New Arizona DUI Laws - April 2008 (DWI)
New Arizona DUI Laws - April 2008
The newest DUI laws coming down the pike, if passed, would shorten by 6 months the ignition interlock device reqirement for first offenders in Arizona, but it would add 20 days to the mandatory jail term for a first time extreme DUI. (…)
The newest DUI laws coming down the pike, if passed, would shorten by 6 months the ignition interlock device reqirement for first offenders in Arizona, but it would add 20 days to the mandatory jail term for a first time extreme DUI. The new Arizona DUI laws appear to give back a little and take a lot more. Developing…
Quoted from http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/:
Arizona Capitol Times - Serving Arizona's Business, Government and Political Community since 1946
Blow Hard * Lawmakers are considering a bill that would require stricter penalties for repeat DUI offenders and the drunkest of drivers, at the same time lightening the punishment for first-time offenders. First-timers would have to use an ignition interlock device for six months, instead of a year
Backpedalling or enhancing policy?
Arizona’s policymakers are taking a hard, second look at the state’s current set of driving-under-the-influence laws, regarded to be the toughest in the nation, to see whether they might have gone too far.
Source: feeds.feedburner.com
Is Sentencing fair in Utah DUI cases?
I went to a sentencing hearing today. My client was found Not Guilty of felony DUI at trial. He was found guilty of interfering with an arrest. At sentencing, the state jumps up and down "WE WANT JAIL!" The interfering with arrest charge was a minor issue in the case. Most people get that charge mainly because they were uncooperative. Most people get a small fine and a slap on the wrist without much noise from the prosecutor. It felt like when my client was acquitted, the State was incensed. So on a minor charge, the State jumps up and down crying for jail time on something no one ever goes to jail without some extraneous circumstances.
I have no complaints about the judge in this particular case. He bent over backwards to ensure that my client was handed a fair trial. The judge made very sound decisions in ruling on objections and matters of evidence. That does not mean that the judge ruled in my favor all of the time, but he always made sure I understood why he ruled against me. The judge was fair on sentencing. He certainly did not go easy on my client, but he gave my client a chance. My client’s future rests in his own hands.
I have some concerns about the sentencing process. The judge sends a person that is to be sentenced to get a pre-sentence report. The person goes to a probation agency. The agency is supposed to be independent of the prosecution. However, it seems far too often that the input comes from the prosecution. In fact, in Weber County, the probation person sits in Court on the right hand side of the prosecutor. They are one being in purpose. I often see at sentencing a prosecutor whispering in the probation agent’s ear. Why have the probation person there? If the judge wants to know what the prosecutor recommends, just ask the prosecutor. My feeling is that this is an area that needs to be fixed.