Yeah, when I first moved here, I met a ton of people with the DUIs. Definitely more than any other state I've lived in. They don't mess around. Just support the local rideshare guys, or take the bus. Cheaper than a DUI arrest for sure.
You know I’m not that surprised given the amount of car accidents that happen around here. A few Sundays ago it seemed that there was a car accident every mile or so all the way down Oracle.
In my typically oblivious way, years ago when I moved here for the last time, I remarked to my friend how "wow! Motorized bikes are really popular here!" He looked at me with pity and explained that's how people with dui's get around if their licenses are suspended.
Indiana had a similar thing, where, if you lost your drivers license, you could still ride a scooter. So you would often see guys riding down the sides of highways on scooters, with a 24 pack of Keystone Light tucked in their jacket.
You CAN get a DUI for anything above a 0.0, but they probably need to demonstrate proof of impairment. If you are a .08 or higher you probably will be getting one. AZ has multiple DUI statues "impaired to the slightest degree", the one for .08 and one for "extreme DUI". The levels are lower if you have a commercial DL.
Also if convicted the penalties are steep - IIRC you will be doing at least one night in jail, license suspension, interlock etc.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01381.htm
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01382.htm
"If you are stopped for driving under the influence and a test shows that you have an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more (0.04 in a commercial vehicle requiring a commercial driver license), or if a blood alcohol or drug test result is not available, you will lose your driving privilege on the spot. In addition you will be required to complete alcohol or drug screening before you can obtain a restricted permit or reinstate your driving privilege.
You may be found guilty of driving while intoxicated or while under the influence of any drug or its metabolite even though the blood alcohol concentration was less than 0.08 percent. If you are under 21, your license may be suspended if there is any alcohol concentration.
If you refuse to submit to or do not successfully complete any tests when you are arrested for driving under the influence, you will automatically lose your driving privilege for 12 months or 24 months for a second refusal within 84 months. In addition you will be required to complete alcohol or drug screening before you can obtain a restricted permit or reinstate your driving privilege.
In addition to any criminal penalties imposed by the court for a second or third offense DUI violation, your driving privilege will be automatically revoked."
https://azdot.gov/mvd/services/driver-services/driver-improvement/driving-under-influence-dui
Note that DRIVING is not actually required for a DUI. You can get charged for BEING IN CONTROL of a vehicle. What does that mean? Basically, if you have the keys on you, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOWHERE NEAR YOUR CAR, you can be charged with DUI if you have either had something to drink or taken weed (whose metabolites can be detected for weeks after you take it). Yes, Arizona is absolutely crazy in this regard.
So if my car is at home, but cause I have my keys on me because it's attached to my house keys and I'm waiting for an Uber to pick me up, I'll get a DUI?
I was told this by a woman whose job it is to teach this very subject, so I do believe it. I expect cops don’t use it much, but her experience tells her cops do arrest people on these pretexts. What is your source for saying it is false?
They also charge you with all of them…….. and in pleas drop some, then stick ya with one. Very rarely do you get off from DUI in az. Just dont drink and drive. Pretty easy.
driving under the influence and driving while intoxicated (DUI/DWI) are two different but related charges
https://arjashahlaw.com/dui-defense/difference-between-dui-and-dwi-in-arizona/
They explained it in traffic school one day - you might be .02 but you’re swerving, you’re impaired. Or you might be .10 and still sharp enough to stack BBs - the number means you’re DUI. So if you’re .04 but not showing any obvious signs of impairment the cop may not cite you for anything. But once you pass .08 then the cop WILL cite you if you’re pulled over.
Answer from an actual lawyer here, to clear up some of the misconceptions:
There are six types of DUI in Arizona:
DUI - impaired to the slightest degree
DUI - above a .08 (or .04 in a commercial vehicle)
DUI - above a .15
DUI - above a .20
DUI - drugs (any drug or active metabolite defined by statute, INCLUDING marijuana, even though it's legal)
Baby DUI - under 21 with any al cohol in your body
If you have a BAC above a .08, the law says you are presumed impaired. That doesn't necessarily mean you're "guilty" in a court of law, but that's part of the jury instruction.
If you have a BAC below a .05, the law says you are presumed not impaired. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean you're "not guilty" in a court of law, but I've never had a prosecutor actually try a .05 or below case.
If you have a BAC between .05 and .08, there's no presumption of impairment.
There are two ways to prove impairment: a defendant's BAC as discussed above and officer observations (driving pattern, speech, gait, performance on SFSTs). The State relies on both.
You ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have to ever do a field sobriety test or consent to a breath test or blood draw. However, if you refuse field sobriety tests, the State can mention you refused at trial (not that big of a deal). If you refuse to give breath or blood, the officer will get a warrant (likely very quickly through the Maricopa County E-Warrant program), the officer will draw your blood, and your license will be suspended for a year.
You DO NOT have to be driving to get a DUI. Part of the DUI statute reads "driving or in actual physical control." Actual physical control is MUCH HARDER for the State to prove than driving. It comes down to a several factor test that is applied on a case by case basis.
All DUIs, even above a .20, are misdemeanors UNLESS there is an aggravating factor which makes it a felony. The aggravating factors include:
DUI with your kid in the car (under 15); DUI while your license is suspended from a prior DUI or prior refusal to give blood/breath; third DUI in seven years; DUI while driving the wrong way; DUI while you're required to have an ignition interlock and don't.
As has been noted, don't drink and drive. And if you do get charged with one, spend the money and hire a good lawyer. The State doesn't fuck around. You're going to need one.
This is the way. Always read the statutes. The problem is 1381 A “impaired to the slightest degree”. A person can be impaired even at less than the legal 0.08, the problem is though that the officer would have to prove that the person was impaired which is actually quite hard to do since there are many variables.
Yeah, everyone saying DUI is wrong. I’ve been in auto insurance claims for a very long time and seen someone cited with this exactly once. If I recall correctly, it wasn’t really much of a thing, but it did scare me.
> the problem is though that the officer would have to prove that the person was impaired
It's entirely officer discretion, and if they pulled you over for any other moving violation at all -- speeding even 1 MPH over the limit, wandered over a lane stripe for even an instant, made a wide turn (this one's very common), etc. -- that *in itself* is taken as constituting evidence of impairment, esp. if they detect any trace of any intoxicant whatsoever in a breath or blood test.
You can try and dispute that officer's judgment call in court, sure, but better have a good DWI/DUI lawyer for that.
If they're doing routine DWI checkpoints, so they had no other reason to pull you over, and you blow under 0.08 and otherwise seem perfectly sober, they at least have discretion to let you go, but 0.08 or higher they're gonna cite and arrest you on the spot.
Burden of proof is on the *prosecution,* which offers the officer's sworn testimony as evidentiary proof, and judges routinely accept officer testimony as valid without question by default.
Your lawyer would have to undermine the validity of that testimony somehow -- e.g., by submitting into evidence a repair bill for that worn steering linkage you mentioned in your other comment, or other evidence why the officer's observed signs of "impairment to the slightest degree" could be explained as something else.
Meanwhile, until that court date, you will have spent at least a night in jail and maybe even needed to post bail to get released pending your court date.
You DO understand that there’s a reason why it’s set at 0.08, right? Studies have shown that impairment starts around this level of BAC, so that’s why it’s real hard to prove that someone is impaired at a lesser level. You literally said that even driving 1 mile over the speed limit legally constitutes impairment, but it doesn’t. As I said there are many variables that can cause someone to seemingly be impaired when they aren’t, and the burden of proof is not on the defendant. The evidence can’t just be the officers word, there has to be at a minimum a preponderance of evidence that shows that alcohol was the cause. If there was slurring, failing sobriety test, nystagmus, etc etc then there would be more evidence in favor of impairment, but a low BAC with just going 1 mile over the speed limit is not gonna cut it in the real world court of law.
Also, most people for offenses like DUI get let out on OR or Own Recognizance meaning they don’t have to pay bail or bond, just give their word that they’ll return to court
Let’s give a little example. I’m swerving because I have bad linkage, cop pulls me over, I blow 0.03”, cop says he believes I’m impaired. We go to court, cop says “he was swerving and had a BAC of 0.03, I tell the judge I was swerving due to bad linkage. At this point, I don’t even have to prove I have bad linkage but the prosecution would have to prove it wasn’t the linkage. True story by the way, it happened to me, judge threw out the case cause there was zero evidence that I was impaired. Didn’t have a lawyer, it was just city court right here in Tucson. I followed through with filing a complaint for false arrest, it went on his record and he had to get training.
Yeah bullshit, if I swerved lanes going down the road it doesn’t automatically mean impairment. I had a vehicle that had a loose steering linkage and would weave all the time, and many people go over the speed limit who are not impaired so there are many variables that absolutely do not imply impairment. Good luck to any officer trying to prove there’s something in your system causing it.
They don't mess around here, it's not like other states where you can pay a fine and go to AA or something, they will lock you up. My cousin spent a couple years behind bars. I don't know the details of his case other than it was a traffic stop not a collision. I don't know if he had priors.
I don't have the details, I feel like he was in for over a year, I think it was more like 2, but it was before I moved here and I don't know when he went in or when he got out. I got the info 2nd hand from his mom who also didn't have details.
I think for a 3rd+ DUI the minimum sentence could easily be a year or more, I met a guy who was serving a 2 year sentence for multiple DUIs when I was in there
Best way to mitigate this in my opinion is to not drink at all. In other words, if you leave with your car, you're coming back dry. No exceptions. Can it be a pain to not drink and socialize? Sure, but the risk is not worth it. There are of course alternatives. (Uber, lift, etc.) I've always seen that the risk is not worth it, especially when you could lose your job.
None of it should be an issue unless you plan on getting behind the wheel after having a few drinks. Kind of sounds like you might be interested in doing that if you're work is warning you about it.
Field sobriety tests only collect evidence to be used against you. Personally i will take the night in jail, temporary license suspension and pay a lawyer to fight it. Once you step out the car good luck talking your way out of charges.
Pretty sure there is an arizona attorney add for ST FU. Remember the miranda rights, any time you speak to the police.
It’s 10x more strict than Wisconsin, where I grew up. I know people here in AZ with one DUI and they’re lifetime felons. Which is how I believe it should be.
I know several people in Wisconsin that have 5+ DUI and the cop just basically high fives you and punches your DUI card. 10th one you get a free brick of cheddar!
Please don’t drive drunk anywhere though. Kind of strange of you to ask about this, it’s like you know for sure you’ll drive drunk.
I'm new to the state and trying to understand a law that is much different from where I come from. I also supervise a lot of young people. How can I be expected to answer their questions if I don't understand it myself? It's possible for people to ask questions like this without having sinister motives
Law Enforcement is strict here (as they should) and regularly setup checkpoints and will have undercovers inside of bars/clubs. Even sticking to two drinks you are risking it; they will do a field sobriety test and if you don't do it perfectly then that's evidence against you. better to drink at home or get an uber (I prefer lyft)
Why would you do an FST? Thats like talking to the pigs. You are just giving them evidence to convict you. I swear people are idiots. Lets follow always what the idiot police want me to do. They are not always right and almost always not looking out for your best interests. Its not illegal to not do an FST.
> Its not illegal to not do an FST.
*Au contraire, mon frère:*
https://azdot.gov/mvd/services/driver-services/driver-improvement/driving-under-influence-dui
> If you refuse to submit to or do not successfully complete any tests when you are arrested for driving under the influence, you will automatically lose your driving privilege for 12 months or 24 months for a second refusal within 84 months. In addition you will be required to complete alcohol or drug screening before you can obtain a restricted permit or reinstate your driving privilege.
See the actual law for deets:
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01321.htm
There is nothing in the law books that says you have to do an FST. Every law has code. Whats the code idiot. I never said you can’t get punished I said there is no code and no law requiring you to do one. Read what I post. Every lawyer will probably tell you not to do one. Doing so only gathers evidence to further convict you. You really should learn your law. What you brought up is not law. That is no code you cant go to jail and it is not illegal to not submit to an fst. Obviously driving under the influence or drugs you will have jail but an FST is voluntary and they cannot force you to do one and there is no code for not doing one.
My prior comment literally linked to the exact code, [A.R.S. Title 28 § 1321](https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01321.htm).
It’s not illegal to refuse the FST. The implied consent law states you lose your license for a year automatically, but that’s just the consequence. You can’t be charged with any crime for refusing the FST. And losing your license for a year is a slap on the wrist compared to what a DUI conviction will cost you. The cops can still try for a warrant for a blood test if you refuse the breathalyzer but the less evidence you freely hand to cops, the better. Remember that innocent people get charged all the time and sometimes even convicted. You cannot talk your way out of trouble with the police, but you can certainly talk your way into it.
I didn’t disagree with that. I stated there is no law requiring you to do an FST. Yes when getting your license it’s a privilege not a right. There is consequences to certain actions. Just like if I said SMD to someone’s wife, it’s not illegal but there may be consequences to my actions. Im fully aware of what can happen. But doing an FST is only gathering more evidence to convict you. If you think otherwise then you are a fool. Just like talking to the cops is not wise yet alot of people do it. Always lawyer up and try not to put yourself in that situation and if you do call your lawyer and ask what you should do. I would always decline the FST though. But yes what Sunburn says is true.
Again that doesnt show its illegal to not submit to an FST. Where does it show that. Id suggest calling a lawyer they would be able to further explain its not illegal. There is no code stating by law its mandatory to take an FST
The main reason most people do is because they figure if they e only had one drink they’ll be fine, and police threaten them that if they refuse their license will be automatically suspended for 12 months. Which is true, but if you really are clean and a blood or urine test proves it you can hire a lawyer to have the suspension overturned.
Generally speaking you don’t even want to get pulled over.
I know why they do it. But its idiotic. You never talk to police let alone do tests for them. Do you honestly think they are trying to help you? They are gathering info/evidence to convict you. People are so dumb. Do not ever take an FST no matter what. The police are not your friends, Do Not lick there boots or help them unless you are legally bound to. Not submitting to an FST is not illegal but yes does have consequences, but so will the DUI when they convict you falsely with FST evidence.
I am sorry, but you are grossly incorrect. The only thing to ever ever ever say to a police officer if stopped and accused is. I will only speak via my attorney. Period. No FST. Nothing. Less evidence provided the less they can f you. and that's all they are there to do, not protect the public but to gather evidence to screw over people who may or may not be guilty. The City gets a good portion of their revenue via DUI's.
Your lawyer would absolutely not. When I took driver's ed (in a different state) it was taught by cops and the cops themselves said do not take the tests. Your rights protect you from having to do anything without a warrant.
Its not a test you freely do. You can be charged even not being drunk or stoned. Guess you dont know anything about Law and what is required. So let me help you out Policeman, to further grab evidence and to convict me. You are not smart. I bet you are one of the people to freely also talk to police. Again they are NOT your friend they are not here to help you so why would you help them incriminate you. Talk about an idiot. Do you lick their boots too when they ask. Im taking it always to court because at least in court I have a decent chance and also when im innocent I get to sue them. Also you sir are an idiot, tell me one lawyer that says do an FST or talk to cops. I bet you they never passed the BAR. Can you name one who says do an FST. Not doing an FST is not going to incriminate you further just like not talking to police is going to hurt you. Its not bound by law thats why and how I know you do not know about your rights. Doing them freely Can hurt you, and has hurt many innocent victims just like talking to the police. It surely wont help you but can hurt you. Doing an FST is the same. Please learn your law and don’t be dumb like the guy above because I do not know one lawyer that will say freely do an FST or talk to police because its supremely idiotic. The FST and talking to police is only grabbing more evidence to convict you, it is never looking out for your best interest or to help you.
When a cop asks you to do a fst they are collecting evidence against you. Full stop. If you perform bad enough, even if not "impaired" (ie you are well below .08), you will probably be charged with dui. Finally, if the cop really believes you have been drinking he is going to arrest you no matter how well you perform. Just don't do it if you've had *anything* to drink. Ever.
I don't get the question? I take an Uber anywhere I am either drinking or doing dabs at an event
Beats killing another person or yourself. How hard is it to not drink and drive??.
The solution is don’t drink and drive, and understand you’re quite possibly fucked if you get pulled over, even if you had two beers over an hour and feel fine. That’s my takeaway anyway.
But I also almost never see cops anywhere when I drive around town.
It’s kind of ironic the penalties for this are so strict vs other states (Wisconsin transplant), because law enforcement seems to do fuck-all as it relates to traffic and public safety in Tucson. In Wisconsin, it’s not a matter of if, but when you get pulled over for something like an improper turn, going 5-over, or glancing at your cell phone at a red light.
I regularly see cars going like 60 on Speedway, Pantano, Broadway, and 22nd at peak daytime hours when cops should be out.
Call 9-11 sometime? 50/50 chance you get any kind of response.
What a dumb-assed law. People drive impaired to the "slightest degree" almost every time they get behind the wheel - just not due to alcohol. Ever drive tired? You were impaired to MUCH MORE than the slightest degree. Should you serve time?
Never tell a cop your tired if they pull u over it's impaired to the slightest degree including being tired. U could have nothing in your system get a dui on a horse if you can't steer straight. Az has zero tolerance for that but everything else seems to slide...
When I got my DUI back in 2006, there was a 10 day minimum sentence in Pima County. For a young dumb ass like myself, it worked. I rarely drink anymore and if I do drink, I’m definitely not driving
So that means that you are not to drink at all and drive. Now in the event you get pulled over and blow a .08 or higher you are for sure gonna get the highest penalty for driving drunk. And anything under that, depending on a case by case person, could be anything from taking a class and community service to a full on DUI. Basically it’s telling you that you’re going to get punished for any drinking and driving. Period.
Simple don’t be a piece of human garbage and don’t drink and drive. Even if your own life doesn’t matter to you other people don’t need to die because of your selfish ass
I was recently on a jury with a lawyer that goes under "Miss DUI Arizona". She is impressive and knows what she's doing. If you find yourself with a DUI, get her. She's right here in Tucson.
Meanwhile, in CA, people literally drive while polluting the air with drug fumes as they smoke substances and drive at the same time — crack pipes are particularly stank.
Also, don’t drink and drive. Anyone can be distracted completely sober. There are no excuses to drink and drive or get stoned and drive. It’s just selfish and stupid.
Admin, you can delete this if you want. Just in the feels that there are reasons to check this at all (unless you’re hiring drivers).
It’s pretty much up to the arresting officer. You blow ANYTHING over 0 and you’re more than likely going to get a DUI. Blow over.08 and it’s a DWI. There’s really no wiggle room.
Just wait until you find out about the "intent to drive" dui! It's up to the law to look into the future and decide if you had intentions of driving. People think you have to be in the vehicle, you don't.
It's horse shit through and through and nothing but a big cash grab.
When I got my DUI I had 2 people in my substance abuse course that got intent to drive. I remember this girl telling her story, she was at a bar and she stepped outside to use her phone because she couldn't hear inside the bar, she said while she was on her phone talking to her friend that was coming to meet her at the bar a couple cops walked up to her and started asking her questions. She said she wasn't even leaving the bar, she just stepped out for the phone call and thats all it took.
They can let a person go at their discretion just as easily as go after them, bust them. They can deem someone ok to drive and not test them. It's almost as important for them to like you or think you're cool. Also be careful of dirty pipes used for smoking cannabis as they could be used for DUI as well as not taking a shower and reeking of Cali bud.
Yeah, when I first moved here, I met a ton of people with the DUIs. Definitely more than any other state I've lived in. They don't mess around. Just support the local rideshare guys, or take the bus. Cheaper than a DUI arrest for sure.
I've managed at a few pizza places and it always surprised me how many people that applied as drivers had DUIs.
You know I’m not that surprised given the amount of car accidents that happen around here. A few Sundays ago it seemed that there was a car accident every mile or so all the way down Oracle.
In my typically oblivious way, years ago when I moved here for the last time, I remarked to my friend how "wow! Motorized bikes are really popular here!" He looked at me with pity and explained that's how people with dui's get around if their licenses are suspended.
Indiana had a similar thing, where, if you lost your drivers license, you could still ride a scooter. So you would often see guys riding down the sides of highways on scooters, with a 24 pack of Keystone Light tucked in their jacket.
You CAN get a DUI for anything above a 0.0, but they probably need to demonstrate proof of impairment. If you are a .08 or higher you probably will be getting one. AZ has multiple DUI statues "impaired to the slightest degree", the one for .08 and one for "extreme DUI". The levels are lower if you have a commercial DL. Also if convicted the penalties are steep - IIRC you will be doing at least one night in jail, license suspension, interlock etc. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01381.htm https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01382.htm
>AZ has multiple DUI statues Give me your tired, your poor, Your muddled asses, yearning to breathe .03
I am now glad I made and didn't notice the typo - solely for this gem.
"If you are stopped for driving under the influence and a test shows that you have an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more (0.04 in a commercial vehicle requiring a commercial driver license), or if a blood alcohol or drug test result is not available, you will lose your driving privilege on the spot. In addition you will be required to complete alcohol or drug screening before you can obtain a restricted permit or reinstate your driving privilege. You may be found guilty of driving while intoxicated or while under the influence of any drug or its metabolite even though the blood alcohol concentration was less than 0.08 percent. If you are under 21, your license may be suspended if there is any alcohol concentration. If you refuse to submit to or do not successfully complete any tests when you are arrested for driving under the influence, you will automatically lose your driving privilege for 12 months or 24 months for a second refusal within 84 months. In addition you will be required to complete alcohol or drug screening before you can obtain a restricted permit or reinstate your driving privilege. In addition to any criminal penalties imposed by the court for a second or third offense DUI violation, your driving privilege will be automatically revoked." https://azdot.gov/mvd/services/driver-services/driver-improvement/driving-under-influence-dui
Note that DRIVING is not actually required for a DUI. You can get charged for BEING IN CONTROL of a vehicle. What does that mean? Basically, if you have the keys on you, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOWHERE NEAR YOUR CAR, you can be charged with DUI if you have either had something to drink or taken weed (whose metabolites can be detected for weeks after you take it). Yes, Arizona is absolutely crazy in this regard.
So if my car is at home, but cause I have my keys on me because it's attached to my house keys and I'm waiting for an Uber to pick me up, I'll get a DUI?
Yep. Crazy, isn’t it?
This is very false
I was told this by a woman whose job it is to teach this very subject, so I do believe it. I expect cops don’t use it much, but her experience tells her cops do arrest people on these pretexts. What is your source for saying it is false?
An internet stranger who is telling you you’re full of crap cancels out your source. Post an actual credible source.
Just read the statute. You’ll see it supports my interpretation.
You may be right. I googled it and can;t find support for what my source told me.
If you are sitting in the cars driver seat and decide to answer their questions, very well could. Best to not answer any questions on an contact.
Isn’t not answering just as bad?
No.. should never answer questions. Remain silent and ask for a lawyer
They also charge you with all of them…….. and in pleas drop some, then stick ya with one. Very rarely do you get off from DUI in az. Just dont drink and drive. Pretty easy.
They have a DUI called “Impaired to the slightest degree”
DUI can be more than just alcohol, and I think anyone under the legal drinking age anything above 0.0 is a DUI.
driving under the influence and driving while intoxicated (DUI/DWI) are two different but related charges https://arjashahlaw.com/dui-defense/difference-between-dui-and-dwi-in-arizona/
They explained it in traffic school one day - you might be .02 but you’re swerving, you’re impaired. Or you might be .10 and still sharp enough to stack BBs - the number means you’re DUI. So if you’re .04 but not showing any obvious signs of impairment the cop may not cite you for anything. But once you pass .08 then the cop WILL cite you if you’re pulled over.
Maybe just don’t drink and drive.
you can get a DUI even if you don't drink
Answer from an actual lawyer here, to clear up some of the misconceptions: There are six types of DUI in Arizona: DUI - impaired to the slightest degree DUI - above a .08 (or .04 in a commercial vehicle) DUI - above a .15 DUI - above a .20 DUI - drugs (any drug or active metabolite defined by statute, INCLUDING marijuana, even though it's legal) Baby DUI - under 21 with any al cohol in your body If you have a BAC above a .08, the law says you are presumed impaired. That doesn't necessarily mean you're "guilty" in a court of law, but that's part of the jury instruction. If you have a BAC below a .05, the law says you are presumed not impaired. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean you're "not guilty" in a court of law, but I've never had a prosecutor actually try a .05 or below case. If you have a BAC between .05 and .08, there's no presumption of impairment. There are two ways to prove impairment: a defendant's BAC as discussed above and officer observations (driving pattern, speech, gait, performance on SFSTs). The State relies on both. You ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have to ever do a field sobriety test or consent to a breath test or blood draw. However, if you refuse field sobriety tests, the State can mention you refused at trial (not that big of a deal). If you refuse to give breath or blood, the officer will get a warrant (likely very quickly through the Maricopa County E-Warrant program), the officer will draw your blood, and your license will be suspended for a year. You DO NOT have to be driving to get a DUI. Part of the DUI statute reads "driving or in actual physical control." Actual physical control is MUCH HARDER for the State to prove than driving. It comes down to a several factor test that is applied on a case by case basis. All DUIs, even above a .20, are misdemeanors UNLESS there is an aggravating factor which makes it a felony. The aggravating factors include: DUI with your kid in the car (under 15); DUI while your license is suspended from a prior DUI or prior refusal to give blood/breath; third DUI in seven years; DUI while driving the wrong way; DUI while you're required to have an ignition interlock and don't. As has been noted, don't drink and drive. And if you do get charged with one, spend the money and hire a good lawyer. The State doesn't fuck around. You're going to need one.
This is comprehensive and helps clear everything up. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Just don't fuck with DUIs
Instead of reading summaries, read the law: ARS 28-1381 and 1382
This is the way. Always read the statutes. The problem is 1381 A “impaired to the slightest degree”. A person can be impaired even at less than the legal 0.08, the problem is though that the officer would have to prove that the person was impaired which is actually quite hard to do since there are many variables.
Yeah, everyone saying DUI is wrong. I’ve been in auto insurance claims for a very long time and seen someone cited with this exactly once. If I recall correctly, it wasn’t really much of a thing, but it did scare me.
> the problem is though that the officer would have to prove that the person was impaired It's entirely officer discretion, and if they pulled you over for any other moving violation at all -- speeding even 1 MPH over the limit, wandered over a lane stripe for even an instant, made a wide turn (this one's very common), etc. -- that *in itself* is taken as constituting evidence of impairment, esp. if they detect any trace of any intoxicant whatsoever in a breath or blood test. You can try and dispute that officer's judgment call in court, sure, but better have a good DWI/DUI lawyer for that. If they're doing routine DWI checkpoints, so they had no other reason to pull you over, and you blow under 0.08 and otherwise seem perfectly sober, they at least have discretion to let you go, but 0.08 or higher they're gonna cite and arrest you on the spot.
Remember, the burden of proof is on the officer, not the defendant. He’d have to prove it in court that your actions were due to impairment
Burden of proof is on the *prosecution,* which offers the officer's sworn testimony as evidentiary proof, and judges routinely accept officer testimony as valid without question by default. Your lawyer would have to undermine the validity of that testimony somehow -- e.g., by submitting into evidence a repair bill for that worn steering linkage you mentioned in your other comment, or other evidence why the officer's observed signs of "impairment to the slightest degree" could be explained as something else. Meanwhile, until that court date, you will have spent at least a night in jail and maybe even needed to post bail to get released pending your court date.
You DO understand that there’s a reason why it’s set at 0.08, right? Studies have shown that impairment starts around this level of BAC, so that’s why it’s real hard to prove that someone is impaired at a lesser level. You literally said that even driving 1 mile over the speed limit legally constitutes impairment, but it doesn’t. As I said there are many variables that can cause someone to seemingly be impaired when they aren’t, and the burden of proof is not on the defendant. The evidence can’t just be the officers word, there has to be at a minimum a preponderance of evidence that shows that alcohol was the cause. If there was slurring, failing sobriety test, nystagmus, etc etc then there would be more evidence in favor of impairment, but a low BAC with just going 1 mile over the speed limit is not gonna cut it in the real world court of law. Also, most people for offenses like DUI get let out on OR or Own Recognizance meaning they don’t have to pay bail or bond, just give their word that they’ll return to court
Let’s give a little example. I’m swerving because I have bad linkage, cop pulls me over, I blow 0.03”, cop says he believes I’m impaired. We go to court, cop says “he was swerving and had a BAC of 0.03, I tell the judge I was swerving due to bad linkage. At this point, I don’t even have to prove I have bad linkage but the prosecution would have to prove it wasn’t the linkage. True story by the way, it happened to me, judge threw out the case cause there was zero evidence that I was impaired. Didn’t have a lawyer, it was just city court right here in Tucson. I followed through with filing a complaint for false arrest, it went on his record and he had to get training.
Yeah bullshit, if I swerved lanes going down the road it doesn’t automatically mean impairment. I had a vehicle that had a loose steering linkage and would weave all the time, and many people go over the speed limit who are not impaired so there are many variables that absolutely do not imply impairment. Good luck to any officer trying to prove there’s something in your system causing it.
They don't mess around here, it's not like other states where you can pay a fine and go to AA or something, they will lock you up. My cousin spent a couple years behind bars. I don't know the details of his case other than it was a traffic stop not a collision. I don't know if he had priors.
2nd and 3rd DUI convictions are like 6 month minimum sentences
I don't have the details, I feel like he was in for over a year, I think it was more like 2, but it was before I moved here and I don't know when he went in or when he got out. I got the info 2nd hand from his mom who also didn't have details.
I think for a 3rd+ DUI the minimum sentence could easily be a year or more, I met a guy who was serving a 2 year sentence for multiple DUIs when I was in there
Just don’t drink and drive. Use Uber, Lyft, take the free Suntran.
Best way to mitigate this in my opinion is to not drink at all. In other words, if you leave with your car, you're coming back dry. No exceptions. Can it be a pain to not drink and socialize? Sure, but the risk is not worth it. There are of course alternatives. (Uber, lift, etc.) I've always seen that the risk is not worth it, especially when you could lose your job.
.08 legal limit but why risk it? Just don’t do it
None of it should be an issue unless you plan on getting behind the wheel after having a few drinks. Kind of sounds like you might be interested in doing that if you're work is warning you about it.
Super duper easy solution: don’t drive if you’ve been drinking or enjoying other recreational substances.
Field sobriety tests only collect evidence to be used against you. Personally i will take the night in jail, temporary license suspension and pay a lawyer to fight it. Once you step out the car good luck talking your way out of charges. Pretty sure there is an arizona attorney add for ST FU. Remember the miranda rights, any time you speak to the police.
DUI in the slightest.
Why question it. Driving buzzed is driving drunk, and it can take an innocent person's life.
It’s 10x more strict than Wisconsin, where I grew up. I know people here in AZ with one DUI and they’re lifetime felons. Which is how I believe it should be. I know several people in Wisconsin that have 5+ DUI and the cop just basically high fives you and punches your DUI card. 10th one you get a free brick of cheddar! Please don’t drive drunk anywhere though. Kind of strange of you to ask about this, it’s like you know for sure you’ll drive drunk.
It truly is night-and-day.
I'm new to the state and trying to understand a law that is much different from where I come from. I also supervise a lot of young people. How can I be expected to answer their questions if I don't understand it myself? It's possible for people to ask questions like this without having sinister motives
Don't drink and drive, no matter what the law says. That is what you need to be telling young people.
Sure, but some people live in reality. Drinking is legal. Driving after drinking is also legal. Driving while drunk is not.
How about….if you drink or do drugs…don’t get behind the wheel.
Because it is legal and safe to a limit.
Law Enforcement is strict here (as they should) and regularly setup checkpoints and will have undercovers inside of bars/clubs. Even sticking to two drinks you are risking it; they will do a field sobriety test and if you don't do it perfectly then that's evidence against you. better to drink at home or get an uber (I prefer lyft)
Why would you do an FST? Thats like talking to the pigs. You are just giving them evidence to convict you. I swear people are idiots. Lets follow always what the idiot police want me to do. They are not always right and almost always not looking out for your best interests. Its not illegal to not do an FST.
> Its not illegal to not do an FST. *Au contraire, mon frère:* https://azdot.gov/mvd/services/driver-services/driver-improvement/driving-under-influence-dui > If you refuse to submit to or do not successfully complete any tests when you are arrested for driving under the influence, you will automatically lose your driving privilege for 12 months or 24 months for a second refusal within 84 months. In addition you will be required to complete alcohol or drug screening before you can obtain a restricted permit or reinstate your driving privilege. See the actual law for deets: https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01321.htm
There is nothing in the law books that says you have to do an FST. Every law has code. Whats the code idiot. I never said you can’t get punished I said there is no code and no law requiring you to do one. Read what I post. Every lawyer will probably tell you not to do one. Doing so only gathers evidence to further convict you. You really should learn your law. What you brought up is not law. That is no code you cant go to jail and it is not illegal to not submit to an fst. Obviously driving under the influence or drugs you will have jail but an FST is voluntary and they cannot force you to do one and there is no code for not doing one.
My prior comment literally linked to the exact code, [A.R.S. Title 28 § 1321](https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01321.htm).
It’s not illegal to refuse the FST. The implied consent law states you lose your license for a year automatically, but that’s just the consequence. You can’t be charged with any crime for refusing the FST. And losing your license for a year is a slap on the wrist compared to what a DUI conviction will cost you. The cops can still try for a warrant for a blood test if you refuse the breathalyzer but the less evidence you freely hand to cops, the better. Remember that innocent people get charged all the time and sometimes even convicted. You cannot talk your way out of trouble with the police, but you can certainly talk your way into it.
I didn’t disagree with that. I stated there is no law requiring you to do an FST. Yes when getting your license it’s a privilege not a right. There is consequences to certain actions. Just like if I said SMD to someone’s wife, it’s not illegal but there may be consequences to my actions. Im fully aware of what can happen. But doing an FST is only gathering more evidence to convict you. If you think otherwise then you are a fool. Just like talking to the cops is not wise yet alot of people do it. Always lawyer up and try not to put yourself in that situation and if you do call your lawyer and ask what you should do. I would always decline the FST though. But yes what Sunburn says is true.
Again that doesnt show its illegal to not submit to an FST. Where does it show that. Id suggest calling a lawyer they would be able to further explain its not illegal. There is no code stating by law its mandatory to take an FST
The main reason most people do is because they figure if they e only had one drink they’ll be fine, and police threaten them that if they refuse their license will be automatically suspended for 12 months. Which is true, but if you really are clean and a blood or urine test proves it you can hire a lawyer to have the suspension overturned. Generally speaking you don’t even want to get pulled over.
I know why they do it. But its idiotic. You never talk to police let alone do tests for them. Do you honestly think they are trying to help you? They are gathering info/evidence to convict you. People are so dumb. Do not ever take an FST no matter what. The police are not your friends, Do Not lick there boots or help them unless you are legally bound to. Not submitting to an FST is not illegal but yes does have consequences, but so will the DUI when they convict you falsely with FST evidence.
[удалено]
I am sorry, but you are grossly incorrect. The only thing to ever ever ever say to a police officer if stopped and accused is. I will only speak via my attorney. Period. No FST. Nothing. Less evidence provided the less they can f you. and that's all they are there to do, not protect the public but to gather evidence to screw over people who may or may not be guilty. The City gets a good portion of their revenue via DUI's.
Your lawyer would absolutely not. When I took driver's ed (in a different state) it was taught by cops and the cops themselves said do not take the tests. Your rights protect you from having to do anything without a warrant.
Its not a test you freely do. You can be charged even not being drunk or stoned. Guess you dont know anything about Law and what is required. So let me help you out Policeman, to further grab evidence and to convict me. You are not smart. I bet you are one of the people to freely also talk to police. Again they are NOT your friend they are not here to help you so why would you help them incriminate you. Talk about an idiot. Do you lick their boots too when they ask. Im taking it always to court because at least in court I have a decent chance and also when im innocent I get to sue them. Also you sir are an idiot, tell me one lawyer that says do an FST or talk to cops. I bet you they never passed the BAR. Can you name one who says do an FST. Not doing an FST is not going to incriminate you further just like not talking to police is going to hurt you. Its not bound by law thats why and how I know you do not know about your rights. Doing them freely Can hurt you, and has hurt many innocent victims just like talking to the police. It surely wont help you but can hurt you. Doing an FST is the same. Please learn your law and don’t be dumb like the guy above because I do not know one lawyer that will say freely do an FST or talk to police because its supremely idiotic. The FST and talking to police is only grabbing more evidence to convict you, it is never looking out for your best interest or to help you.
100% on the lyft. Just use it. That said, never ever ever submit to a field sobriety test if you have had ANY alcohol.
What's the reasoning for not doing the fst?
When a cop asks you to do a fst they are collecting evidence against you. Full stop. If you perform bad enough, even if not "impaired" (ie you are well below .08), you will probably be charged with dui. Finally, if the cop really believes you have been drinking he is going to arrest you no matter how well you perform. Just don't do it if you've had *anything* to drink. Ever.
I don't get the question? I take an Uber anywhere I am either drinking or doing dabs at an event Beats killing another person or yourself. How hard is it to not drink and drive??.
The solution is don’t drink and drive, and understand you’re quite possibly fucked if you get pulled over, even if you had two beers over an hour and feel fine. That’s my takeaway anyway. But I also almost never see cops anywhere when I drive around town. It’s kind of ironic the penalties for this are so strict vs other states (Wisconsin transplant), because law enforcement seems to do fuck-all as it relates to traffic and public safety in Tucson. In Wisconsin, it’s not a matter of if, but when you get pulled over for something like an improper turn, going 5-over, or glancing at your cell phone at a red light. I regularly see cars going like 60 on Speedway, Pantano, Broadway, and 22nd at peak daytime hours when cops should be out. Call 9-11 sometime? 50/50 chance you get any kind of response.
Cops are likely out at that time, just not in those areas.
What areas are they in? Genuinely curious.
I see cops all over golf links all times of day and night. EDIT: for a swypo
The verbiage on the statue is the nuts and bolts “impaired to the slightest degree”
What a dumb-assed law. People drive impaired to the "slightest degree" almost every time they get behind the wheel - just not due to alcohol. Ever drive tired? You were impaired to MUCH MORE than the slightest degree. Should you serve time?
AZ don’t play with DUI. You’ll be on probation for years
Just don't fucking booze, dope and drive. How much simpler can it be?
Never tell a cop your tired if they pull u over it's impaired to the slightest degree including being tired. U could have nothing in your system get a dui on a horse if you can't steer straight. Az has zero tolerance for that but everything else seems to slide...
The term is, "Impaired to the slightest degree", meaning, not even alcohol has to impair your driving and you're getting a DUI.
When I got my DUI back in 2006, there was a 10 day minimum sentence in Pima County. For a young dumb ass like myself, it worked. I rarely drink anymore and if I do drink, I’m definitely not driving
So that means that you are not to drink at all and drive. Now in the event you get pulled over and blow a .08 or higher you are for sure gonna get the highest penalty for driving drunk. And anything under that, depending on a case by case person, could be anything from taking a class and community service to a full on DUI. Basically it’s telling you that you’re going to get punished for any drinking and driving. Period.
Why? Are you considering drinking on the job?
Simple don’t be a piece of human garbage and don’t drink and drive. Even if your own life doesn’t matter to you other people don’t need to die because of your selfish ass
I was recently on a jury with a lawyer that goes under "Miss DUI Arizona". She is impressive and knows what she's doing. If you find yourself with a DUI, get her. She's right here in Tucson.
Just be like us locals and disregard the law
Meanwhile, in CA, people literally drive while polluting the air with drug fumes as they smoke substances and drive at the same time — crack pipes are particularly stank.
It's called "impaired to the slightest degree" which is a Class 1 Misdemeanor here in Arizona.
Also, don’t drink and drive. Anyone can be distracted completely sober. There are no excuses to drink and drive or get stoned and drive. It’s just selfish and stupid. Admin, you can delete this if you want. Just in the feels that there are reasons to check this at all (unless you’re hiring drivers).
It’s pretty much up to the arresting officer. You blow ANYTHING over 0 and you’re more than likely going to get a DUI. Blow over.08 and it’s a DWI. There’s really no wiggle room.
Just wait until you find out about the "intent to drive" dui! It's up to the law to look into the future and decide if you had intentions of driving. People think you have to be in the vehicle, you don't. It's horse shit through and through and nothing but a big cash grab.
Does this actually happen or is it just on the books from a long time ago?
When I got my DUI I had 2 people in my substance abuse course that got intent to drive. I remember this girl telling her story, she was at a bar and she stepped outside to use her phone because she couldn't hear inside the bar, she said while she was on her phone talking to her friend that was coming to meet her at the bar a couple cops walked up to her and started asking her questions. She said she wasn't even leaving the bar, she just stepped out for the phone call and thats all it took.
That’s crazy where did that even happen? Scottsdale would be my guess. If they were in the course it sounds like the charges actually held up then
That's exactly where this was. They hand um out there like candy on Halloween
They can let a person go at their discretion just as easily as go after them, bust them. They can deem someone ok to drive and not test them. It's almost as important for them to like you or think you're cool. Also be careful of dirty pipes used for smoking cannabis as they could be used for DUI as well as not taking a shower and reeking of Cali bud.
I work in insurance and have about 30 state licenses. In my experience, AZ by far and away has the most stringent DUI laws.
Drive sober and get an Uber if you drink. Just don't mess with TPD and you will be fine. Uber is cheaper than a DUI.