Arizona Court Rules: Blood Draw Timing Can Be a Game-Changer in Your DUI Case

What the State v. Bryant Decision Could Mean for DUI Defendants Across Arizona

What Happened in This Case?

On a Phoenix-area freeway, an off-duty state trooper noticed a driver — Kenneth Bryant — whose speed bounced erratically between 45 and 65 mph, and who drifted into the emergency lane. The trooper stopped Bryant at 7:19 p.m. with his young child in the car. Officers smelled alcohol, noted his bloodshot eyes, found four empty single-serving whiskey bottles in the passenger seat, and administered three field sobriety tests — all of which pointed to impairment.

Bryant was arrested and taken to the station, where his blood was drawn at 9:18 p.m. and 9:19 p.m. — roughly two hours after the traffic stop. Lab results showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.131, well over Arizona’s 0.08 legal limit. The State charged him with two counts of aggravated DUI because his child was in the vehicle.

The Two-Hour Problem That Changed Everything

NOTICE: This case is a memorandum decision which means it is not for official publication under Arizona Supreme Court Rule111(c). The decision is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule. Although not official precedent it does give an indication of what the court of appeals thinks about these issues.

Here is where the case gets important for anyone facing DUI charges in Arizona. Arizona law (A.R.S. § 28-1381) creates a legal presumption of intoxication when a driver’s BAC is 0.08 or higher — but that presumption only applies if the blood was drawn within two hours of driving.

Bryant’s defense attorney argued that the blood draws at 9:18 p.m. and 9:19 p.m. were outside that two-hour window from the 7:19 p.m. stop. On top of that, the lab only tested one of the two vials, and no one testified which vial was actually tested. The judge agreed: he dismissed the count that required the two-hour rule (Count 2), finding the State could not prove which blood sample was tested or that it fell within the time limit.

The Court’s Finding: The Judge Made a Mistake — But It Didn’t Matter

After dismissing Count 2, the judge should have removed the “presumption of intoxication” instruction from the jury. He didn’t, and the appeals court confirmed that was an error. Once that count was dismissed, the presumption no longer applied, and the jury shouldn’t have been told about it.

However — and this is critical — the appeals court ruled the error was harmless. Why? Because the State had so much other evidence of Bryant’s impairment that the jury didn’t need the presumption to reach a guilty verdict. The court pointed to:

• Two troopers who smelled alcohol and observed bloodshot, watery eyes
• Erratic driving behavior (speed fluctuation, weaving, leaving the travel lane)
• Four empty whiskey bottles in the front seat
• Failed Walk-and-Turn Test (stepped off the line twice, failed to touch heel-to-toe five times)
• Failed One-Leg Stand Test
• Four out of six impairment cues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test
• A BAC of 0.131 — one and a half times the legal limit

The conviction on Count 1 — driving while impaired to the slightest degree with a child under 15 in the vehicle — was affirmed.

What This Means for Arizona DUI Defendants

This ruling is a reminder that DUI cases in Arizona turn on procedural details that most people never think about. Here is what Arizona drivers should understand:

1. The timing of your blood draw matters

If law enforcement drew your blood more than two hours after you were pulled over or stopped, the State cannot use that BAC result to invoke the legal presumption of intoxication. They must prove impairment through other means — field sobriety tests, officer observations, and similar evidence. That is a higher bar, and a stronger position for your defense.

2. Which vial was tested matters

When police collect two blood samples — which is standard practice — the lab must test a sample taken within the two-hour window. In Bryant’s case, no one testified which vial was used. That gap in the chain of evidence gave the defense a strong argument, and it got an entire count dismissed.

3. Even with a BAC over the limit, you have rights

A BAC above 0.08 does not automatically make you guilty. The presumption it creates can be challenged or rebutted. If procedural mistakes were made in collecting, handling, or testing your blood, those errors can be used in your defense.

4. The other evidence still counts

Bryant’s case also shows the limits of blood-draw challenges. Even when the two-hour presumption was off the table, the jury still convicted him because the other evidence was strong. This is why having an experienced Arizona DUI attorney review every piece of evidence — not just the blood test — is so important.

Aggravated DUI in Arizona: What You Need to Know

Bryant was charged with aggravated DUI — a felony — because a child under 15 was in his vehicle at the time of driving. Under Arizona law, a standard DUI becomes a Class 6 felony when any of the following apply:

• A child under 15 years old is in the vehicle
• Your driver’s license was suspended, revoked, restricted, or canceled at the time
• You are required to have an ignition interlock device on your vehicle
• This is your third DUI within 84 months

A felony DUI conviction carries far more serious consequences than a misdemeanor — including mandatory prison time, lengthy license suspension, and a permanent felony record. If you are facing aggravated DUI charges anywhere in Arizona, this is not the time to navigate the system alone.