How much does a DUI attorney cost in Phoenix, Arizona?

Gordon Thompson Attorney charges a flat fee of $2,800 to $3,300 for DUI defense in Phoenix, Arizona — with no extra trial fees. Reasonable payment plans are available. Call (602) 467-3680 for a free consultation.

Does Gordon Thompson offer a free consultation?

Yes. Gordon Thompson offers free consultations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Call (602) 467-3680 any time to discuss your DUI or criminal defense case at no cost.

What areas of criminal law does Gordon Thompson handle?

Gordon Thompson handles DUI defense and criminal defense cases throughout Arizona, including drug crimes, criminal appeals, expungement, fraud, gun crimes, internet crimes, sex crimes, theft, and violent crimes.

How long has Gordon Thompson been practicing law?

Gordon Thompson has over 47 years of experience in DUI and criminal defense law in Arizona. He received his J.D. in 1978 and has represented more than 6,000 clients throughout his career.

Is Gordon Thompson a solo attorney or does he have associates?

Gordon Thompson is a sole practitioner. He personally handles all aspects of every client's case — there are no junior associates. Every client gets direct, experienced representation from Gordon Thompson himself.

Where is Gordon Thompson's law office located?

Gordon Thompson's office is located at 21 West Pasadena Avenue, Suite 4, Phoenix, AZ 85013. The firm serves clients throughout Maricopa County and all of Arizona. Video conferencing is available for remote consultations.

What payment methods does Gordon Thompson accept?

Gordon Thompson accepts cash, credit cards, PayPal, Zelle, and Cash App. Reasonable payment plans are available for clients who need financial flexibility.

Can Gordon Thompson help with a first-time DUI in Arizona?

Yes. Gordon Thompson handles first-time DUI charges as well as felony DUI, extreme DUI, and aggravated DUI cases in Arizona. His primary goal is always to seek dismissal first, then achieve the best possible outcome for each client.

What is Gordon Thompson's Google rating?

Gordon Thompson Attorney has a 4.2-star rating on Google Reviews. The firm has served over 5,000 clients across Arizona with a consistent focus on personalized, experienced DUI and criminal defense representation.

Can I get Stopped for DUI While Driving 70 in a 75?

Quick answer: Yes. On November 28, 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in State v. Alvarez-Soto that driving in the middle lane of a freeway, even at a lawful speed, can justify a stop if another vehicle passes you on the right. That holding now applies to every freeway in the state — I-10, I-17, US-60, Loop 101, and Loop 202 included — and the same “reasonable suspicion” standard the Court applied is the standard officers use to justify the stop that starts nearly every Arizona DUI case.

If you were stopped on an Arizona freeway and a DUI investigation followed, the legality of that stop is often the first — and most important — thing your attorney should examine. Here is what the Court actually decided, where its reasoning has a real gap, and what both mean for your case.

How Every Arizona DUI Case Starts: The Stop

The starting point for most DUI investigations is the stop of the defendant’s vehicle by a police officer. An officer must have a legally acceptable reason to make that stop. If a judge later decides there was no legally acceptable reason, all evidence obtained as a result of the stop must be suppressed — meaning the prosecution cannot use it at trial. That can mean no breath test, no field sobriety results, and often, no case.

What Is “Reasonable Suspicion,” and How Is It Different From Probable Cause?

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Law enforcement officers “seize” individuals by temporarily detaining them during traffic stops.
Officers can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that criminal activity may be afoot.
An officer’s reasonable suspicion comes from both the officer’s perception of the facts and his understanding of the applicable law.
Courts judge reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, viewed through the lens of the officer’s training and experience — it cannot be a mere hunch.
The standard is real, but it is also low: considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and well below what’s needed for probable cause, which is the higher standard required for an arrest or search.
Arizona’s statute on point, A.R.S. § 28-1594, allows an officer to stop and detain a person “as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected traffic violation.”

What Did the Arizona Supreme Court Decide in State v. Alvarez-Soto?

On November 28, 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court decided State v. Alvarez-Soto. A Department of Public Safety trooper was patrolling Interstate 10 in Pinal County when he watched a driver traveling roughly 70 mph in the middle of three lanes, in a posted 75 mph zone. A car passed her on the right. The trooper stopped her, citing A.R.S. § 28-721(B), Arizona’s “stay right” statute, which states:

“On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.”

There was no evidence the driver was impeding anyone. The trooper’s theory was simple: because one other vehicle passed her on the right, she must have been going slower than “the normal speed of traffic,” in violation of the statute. A search that followed turned up 55 pounds of marijuana, and she was convicted of drug trafficking. The trial court found the stop justified. The Arizona Court of Appeals later vacated that conviction, finding the trooper’s interpretation of the statute “cast too wide a net.” The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, reinstated the conviction, and unanimously held that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion — even though the trooper’s understanding of the law could reasonably be debated.

Arizona’s “Stay Right” Law: A.R.S. § 28-721(B)

The key phrase in the statute is “normal speed of traffic,” and it is not the same thing as the posted speed limit. It refers to the speed of the cars actually on the road at that moment, whatever that happens to be. Under Alvarez-Soto, an officer can treat a single vehicle passing you on the right as evidence that you fell below that prevailing speed and were therefore violating the statute. No weaving, no aggressive driving, and no posted-limit violation is required. It is a lane-position offense, and after this ruling, it has become one of the easiest ways for an officer to establish a basis for a freeway stop anywhere in Arizona, including I-10, I-17, US-60, Loop 101, and Loop 202.

The Unanswered Question in the Court’s Reasoning

The Court’s opinion does not explain how the “speed of traffic” can be determined from the speed of exactly one other vehicle. Only two vehicles were involved — the passing car and the defendant’s. Why should the passing car’s speed define “normal,” rather than the defendant’s own speed, especially since she was driving close to the posted limit?

The Court acknowledged the underlying problem itself, writing that the statute’s phrase “normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing” provides no quantitative metric, so reasonable minds may differ about its interpretation. In practical terms, that means Arizona drivers have no objective way to know, in the moment, whether they are breaking this law. If the test is simply the speed of nearby vehicles, a driver going the legal maximum of 75 mph could theoretically be “in violation” the moment someone going 80 passes them. The Court had other indicators available to it, but its reasoning centered specifically on the § 28-721(B) theory, leaving that gap unresolved.

How Does This Ruling Affect DUI Cases on Phoenix-Area Freeways?

Most DUI investigations in the Phoenix area begin the same way a drug case does: with a traffic stop. The stop is the gateway. If the stop is illegal, everything that follows can be challenged and potentially suppressed — the officer’s observations, field sobriety test results, breath or blood test results, and the arrest itself.

Before Alvarez-Soto, a defense attorney could argue that a stay-right stop required something more than ordinary, lawful, slower-than-some-other-car driving. After Alvarez-Soto, that specific argument is significantly harder to win on its own. Troopers and officers patrolling I-10, I-17, US-60, Loop 101, and Loop 202 can now point to a single passing vehicle as articulable evidence of a § 28-721(B) violation. If you were pulled over on a Maricopa County or Pinal County freeway and the stop turned into a DUI investigation, the suppression analysis in your case has changed — but it has not disappeared.

What This Means for You

If you were arrested for DUI in Arizona after being stopped on a freeway for “driving in the middle lane,” “impeding traffic,” or a similar reason, here is the practical takeaway:

The bar for a lawful stop is low, but it is not zero. After Alvarez-Soto, an officer does not need to prove you actually violated the law — only that the officer had an objectively reasonable, articulable basis to suspect a violation. That is a real legal standard, and it can still be challenged on its facts.
An unlawfully extended stop is still a live issue. The Court specifically declined to decide whether the trooper unlawfully extended the stop beyond what was needed to address the traffic infraction, and sent that question back for further review. Even a valid initial stop becomes unconstitutional if police prolong it without independent justification — a frequent issue in DUI stops that turn into a roadside investigation.
The officer’s specific testimony still matters. Reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts — actual observations about speed, lane position, and other vehicles — not a generalized hunch. Vague, inconsistent, or unsupported testimony can still defeat a stop.
Consent to search must be voluntary. If a search followed a request for consent, that consent must be free of coercion or an unlawfully prolonged detention. Involuntary consent can invalidate the search and the evidence it produced.
Dashcam and bodycam footage matters more, not less. The Court emphasized that trial courts — not appellate courts — have primary authority to interpret video evidence. That makes a thorough suppression hearing, with an attorney who knows how to use that footage, more important than ever.
“They had a reason to stop me” is not the end of the analysis. Even where the initial stop holds up, every later step — field sobriety tests, the portable breath test, your statements, the arrest itself — can still be independently challenged.

A driver does not lose her constitutional protections lightly. But after Alvarez-Soto, driving at a perfectly legal speed, in a perfectly legal lane, can still expose you to a lawful stop — even though no Arizona driver has an objective way to know, in real time, what the “normal speed of traffic” actually requires.

Frequently Asked Questions About DUI Traffic Stops in Arizona

Is driving in the middle lane illegal in Arizona?

Not on its own. Under A.R.S. § 28-721(B), it becomes a traffic violation only when a driver is moving slower than the normal speed of traffic and fails to move to the right lane. After State v. Alvarez-Soto, being passed on the right by even one other vehicle can be enough to trigger reasonable suspicion of that violation, regardless of whether you were driving at or near the posted speed limit.

Can police stop me for driving the speed limit?

Generally, driving at or near the speed limit alone is not enough to justify a stop. However, as Alvarez-Soto shows, an officer may combine your speed with other observations — like being passed by another car while in the middle lane — to argue there was reasonable suspicion of impeding traffic under A.R.S. § 28-721(B). Whether that combination actually holds up depends heavily on the specific facts and footage.

What is “reasonable suspicion” and how is it different from probable cause?

Reasonable suspicion is the lower of the two standards. It requires specific, articulable facts that suggest criminal or traffic-law activity may be occurring — more than a hunch, but less than what’s needed to arrest or search someone. Probable cause, which is required for an arrest or search, requires a stronger factual basis. Police only need reasonable suspicion to pull you over; they typically need probable cause, a warrant, or your voluntary consent to arrest you or search your vehicle.

Can the officer search my car after a stay-right stop?

Not automatically. The officer needs your voluntary consent, a warrant, probable cause, or a recognized exception, such as a positive canine alert. If consent was not voluntary or the stop was unlawfully extended before the search occurred, the search and any evidence recovered can be challenged.

If the stop was illegal, does my DUI case automatically get dismissed?

Not automatically, but it can be very significant. If a court finds the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, evidence gathered as a result — field sobriety test results, breath or blood test results, your statements — can be suppressed, meaning the prosecution cannot use it. Without that evidence, many DUI cases cannot proceed. This is why a motion to suppress, when supported by the facts, is one of the most powerful tools in DUI defense.

Can an officer be wrong about the law and still have a valid reason to stop me?

Yes. Under both Alvarez-Soto and earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent, an officer’s reasonable mistake about what a traffic law requires does not automatically destroy reasonable suspicion, as long as the mistake was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. This makes challenging the basis for a stop a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis rather than a simple yes-or-no question.

What should I do during a traffic stop that turns into a DUI investigation?

Be polite, provide your license, registration, and proof of insurance, and avoid volunteering additional information about where you’ve been or what you’ve had to drink. You are not required to answer questions about your activities before the stop, and field sobriety tests in Arizona are generally voluntary. Politely decline consent to any vehicle search. Anything you say or do can become evidence. Contact an experienced DUI attorney as soon as possible afterward.

Does dashcam or bodycam footage actually help my case?

It can. The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling in Alvarez-Soto emphasized that trial courts, not appellate courts, have primary authority to interpret what video evidence shows. That means the footage from your stop is often examined closely at the trial court level during a suppression hearing, and discrepancies between an officer’s report and what the video actually shows can be critical to your defense.

Talk to an Arizona DUI Attorney About Your Stop

Gordon Thompson has practiced DUI and criminal defense law in Arizona since 1982 and has represented more than 6,000 clients in Maricopa County, Pinal County, and courts throughout Northern Arizona. His practice is limited entirely to DUI and criminal defense — he does not handle other areas of law, and he personally handles every aspect of every case rather than handing it off to an associate. Every case starts the same way: reviewing whether the stop, the investigation, and the arrest were lawful, because that determines what evidence the prosecution is actually allowed to use against you.

If your DUI case began with a freeway traffic stop on I-10, I-17, US-60, Loop 101, Loop 202, or anywhere else in Arizona, the legality of that stop deserves a careful, case-specific look. Contact Gordon Thompson for a free phone, video, or in-office consultation, or call (602) 467-3680.