Importance of Hiring a Boating DUI Attorney

Driving under the influence (DUI)of alcohol and/or drugs has serious consequences. Because of the dangers the felony entails, such as damage to properties and lives of people, laws have been passed to ensure the safety of pedestrians, commuters and other drivers.

In the same light, boating under the influence (BUI) is also considered a criminal act. Driving a boat or watercraft of any sort under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs is illegal and warrants punishment by law.These laws were enacted to thwart the rise in the number of incidents involving watercrafts, and to prevent harm that an intoxicated person may cause to others as well as to himself. Different states have different laws for DUI and BUI incidents. Since this is the case, penalties will differ from state to state.

Arrested For Boating While Under The Influence?

The law serves as the guiding principle in almost all aspects of people’s lives. Thus, knowledge of the law is very important. By knowing the law, you become aware of both your rights and responsibilities. At the very least, understanding the law would allow you to act accordingly and avoid situations which would lead to unwanted consequences.

However, not everyone is well-informed of the law and certain situations may occur, which may requirethe expertise of professionals. When faced with a criminal violation such as BUI, professional help is recommended, especially because the imposition of penalties differs according to the circumstances of the case. The help of an experienced and effective lawyer can help mitigate the unpleasant consequences of a BUI arrest.

 

Boating DUI Charges

A person suspected of boating under the influence (BUI) can be arrested by law enforcement officials such as the U.S. Coast Guard or local law enforcement. To determine the penalty to be imposed, as well as its gravity, the offender’s blood alcohol content level is usually checked. A blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% indicates intoxication, which is a criminal offense and could warrant arrest. Surrounding circumstances such as possible damages to property and/or people are also taken into account.

Penalties can range from fines to prison time, particularly if the BUI incident leads to injuries and death. Boat operator privileges can be revoked or suspended. Other consequences include rendering community service, and attending classes in boat safety and alcohol education. The gravity of criminal penalties will increase for subsequent convictions.

 

The Seriousness of an Arrest

An arrest is the act of detaining a person as part of the system of criminal justice. Getting arrested could mean serious consequences. Being arrested for BUI could imperil one’s legal freedom, finances, and reputation. It could have detrimental effects to a person, particularly in terms of employment. For a person whose livelihood depends on the operation and driving of boats, this can pose serious financial drawbacks. Aside from this, it can lead to possible problems in the future, especially if convicted. Criminal records can tarnish a person’s character or credibility and spending time in jail can affect almost all aspects of a person’s life.

If pulled over by law enforcement authorities, the boater must comply with the required tests such as those that measure blood alcohol content. If an arrest happens, cooperation with the authorities is important to avoid further complications. It is also vital to be aware of one’s rights. An arrested individual has the right to an attorney and generally, it is best to speak to a lawyer first before making statements because anything a person says can be used against him or her in court. To address concerns about the arrest, seeking legal advice can be very helpful, especially because the process can be intimidating and confusing. With the help of an attorney, you will be reminded of your rights and will be briefed on what and what not to do. An attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced on BUI incidents will be able to lessen the unfavorable consequences of a BUI arrest.

 

Free Consultation

An attorney experienced with boating under the influence (BUI) incidents can give light on the possible defenses to BUI. The Law Offices of Gary L. Rohlwing can provide the expertise needed to face BUI charges. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over 30 years of experience in handling criminal cases. He is proficient and effective in terms of case-handling, and will certainly provide the most desirable result. Rest assured, all questions relevant to the case will be answered and all possible outcomes will be discussed comprehensively. As an experienced BUI lawyer, the Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing provides a free initial consultation, call us today.

Posted in DUI | Comments Off on Importance of Hiring a Boating DUI Attorney

Redemption of First Time Arrestee’s: A Study

In June 2009, the National Institute of Justice Journal published “’Redemption’ in an Era of Widespread Criminal Background Checks” by Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura. The authors conducted a study to determine whether it was possible to determine empirically when it is no longer necessary for an employer to be concerned about a criminal offense in a prospective employee’s past.

The authors obtained the criminal history records of 88,000 individuals who were arrested for the first time in New York state in 1980. They determined whether they had committed any other crimes during the ensuing 25 years or had stayed clean. Then they compared the data against people in the general population who were the same age and people the same age who had never been arrested. Their goal was to determine empirically when the risk of recidivism for people in the study group was no greater than the risk for the two comparison populations. To do that, they plotted data curves to determine when the risk of re-arrest for people in the study group dropped below the risk of arrest for same-aged people in the general population and approached the risk of arrest for people who had never been arrested. The authors noted that their study provided the criminal justice community with the first scientific method for estimating how long is “long enough” for someone with a prior record to remain arrest-free before he or she should be considered “redeemed” by a prospective employer. You can read the entire post/pdf by visiting https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/226872.pdf

The “hazard rate” is a statistical concept that is the probability, over time, that someone who has stayed clean will be arrested. The authors looked at two factors to determine the hazard rate: type of crime and age at time of 1980 (first) arrest. They then compared these hazard rates to people of the same age in the general population.

They found that the hazard rates for 18-year-old who were arrested for a first offense or robbery occurred at age 25.7 or 7.7 years after the 1980 arrest. After that point, the probability that they would commit another crime was less than the probability of other 26-year-olds in the general population. The hazard rates for individuals arrested for burglary and aggravated assault were 3.8 years (age 21.8) and 4.3 years (age 22.3).

The hazard rates for individuals who were 16, 18, and 20 years old when they were first arrested for robbery in 1980 were 8.5 years (age 24.5), 7.7 years (age 25.7), and 4.4 years (age 24.4) respectively. The results were similar for burglary and aggravated assault.

Surprisingly, there have been no studies since either to validate the results or to examine the hazard rates based on other factors such as gender, race, or socioeconomic background.

If you were arrested as a young adult and want to have your civil rights restored, you need an experienced attorney to help you. Criminal Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Call him today for a free initial consultation.

Posted in Criminal | Comments Off on Redemption of First Time Arrestee’s: A Study

Driving Under the Influence of Medical Marijuana – Defense Lawyer

Medical marijuana became legal in Arizona when voters approved Proposition 203 in 2010. Many people who use medical marijuana also drive and are concerned about being charged with driving under the influence because they use medical marijuana. As discussed below, Arizona law does not immunize them from being charged with driving under the influence of marijuana.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) is found in Chapter 28.1 of Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) states:

“This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal or other penalties for engaging in, the following conduct:

A. Undertaking any task under the influence of marijuana that would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

B. Possessing or engaging in the medical use of marijuana:

  1. On a school bus.
  2. On the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school.
  3. In any correctional facility.

C. Smoking marijuana:

  1. On any form of public transportation.
  2. In any public place.

D. Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”

E. Using marijuana except as authorized under this chapter.”

 

The relevant Arizona Driving under the Influence statute is A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3):

“A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

  1. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person’s body.”

 

The Supreme Court of Arizona has held that a medical marijuana patient has an affirmative defense to driving under the influence in Dobson v. McClennen, 238 Ariz. 389, 393 ¶ 20 (2015) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2015/CV140313PR.pdf:

“A qualifying patient may be convicted of an (A)(3) violation if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the patient, while driving or in control of a vehicle, had marijuana or its impairing metabolite in the patient’s body. The patient may establish an affirmative defense to such a charge by showing that his or her use was authorized by the AMMA—which is subject to the rebuttable presumption under § 36–2811(A)(2)—and that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment. The patient bears the burden of proof on the latter point by a preponderance of the evidence, as with other affirmative defenses. SeeA.R.S. § 13–205(“[A] defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence.”).”

 

The Arizona Court of Appeals found that a medical marijuana patient does not have to present expert testimony in order to establish his or her affirmative defense in Ishak v. McClennen, 241 Ariz. 364, 372 ¶ 20 (App. 2016) http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2016/1%20CA-SA%2016-0134.pdf:

“In sum, an authorized medical marijuana user charged with violating § 28-1381(A)(3) may establish the affirmative defense afforded by § 36-2802(D) by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the marijuana metabolite concentration in his or her system was insufficient to cause him or her to be impaired at the time he or she operated or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The cardholder may satisfy that burden by, inter alia, cross-examining the arresting officer and the State’s expert forensic scientist and/or by offering any admissible evidence (including his or her own testimony) relevant to proving whether he or she was impaired at the time of the stop. That evidence may or may not include, as here, expert testimony that the cardholder’s THC concentration is not always sufficient to cause impairment.”

If you are a medical marijuana patient and have been charged with driving under the influence of marijuana, you need an experienced DUI/DWI attorney to represent you. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Please call him today for a free consultation.

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing
7112 N 55th Ave
Glendale, AZ 85301
(623) 937-1692
https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

 

Posted in DUI | Comments Off on Driving Under the Influence of Medical Marijuana – Defense Lawyer

Factors Used To Recommend Intensive Probation

Intensive Probation – A Possible Alternative to Prison?

Arizona intensive probation is designed to be an alternative to prison. As such, it includes house arrest and other types of intense monitoring such as maintaining employment or full-time student status, paying restitution and probation fees, residing at a place approved by the intensive probation team, complying with drug and alcohol testing if requested by the intensive probation team, performing between twenty and forty hours of community restitution, and meeting any other conditions imposed by the court.

The Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 6-202 describes what factors a probation officer must use in deciding whether to make a recommendation to the court for intensive probation. The information below comes from the following link to § 6-202: https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Document/N8991D3B029F711DE86D8BDEF91DD0749?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

4. A.R.S. § 13-914(B) provides: “The adult probation officer shall evaluate the needs of the offender and the offender’s risk to the community, including the nature of the offense and the prior criminal history of the offender …” Adult probation department staff shall administer the standardized assessment. The adult probation officer shall consider these factors in making a recommendation to the court for placement on intensive probation.

5. In determining appropriateness for intensive probation the probation officer shall also consider:

  1. The offender’s need for the structure, accountability, and close monitoring;
  2. The focus on treatment inherent in the intensive probation program;
  3. The benefits of the intensive probation program to the offender;
  4. Community safety;
  5. The potential harm to the victim including the victim’s attitude toward placing the offender on intensive probation;
  6. Payment of restitution;
  7. The probability the offender will remain at liberty without violating the law;
  8. Performance of community restitution hours;
  9. The offender’s legal eligibility to work in the United States; and
  10. Any other factors determined appropriate to the ends of justice and the safety of the community.

6. The probation officer shall include the reasons supporting intensive probation in the presentence report.

 

Only factor i. can be objectively determined. Factor j. is open-ended and could include any number of things. If you are facing a criminal sentence that includes intensive probation, you need an experienced defense attorney. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Call him today for a free initial consultation.

Posted in Criminal | Comments Off on Factors Used To Recommend Intensive Probation

GPS Tracking Devices and the 4th Amendment

A GPS tracking device can provide great peace of mind if you install one on your teenage son or daughter’s car. However, you have no peace of mind if a police officer installs one on your car without your knowledge and without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court of Arizona dealt with this issue in State v. Jean (Jan. 3, 2018) which is found here http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2018/State%20v.%20Jean%20Opinion.pdf

 

David Velez-Colon and defendant Jean shared the driving of a commercial tractor-trailer from Georgia to Arizona. See Id., ¶ 2. Arizona DPS officers in Phoenix became suspicious and learned that the trailer was reported stolen and the truck was registered to Velez-Colon. See Id. Suspecting that the vehicle was being used to transport drugs, DPS officers installed a GPS tracking device on the truck without obtaining a warrant. See Id. The officers monitored the truck’s movements with GPS for about thirty-one hours over three days. See Id., ¶ 3. Assisted by the GPS location data, a DPS officer stopped the vehicle around 4:00 a.m. on February 19 after it reentered Arizona. Id., ¶ 4. Officers searched the trailer and found 2140 pounds of marijuana. See Id.

The trial court denied Jean’s motion to suppress, reasoning that Jean, as a passenger, did not have standing to object to the State’s use of the GPS tracking device on the truck owned by Velez-Colon. Id., ¶ 6.  Jean was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison. See Id. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. See Id., ¶ 7.

The Supreme Court of Arizona granted review to determine whether the warrantless GPS tracking constituted a search and violated Jean’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and if so, whether the evidence gathered there from should be excluded. See Id., ¶ 8.

The Court held that a passenger could challenge the GPS monitoring as a search and that the duration of the government’s GPS monitoring did not determine whether it constituted a search. See Id., ¶¶ 32, 34, 37. In the Court’s words:

 

“By holding that Jean, like the owner Velez-Colon, can challenge the GPS monitoring as a search, we reaffirm the protections embodied in the Fourth Amendment against warrantless government surveillance. Requiring such searches generally to be supported by a warrant based on probable cause does not unduly burden the government’s interests, particularly because this requirement already applies with respect to the person who owns or lawfully possesses the vehicle. Treating such surveillance as a search as to passengers protects the privacy interests of both those who own or possess the vehicle and those who travel with them. CfUnited States vU.SDistrict Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 314-15, 321 (1972) (balancing governmental and privacy interests in concluding, categorically, that surveillance for domestic security purposes should be subject to “the customary Fourth Amendment requirement of judicial approval prior to initiation of a search or surveillance”). . . “ Id., ¶ 37. Originally found on http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2018/State%20v.%20Jean%20Opinion.pdf

If you or a loved one is charged with a crime where GPS monitoring is part of the evidence, you need an experienced attorney to help you. Criminal Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience as a prosecutor and private defense lawyer. Call him today for a free consultation.

Posted in Criminal | Comments Off on GPS Tracking Devices and the 4th Amendment