Reply With Quote:jawdrop:
Last week Governor Napolitano signed into law, a measure requiring persons convicted of Extreme DUI (above .15% BAC) to serve a full 30 days in jail. Judges could suspend 20 days under the present law.
Another bill awaiting her signature will require any person convicted of DUI to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car, or any car (including fleet vehicles) driven by them. The intelock will be required for a minimum of 1 year. BAC level doesn't apply. If convicted of Driving while Impaired by Alcohol, any vehicle you drive (in AZ) will have to have one installed and maintained (at your expense). There is also a $60-$75 monthly fee, and the driver will have to report to a testing station to have the information downloaded to the MVD.
The Ignition Interlock will not allow the vehicle to start if the BAC is registered above .03%. It also requires subsequent tests at about 10 minutes after the car has been started, and then again about every 30-45 minutes.
It also will require that anyone convicted of DUI with a BAC above .20% will serve a minimum of 45 days in jail.
Those jail terms will double if it's a second offense (any prior DUI within 84 months.
Those new laws do not apply to Boating OUIs. They will be addressed later (except the interlock device).
The laws will go into effect sometime in August or September.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516dui0516.html
:jawdrop:
Glad to see Arizona is taking steps forward to help prevent DUI's. I think this new law will make more people think twice before getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
Glad to see Arizona is taking steps forward to help prevent DUI's. I think this new law will make more people think twice before getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
it will help to save lives thats for shizzle..
Wish we would do that here in CA.
Dang, rough stuff, but it's a good thing. We must be screwing up big time out here.
Last week Governor Napolitano signed into law, a measure requiring persons convicted of Extreme DUI (above .15% BAC) to serve a full 30 days in jail. Judges could suspend 20 days under the present law.
Another bill awaiting her signature will require any person convicted of DUI to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car, or any car (including fleet vehicles) driven by them. The intelock will be required for a minimum of 1 year. BAC level doesn't apply. If convicted of Driving while Impaired by Alcohol, any vehicle you drive (in AZ) will have to have one installed and maintained (at your expense). There is also a $60-$75 monthly fee, and the driver will have to report to a testing station to have the information downloaded to the MVD.
The Ignition Interlock will not allow the vehicle to start if the BAC is registered above .03%. It also requires subsequent tests at about 10 minutes after the car has been started, and then again about every 30-45 minutes.
It also will require that anyone convicted of DUI with a BAC above .20% will serve a minimum of 45 days in jail.
Those jail terms will double if it's a second offense (any prior DUI within 84 months.
Those new laws do not apply to Boating OUIs. They will be addressed later (except the interlock device).
The laws will go into effect sometime in August or September.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516dui0516.html
Hey Boatcop...Just curious of what your take on the Trish Groe deal is? She's taking quite a bashing here in Havasu...some people think she is getting special treatment. Anything you would like to add???
Hey Boatcop...Just curious of what your take on the Trish Groe deal is? She's taking quite a bashing here in Havasu...some people think she is getting special treatment. Anything you would like to add???
The people in Havasu aren't following the facts and basing their "opinions" on their political affiliation. Republicans are standing by her and democrats want her head, and accusing everyone of the "Special Treatment". Most of what I've read about it, they're bashing the Havasu or Mohave County Courts, when they have nothiing to do with it.
Here's the real deal.
She was stopped the latter part of March. Less that 2 months ago. DUI cases routinely take a year or more to go to trial and final disposition. She failed the FSTs and blew a .148% of the PBT. Remember that preliminary breath test results are not admissible. She was taken to the Station where blood was taken and sent off for testing.
Her Driver's License record showed it was cancelled, but didn't give a reason why. After consulting the County Attorney, it was decided not to charge her until we could get a certified driving abstract and test results. This was due to not having sufficient probable cause for the Felony (DUI with Suspended, Revoked or Cancelled license), and if she was cited for the Misdmeanor, she could have gone in and plead guilty the next day and we would have lost the ability to charge the Felony due to double jeopardy.
And also that the Arizona Constitution exempts State Legislators from Misdemeanor arrest while the Legislature is in session. This goes back to Statehood where it was feared that Sheriff's or Police would arrest legislators to keep them from voting for or against bills that they may support or oppose.
That was the reason she wasn't booked into jail, but released to a third party. There wasn't enough to charge the felony (at that tme), and we couldn't arrest her for the misdemeanor.
The tests came back about a month later which showed her BAC was .148%. The drug screen came back a few weeks later which showed traces of a prescription diet drug and an anti-depressant.
It turns out her license was cancelled due to an unpaid traffic ticket in California.
Our County Attorney conflicted himself off the case, because he may have to consult with her on bills that effect La Paz County. There could be an appearance of favoritism or contempt, due to whatever she was eventually charged and convicted of. The Yuma County Attorney's office was given the case and recommended a plea to Misdmeanor DUI with the standard penalty, 24 hours in jail, fine, and alcohol screening, which she had already satisfied with her 30 day inpatient treatment.
Our CA then voiced his displeasure publicly, stating he would have done things differently, calling for more severe penalties. The Yuma CA, taken back by his comments, then decided that apparently there wasn't a conflict, since our CA was so vocal about it, and threw it back to La Paz County.
One of our County Supervisors also questioned the conflict, but that's more of a County politics deal. It's now being researched by the Arizona State Bar for their opinion. If a conflict is indeed present, we will hire an independent prosecutor since, at this point, there probably isn't a County Attorney in the State willing to touch it.
If it's decided that a conflict does not exist, our CA will go on with the prosecution. She may get by with a misdmeanor, which is common when the license suspension was NOT for an alcohol related offense, but she will probably be required to do more than the minimum sentence for the plea.
In actuality we're doing everything we can to ensure there is no appearance of favoritism in this case. But as usual the Havasu pinheads don't care about facts. All they care about is bashing any conservative they can for any reason they can.
Wish we would do that here in CA.
They already do. Cals interlock device laws have been around for at least a decade and failure to obtain and maintain the device is a jailable probation violation. A second offense while on probation quite often results in 60 days to 6 months in the gray bar hotel......Az is just catching up.........MP
They want to put an interlock on the car on the 1st offense? Pretty rough right there..
RD
Posting Permissions