point this out for you.

“Retrograde Extrapolation below .08% BAC at Time of Driving” (Or below .15% If Extreme DUI in AZ). It can be shown through a math calculation that any alcohol drank in the last hour prior to being stopped would still be in your stomach and not in your blood system “at the time of driving”. For example, a one hundred and fifty (150) pound man who had a breath test of .15% an hour after he was stopped, yet he drank three beers in the last hour before leaving the bar, it can be shown that his BAC “at the time of driving” was as low as .075%. This number can go even lower due to other factors such as a ten percent variance and inaccurate blood to breath conversion ratios (i.e., “2100-1″) which are inherent to all breath testing devices. As of 7/17/00 the Legislature passed a law stating that this is only a defense to the DUI in AZ charge, not the DWI or the Extreme DWI charges. However, we will be challenging this change in the law as unconstitutional. This has already been successfully reversed in Delaware and Pennsylvania. We are currently challenging this law in the Appellate Courts. See us immediately to discuss the ongoing status of the “BAC at the time of driving” defense.

About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about a DUI in Arizona, visit our site.

Most commonly, defenses for Robbery will involve the fact that the Defendant knows the alleged victim. Usually these charges will arise in domestic disputes (either between significant others or roommates) where one party gets in an argument and then attempts to take what they perceive to be their own property with them. It will be important to show that the person who is taking the property (such as a car, a stereo or some other household item) is actually entitled to that property. In a “community property state”, such as Arizona, both spouses have equal right to take any of the household property. This will be a very important defense in order to defend Robbery charges (especially when an ongoing divorce proceeding in involved).

Click here to learn more about possible defenses and/or punishment for a Standard, Aggravated or Armed Robbery.

It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also, David Michael Cantor is a skilled Arizona Defense Laywer, and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its Arizona Defense Lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Arizona Defense Lawyers know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or contact Arizona Defense Lawyer David Michael Cantor.

Montejo, a 5-4 split decision, now overrules the precedent of Michigan v. Jackson, which once held that once a defendant requests the services of criminal lawyers in Arizona at an initial appearance in court, officers may not initiate any interrogation. This Article will examine Montejo and what criminal lawyers in Arizona can do in its aftermath to protect clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The most important action that criminal lawyers in Arizona can take is to make sure their clients expressly assert their right to counsel by advising them to sign a formal “Assertion of Rights” form. The use of such a form should become a regular part of criminal lawyers in Arizona practice in the federal and state courts.

The Montejo Ruling
Jesse Montejo was arrested on charges of murder, and the court appointed an attorney to represent him at his preliminary hearing. The attorney was not present, however, and before he met with Montejo police visited Montejo at prison. Police asked Montejo to take ride with them and help them find the murder weapon. While the counsel waited for Montejo at the prison, police drove Montejo around and encouraged him to write a letter to the victim’s wife expressing remorse for victim’s murder. Once the letter was completed, police returned Montejo to the prison where he met with his attorney. Montejo was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death.

Montejo’s attorney was incensed that the officers had removed his client for interrogation in his absence. The Supreme Court of Louisiana rejected the attorney’s argument that the letter should be suppressed under Jackson, reasoning that Montejo has not requested counsel but was instead appointed counsel, which will have a drastic of on criminal lawyers in Arizona. Thus the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that Jackson prophylactic rule barring any police officer-initiated interrogation once a defense counsel has appeared in court and requested counsel did not apply.

The Supreme Court agreed with Montejo that Louisiana’s approach was not workable and would create an arbitrary distinction between a defendant who requests appointment of counsel and a defendant for whom counsel is appointed without any request. However, the Court, after ordering a supplemental briefing on whether the case of Jackson should be overruled, concluded that the protection the case of Jackson provides is unnecessary in light of other existing protections. This ruling is sure to affect the way that criminal lawyers in Arizona will defend their clients.

The crux of Montejo’s reasoning in overruling the case of Jackson is that the antibadgering rule can be triggered only by an express statement made by the defendant requesting the presence of counsel during an interrogation. Merely accepting the appointment of defense counsel or even requesting the appointment of defense counsel is insufficient to show a desire to not speak with police officers without counsel present. This means that defendants must clearly request the services of criminal lawyers in Arizona.

About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about an Arizona Criminal Lawyer, visit our site.