Or perhaps we didn’t learn earlier about the compassion that drove him to help a Mesa couple — a predicament that he could have easily shrugged off as non-police business because his good deed vanished in the consternation over allegations that a few cops had sex on the job.

Or possibly the mayor’s letter praising him for his “honest approach” and professional conduct beyond the call of duty didn’t get past a few municipal desks because so much time was spent dwelling on the stigma of scandal.

Or perchance we didn’t find out about the mayoral tribute on Aug. 5 to the aforementioned cop — bicycle officer Steve York — because he had been suspended the day before in connection with the sex scandal.

The accomplishments of York, which also include commendations in the past two years for saving lives — one of them a fellow officer’s — help us place in perspective an embarrassing series of events allegedly involving seven people on a day-in and dayout good police force of 1,100.

There is precious little pity for those sworn to protect us — often from ourselves — when they are derelict in their duty. Whether that negligence be 15 minutes of fun or sleeping on the job, it means that a soldier is AWOL from the front lines. And our perimeters of protection are weakened.

Fortunately, relatively few hours were expended for such alleged non-curricular activities because Police Chief Jan Strauss didn’t waste a minute getting to the bottom of a tip that some of her employees had behaved peculiarly on the job.

Neither did she dawdle in meting out suspensions when her Internal Affairs officers gathered evidence that five patrol officers, a recruit and a crime-scene tech had engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with one another while on duty.

Strauss has learned that one of the greatest benefits of not allowing the sun to set on complaints about unfit personnel behavior is that an immediate probe normally garners enough facts to disarm gossip.

A few of the quelled rumors included whispers that some sexual encounters were videotaped, that some were witnessed by non-participants and that at least one of the accused had resigned.

But there are apparently facts and observations in the 50-page Internal Affairs report to indicate that the degree of involvement varied from one accused participant to another.

“I do not intend to minimize the seriousness of the allegations, but it is critical to state that the majority of these contacts consisted of kissing and fondling and did not result in additional sexual activity,” Strauss wrote in a memo distributed to department personnel Friday.

In York’s case, “once everything comes out, he is such a minor player that you’ll have no interest in him,” said his attorney, David Michael Cantor.

I’ll wait for the facts.

But there is no denying that York’s personnel file, like the files of at least two other accused officers, contain commendations for rendering great service to the public.

Including the letter from hizzoner for York’s assistance in resolving a predicament between the couple and their landlord.

Including a July 2 letter to the mayor from the couple, John and Sherry Surdock, praising York “for his compassion and honest approach to our dilemma.”

“Officer York’s attitude of above-and-beyond the call of duty not only restored our faith in authority, but also the much needed and desired respect for the Mesa Police Department.”

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

Those numbers could easily be surpassed if one of the current alcohol detectors in Arizona, the Intoxilyzer 8000, is found to be unreliable, a leading driving under the influence defense attorney said.

‘This is going to be huge,’ said [a] Tucson lawyer [ ], because the current machine is widely used statewide as opposed to the older device, which was used in Tucson and at a smaller agency.

In 2007 and so far this year, Tucson police have made 5,963 DUI arrests, though not all of those resulted from using the Intoxilyzer. Tucson police started using the 8000 model Dec. 1, 2006.

The statewide DUI Taskforce, which does special enforcement work around the state during holiday weekends, made nearly 9,000 DUI arrests in 2007.

Most Arizona law-enforcement agencies use the Intoxilyzer 8000, experts said. Neither the state Department of Public Safety nor the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety claimed to know how many agencies use the device; spokesmen at each agency referred a reporter to the other agency.

According to CMI Inc. documents filed by prosecutors, eight states, three police departments and one other governmental agency use the Intoxilyzer 8000. It is approved for use in six other states and three other governmental agencies. CMI is the Owensboro, Ky., maker of the Intoxilyzer 8000,

[The Tucson lawyer] said thousands of DUI convictions could be overturned on appeal if the device is found faulty. [The lawyer's] work in the 1990s led to the previous dismissals.

[The lawyer] has donated his time to challenge the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 alcohol detector on behalf of 23 defendants in separate Pima County Superior Court cases.

Judge Deborah Bernini gave CMI Inc. until Monday to turn over the software source code in an electronic form.

Despite court orders across the country, CMI has declined to divulge the code, which defense attorneys say will show that the device is error-prone. The company has racked up more than $1 million in fines by refusing to comply with a similar Florida court order, records show.

CMI President Toby Hall didn’t return phone calls for comment. When Bernini first ordered CMI to release the code, Nesci said a process server couldn’t get Hall to accept the court order.

Last month, Bernini told prosecutors to get the source code from CMI.

Deputy County Attorney Robin Schwartz told Bernini that she didn’t think the state could force CMI to reveal the code.

Bernini also set a Nov. 24 hearing for Hall to appear and explain why she shouldn’t hold him and CMI in contempt for refusing to comply with her orders.

CMI has said it will give up the code, on paper, if the recipient signs a nondisclosure agreement, which defense attorneys refuse to do.

‘The software has been tested by (the Arizona Department of Public Safety) and the federal government a bazillion times, all kinds of tests, and it’s been found to be fine,’ Chief Criminal Deputy County Attorney David Berkman said.

Bernini denied a stay so prosecutors could appeal her order that they obtain the code, but Berkman said the office will file a special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals in the hopes Bernini’s order will be overturned.

While Bernini expressed concern why CMI was not cooperating, ‘from an ethical standpoint, we’re not concerned,’ Berkman said.

Dozens of DUI cases have been thrown out in local courts because of CMI’s refusal to hand over the source code. Several city court judges and county justices of the peace have tossed out the breath-test evidence, which in turn led to prosecutors dismissing the charges.

Recent events echo those in the mid-1990s when defense attorneys challenged the integrity of the RBT IV breath test machine, manufactured by

Intoximeters Inc., based in St. Louis. Prosecutors eventually agreed that the device was faulty, which led to 3,000 cases being dismissed at once in 1997 and the total number thrown out about 5,000, [the Tucson lawyer] said.

‘But this is going to be bigger than the RBT IV,’ which was only used in Tucson and by a few other agencies statewide, [the lawyer] said.

The Tucson Police Department declined to comment for this article because the Intoxilyzer 8000 case is being litigated.

While the Pima County Sheriff’s Department chose to rely on field blood tests to determine blood alcohol content, Tucson police replaced the RBT IV with an older version of the 8000, CMI’s Intoxilyzer 5000, which had been shelved.

When the Intoxilyzer 8000 came out, [the lawyer] said, cops everywhere liked it because it was lighter than the clunky 5000 model, which wasn’t designed to be mobile. The 8000 could be plugged into the patrol car’s dash, unlike the 5000, which was hooked to a converter or generator in the car’s trunk.

Defense attorneys are curious, [the lawyer] said, about the versions of software CMI gave DPS for testing and for release on the streets.

CMI customizes software codes for each state, depending on liquor laws and specifications for breath testing.

DPS tested version 8000.00, [the lawyer] said.

‘Once that was approved, those machines left the state,’ [the lawyer] said.

The version first put on the streets was 8000.44, [the lawyer] said.

‘We want to know how versions .41, .42, and .43 were different from the one approved,’ [the lawyer] said.

‘Then they switched to version .45 almost immediately,’ [the lawyer] said.

The version now used is .46.

‘Now we have a .47 sitting in a crime lab in Phoenix,’ [the lawyer] said.

CMI President Hall testified in another local case that there were problems with the .46 version that were corrected, [the lawyer] said.

‘You’d think if there were problems with software that were big enough to have been corrected, they would need to tell the people who tested the defective software,’ [the lawyer] said.

‘But nobody was ever notified there were problems,’ [the lawyer] said.

Bernini seems to be perplexed as to why CMI hasn’t been more forthcoming, at least as far as the cases before her are concerned.

‘Every lawyer in this room should be concerned about CMI’s unwillingness to follow the court’s order,’ the judge said last month.

[The lawyer] and other defense attorneys see CMI’s obstinacy as a defensive cover-up.

Hall said previously that CMI is protecting trade secrets.

‘Their refusal to disclose the software is kind of a mystery to me,’ said John Fusco, president of CMI rival National Patent Analytical Systems of Mansfield, Ohio.

‘Saying it’s a trade secret doesn’t get me anywhere,’ Fusco said.

‘All software, for the most part, is very hardware specific,’ Fusco said. ‘Their software really can’t be used unless another manufacturer is willing to duplicate their hardware.’

Fusco, who once was a sales representative for CMI, said the Intoxilyzer’s technology isn’t as novel as the company touts it to be.

‘It’s been around for 30 years,’ Fusco said.

Fusco said he’s often asked for software to his DataMaster alcohol breath detector.

‘It’s a real pain,’ Fusco said.

But Fusco complies and even conducts seminars twice a year for defense attorneys wanting to know more about his product.

When asked for the software, Fusco sends a letter detailing the specifics, which includes the code in digital format for $350, which covers services to reproduce the compact disc.

Fusco said he rarely hears back from defense attorneys.

‘What they want is for me to say ‘no,’ ‘ Fusco said.

Fusco said the costs of expert analysis of the software, upward of $100,000, is often too prohibitive for defense attorneys.

If there is a legitimate problem with the code, Fusco said, NPAS will fix it.

NPAS also reviews results of outside analysis to ensure truthful testimony in court cases, he said.

CMI has told defense attorneys it will provide its source code on paper but Fusco said it is ‘completely useless in hardback.’

[The Tucson lawyer] and law partner [ ] said the Pima County cases will hold up on appeal, unlike cases in other states.

‘I don’t think any other state has duplicated what we’ve seen here,’ [the partner] said. ‘All the judges (here) are saying this needs to be produced or there will be consequences.

‘All the other states are watching us to see what happens next.’

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

The misguided legal motions he filed got him thrown in jail, his bond revoked and got Stuart charged with a second felony.

His murder trial is scheduled to begin in December.

But on Monday, Stuart entered into a plea agreement on the false-document charge that he hopes will get him out of jail pending his trial. Stuart pleaded guilty to solicitation to commit presentment of a false instrument, a misdemeanor. On Oct. 1, he appears in court to renegotiate his release conditions.

On Jan. 29, Stuart, 46, and his girlfriend were driving on Pinnacle Peak Road in north Phoenix when they passed a car driven by Orville ‘Tom’ Beasley, 49.
Words were exchanged, and Beasley got out of his car to confront Stuart at the next stoplight.

Witnesses clamed that Beasley may have reached into Stuart’s car and may even have been trying to pull him through the car window before Stuart shot him once in the forehead.

An autopsy report showed that Beasley was legally drunk.

Stuart fled the scene but was soon arrested and charged with second-degree murder. He was then released on bond.

But on March 26, unknown to his attorney, someone filed a pile of questionable legal documents in Stuart’s behalf along with a rambling 26-page discourse explaining how Stuart could buy his way out of legal trouble under a misinterpretation of ‘Maritime Law.’

Maritime law, as the name implies, refers to ships and shipping, but certain militia groups believe it applies as well to an imagined shadow government that has suspended the U.S. Constitution, and its proponents have spun a mistaken and paranoid set of legal theories that do not hold up in court.

One document allegedly signed by Stuart was labeled ‘Bond Order’ and addressed to the U.S. secretary of the Treasury claiming ownership of a federal government account worth $150 million and demanding that bonds be transferred from that account.

It was accompanied by two supposed Internal Revenue Service documents claiming Stuart had issued $3 million bonds to Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Judge Timothy Ryan of Maricopa County Superior Court to settle his case and exonerate his release bond.

Prosecutors called the IRS documents false instruments and charged Stuart with the second felony. Under state law, he had to forfeit his bond in the first case because he was accused of another felony.

Stuart’s girlfriend, Cindy Cantrell, claimed that Stuart paid $10,000 to an unlicensed attorney in northern Arizona to prepare the documents, even though Stuart was already represented by one of the best defense attorneys in the state.

Stuart continued to file several handwritten ‘Maritime’ claims and made outlandish statements in court.

With his plea on Monday, Cantrell said that Stuart is ‘done with the whole conspiracy side’ and that he realized he was misled by conspiracy theorists.
Stuart’s current lawyer, David Michael Cantor, claimed that Stuart has already spent six months in jail while awaiting trial on a felony charge that would have earned him only a four-month sentence.

On Oct. 1, Superior Court Judge Paul McMurdie will consider whether Stuart can be released pending trial, but Cantrell said that Stuart no longer has enough money to post bond.

Ironically, in 2006, McMurdie was the object of another defendant filing bogus ‘Maritime Law’ claims; that defendant is serving a year-and-a-half prison sentence for filing false multimillion-dollar liens against McMurdie and prosecutors investigating a supposed pyramid scam.

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

City Court Judge Thomas Berning’s ruling says that breath tests are inadmissible because the company that makes the machine hasn’t made its inner workings available to the defense.

One of the defense attorneys involved in the case says there are 50 to 70 pending cases before other judges that were waiting for Berning’s ruling.

The ruling doesn’t dismiss the cases entirely, just the breath tests.

The Tucson Citizen reports on its Web site that the ruling also could potentially affect every alcohol breath test conducted in the state since Dec. 1, 2006. That’s when Arizona adopted the Intoxilizer 8000 machine made by CMI.

Deputy City Attorney Laura Brynwood says prosecutors will appeal Berning’s ruling with the next 14 days.

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

The 57-year-old Phoenix woman was charged with extreme DUI, leaving the scene of her single-car accident and speeding.

Under harsher DUI laws passed last year, McCloone, a first-time offender, would be required to equip her car with a breath-testing device known as an ignition interlock. She would also have to serve a minimum of 45 days in jail because her BAC exceeded 0.20 percent, putting her in the new “super extreme DUI” category.

But McCloone and three other DUI offenders are challenging Arizona’s new laws, arguing that they are unconstitutionally “vague and ambiguous.” And some state lawmakers are worried a judge may soon strike down the laws, eliminating mandatory interlock devices for first-time DUI offenders.

McCloone’s attorney makes the case that the statute does not specify at what time the individual’s alcohol content must exceed 0.20 percent. Another provision of the laws makes it illegal for a person to have a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 percent or more within two hours of getting behind the wheel.

“Because the statute is not specific and, therefore, unclear, it fails to provide persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and fails to contain explicit standards of application to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” McCloone’s attorney wrote in a lawsuit filed in Phoenix Municipal Court.

An omnibus DUI bill sponsored by House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, would have cleared up any ambiguity in the laws, including a discrepancy over sentencing. But Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed House Bill 2395 late last month, objecting to a provision that would reduce the amount of time first-time offenders would be required to use the interlock device.

House GOP spokesman Barrett Marson said Weiers may try to override the governor’s veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers, as early as this week. He called that option the “best bet,” but added that the speaker’s attention has been on 2009 budget negotiations.

Some say there’s a slim possibility a judge would toss out the DUI laws over technicalities. But Sen. Jim Waring, another Phoenix Republican, said there’s a good reason why the liquor lobbyist and other interlock opponents are fighting for the bill’s defeat.

“There is nothing that is 100 percent, but why leave it to chance if even one (attorney) says it could get thrown out?” said Waring, who introduced legislation earlier this year addressing some conflicts with the new DUI laws. “We’d all have egg on our face, especially the governor for vetoing the bill.”

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

Then, on March 26, someone filed a series of documents in Stuart’s name with the Maricopa County Superior Court; several have Stuart’s signature, and one, according to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, bears his thumbprint.

Prosecutors say that two of them are falsified Internal Revenue Service documents claiming Stuart had issued $3 million bonds to County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Superior Court Judge Timothy Ryan to settle his case and exonerate his bond.

Thomas had Stuart arrested and charged with filing false documents, a felony. He was held without bond because he was charged with a felony while out on bail on other charges.

But did Stuart file them himself, or did somebody do it on his behalf?

“My understanding is that he did not prepare these documents,” said David Michael Cantor, Stuart’s attorney. “It was all prepared and filed by two other people.”

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Roland Steinle unsealed the documents that landed Stuart in jail.

The phony IRS forms were accompanied by a rambling 26-page legal discourse on the U.S. monetary system and why a citizen is entitled to a share of the federal treasury.

One document appearing to be signed by Stuart was labeled “Bond Order” and addressed to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury claiming ownership of a federal government account worth $150 million and demanding that the two $3 million bonds be transferred from that account.

Cantor claimed that Stuart had no knowledge of the IRS documents, his signature is not on them, and instead pointed to the names on the letters attached to them in the filing.

One purports to be the name of a notary public in Oceanside, Calif., though there were no telephone or Internet listings under that name and address. The second was of an Arizona document preparer whose Web site says he is an ordained rabbi and law-school graduate who is not a member of any state bar.

According to police reports, on the evening of Jan. 29, Stuart and his fiancee were setting up Ron Paul campaign signs. Beasley and his wife were returning home after spending the afternoon at a golf tournament and a Scottsdale bar.

At around 9 p.m., according to reports, Stuart’s car passed Beasley’s on Pinnacle Peak Road in north Phoenix. Occupants of both cars said a slur was shouted from the other. When Beasley caught up to Stuart at Tatum Boulevard, the two men exchanged words.

Beasley got out of his car and walked to the driver’s window of Stuart’s SUV.

Eyewitness accounts vary as to whether Beasley reached into Stuart’s car and attacked him before he was shot or whether Beasley was backing away.

Stuart shot Beasley once in the forehead, fled the scene and was arrested shortly afterward.

Beasley died at the scene. His autopsy showed he had a blood-alcohol content of 0.19, more than twice the legal limit.

Stuart was charged with second-degree murder and drive-by shooting.

He posted a $46,000 cash bond, but the IRS immediately imposed a levy on the money.

Though the lien was lifted, prosecutor Susie Charbel succeeded in getting Stuart’s bond raised to $230,000.

The March 26 documents claimed to supersede that bond.

Stuart’s attorney at the time he secured bond, argued that Stuart is not a member of an extremist group called the Freemen despite documents filed with the Pinal County Recorder’s Office in which Stuart claims that he is not a U.S. citizen, does not recognize the authority of the United States and does not pay taxes or have a Social Security number.

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

Steve Livingston says the officer, R. Royston, a longtime traffic officer, does not understand a new law that treats motorized bicycles like traditional pedal-powered bicycles.

Jesse Squier, Livingston’s lawyer, [An Associate with the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor] argued that a veteran traffic officer like Royston should have known about the new law, and that he “has a vendetta against my client.”

But Scottsdale prosecutor Mike De La Cruz argued that Livingston’s motorized bicycle really is a moped and that the officer “acted in good faith.”

The year-old law says riders who attach motors no larger than 33 1/2 cubic centimeters to their bicycles don’t need a driver’s license, insurance or registration, and can travel in bicycle lanes, but can’t go more than 20 mph.

Royston testified Monday that he never heard of the new law when he stopped Livingston in November for riding his orange motorized bike in a bicycle lane along Granite Reef Road, near McDowell Road. The officer cited Livingston for “driving on a suspended license.”

Livingston admitted his license had been suspended for drunken-driving, but told Royston at the time that he didn’t need a driver’s license to ride his motorized bicycle.

Scottsdale Judge Wendy Morton dismissed the suspended-license charge Monday, but Livingston’s trial on a speeding ticket will continue later this month.

Royston spotted Livingston a second time in March, again riding his motorized bike in a bicycle lane near Eldorado Park at Oak Street and Miller Road.

The officer said he retrieved his radar gun from his patrol car and clocked Livingston at 28 mph, 8 mph faster than the legal limit for motorized bikes.

Royston pursued Livingston until the cyclist stopped a few blocks later, again on Granite Reef Road.

Livingston testified that his cycle speedometer showed him going no faster than 19.5 mph that day.

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

Hardest hit are first-time violators and a new class of “super extreme” DUI offenders whose blood-alcohol concentration registers 0.20 percent or above, which is more than double the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

Beginning Wednesday, [09/19/2007] new penalties include mandatory ignition-interlock devices for first-time offenders, increased fines and a minimum of 45 days in jail for super extreme DUI convictions.

The law was modeled after legislation passed in New Mexico in 2005 requiring interlock devices for all people convicted of driving under the influence. Officials there linked a 4 percent decrease in alcohol-related fatalities to interlock use in the year following the law’s passage.

Although lawmakers hope for a similar result in Arizona, DUI attorneys say the higher stakes will lead to increased court caseloads and an extreme inconvenience in the lives of “super extreme” and first-time offenders.

The Arizona Motor Vehicle Division expects about 17,000 first-time drunken drivers in the coming year. They all will have to pass a breath test before getting behind the wheel.

Sixth-highest in U.S.

Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, realizes the bill he sponsored may not win him votes in popularity, but he hopes the law will make Arizona’s roads safer.

One Arizona State University student said during a recent chat with legislators ” ‘Gosh, that DUI bill is just ridiculous. Whose idea was this?’ ” Schapira said.

The negative response is understandable, he said, given that the penalties are meant to be strong deterrents.

Schapira, the Legislature’s youngest member at 27, and his staff came up with a DUI bill earlier this year after learning about New Mexico’s success. Although a victim of an alcohol-related crash in 1996, Schapira said he hadn’t fully realized the problem of drunken driving in Arizona.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records show Arizona had the sixth-highest number of alcohol-related fatalities in the nation. There were 585 alcohol-related fatalities statewide in 2006, up 15 percent from 2005.

Overall, drunken driving has significantly decreased in the past 20 years, but the state has hit a plateau, said Ericka Espino, executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Arizona.

“Saturation patrols certainly help, as do sobriety checkpoints, and we’re thankful,” Espino said. “Unfortunately, Arizona’s numbers are not going down. …We need to figure out what’s going on. We truly believe ignition interlock is the solution for us: It takes the weapon out of the hands of the drunk driver.”

The law, which was signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano in May, made Arizona the second state to require ignition-interlock devices for first-time offenders. Louisiana and Illinois also followed suit.

Interlock devices are wired beneath the dash of a vehicle and require a clean breath sample to start the car. Most units will prevent the car from starting if a blood-alcohol content of 0.03 percent or above is detected. A person has three tries to blow a clean sample before the device shuts down and requires a technician to recalibrate it.

About 100,000 people in the U.S. use the devices; about 7,000 of those are in Arizona, according to MVD records. Most, if not all, users in Arizona are repeat offenders.

Law drawing critics

The harsh new stance on drunken drivers has its share of detractors.

Critics say interlock devices are expensive to maintain and provide a short-term answer to a long-term problem.

The offender pays for the device, which typically costs $100 for installation and about $80 a month to maintain. Most first-time offenders will have the device for 12 months. That cost is in addition to the more than $1,000 in fines imposed for a DUI conviction.

And studies have shown that while interlock devices are effective while in use, drivers tend to slip into old habits once the units are removed.

“We recognize that many offenders may have an alcohol dependency that underlies their drinking-and-driving behavior,” said Anne McCartt, vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “Even if interlocks don’t prevent drinking and driving when they’re removed, it can reduce drinking and driving while they’re installed, and we think that’s important.”

[A Local] DUI defense attorney said clients have been clamoring for information on whether the new law will affect pre-existing cases. It doesn’t, but [he] warned that he expects courts to see a spike in the number of DUI cases that are challenged.

Most of [his] clients have been arrested on suspicion of having a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit or are in the new “super extreme” category with a blood-alcohol content of 0.20 percent or above.

Under the new law, the sentence for a first-time conviction of super extreme DUI nets at least 45 days in jail and a judge is prohibited from suspending any part of the jail time. Previously, a judge could suspend most of the sentence upon completion of a court-sponsored drug or alcohol program.

“Now I think defense lawyers are going to have to learn to exploit all of the potential for error there is in blood or breath testing,” [he] said. “We’re talking about a situation here where if somebody has a blood test of .1999, you have 10 days in jail. If it’s one-thousandth of a point higher, it’s 45 days.

“I think people are going to have to fight these DUIs harder than ever before.”

In New Mexico, that’s exactly what happened.

David Crum, a DUI attorney in Albuquerque, said more first-time-offense cases have gone to trial since the 2005 interlock law was enacted.

Although first-time offenders see interlocks as inconvenient, multiple offenders embrace the device, Crum said.

“For a lot of people, it’s been helpful,” Crum said. “I know it’s probably weird to hear me say that. When you get repeat offenders in New Mexico, it’s easier for me to say we can make a deal where you can still drive anytime, anywhere as long as you have an interlock in your car.”

Advocates hope that the state’s new law will be tough and inconvenient enough to deter drunken driving.

“The biggest argument we kept hearing is it’s such an inconvenience for the first-time offender,” Espino said. “It’s either an inconvenience or someone possibly injuring or killing themselves or others. To me, it’s no question. Ultimately, it will save lives.”

New DUI penalties

First-time offenders Will have to equip their vehicles with ignition-interlock devices for at least a year. The device typically costs $100 for installation and about $80 a month to maintain.

‘Super extreme’ offenders In a new category of DUI offense, those with a 0.20 percent blood-alcohol content or above, which is more than double the legal limit, will face a minimum of 45 days in jail.

How an interlock ignition works

Cars with an interlock ignition will start only after drivers have proven they are sober. The driver breathes into the device for a required amount of time. The alcohol in the breath is measured, and that information is passed to a computer.

IF THEY FAIL
The car will not start.
Drivers can test again in 5 minutes.

IF THEY FAIL
The cars ignition will lock. It can be unlocked only by a technician.

IF THEY PASS
The car will start.
While driving, the device will prompt for a retest.

IF THEY FAIL
The failure is recorded and reported at monthly check-ins.

Republic research
The legal limit

The figures below show how much the average man or woman would have to drink to exceed the legal blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 percent in Arizona. One drink is a 12-ounce beer, 4-ounce glass of wine or a shot of hard liquor. It takes about an hour for the body to eliminate one drink.

For a 180-pound man

Each drink will give him a 0.02% BAC. To get the following blood-alcohol levels, he would have to drink the following in about an hour:

0.08% BAC 4 drinks
0.15% BAC 7.5 drinks
0.20% BAC 10 drinks

For a 165-pound woman

Each drink will give her a .027% BAC. To get the following blood-alcohol levels, she would have to drink the following in about an hour:

0.08% BAC 3 drinks
0.15% BAC 5.5 drinks
0.20% BAC 7.5 drinks

Department of Public Safety

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about Arizona DUI Laws. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.

Contact The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona about your case. We handle DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar crimes, property crimes and other violent crimes.