Jun
26

What Happens if I Refuse a Test?

By · Comments Comments Off on What Happens if I Refuse a Test?

If an individual is pulled over while driving, in the state of Arizona, because there is suspicion of DUI, that individual is required to take a breath, urine, or blood test upon arrest. This is because the state of Arizona has an implied consent law. This means the driver is assumed to automatically consent to the taking of a chemical test, as long as the individual has been lawfully arrested by a law enforcement officer who is not displaying any malicious intent at the time of the arrest.

In Arizona, an individual will be required to give up their driver’s license to the law enforcement official handling their case, if they have refused to take a urine, blood, or breath test at the time they are arrested on suspicion of DUI. As a consequence of this refusal, the reporting officer will file a report on this refusal. Inevitably this will result in the suspension of your state drivers license or permit for no less than 12 months. This is assuming you are only a first-time offender.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IF THE TEST IS REFUSED?

As mentioned above, any driver who specifically refuses to comply with the chemical test of his or her level of intoxication is automatically required to relinquish their driver’s license to the arresting officer. The license will be suspended at that time. For individuals who do not actually refuse the test, but who did not agree to the test completion, will also find themselves with the same consequences.

In this situation, when your driver’s license is suspended, a temporary driving permit will be issued to you. This permit will be valid for only 15 days. This can result in a long-term suspension or even revocation of your driver’s license, if you fail to take legal action within this 15 day time frame. The ramifications that you may face because of the refusing to submit to a DUI test, is dependent on whether or not this is your first offense.

The first time a person refuses to take the test, your license will be suspended for up to one year. You can request an ignition-interlock license to be provided to you, but only after 90 consecutive days of this year-long suspension have been served. In cases where individuals who refuse to take the test a second time within a seven-year period, they will have their driver’s license suspended for a full two years.

CHALLENGING A LICENSE SUSPENSION IN PHOENIX, AZ

In the state of Arizona, after your license has been suspended, you should expect to receive a notification of the suspension. Along with this notification, there will be forms included that can be used to challenge the suspension of your license. If you wish to challenge the suspension of your driver’s license, it must be done online, within 15 days of the date that the suspension was sent. There will be a hearing. Individuals have the option of submitting a written request for this hearing.

You will be given the opportunity at the hearing, to discuss whether or not there was reasonable cause for the arresting officer to believe you were driving your vehicle under the influence. At this time it may be advantageous for you to discuss at your hearing any concerns you may have as to the circumstances of your arrest, your refusing of the test, and whether or not the resulting consequences of your refusal were made known to you at the time. If the hearing goes in your favor, the suspension of your license will be revoked. If, on the other hand, the hearing does not go well for you, the suspension of your driver’s license will be confirmed.

THE REAL QUESTION IS: IS REFUSING THE TEST A GOOD IDEA?

Refusing to take a breath, urine, or blood test when you have been arrested on suspicion of DUI, in most cases, will not have a positive effect for you. However, the repercussions for refusing a DUI test in the state of Arizona, are not as severe as those you will be subjected to if you are actually convicted for being intoxicated while driving. Ultimately however, refusing to take a blood, breath, or urine test will not automatically prevent you from a conviction. This makes refusing the test somewhat of a risky nature.

It should be noted that some prosecutors use the defendant’s refusal to take a DUI test as evidence against him or her. Their argument basically says that the drivers refusal to take the test is an obvious indication of the driver’s intoxication. When a prosecutor uses this method of argument, it becomes very difficult, but not impossible, to defend you in court. If you plan on pursuing this route, you need to ensure that you have an experienced and aggressive defense team on your side.

We have the expertise at the Jones Law Firm to defend DUI prosecutions in all types of circumstances. This includes those that involve the refusal to take a DUI test. To ensure you have the best chance of favorably fighting your court case, we urge you to contact a defense attorney from our firm as soon as possible. If more information is needed, contact us today. We are here to help you.

Categories : DUI
Comments Comments Off on What Happens if I Refuse a Test?
Jun
19

Sale and distribution of Marijuana

By · Comments Comments Off on Sale and distribution of Marijuana

Persons who have been charged with marijuana sales in the area of Phoenix can turn to the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson for assistance with their legal troubles. When you need the help of an experienced Phoenix marijuana sales attorney, you need someone who has the know-how of handling these kinds of cases. That’s where Mr. Davidson’s law office in Phoenix comes in handy. He can handle all many drug-related cases.

Cases that involve the sale and distribution of marijuana are treated harshly… much more so than the possession for sale in Arizona. Prosecutors try proving marijuana sales by employing the help of undercover police officers, search warrants, surveillance and confidential informants. Using his experience, he can effectively challenge this evidence and will do everything in his power to reduce or dismiss the charges.

How You Can Prove Entrapment

Anytime police engage in undercover activity to create a sale of marijuana case against somebody, defense attorneys can possibly use entrapment has a plausible defense. According to Arizona law, to use entrapment as a defense in marijuana sale cases, there are things that must be proven:

  1. The idea to commit the crime did not begin with the defendant but with the police.
  2. The defendant wasn’t inclined to sell marijuana before the police encouraged or coerced him/her to sell.
  3. Undercover officers encouraged and coerced the individual to sale marijuana.
Hiring The Help Of An Arizona Lawyer For Marijuana Sale and Distribution

If you’ve been charged with an illegal sale of medical marijuana or the Internet sale of illegal marijuana, the Law Officers of Joshua S. Davidson has the knowledge of how to handle the case. As a Maricopa County prosecutor, he was responsible for cases that involved narcotics and marijuana sales. Thanks to the time he spent working as a prosecutor, he can take the experience and use it to effectively defend his clients.

Since he became a Criminal Defnese Attorney, he took what he learned from prosecutors to prepare a defensive strategy that counters each of their moves. You should never try handling the marijuana sale and distribution charge on your own or with an attorney who’s not experienced in the area. With Joshua S. Davidson on your side, you can be sure he’ll be with you all the way to provide you with support and legal advice that can ensure the success of your case.

Talk to Phoenix Marijuana Defense Attorney Davidson today to learn what possible defenses you have to fight your marijuana sale and distribution charge.

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Sale and distribution of Marijuana
Jun
19

Marijuana Transportation Can Net Defendants Extreme Penalty Times and Fines

By · Comments Comments Off on Marijuana Transportation Can Net Defendants Extreme Penalty Times and Fines

Transportation of Marijuana in Arizona

Have you been accused with transporting illegal marijuana? If so, then you need to locate the best possible attorney for your case. This is where the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson in Phoenix comes in. Attorney Davidson represents all his clients to the best of his abilities to ensure they get the best outcome possible for their marijuana transportation charge.

Due to the federal and state laws, marijuana transportation charges can be extremely complex. It all depends on how and where the marijuana was transported. Should marijuana be transported intentionally or between states, the charge could become a felony offense and could include the following agencies:

  • DEA
  • FBI
  • Federal prosecutors

Because these charges are complicated and the numerous agencies that could get involved, you need the assistance and the support of a highly qualified Phoenix Marijuana Transportation Attorney.

The Charges and Penalties Of Marijuana Transportation

What does it mean by marijuana transportation? It means the movement or the transporting of an illegal substance from one area to another. The charge is extremely serious in the Phoenix region. Most of these cases involve some type of vehicle so that the marijuana is moved from one location to another location.  Just because you are in the same vehicle as the illegal substance does not determine your guilt. The prosecution must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you fully knew you were transporting the drugs.

Mr. Davidson is a former prosecutor who used to prosecute these types of cases. Thus, he knows the techniques police and prosecutors use to build their case against you. With this firsthand knowledge, Mr. Davidson is already one step ahead and can create an antagonistic defense for you.

Depending on how extensive the charges are against you and if you’re repeat offender, there are a number of penalties you could be hit with:

  • Probation
  • Revocation of driver’s license
  • Forfeiture of vehicle
  • Seriously large fines
  • Extensive long-term prison time

Most marijuana transportation involves a large sum of the drug, and if you’re convicted, it’s a long, mandatory prison sentence. Depending on the marijuana amount, the formal charges that are filed against you could net you serious jail time.  Do not let the transportation of marijuana conviction completely abolish your future.

You need the assistance of an experienced Phoenix marijuana defense attorney to protect you and your future.  With a reputation like Mr. Davidson’s, you can bet you’ll get the aggressive representation he is well-known for. He’ll throw everything of himself into your case to ensure you get the best possible outcome for the marijuana transportation charge.

Give Mr. Davidson a call today if you’re facing a marijuana transportation charge… and let an experienced Marijuana Attorney get started on your defense!

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Marijuana Transportation Can Net Defendants Extreme Penalty Times and Fines
Jun
14

Unlawful Searches and Seizures

By · Comments Comments Off on Unlawful Searches and Seizures

A good deal many of the cases Joshua S. Davidson, a Phoenix Marijuana Defense Attorney, handles involve police-conducted searches. These searches tend to include a defendant’s home, vehicle or belongings but are sometimes conducted without a search warrant.

4th Amendment To U.S. Constitution

While you are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, there are some instances that allow police to search your person or your belongings without getting a valid search warrant. Should the court, later on, rule the search was not legal (and required a search warrant), any damaging evidence – marijuana, cocaine, meth or other illegal substance – that is found will be deemed inadmissible. This means the prosecutor could decide to dismiss the case entirely.

Phoenix law about warrantless searches is constantly changing. Davidson knows that to get the best possible outcome for his clients and suppress evidence in warrantless searches, he needs to stay up to date on the new legal developments. Of course, being able to recognize an illegal police search is important to having an effective legal defense against a marijuana charge in Phoenix.

Mr. Davidson was a previous marijuana offense prosecutor and litigated many challenges in court regarding warrantless searches by police. This previous work enables him to thoroughly review all cases for any possible police misconduct that could cause the court to reduce the charges or dismiss them altogether.

6 Common Exceptions Of The Search Warrant Requirement In Marijuana Cases In Phoenix.

There are some common exceptions to Phoenix’s search warrant requirement in marijuana cases. These are:

– Inventory searches of vehicles before it’s police-impounded

– Searches of persons carried out to “arrest incident”

– Searches conducted with individual consent

– Probable cause search of individual’s vehicle

– Pat down for weapons where officer has concerns for safety

– Searches for evidence that’s subjected to destruction

Too often police were carried out an illegal search, trying to justify the search so they have the right to charge you with a drug-related crime.  If you have been charged with a marijuana crime in Phoenix, it’s important you get the best possible defense. And, with the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson by your side, you can be sure that your charge will be thoroughly investigated. If any police conduct is found, Davidson will aggressively fight for evidence, and your case, to be dismissed. With his experience has a former marijuana prosecutor, he can aggressively fight for you and your rights, confronting any unlawful police tactics in your case. Call him today if you’re facing a marijuana-related charge and get a free initial consultation.

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Unlawful Searches and Seizures
Jun
14

TASC Diversion Program

By · Comments Comments Off on TASC Diversion Program

Purpose of the Phoenix TASC Program

TASC is a program for marijuana diversion in the Phoenix area. The acronym stands for “Treatment Assessment Screening Center.” There are more than 20 states that now offer deferred sentencing and prosecution through TASC programs, and Arizona is one of them. TASC is a non-profit organization offering substance abuse support services, including counseling, education, and marijuana screening.

In cases where the convicted party is eligible, TASC services may be offered in lieu of a prison sentence or another of the severe penalties that usually follow a conviction for a marijuana-related offense. TASC serves as a program of intervention for first-time drug offenders. Its case management services aim to alter and eliminate criminal acts related to marijuana by identifying, monitoring, and managing problems with substance abuse. This case management program helps to relieve our state’s heavily-burdened justice system by reducing the need to prosecute and jail first-time drug offenders.

Phoenix Marijuana Diversion/Deferred Prosecution – TASC Program

If you are a first-time marijuana offender, and the amount of marijuana involved was small, the TASC deferred prosecution program may be an option for you. The opportunity to participate in the program instead of serving a prison sentence is not guaranteed, however. TASC screens those who apply to determine which applicants are eligible. There are specific criteria that defendants are required to meet before they can be accepted into the program. If an accepted defendant fails to complete the program, his original conviction, and the sentence that accompanied it, will go back into effect immediately. He may face a jail sentence or another severe consequence, such as a large fine. However, if he succeeds in completing the program, then TASC will recommend to the court that his drug charges should be dismissed.

Criminal Defense Lawyer – TASC Marijuana Diversion Program in Phoenix

If you hope to qualify for TASC, hiring a criminal defense attorney will be of great help to you. Your attorney will perform the steps necessary to ensure that you are qualified for the TASC program if he cannot get the charges against you dismissed while the case is being heard. The court, the prosecution, and TASC administration must all agree to allow you to participate in the program.

If you have been charged with a marijuana-related offense in the Phoenix area, you would be well-advised to seek an attorney with experience in defending against criminal marijuana charges, preferably one who specializes in them. The Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson frequently acts as the defense in marijuana-related cases all over Maricopa County. If you currently have an active marijuana charges, he can offer you a free consultation. If you choose to retain his services, he will work hard to protect your legal rights, defend against your charges, and obtain the best outcome possible for you. If you are facing a marijuana charge and need an expert legal representative, call (602) 493-3600 today!

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on TASC Diversion Program
Jun
14

Several Possible Marijuana Penalties The Arizona Court System Can Impose On Convicted Persons

By · Comments Comments Off on Several Possible Marijuana Penalties The Arizona Court System Can Impose On Convicted Persons

We here at the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson in Phoenix, place our concentration on the criminal defense of our clients who are charged with any number of drug related crimes.  If you’ve been cited for or charged with a marijuana-related offense in the cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale or Tempe, you need the help of an experienced phoenix marijuana attorney.

A marijuana case can be extremely easy or quite complex; it all depends on how much marijuana police found and the defendant’s criminal background. Regardless of these things, you need to have the assistance of an experienced Phoenix marijuana attorney to help you fight it… if not for an acquittal to have the charged or sentence reduced.

Davidson has handled a variety of marijuana-related cases – marijuana possession, trafficking of marijuana, sale of marijuana, production of marijuana and the possession of marijuana with intent to sale and deliver.

A Look At The Classification For Marijuana Possession

2 pounds or less – Class 6 Felony

2 to 4 pounds – Class 5 Felony

4 pounds or more – Class 4 Felony (at least $750 in fines or three times the value of marijuana, whatever is more)

A Look At The Classification For The Sale and Possession Of Marijuana

2 pounds or less – Class 4 Felony

2 to 4 pounds – Class 3 Felony (prison is mandatory upon conviction)

4 pounds or more – Class 2 Felony (three to 12.5 years in a state penitentiary; minimum $750 in fines/$2,000 for selling within a school zone with additional $2,000 in fines)

A Look At The Classification For Trafficking of Marijuana

2 pounds or less – Class 3 Felony

More than 2 pounds – Class 2 Felony (Court will impose recommended sentence at conviction with a possible 5 years)

A Look At The Classification For The Production Of Marijuana

Less than 2 pounds – Class 5 Felony

2 to 4 pounds – Class 4 Felony

More than 4 pounds – Class 3 Felony

Regardless of what offense you are charged with, it’s important to hire the best possible Phoenix marijuana attorney who has the experience and know-how of getting your charges reduced or eliminated altogether.  There are some instances where marijuana cases involving one’s personal possession can qualify for alternative sentencing requirements under the state’s Proposition 200; a conviction for marijuana tends to net probation, jail time, community service and a blemished criminal record.

The state’s mandatory sentencing laws decree severe punishment for convictions. Thus, it’s vitally important to have the experience of a qualified Phoenix marijuana attorney to ensure your rights are protected during the entire process.

If you’re facing a marijuana charge, contact Phoenix’s best Drug Crime Defense Lawyer Joshua S. Davidson right away!

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Several Possible Marijuana Penalties The Arizona Court System Can Impose On Convicted Persons
Jun
07

Arpaio Announces Deputy’s Move To Obama Investigation For Security Purposes

By · Comments Comments Off on Arpaio Announces Deputy’s Move To Obama Investigation For Security Purposes

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said the volunteer investigation regarding documents that relate to the residency of President Barack Obama currently includes taxpayer-funded deputy services. The deputy joins Arpaio’s cold case volunteer member Mike Zullo in Hawaii because of security issues as well as the progression of the investigation.

Arpaio recently said it’s just one deputy and that the investigation does have some security issues. He said for six months, no money was spent. However, when it comes to investigation, some things need more resources put into them.

The Sheriff’s office recently said approximately $40,000 has been spent so far on the investigation, which is funded solely on donations.

In the past, Arpaio flaunted the fact that the investigation consisted mainly of volunteers and donations. However, a sworn deputy is now needed.  According to Arpaio, the volunteer posse is in the middle of a criminal investigation but declined to further elaborate.

Arpaio also noted that the costs of Zullo and the deputy’s hotel rooms and airfare are being covered by the Sheriff’s Office. However, the posse is expected to pay back the department for all of it.

The deputy that’s been assigned to the investigation into Obama continues to works with the Sheriff’s department in its threats unit. Arpaio said the deputy will work on other cases while helping with the investigation. However, he won’t be making arrests.

Arpaio said the investigation posse won’t constantly use the deputy because he’s not assigned to it. He’s just currently a liaison and provides advice when warranted, Arpaio said. He said he feels a deputy is needed right now. He refused to talk about other trips the posse has been on without the assistance of a deputy.

250 Surprise Tea Party members request an investigation be launched regarding Obama’s residency.

A news conference was held in March by the sheriff along with Zullo, Surprise Tea Party members and author Jerry Corsi, whose examination originally led the investigation. Zullo laid out the allegation that the president’s birth certificate and selective service card were fakes.

Zullo relied on the White House’s documents that verified the president’s birth in Hawaii for the investigation.

A civil rights lawsuit was recently filed by the U.S. Justice Department that alleged that Arpaio’s department discriminated against persons who spoke out against the sheriff and his policies as well as Latinos.

Arpaio has repeatedly denied that this investigation into Obama is motivated by politics. However, many critics have noted that most folks, including Republicans, have gone past the topic.

Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State, brought the topic back up recently by asking Hawaii officials to verify the birth certificate so that he could place the president’s name on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The sheriff said it’s not Obama’s birthplace the investigation is focused on. Instead, it’s the possibility that some documents generated to authenticate the birth are duplicitous.

Arpaio said he’s able to spare one deputy and not have problems because the agency has roughly 900 other deputies working for it.

Categories : Police, Politics
Comments Comments Off on Arpaio Announces Deputy’s Move To Obama Investigation For Security Purposes
May
22

Ignition Interlock Device Violations in Arizona

By · Comments Comments Off on Ignition Interlock Device Violations in Arizona

The purpose of an ignition interlock device is to deter people who already have a conviction for drunk driving. But more and more, sober people are getting in trouble with the legal system as a result of confusion about how the machine operates, or due to false readings.

In Arizona, the interlock device is compulsory for every DUI conviction, even if it’s the first conviction. Every violation results in an additional year being added onto the interlock penalty. DUI Attorney Joshua S. Davidson has successfully challenged that additional penalty.

Have you received an Ignition Interlock Violation? If you have been notified by mail by the Arizona MVD, you only have 15 days to ask for a court appearance to challenge the infraction.  Call us now before it’s too late. Let us represent you and fight that extra penalty. We serve clients in Phoenix, Scottsdale and all over Maricopa county. Get in touch with us right away for a free conference.

The Interlock Is Unreliable

In order to be eligible for a restricted drivers license, if you have a DUI revocation or suspension, an ignition interlock device must be installed on your vehicle at your expense. The purpose of blowing into the device once you are behind the wheel of your car is to keep an inebriated person from starting the vehicle, and to let the MVD know about the attempt to start the vehicle.

However a number of people from Arizona are racking up violations, even though they’ve done nothing wrong. Worse yet is the fact that they are unaware that the penalties are accumulating.

Recently, an underage driver who had been convicted of a DUI wasn’t using the interlock device properly. On several occasions, she blew into the machine and, even though the car started, a violation was reported. She ignored the warnings she received by mail and as a result, the state was going to add an additional 12 years to her interlock sentence.

Numerous drivers in Arizona have had extended time added to their interlock sentences after having a fruit smoothie. Apparently these tasty treats cause the BAC detector to go off resulting in embarrassment and extra expense.

You must respond to the notice from the MVD within 15 days. No officer of the law sees the violation, so you do not have a chance to take a breathalyzer test or a blood test and prove that you are not guilty. The false reading is simply your word against the word of the machine.

As your DUI attorney, Joshua Davidson will try to place doubt on those false readings. We can enlist the testimony of members of your family and your probation officer who confirm that you have been sober. We have experts testify on the inaccuracy of the machine as well as showing how a violation of the interlock device can be triggered easily by blowing in the machine incorrectly. In fact, a violation can even be triggered by a dead car battery.

Categories : DUI
Comments Comments Off on Ignition Interlock Device Violations in Arizona
Jan
01

State of Arizona v. Lovejoy

By · Comments Comments Off on State of Arizona v. Lovejoy

This not guilty verdict was including among a number of high profile cases entrusted to now disgraced former prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon.  Judge Neil Wake recounts in his recent ruling denying the Defendant’s motion for summary judgement:

Lovejoy’s case went to a bench trial in front of a Justice of the Peace on August 15, 2008. After Aubuchon presented the State’s case, Lovejoy’s defense attorney moved for a directed verdict: Judge, the statute as we’ve been talking about all morning requires the culpable mental state of recklessly. And for the State to prove that, they have to show that Sergeant Lovejoy was aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, i.e., the dog was in the car, and that if he left him in there, he would die or become injured. . . . They have shown that he left the car “ the dog in the car. No one is disputing that. They haven’t shown . . . that he knew the dog was back there, but disregarded the risk that he might die. (Doc. 93-1 at 56.) In response, Aubuchon argued, We don’t have to show that he knowingly left the dog in the car. . . . *** We are not arguing that he knew he left the dog in the car, because we would have charged it that way. We’re arguing that he’s reckless. And it is his very conduct and the choices he made that shows he substantially disregarded that risk. Everybody knows that in August in Arizona it is hot in a car. And a trained K-9 officer should be on heightened awareness about what will happen if he forgets the dog in the car. (Doc. 93-1 at 57.) At the close of argument, the Court announced without elaboration, “At this time I’m going to deny the directed verdict.” (Doc. 93-1 at 62.) Lovejoy then put on his defense, after which the Court stated: “All of these so-called distractions [presented by the State as evidence of recklessness] . . . don’t equal “ it doesn’t equal to me to be recklessness. State did not meet their “ their burden here and I find [Lovejoy] not guilty.”

Comments Comments Off on State of Arizona v. Lovejoy
Jan
01

County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Decision to take Lovejoy to trial

By · Comments Comments Off on County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Decision to take Lovejoy to trial

As recounted in Judge Wake’s recent ruling:

Andrew Thomas, then the Maricopa County Attorney, assigned Leonard Ruiz, third in command at the County Attorney’s Office and chief of the trial division, to supervise Lovejoy’s case. Ruiz was never told why he received the assignment. He could not recall another instance of a person with his seniority at the County Attorney’s Office being asked to assist in prosecuting a misdemeanor animal cruelty offense. Deputy County Attorney Anthony Church, who specializes in animal cruelty cases, received the assignment to handle day-to-day tasks associated with the Lovejoy prosecution. Soon after he received the assignment, Church formed the opinion that the case against Lovejoy was weak: [F]rom all the information I had gathered from the police report, [Lovejoy] cared very much about the animal, and I had a hard time believing that he would consciously recognize that the dog was in the back of the car and leave the dog there intentionally or ‚or, you know, understanding that he would be coming back but knowing the dog was back there.

On March 7, 2008, Church and Ruiz jointly requested an “incident review.” An incident review involves submitting the case to a board of senior attorneys who evaluate whether the case should go forward. Church and Ruiz’s written request summarized Simonson’s findings and added, A defense interview with Detective Rob Simonson took place in early February. According to Detective Simonson there is no evidence, which he can point toward, to show that Lovejoy did not simply forget that the dog was in the car. Detective Simonson told the defense attorney the only evidence that exists to prove the reckless mindset is that Lovejoy put the dog into the car and Lovejoy failed to take the dog out of the car, causing the dog’s death. (Doc. 101-2 at 4.) Church and Ruiz then quoted the animal cruelty statute under which Lovejoy was charged (see p. 5, above) and the definition of “recklessly” (see p. 8, above) and concluded: Recklessness requires that the person actually be “aware” of the risk being created by his conduct. In re William G., 192 Ariz. 208, 963 P. 2d 287 (App. 1997). This case needs to be set for incident review to determine whether we have probable cause to prosecute this case and whether we can ethically prosecute this case. (Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).) On March 11, 2008, another Deputy County Attorney, Jeff Trudgian, submitted a memo to Chief Deputy Philip J. MacDonell regarding the Lovejoy case. The memo begins, “Mr. Thomas requested research on the issue of whether “awareness’ of the risk, as needed for a finding of recklessness, can entail forgetfulness “ specifically, as applied to a K-9 police officer with specialized training regarding animal handling.” (Id. at 8.) Trudgian analyzed various cases and the relevant statutes and concluded, The problem is the element of “conscious disregard” that the results would occur or the circumstance exists. It cannot be argued that a person who truly forgot an animal in a vehicle consciously disregarded a known risk. . . .  . . . [T]he facts appear legally insufficient for conviction. (Id. at 10 (emphasis in original).)

On March 28, 2008, yet another Deputy County Attorney, Linda Van Brakel, submitted a memo titled “Lovejoy analysis” to Jim Beene, whose position is unidentified. The memo quotes Church and Ruiz’s statement of facts (contained in their incident review request) and then analyzes the relevant law as applied to those facts. Similar to Trudgian’s memo, Van Brakel’s states, Lovejoy knew the dog was in the car because he placed him there, but the evidence shows he completely forgot about him. In other words, although Lovejoy was no doubt aware of the risk of leaving a dog in a hot car that long, he did not consciously disregard that risk. He simply forgot. That may be negligent, but it is probably not criminally reckless. (Id. at 27 (emphasis in original).) Van Brakel considered but rejected a recklessness argument based on sleep deprivation: Lovejoy should have realized that he was sleep-deprived and might forget about the dog. However, police officers working graveyard shifts, swing shi[f]ts, off-duty jobs, and getting called out at all hours, are commonly sleep deprived and this might be considered normal for a police officer. In other words, loading the dog in the car under the circumstances probably did not create a substantial risk of harm constituting a gross “flagrant and extreme” deviation from the conduct of a police officer or K9 officer. Leaving him in the car, of course, would create a substantial risk of harm constituting a gross deviation from the conduct of a K9 officer, but we lack the “conscious disregard” of such a risk. (Id.) Van Brakel ultimately concluded, “I do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lovejoy acted with criminal recklessness, causing Bandit’s death.” (Id. at 31.) The record before the Court does not reveal whether County Attorney Thomas reviewed any of this material. However, he turned down Church and Ruiz’s incident review request.

In a less than shocking turn of events, Andrew Thomas disregarded all of the advice he was given about prosecuting Officer Lovejoy and turned the case over to his ever-faithful servant, Lisa Aubuchon (who is facing currently facing disciplinary proceedings with her former boss).

Contact a Phoenix Criminal Lawyer today if you are facing criminal charges.

Comments Comments Off on County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Decision to take Lovejoy to trial

Disclaimer

The Arizona Defense Law Blog is published by Phoenix DUI and criminal defense attorney Joshua S. Davidson. Nothing on this website is intended to create an Attorney-Client relationship and the information provided herein is for general information purposes only.

Admin

Contact Us

Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson, PLC (480) 248-7022