Click to call 602-307-0808 24/7 Click Here for Free Consultation

Arizona DUI Law

Arizona Prison Officials late to release critical Fugitive Information

Arizona Criminal Attorney David Michael Cantor gives his opinion on the recent release of information about the Fugitives from Arizona who may be responsible for the murder of an Oklahoma couple. In this video David discusses how harmful it is to withhold key identification information and how this is indicative of a corporation trying to cover for its mistakes, similar to how BP initially handled the Gulf Oil Spill. Please let us know what you think.


Tricks a DUI Lawyer in Arizona Can Use to Question a Blood Sample

Upon accepting a new client, a good DUI lawyer in Arizona already anticipates the challenges that can mount of the client subjected him or herself to a breathalyzer. These include mouth alcohol, radio frequency interference, and interfering substances, although the list can go on. If the client took a blood test, however, too many a DUI lawyer in Arizona will just give up hope and accept the test results. It doesn’t have to be that way, as creative approaches can instill doubt into any blood test. Let’s take a look at a few of the strategies.

Collection Materials
A DUI lawyer in Arizona who wishes to dispute such a test should first start by looking at the materials used to collect the blood specimen. In inappropriate materials were used, it can make a big difference that may result in the validation of your client.

Most agencies drawing for blood use some type of partially evacuated blood collection tube, such as the Vacutainer from Becton-Dickenson. These tubes are sold with a variety of additives inside, depending on the type of test for which the sample has been collected. The appropriate tube for such a test contains a mixture of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate. Usually these tubes are intended for blood glucose approximations and typically have a gray stopper. Stoppers for other tubes have different colors.

If the blood alcohol result of the client of the DUI lawyer in Arizona is derived from a tube designed for a different type of analysis, the result may be inaccurate due to interference with the different chemicals within the tubes, or from the separation of the blood into plasma or serum. Remember, plasma is the blood minus the blood cells. Always check which type of tube is used for collection, as a mistake can be used as leverage by a meticulous DUI lawyer in Arizona.

Also realize that these tubes have a shelf life and an expiration date. After the date is expired, the vacuum depletes, which may result in contaminants from the surrounding air. This results in less than the full amount of blood necessary to conduct a conclusive test, called a “short draw.” This can also happen if the technician pulled the tube off of the needle before it had completely filled, introducing microbe contaminants into the tube. In blood cases, it is critical that a DUI lawyer in Arizona always check the expiration date as well as the appropriate amount of blood for the size of the tube. If it less, the accuracy of the blood ethanol result can be quite readily disputed in a court of law.

Skin Prep and Alcohol Swabs
Prior for drawing blood for alcohol tests, the skin must be wiped with a swab that does not contain alcohol, meaning not only ethanol, but other alcohols such as isopropanol or rubbing alcohol. The swab is important to kill any microbes that might contaminate the sample. It is important that the swab be done in an outward spiral to remove the microbes away from the punctured site. Ask the person who drew the blood sample to demonstrate their technique, as many do so incorrectly in a way that leads to contaminated and incorrect samples. If the swab contained alcohol, it can also contaminate the sample and can give a DUI lawyer in Arizona ample room to insert doubt into the prosecution’s case.

About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about an Arizona DUI lawyer, visit our site.


DUI Attorney Arizona Gets DUI Case Dismissed Due to a Miranda Rights Violation

According to court records, DUI Attorney Arizona David Michael Cantor’s office was able to convince a Globe Regional Justice Court judge to dismiss a DUI case due to the officer’s improper reading of the clients Miranda rights.

In the case of State v. Gaona (Globe Regional Justice Court Case No. TR2008002096) Gaona was arrested for an alleged DUI violation. Gaona’s original stop was due to his license plate light being burned out. He participated in only one field sobriety test, on which he performed well, and the officer administered an eye test, which he was not certified to administer. Gaona was arrested and was not told that he had the Constitutional right to speak to an attorney, which is standard in all Miranda rights readings.

At the hearing the officer never identified Gaona in court as the person who he had stopped. When the State was finished presenting their evidence, an associate of DUI Attorney Arizona David Michael Cantor made a Motion to Dismiss the case based on lack of identification and improper administration of Miranda rights. The judge agreed and the entire case was dismissed.

“This is why it is important to make sure that the prosecutors and the police officers check every single box when dealing with a defendant’s rights,” said Arizona DUI Attorney David Cantor. “In this case they failed to do so and as a result we were able to get Mr. Gaona’s case dismissed.”

The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor enjoy an excellent reputation as DUI Attorneys in Arizona, and throughout the Legal Community because of their aggressiveness, integrity, honesty, and professionalism. For more information about DM Cantor visit DUI Attorney Arizona.

About DM Cantor

DM Cantor feature criminal defense attorneys in Arizona who are ready to represent you. As Arizona’s premier defense lawyer, David Michael Cantor defends DUI/ DWI cases, vehicular crimes, homicide, drug and sex offenses, white collar and property crimes. David Michael Cantor is AV Rated – the highest rating possible – and was voted a Top 100 trial lawyer. David Michael Cantor has been interviewed and has appeared on Inside Edition, the CBS Morning Show, Good Morning America, CNN Prime News, Hannitty and Combs, and every local news channel including Univision. In addition, his cases have been covered by CNN, MSNBC, and even Howard Stern.


Drunk Driving Impacts of US v. Herring on DUI Defense

Any lawyer for drunk driving should be well aware of how Herring v. United impacts DUI defense. In the case, a warrant check revealed there was an active warrant for the suspect’s arrest. For that reason alone, the police followed the defendant’s vehicle, pulled him over and arrested him. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed illegal drugs and an illegal pistol. This type of situation can easily apply to any number of cases a lawyer for drunk driving could be involved in.

The catch is that there was a problem with the warrant, which had been recalled 5 months earlier. This was due to a bookkeeping error, and officer attempted to corroborate the warrant, which lead to the discovery of a mix up within 5 to 15 minutes. Either way, the suspect was nailed and in need of a lawyer for drunk driving. If you can prove that the police record system has so many problems that even the police can’t rely on it, your lawyer for drunk driving might be able to make a case.

The court concluded that a 4th amendment violation occurred, creating a precedent that helps a lawyer for drunk driving protect his or her client. The issue was whether the exclusionary rule was an appropriate measure. Courts have previously ruled that the “fruits of an illegal arrest should not be suppressed.”

The exclusionary rule is not a given right that a lawyer for drunk driving can use to protect clients. It applies only to cases of appreciable deterrence. Plus, the benefits to deterrence must outweigh the costs.  The extent to which the exclusionary applies also depends on the culpability of the law enforcement conduct. To trigger the exclusionary rule, police must act sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can momentarily deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the legal system. (more…)


Arizona Criminal Attorney Earns a Verdict of Not Guilty of DUI and a Hung Verdict on the Charges of DWI

Scottsdale, AZ.  March 4, 2010Arizona Criminal Attorney David Michael Cantor’s office earned his client a verdict of not guilty of DUI and a hung verdict on the charges of DWI in the case of State v. Levitz. A Scottsdale City Court jury found that Levitz was not guilty of DUI (impaired to the slightest degree) and they hung on the issue of whether he had a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher (i.e., DWI).

According to a BAC test, Levitz blood alcohol content was a .120 but criminal attorney David Michael Cantor’s associate was able to provide concern of the fact that the test analyst for the City of Scottsdale used an alcohol based hand sanitizer prior to testing the blood sample. In addition, Cantor was able to show that the criminalist did not properly put on gloves prior to the testing.

“The test analyst did not properly follow the necessary procedures before conducting the blood alcohol content test and the field sobriety test showed that Levitz was not impaired,” said criminal attorney David Michael Cantor. “We were able to provide this evidence to the jury and they returned successful verdicts for our client.”

Criminal attorney David Michael Cantor’s associate was able to provide evidence that the field sobriety test showed that Levitz was not impaired. Levitz had only four cues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (i.e., the Eye Test) which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states is indicative of being a .05 BAC. Because the scientific community will testify that all people are impaired at a BAC of .08, but below that level many people are not impaired, the jury found Levitz not guilty of DUI.

Due to the fact that Levitz was found not guilty of being impaired to the slightest degree, it is unlikely that the State will retry the charge of DWI because the not guilty verdict necessarily indicates that Levitz’s BAC was not a .08 or higher.


Phoenix Criminal Attorney Gets Judge to Over-Rule City Court’s Denial of Motion to Suppress

Phoenix, AZ.  March 1, 2010Arizona criminal attorney David Michael Cantor’s Law Office provided evidence that had a Maricopa County Superior Court Appellate Judge over-rule the Scottsdale City Court’s denial of Motion to Suppress a blood alcohol content test in the case of State v. Nokes. The Appellate Judge suppressed Nokes’ .215 blood alcohol content.

Nokes was arrested by the police for an extreme DWI (i.e., above .15 BAC) and requested to call an attorney prior to a blood test. The officer said (in a taped interview) that he could not recall if Nokes requested an attorney prior to the blood test or after providing blood. An associate for Phoenix criminal attorney Cantor filed a Denial of Right to Counsel Motion, and during the Evidentiary Hearing, the officer now stated that he had a specific recollection that Nokes’ requested an attorney after already providing blood. The officer was subsequently impeached on the stand when the taped interview showed that earlier he stated he had no recollection.

“The case of State v. Nokes should have been dismissed by the Scottsdale City Court judge,” said Phoenix criminal attorney David Michael Cantor. “However, we were forced to appeal to the Superior Court and ultimately got the BAC test suppressed for our client.”

The judge in the Scottsdale City Court denied the Motion even given all this information. Upon appeal, the Superior Court Judge found that the judge in Scottsdale City Court was completely unreasonable and had ignored evidence in order to rule for the State.


Click to Watch Important Questions to Ask when Hiring a Lawyer

Request a Free Consultation

Fill out the form below to recieve a free and confidential intial consultation.


DM Cantor

Call 24/7 602-307-0808

40 N Central Ave, Ste 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Click here for Directions

For Family Law questions please go to Cantor Law Group.
For Car Accident or Personal Injury Visit Cantor Injury Lawyers.
[contact-form-7 id="8868" title="Exit Intent"]