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.

Redemption of First Time Arrestee’s: A Study Find more on: http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/redemption-of-first-time-arrestees-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:

3. 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  

The post Driving Under the Influence of Medical Marijuana – Defense Lawyer was first published on Blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/dui/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.

The following blog post Factors Used To Recommend Intensive Probation Read more on: http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/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. Cf. United States v. U.S. District 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.

The following post GPS Tracking Devices and the 4th Amendment was originally published on Gary L Rohlwing Lawyer

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/gps-tracking-devices-and-the-4th-amendment/

Arizona’s Aggravating Circumstances Law: Part 1

Arizona has 26 aggravating circumstances that a trier of fact shall determine and the court shall consider when sentencing a person convicted of a felony according to A.R.S. § 13-701(D). Every circumstance except circumstance 26 is a fact about the defendant’s criminal history, the defendant’s conduct, the victim, or the felony. Circumstance 26 is a catch-all for the prosecutor to use if the other aggravating circumstances don’t apply. This blog post will discuss aggravating circumstances that are facts about a defendant’s criminal history and conduct.

Aggravating circumstances that are facts about a defendant’s criminal history are:

• The court determines that the defendant was previously convicted of a felony within the ten years immediately preceding the date of the offense. (aggravating circumstance (11).
• The defendant was convicted of negligent homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder or aggravated assault arising from an act that was committed while driving a motor vehicle and the defendant's alcohol concentration at the time of committing the offense was 0.15 or more. (aggravating circumstance (16)).
• The defendant was convicted of one or more of the following federal crimes: unlawfully bringing aliens into the U.S., bringing in and harboring certain aliens, improperly entering the U.S. as an alien, reentering the U.S. as an alien, or importing an alien for an illegal purpose at the time of the commission of the offense. (aggravating circumstance (21))
• During or immediately following the commission of the offense, the defendant left the scene of a car accident involving death, physical injuries or vehicle damage, or did not give information and assistance following a car accident during or immediately following the commission of the offense. (aggravating circumstance (23)) ‘
• The defendant was convicted of sex trafficking or trafficking of persons for forced labor or services or child sex trafficking and the defendant recruited, enticed or obtained the victim from a shelter that is designed to serve runaway youth, foster children, homeless persons or victims of human trafficking, domestic violence or sexual assault. (aggravating circumstance (24)).
• The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and there is evidence that the defendant committed the crime out of malice toward a victim because of the victim's employment as a peace officer. (aggravating circumstance (25)).

Aggravating circumstances that are facts about a person’s conduct are:

• Infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury, except if this circumstance is an essential element of the offense of conviction or has been utilized to enhance the range of punishment. (aggravating circumstance (1)).
• Use, threatened use or possession of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the commission of the crime, except if this circumstance is an essential element of the offense of conviction or has been utilized to enhance the range of punishment. (aggravating circumstance (2)).
• At the time of the commission of the offense, the defendant was a public servant and the offense involved conduct directly related to the defendant's office or employment. (aggravating circumstance (8)).
• The defendant was a personal representative, guardian, conservator, or trustee under Title 14 and the offense involved conduct directly related to the defendant's duties to the victim as fiduciary. (aggravating circumstance (14)).
• Lying in wait for the victim or ambushing the victim during the commission of any felony. (aggravating circumstance (17)).

The prosecutor will try to come up with as many aggravating circumstances as possible if you are charged with a felony. Don’t try to fight this battle on your own. You need an experienced defense attorney to fight for you. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Call him today for a free consultation.

The post Arizona’s Aggravating Circumstances Law: Part 1 was first seen on www.criminal-duiattorney.com

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/arizonas-aggravating-circumstances-law-part-1/

Arizona’s Opioid Crisis – Why You May Need a Criminal Lawyer

On June 1, 2017, the Arizona Department of Public Health issued a News Release that stated:

The Arizona Department of Health Services today released its latest data on opioid overdoses in Arizona showing the highest number of deaths in ten years. In 2016, 790 Arizonans died from opioid overdoses. The trend shows a startling increase of 74 percent over the past four years. . . . Key findings from the report include:

• An average of two Arizonans die each day from an opioid overdose.

• Opioid overdoses and deaths are steadily increasing each year with 2016 showing the highest number of deaths.

• In 2016, 790 Arizonans died from an opioid overdose.

• Heroin deaths have tripled since 2012.

• In the past decade, there were 5,932 people who died from opioid-induced causes.

• Arizona opioid death rates start to rise in the late teens and peak at age 45-54.

• The opioid death rate drops significantly above the age of 65.

• There is a significant impact on the healthcare system. Opioid-related hospital encounter rates have increased by 300 percent over the past decade.

• Arizonans are requiring more doses of naloxone to reduce opioid overdose deaths.

• While the majority of deaths occur in metropolitan areas, rural areas have the greatest challenge in responding to opioid overdoses. Read more on the AzDHS.gov website here.

  On June 5, 2017, the Office of the Governor Doug Ducey issued a News Release about his emergency declaration concerning the opioid crisis:

Governor Doug Ducey today signed an emergency declaration to address the growing number of opioid deaths in our state. As the number of opioid overdoses and deaths increase at an alarming rate, we must take action. It’s time to call this what it is — an emergency,” said Governor Ducey. “Most of us know someone impacted by substance abuse — our family, our friends, our neighbors. Our hearts ache for them, but that isn’t enough. We must do more. I’m declaring a statewide health emergency because we need to know more about the epidemic, including enhanced data that illustrates when and where these overdoses occur so that we can develop real, targeted solutions. Read the full release on AzGovernor.org.

The emergency declaration directed that the State of Arizona Emergency Response and Recovery Plan be used to direct and control State and other assets, and authorize the Director of the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to coordinate State assets. It authorized the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services to coordinate all matters pertaining to the public health emergency response of the State. It required the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services to consult to the Governor on identifying and recommending the necessary elements for an Enhanced Surveillance Advisory, initiate emergency rule making with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in order to develop rules for opioid prescribing and treatment within health care institutions, and develop guidelines to educate healthcare providers on responsible prescribing practices. Opioid abuse often leads to criminal charges. If you or a loved one has been charged, you need an experienced attorney to defend you. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years experience. Call him today for a free initial consultation.

The following blog post Arizona’s Opioid Crisis – Why You May Need a Criminal Lawyer Read more on: Gary Rohlwing Law

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/arizonas-opioid-crisis-why-you-may-need-a-criminal-lawyer/

Arizona Has a Zero Tolerance DUI Policy – What Does That Mean For You

The Arizona Zero Tolerance DUI Law

Arizona passed A.R.S. § 4-244(34) in response to the 1995 National Highway Systems Designation Act stating that federal highway funds would be withheld from any state that failed to set a 0.02 alcohol concentration limit for minor drivers. A.R.S. § 4-244(34) provides: “It is unlawful for a person under twenty-one years of age to drive or be in physical control of a motor vehicle while there is any spirituous liquor in the person’s body.” In Arizona, you are deemed underage for drinking if you are less than 21 years old – even if you will be celebrating your 21^st birthday in 6 hours. While other states would allow alcohol concentrations up to 0.02% for underage drivers, Arizona allows zero alcohol concentrations. It is a fact that it is illegal for minors to drink alcohol. However, minors cause approximately 17% of all alcohol-related car crashes resulting to death every year. Around 2000 underage drinkers lose their lives while driving, one third of which involve alcohol.  

Why Arizona Has Zero Tolerance DUI Laws in Place

Why does Arizona have this zero tolerance DUI law? Everyone knows that many people started drinking alcohol before they were 21, the legal drinking age. Chances are, most have driven a motor vehicle as well. Unfortunately, approximately one third of all fatal accidents that involve 15 – 20 year old minors are car accidents, around 35% of which involve alcohol. The percentage of alcohol-related accidents in young drivers is about twice as much as the rate for drivers above the age of 21.  

The Impact of Zero Tolerance Laws

There’s no doubt that zero tolerance is stringent and may seem too harsh for some people. In fact, a lot of people doubt whether the strict policy actually has a positive effect on minors. The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) compared statistics between 12 states that have a zero tolerance law in place against 12 other states with no zero tolerance laws in place. The results? States with zero tolerance laws showed a 20% drop in single night time crashes that resulted to death of underage drivers. According to the NHTSA, the biggest decrease in deadly crashes happened in states with underage alcohol concentration of no more than 0.02%. States that allow a higher alcohol concentration level for underage drivers registered less impact. Although the NHSD Act of 1995 merely required states to set a 0.02% alcohol concentration limit for minor drivers, Arizona along with other states decided to put a zero tolerance policy in place. The law may be harsh but the figures do not lie. The difference between 0.00% and 0.02% may be miniscule but it keeps more underage drivers alive. Arizona has good reason to take the NHSDA act seriously. When facing a zero tolerance DUI charge in Arizona, contact the Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing and make sure your rights are protected. Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing - Peoria Law Offices of Gary L. Rohlwing - Surprise Gary Rohwling Law Offices - Sun City Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing - Goodyear

The blog post Arizona Has a Zero Tolerance DUI Policy – What Does That Mean For You is republished from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/dui/arizona-has-a-zero-tolerance-dui-policy/