When being stopped by an officer there are many things that go through a driver’s head. “Was I speeding?” “Is there a taillight out?” “Did I swerve?” On the other hand, most people don’t usually think “did I use my blinker appropriately.” However, the issue of the appropriate use of a blinker, was one of the primary questions decided by the recent Arizona Court of Appeals Case: Arizona v. Douglas Dean Starr.

In the Starr case, a DPS officer was driving along the highway behind Starr. The officer reported that he observed Starr following the car behind him too closely, and also changing lanes multiple times. Also the officer says he observed Starr, without using a turn signal, change lanes and pass a large commercial truck that was merging in the same lane, onto the highway. The officer pulled Starr over. During the stop, the officer found marijuana and other drug paraphernalia, resulting in confiscating the property, and multiple drug possession charges.

Starr challenged the traffic stop as being unconstitutional. That is, his attorneys argued there was not a constitutionally valid reason to pull his car over. If this were the case, then the drug charges would be dismissed. Their specific argument was that the wording of the statute that regulated the use of a turn signal, only mandates a driver use a blinker, when a driver makes a full 90 degree turn. They asserted the law does  not apply to situations when a driver  merely change lanes. This argument required the court to look at the statute and interpret the law’s true meaning.

The interpretation of this particular statute had not yet been analyzed by the Arizona courts until this case.  In its decision, the court looked to similar rulings in other states. Many other jurisdictions held that a turn signal is required when any type of movement of one car would affect the course of another car. For example, if there was no car in sight for miles, a person would not need to use a blinker.  The reason being, there is no chance of another car, having to change their pattern of driving due to the lack of blinker use.  Put another way, there are no safety reason requiring notice of a lane change. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that because the wording of the Arizona statute specifies the necessity for safety, and that there were other cars on the road when Starr changed lanes, the use of a blinker was required. Thus, the conviction was upheld.

Consequently, to be successful on this type of motion you need both: (1) a factual scenario with light or no traffic; and (2) you must argue the safety of the lane change (i.e no other cars needed to brake; no other cars took evasive action; traffic was not disrupted) .

If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Drug use seems to be a never-ending problem in Arizona.  As a result, we have a never ending amount of people becoming criminals.  If you were sitting in one of Arizona’s courts devoted solely to the resolution of drugs cases, the lines would resemble those at Costco or Sam’s club.  It is common for an Arizona court to handle over 100 drugs cases in a day.  In practical terms, people are being made into felons for drug charges at an alarming rate.  However, not everyone in those lines at court has the same fate.  Not every person charged is convicted.

Here are some frequently asked questions about Arizona drugs crimes:

What does it mean when the State of Arizona says the drugs were over the threshold amount?

When drugs are possessed in sufficient amounts, Arizona law requires mandatory prison.  Each drug has a different specified amount that triggers a mandatory prison sentence.  The specified amount is called the “threshold” amount.  However, simply because you are found with an amount above the threshold that does not automatically mean you are going to prison.  The issues of whether the amount of the drugs found is over the threshold amount is commonly debated and confronted.

What are the most common illegal drugs prosecuted in Arizona?

Marijuana, Hashish, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Methamphetamine (meth), Heroin, Opium, LSD, PCP, psilocybin mushrooms, and ecstasy (MDMA).

Is there any way to get a charge of possession of drugs dismissed without a trial?

Obviously, no one can predict how a case will result without all the facts.  However, for possession cases, you may be eligible for diversion.  Diversion requires you to do drug education and monitoring.  If you successfully complete the program then your case may be dismissed.  There are times when people are not initially offered diversion when they are eligible.  This is usually because of incorrect information in the possession of law enforcement.

What does it mean when I am charged with possession for sale by the State of Arizona?

If you have been found in possession of larger amounts of drugs, then the State may claim you possessed the drugs to sell.  The most common example is being found in possession of several pounds of marijuana.  Law enforcement will inevitably claim that this much marijuana was more than needed for personal use.  However, usually more than just mere quantity is needed to support this claim.  Law enforcement will look for what they term “indicia of sale.”  This usually includes items such as scales, baggies, currency, etc…  Unless, of course, the quantity is so great that is not possible that the drugs are for personal use.  For example, if you are found with 100 kilos of cocaine, it unlikely that such an amount is for personal use.

How do you fight the charge of “possession for sale”?

The basis for the State to show you possessed drugs for sale is generally the opinion of a police officer.  The State is going to use the police officer as an “expert.”  The will say that the officer has specialized knowledge in drugs sales and based upon their “expert” opinion, these drugs were possessed for sale.  In my experience, to fight these charges you may need your own expert.  I generally employ a former drug enforcement officer and get my own independent opinion as to whether the drugs were possessed for sale.  Moreover, you also want to examine and possibly challenge the evidence provided to the grand jury that was the basis of the indictment.  The prosecutor must present both sides of the story to a grand jury when then indicate (charge) a person.  If they fail to present clearly exculpatory evidence, then that is a violation of Arizona law.

What if I was just a passenger in a car in which drugs were found?

There is no crime in Arizona of “guilt by association,” but there is something close to it.  Arizona law makes a distinction between ownership and possession of drugs.  You do not have to own drugs to be guilty of possession of drugs.  In addition, more than one person can posses drugs at the same time.  For example, if you are driving a car and a person has drugs in their pocket, it is unlikely that you possessed the drugs.  You did not have access to them, nor could you exercise any control over them.  On the other hand, if you are driving a car and there is three pounds of marijuana sitting on the consol then it may be determined that both you and the passenger “constructively” possessed the drugs.  You both had knowledge and the ability to control the drugs.  However, there will still be a debate as to whether you were “merely present” while someone else possessed the drugs – which is not a crime.

The issues arise when drugs are found in a residence shared by multiple people.

Can I get my drug charges expunged?

Arizona recognizes a manner to help clear someone’s criminal record.  Many states use the term expungement.  However, Arizona refers to this as “setting aside” a conviction.  Moreover, Arizona law also permits the courts to restore someone rights (i.e. vote, etc…) after criminal conviction.

If you need legal advice for a specific problem, you must consult with an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney. For more information about Arizona Criminal Law or a specific legal problem, please contact the Koplow Law Firm online or by phone at (602) 494-3444.