Just in case there was any doubt, the Arizona Court of Appeals made it official that your religious beliefs are not a legal defense to the crime of Possession of Marijuana.

In the case of State v. Hardesty, Mr. Hardesty was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a routine traffic stop, drugs were found in Mr. Hardesty car.  He claimed that the drugs were part of his religion, and tried to assert a defense under the Freedom of Religion Act.

He argued that under both the federal and state constitutions, the Act protected his use of the drug. While many people believe that government may not restrict religious activity, this is simply untrue. The court here points out that the Government may restrict religious activity if: (1) the restriction furthers a substantial government interest, and (2) there is no less restrictive means of furthering the interest. The least restrictive means refers to an alternative way to protect the asserted interest, without a complete ban on the activity.  Here, Hardesty claimed that his religion allowed him to smoke and eat marijuana wherever, whenever, and in whatever amounts he felt necessary.

On the other hand, the government argued that there is a substantial interest is public safety, and a complete ban on its use is necessary. The court agreed with the government’s public interest argument.  The Court went on to there is no other way to insure public safety aside from the ban on marijuana use, because Hardesty insisted he could use marijuana at anytime and anyplace.

This one was not that hard to predict.  If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Drug sniffing dogs – you see them at the airport, the bus station, and on television. They serve an important purpose for law enforcement and the public. That is, they smell drugs when humans cannot. Moreover, the dogs do it in a manner that is not invasive to the people being search. However, there are some rules, like the 4th Amendment to constitution, that restrict how these dogs can be used.

For example, law enforcement can’t just bust down your door without a warrant and take a dog through your house to smell everything. When it comes to your home, the Fourth Amendment to the Unites Constitution was created protect against such unreasonable entries. However, the courts are giving law enforcement more and more “leeway” on how they use man’s best friend to overcome the constitutional hurdles of the Fourth Amendment.

Look for example at a 2010 Arizona Court of Appeals case, State v. Guillen. In Guillen, one of questions asked was: if consent to search a home is valid, when the resident giving consent was unaware of a dog-sniff conducted on her property, without a warrant, before she arrived home. That is, law enforcement went on her property without a warrant, had the dog sniff the garage and the dog smelled something. Then they asked the homeowner to search the house. At the heart of the case is the fact she consented to search.

One could could argue this way: law enforcement violated her fourth amendment rights, used the information they got illegally to help make an arrest that merely appeared legal. After all, would the resident have consented if she had known that a potentially illegal search / entry on her property had just occurred?

The above theory was essentially adopted by the defendant’s attorney in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals. They posited that the initial dog sniff on the property without the owner’s knowledge was illegal police misconduct in the first place. Thus, the later consent was not valid, and the entire search of the home would be illegal.

In general, courts consider the term “Consent” to mean the voluntary, and un-coerced permission of a person which allows a government official to take a specified action without a warrant.

However, the court disagreed with this argument after looking at the chain of events. The Court stated that the relationship between the sniff and the consent was the determining factor. For the consent to be invalid as the defendant’s attorney suggested, the consent must have been caused as a result of police misconduct. The fact that the resident did not know about the dog sniff, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, means that the consent was not a result of the dog sniff, and was not invalid on that argument alone.

It appears the court did not address the actual constitutionality of the dog sniff in the driveway. Consequently, the door may be left open to argue the constitutionally of this type search in the future if the facts distinguishable.

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

Lawrence Koplow

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.

There are many crimes in Arizona that result in a person serving a term of jail.  A term of jail can devastate a person’s career.  However, there are two programs that will allow a person to continue working while a person is serving a term of jail.  Furthermore, these programs DO NOT extend the time a person spends in custody.

Under both the Work Furlough and Work Release programs, a person may continue working and fulfill the requirements of their sentence.  In felony cases, the courts primarily permit the Work Furlough program.  In misdemeanor cases, the courts primarily use the Work Release program.  In some misdemeanor cases, the courts may also allow the home detention program.  Below are some frequently asked questions regarding the Work Furlough program.

What is the Work Furlough program?

When a person is sentenced to a term of jail, it may be possible for that person to be released to allow the person to continue working.  Inmates accepted into the Work Furlough program are permitted to participate in work outside of the jail at their places of employment.  However, the Work Furlough program has more restrictions than the Work Release program.

How do I get Into the Work Furlough program?

There are two ways by which a person may be accepted into the Work Furlough program: (1) by court order; and (2) by the programs’ screening and approval process.  The first step in the Work Furlough program is to participate in a Work Furlough orientation (held Monday through Friday).  After going through the initial orientation, inmates are given anywhere from four (4) to eight (8) hours to go home and collect some of their clothing (see below for further information), get the initial $125.00 Work Furlough payment money order, and to have the “letter of understanding” signed by their employer.  The inmate then returns to the jail facility and has their release hours set by a Work Furlough officer.    

Where does the jail house Work Furlough inmates? 

Inmates who are selected and approved for this program are housed in a separate area of the jail facility (in Maricopa County it is “Tents”).  Inmates who are approved for and participate in this program are allowed to wear their own clothing and are not “dressed out” in jail attire while they are completing their incarceration term.

What is the cost to participate in Work Furlough?

The Work Furlough program costs the inmate’s hourly wage plus $3.00 per day (7 days per week).  For example, an individual making $12.00 per hour would pay $15.00 per day for a total of $105.00 per week to participate in the Work Furlough program.  All earnings must be submitted to the Work Furlough program, and all Work Furlough fees will be deducted from the inmate’s earning, with the balance being returned to the inmate. 

How many days per week can an inmate work?

An inmate can work a maximum of six (6) days per week, and their release hours cannot exceed twelve (12) hours per day (including travel time).  D.U.I. offenders are limited to a maximum of only five (5) days per week out of the jail.  In addition, all inmates participating in the Work Furlough program must work a minimum of thirty-two (32) hours per week.   

What can Work Furlough inmates have with them in the jail?

Per the Work Furlough handbook, the following items are permissible:

-Prescription eyeglasses

-1 jacket or sweater (no hood)

-1 plastic flashlight (C size max)

-1 watch

-1 wedding ring

-1 wallet (DL or ID)

-1 paperback book or magazine

-1 non electric clock

-Prescription medication (to be dispensed by the jail)

-5 sets of clothes

-2 pair of shoes (plus an additional pair of “shower shoes”)

-2 towels

-$40.00 in cash

What types of clothing are not permitted for Work Furlough inmates?

Sleeveless shirts, tube tops, tank tops, low cut shorts, bathing suits, shirts that expose the stomach, clothing with unacceptable language or gang affiliations printed on it, see through clothing, flip flops, sandals, and steel-toed boots are all not permitted.

What about personal hygiene items?

All personal hygiene items (shampoo, razors, toothbrushes, toothpaste, deodorant, etc. must be purchased from the jail vending machines.

Am I allowed to go home during my work hours?

No.  When you are admitted to the Work Furlough program, you agree to travel only between your place of employment and the jail, unless you are specifically authorized to do otherwise by a Work Furlough officer.  If you are dismissed early from work, on any day, you are to page your surveillance officer and inform them of this and then return immediately to the jail.  You are not allowed to go home, or to the residence of family, friends, or employers for any reason. 

Is there anything a person about to serve a term in jail must do to qualify for the Work Furlough program?

Yes.  Prior to serving a jail term, a person must successfully complete a health screening and bring the completed health screening form with them when they begin their term of incarceration. A health screening is generally required for both the Work Furlough and the Work Release program (however, shorter terms of incarceration may not require the screening in the Work Release program).  The process requires a person to go to a healthcare provider (usually a family doctor) and have them do a TB test.  The provider must also complete the healthcare screening form that states the results of the test and that the person is healthy enough to serve the term of jail.  If a person is taken into custody without this form, then the jail will either not allow them to enter the Work Furlough program or put off the person’s participation in the program until the jail’s own healthcare providers can screen them.  This process could easily take weeks.  Thus, it is essential for a person to complete the healthcare screening and bring the completed form with them when they are taken into custody.

Do the rules of the Work Furlough program ever change?

Yes.  The jail can alter their rules, regulations and costs at anytime and without notice.  The above information is merely an example of the guidelines in place at the time of this writing and may not apply to a particular case.  When someone is about to serve a term of jail, they should contact the jail and the Work Furlough program to confirm what rules and costs are in place at that time.