PHOENIX – Police and DPS officers have arrested 546 people so far during the second week of the statewide Arizona Labor Day Task Force.
According to a news release provided by the Governor's Office of Highway Safety, which is sponsoring the campaign, 72 of those arrests occurred Saturday night alone.
Twenty-five of those arrested Saturday night were cited for extreme DUI, which means they had an average blood alcohol content (BAC) of .15 or above. The legal limit in Arizona is .08.
Since the task force started last weekend, 191 people have been arrested for extreme DUI.
The average BAC since the beginning of the campaign is .160, twice the legal limit.
Nearly 2,100 people have been cited for other violations such as speeding, not wearing a seatbelt and improper lane change.
Source
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
DUI test requires warrant or consent
PHOENIX (AP) - A new Arizona court ruling says authorities must obtain a search warrant to conduct a blood test of a DUI suspect unless the suspect clearly consents to have blood drawn.
The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that it wasn't enough under state law that a man apparently didn't object when officers moved to take a blood sample while in a police DUI van.
The court notes that the law in question is called ‘‘implied consent'' because drivers are subject to a civil driver's license suspension if they refuse to have blood drawn.
But the ruling says motorists clearly still have the right to withhold consent for a warrantless search.
The Court of Appeals sent the case back to a lower court for a finding on whether the man involved actually consented.
Source
The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that it wasn't enough under state law that a man apparently didn't object when officers moved to take a blood sample while in a police DUI van.
The court notes that the law in question is called ‘‘implied consent'' because drivers are subject to a civil driver's license suspension if they refuse to have blood drawn.
But the ruling says motorists clearly still have the right to withhold consent for a warrantless search.
The Court of Appeals sent the case back to a lower court for a finding on whether the man involved actually consented.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)