My client I.T. came to me with a .20% Super Extreme DUI case in the Glendale City Court, as well as drug possession charges. The facts of I.T.’s case are as follows:
Facts Leading to Client’s Arrest
I.T. truck was parked on a quiet side street adjacent to a curb. The truck was not blocking a driveway. I.T. was asleep in his truck sitting in the driver’s seat. The engine was running, the windows rolled up and the air conditioning was on. Several empty beer cans were in the cab of the truck.
Someone called the police because they were concerned about I.T.’s welfare. The police responded, and their interaction with my client was recorded on their body camera videos. The police woke I.T. up and got him out of the truck. I.T. refused to do any tests, including a blood test.
The police used a search warrant to get a sample of I.T.’s blood. The sample was tested and it turned up a very high alcohol level and cocaine. Additionally, I.T. had cocaine in his pants pocket.
I.T. was charged with possession of drugs in Maricopa County Superior Court, for which he completed a diversion counseling program and so that charge was dismissed.
Arizona Actual Physical Control DUI Law
I.T. was also charged with a Super Extreme DUI in Glendale City Court. A person can be guilty of a DUI even if they’re not driving, under what’s known as Actual Physical Control Law (APC). With APC a person is guilty of DUI if by their exercise or present or imminent control over a vehicle they could be dangerous to others. No actual driving is needed.
Arizona Temporary Shelter DUI Law
An exception to APC is Temporary Shelter. Under an important legal case, a person is not guilty of APC DUI if they are using a vehicle as a temporary shelter.
What Happened in the DUI Jury Trial
The case went to a jury trial. The state argued that since I.T. was in the driver seat and the engine was running he could control the vehicle. Since he was quite intoxicated, he could easily drive off and cause an accident. I implied he was just sleeping it off and was using the truck as a temporary shelter.
The prosecutors are required to have the analyst who tested the blood testify as to how they tested it and what the results were. The analyst can also testify as to scientific points.
My Thoughts for the Defense Before Trial
The state can also try to prove the defendant drove intoxicated. I wanted to argue that it was possible for I.T. to have driven there and gotten drunk drinking the beer in the cans found in the truck. From my many years of experience, I knew the lab analyst would say I.T. could not have gotten that drunk from the cans in the truck. As a result, he had to be impaired when driving. I told the prosecutor I would agree the blood tests were accurate, therefore, they would not have to call the analyst to testify how he tested the sample. Better for me, the analyst would not testify that my client could not have gotten that drunk using the cans in the truck.
State’s Evidence
The officers testified and presented their body cam video showing where I.T. was when they woke him up. They said they found the empty beer cans. No one saw I.T. driving and so it was not clear how many hours he was sitting in the truck.
My Defense for the Trial
In the trial I did not ask any questions or present any evidence. I thought what the police said and the body camera video showed would be enough to prove my points. My years of experience have taught me to not ruin a good story asking questions for the sake of asking questions. In closing I argued I.T. was just sleeping it off. I implied he drank the beer in the truck after driving and no witness could refute that point.
Jury Votes Not Guilty
The jury listened to the arguments and then came back quickly, not guilty on all charges. Had the analyst testified he would have refuted my point about I.T. getting drunk in the truck. and the verdict could have been guilty. It could also have been guilty if I asked many pointless questions. The hundreds of jury trials I have done gave me the knowledge I needed to get I.T. completely off.