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

Asset forfeiture occurs when the government claims someone has profited from criminal activity.  The government will then attempt to seize the proceeds of that criminal conduct.  However, law enforcement often seizes money and property well beyond what the law allows.  Common scenarios include a person who was not involved in a crime yet has their property taken; or when there has been a minor crime, but there is substantial overreaching by the government in what they take from the person.

Below are answers to several of the questions I am often asked about government seizure and forfeiture.

1.  May law enforcement simply take my assets if they think I committed a crime?

No, the asset (usually, cash, bank accounts, jewelry, real property, automobiles, etc…) must be seized through the judicial process. Arizona has laws that dictate specific procedures the government must follow to seize property.  Generally, if the government can make a showing of probable cause that the assets were obtained as fruits of criminal activity, or “traceable” to the criminal activity, the courts will allow the seizure.

Then, the government has to prove in a civil, administrative or criminal proceeding that the asset was used to facilitate criminal activity (i.e. fraud or drug trafficking), or was derived from criminal activity, for it to be forfeited to the government.

2.  How are assets seized?

Assets are seized by law enforcement incident to arrest, a search warrant, consent or with a seizure order.

3.  What type of assets can be seized?

Contraband (i.e. illegal drugs and illegal weapons) is the most well known type of property seized by the government.  Obviously, this type of property does not cause many disputes.

Beyond contraband, the government may take alleged proceeds from criminal activity such as vehicles, houses, funds in bank accounts, cash, or an entire business enterprise.

4.  After my property is seized, what happens to it?

When an asset (such as cash, a home, or a vehicle) is seized by the government, it is stored in the same manner as evidence in a criminal case. Departmental reports are drafted indicating the identity of the property owner, an estimated value and a description of the asset.  Moreover, any liens are also recorded.

5. What law enforcement agencies are involved in seizures and forfeiture proceedings?

State, Municipal and Federal law enforcement all regularly conduct seizure and forfeiture actions.  Some of the agencies involved are the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the Pinal County Attorneys’ Office, the Pima County Attorneys’ Office, the Coconino County Attorneys’ Office, The Yavapai County Attorneys’ Office, etc…  Moreover, most federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also conduct these proceedings.

6. Does law enforcement have to prove I committed a crime prior to seizing my assets?

Surprisingly, the government need not obtain a criminal conviction prior to taking a person’s assets.  Seizure and forfeiture proceedings are considered civil (non-criminal) matters. Thus, law enforcement need merely meet the civil standards to take property, and not the more stringent criminal standards.  The procedures for taking property are specified in Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 13-4310.

7. Can you fight the forfeiture?

Yes. Arizona law permits a person whose property has been seized to contest the government seizure.  Arizona law specifically provides that certain property is not subject to forfeiture.  It is common that law enforcement fails to observe these statutory requirements when they take property.  Thus, a person may be able to recover their property if the government did not observe these laws or follow the proper procedure.

In addition, many circumstances involve a property owner that has no relation to the alleged crime.  This person may not have been present at the time of the alleged crime, nor even had any knowledge of it (i.e. loaning an automobile to someone who committed a crime.) The so-called “innocent” property owner has the legal right to contest the seizure of her property.

In sum, the mere fact that property has been seized by law enforcement does not mean that it was a lawful taking.

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.