DUI PROGRAM

Document Sample
DUI PROGRAM Powered By Docstoc
					                           ARIZONA JUDICIAL COUNCIL

                              Request for Council Action




Date Action                   Type of Action                   Subject:
Requested:                    Requested:                       DUI Committee Report
December 14, 2005
                                 Formal Action/Request

                               X Information Only

                                 Other




FROM: Jerry Landau, Director or Government Affairs




DISCUSSION: Chief Justice Ruth McGregor established the DUI Case Processing
Committee to identify ways in which the Arizona court system can enhance the progress of
DUI cases within the justice system. The Committee invited various agencies and
organizations impacted by DUI offenses to present their comments and recommendations
to the Committee. The Committee held meetings throughout the state in order to fully
understand the problems and concerns of the criminal justice system, and to offer
recommendations to enhance the processing of DUI cases. The committee report is
presented for your review.


RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Review and provide comments.
Report of the DUI Case Processing Committee
November 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The DUI Case Processing Committee conducted a comprehensive examination
of the entire spectrum of activity as it relates to the initiation of a DUI criminal
complaint, subsequent filing, scheduling of hearings, sentencing, and post
disposition sanctions. The committee offers this report of its findings and
recommendations for improving the entire spectrum of DUI case processing in
Arizona’s courts.

The committee discovered that many external factors influence the time within
which courts are able to process DUI cases. For example, actions of executive
branch agencies, including prosecutors, law enforcement, and crime labs,
significantly affect case processing times prior to, and immediately after, a DUI
case is filed. Although the court does not have direct control over these
agencies, it can work in cooperation with them to improve the timeliness of DUI
case processing.

Therefore, the committee recommends that local jurisdictions establish criminal
justice committees to address and resolve DUI processing issues that occur prior
to filing and during the early post-filing stages of a case. These committees
should include, but should not be limited to, representatives from the judiciary,
law enforcement, prosecutors, defense counsel, crime lab personnel, court
clerks, court administrators, MVD, treatment providers, and probation officers.
The committees should address such topics as accelerating the time in which a
DUI case is filed, accelerating the completion of pre-filing documentation,
ensuring that fingerprints are taken at the time of the offense, accelerating
disclosure, retaining experienced DUI prosecutors, and preparing an overall DUI
case management plan for improving DUI case processing times.

Additionally, the committee discovered that citations are not always filed timely
with the court, and that law enforcement officers do not always take fingerprints
of persons arrested for DUI at the time of the arrest. These factors create
confusion about the number of prior offenses a defendant has committed, cause
delay in resolving a pending case because of the uncertainty as to whether
another charge is forthcoming, and result in incomplete reporting in criminal
history records. The committee, therefore, recommends specific rule changes to
improve the timeliness within which citations are filed and to ensure that law
enforcement officers fingerprint all DUI defendants at the time of, or shortly after,
arrest.

The committee recognizes that Arizona’s courts are making a strong effort to
improve the processing of DUI cases. In many instances, steps taken internally


                                         1
by the courts have resulted in the reduction of delay and the better utilization of
court time and resources. However, the courts can take additional steps in order
to move this area of case management from good to great. Therefore, the
committee recommends that each limited jurisdiction court develop a specific
case management plan for processing the DUI caseload. These plans should
include, at a minimum:
    1. The goal of resolving 80% of DUI cases within 120 days from filing to
        disposition, and 100% of DUI cases within 180 days, understanding that
        there might be the need for exceptions to the 100% requirement.1
    2. The steps necessary to accomplish this goal, and
    3. The time within which the court can meet this goal.

The committee discovered several additional factors that have the potential to be
disruptive to effective case management. These include the unilateral ability of
an attorney to file a notice of change of judge; the lack of the defendant’s
presence at the pre-trial conference, effectively preventing any opportunity to
settle the case; the complexity of scheduling attorneys and witnesses for trial;
and the ability of the prosecution to readily dismiss a case, without prejudice, and
re-file it later. The committee recommends a number of specific rule changes to
improve these issues.

The committee views post-adjudication sanctions as an important component of
the global DUI picture. Many DUI offenders benefit from supervised probation.
However, the committee discovered that there is limited, direct scientific data
available as to the appropriate sanction for judges to impose in specific cases.
Judges are unsure which sanctions to impose, despite their desire to use criminal
justice system resources effectively and reduce recidivism. Therefore, the
committee recommends that additional funding be sought for probation services
for second offense DUI defendants and the judicial branch sponsor a post-
adjudication summit to further study the effective use of sanctions.

The committee also recognized certain inconsistencies in the penalties imposed
after a finding of guilt that cause delay. These include the conditions under
which proof of financial responsibility insurance is required and confusion over
whether a defendant who receives a restricted driver’s license may travel to and
from a screening and an education facility in addition to traveling to a probation
officer or a treatment facility. The committee recommends amending the
particular statutes at issue to eliminate any inconsistencies or ambiguities.

The committee encourages the development of a comprehensive training
program for all judges and judicial staff in the area of DUI case processing.
Arizona ranks as a leader in the country in effective judicial education programs.
By drawing upon internal talent, in conjunction with experts from throughout the
nation, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Education Services Division
should develop a model program designed to provide judges and judicial staff
1
    See note to Recommendation 1.1.


                                         2
with the tools to enhance their ability to manage the courtroom and improve case
processing. The committee has identified a number of training opportunities for
the judicial branch.

The committee believes that effective DUI case processing depends in large part
on the court’s ability to know as much about the status of each case as possible.
The Committee recommends that all courts, both AZTEC courts and those with
their own case management systems, uniformly count, track and report DUI
cases to the AOC data warehouse and that the AOC provide the automation tool
to accomplish this recommendation.




                                       3
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 1 – Case Processing

1.1 The committee recommends that within six months, each limited jurisdiction
court be required to develop its own specific case management plan for
processing its DUI cases. These plans are for the purpose of determining
strategies and identifying tools available to the court for meeting an established
performance standard. The plans should be submitted to the presiding judge of
the county where the court is located who in turn should file all of the plans with
the Supreme Court. Each court should update its court management plan
annually. At a minimum, the plan should contain the following:
       • Goal of resolving 80 percent of DUI cases within 120 days from filing to
          disposition, and 100 percent of the cases within 180 days,
          understanding that there might be the need for exceptions to the 100%
          requirement.
       • The steps necessary to accomplish this goal, and
       • The time in which the court can meet this goal.

Note: A review of case processing standards as noted in this report shows that
traditionally most case processing standards are set at a minimum of 90%. The
chair of the committee and the AOC staff are recommending a standard of
resolving 90 percent of DUI cases within 120 days and 98% of DUI cases within
180 days.

1.2. The committee recommends amending Rule 10.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to preclude an automatic change of judge in misdemeanor cases.
The proposed amendment is attached to the report as Exhibit 1.

1.3. The committee recommends amending Rule 14.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to require a firm pre-trial and trial date, and to advise the parties of
specific motion and pre-trial conference dates required by Rule 16, Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure. The proposed amendment is attached to the report as
Exhibit 2.

1.4. The committee recommends amending Rule 16.5, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to require that in a case involving a misdemeanor violation of Title 28,
Chapter 4 (DUI), the presence of all parties at the pre-trial conference be
mandatory. Further, the committee recommends that a pre-trial conference be
held no later than 30 days after the arraignment, that counsel inform the court of
witness availability for the purposes of setting a trial date, and that all motion
deadlines pursuant to Rule 16.1 be set at the pre-trial conference. The proposed
amendment is attached to the report as Exhibit 3.

1.5. The committee recommends amending Rule 16.6, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to provide for dismissal of a case with prejudice, upon a prosecutor’s


                                        4
motion to dismiss on the day of trial, unless the court finds that the interests of
justice deem otherwise. The committee is convinced little justification should
exist for a dismissal on the day of trial in an environment of effective case
management, which provides reasonable and sufficient time for the case to
develop, evidence to be processed, disclosure to be completed and the
necessary pre-trial activity to take place. The proposed amendment is attached
to the report as Exhibit 4.

1.6. The committee recommends amending Rule 8.1, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to require both the prosecutor and defense counsel to notify the court
of any conflict in their schedules or their witnesses’ schedules that might prevent
counsel from proceeding to trial on the assigned date.              The proposed
amendment is attached to the report as Exhibit 5.

Section 2 – Prior to Filing with the Court and Early Post-Filing

2.1. The committee recommends that local jurisdictions establish criminal justice
committees to address and resolve DUI processing issues that occur prior to
filing and during the early post-filing stages of a case. Although the court does
not have control over other agencies within the criminal justice system, the
judicial branch should take reasonable steps to work with its criminal justice
system partners in order to expedite DUI case processing times. Each agency
involved must address pre-filing issues in order to expedite processing from the
time the defendant first encounters a law enforcement officer. Criminal justice
groups that meet on a regular basis to address these issues of mutual concern
help improve case processing times.

These committees should include, but should not be limited to, representatives
from the judiciary, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense counsel, crime lab
personnel, court clerks, court administrators, MVD, treatment providers, and
probation officers. The committees should address topics such as accelerating
the time in which a DUI case is filed, accelerating the completion of pre-filing
documentation, ensuring that fingerprints are taken at the time of the offense,
accelerating disclosure, retaining experienced DUI prosecutors, and preparing an
overall DUI case management plan for improving DUI case processing times.

2.2. The committee recommends that Rule 3, Arizona Rules of Procedure in
Traffic and Boating Cases, be amended to require a citation be filed with the
court within ten business days of being issued. If law enforcement does not file
the citation within ten business days, the citation will not constitute a valid
charging document and the court will reject it.         The specific, proposed
amendment and the conforming change to Rule 4 are attached to the report as
Exhibit 6.

2.3. The committee recommends that Rule 4.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, be amended to ensure that all DUI defendants are fingerprinted at the



                                        5
time of arrest, thereby conforming to A.R.S. § 41-1750(U), but never later than
the first pre-trial conference. The specific, proposed amendment is attached to
the report as Exhibit 7.

2.4. The committee recommends that the Rules of Procedure in Traffic and
Boating Cases, Appendix A, the Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint (ATTC) be
modified to resemble the ATTC used by the City of Glendale, specifically adding
check-off boxes for law enforcement personnel to identify the evidence that is
available in the case. A more detailed ATTC will alert the court and parties to
disclosure and other issues. The check-off boxes offered by the City of Glendale
are:
   • Harassment/Protection Order,
   • 911 Tape,
   • Video Tape,
   • DRE Supplement,
   • Prints Taken,
   • Officer Notes,
   • Color Photos,
   • Interview Tape,
   • Blood Draw, and
   • Fire Incident Number.

The ATTC should also contain a check-off box indicating the language spoken by
the defendant and another to indicate whether the driver has a prior or pending
DUI violation, if known. Finally, the ATTC should contain a box for a right index
finger print. A copy of the Glendale ATTC form is attached to the report as
Exhibit 8.

Section 3 – Post-Adjudication Sanctions

3.1. The committee recommends that the judicial branch sponsor a post-
adjudication sanction summit to study which sanctions work better than others do
for defendants found guilty of DUI. The summit should explore the effectiveness
of all types of DUI sanctions, including those currently authorized by Arizona law
as well as newer products and sanctions such as ankle bracelets and other
electronic monitoring devices.         The summit should also evaluate the
effectiveness of the screening, education and treatment programs utilized
throughout the state. The summit should consider the results achieved by
existing DUI Courts in Arizona. In addition, the summit should review prevention
measures as well.

The summit should include, but should not be limited to representatives from the
judiciary, probation officers and administrators, Department of Health Services,
Department of Corrections, prosecutors, defense counsel, treatment providers,
legislators, addiction physician specialists, and research and statistics
specialists.


                                        6
3.2. The committee recommends that funding be sought for supervised probation
services for second offense DUI defendants. Presently, one superior court is
using state funded probation officers to supervise DUI defendants from limited
jurisdiction courts. The committee believes it is beneficial to provide supervised
probation services for persons convicted of a second offense DUI, thereby
accelerating the pace of intervention. Probation services are available for third
offense DUI defendants, because a third DUI offense is a felony.

3.3. The committee recommends resolution of the current inconsistency between
A.R.S. §§ 28-1387 and 28-3319 that requires proof of financial responsibility
when a defendant is found guilty of a first offense DUI but not for an
administrative per se suspension. The committee believes it is for the legislature
to determine how to resolve the inconsistency.

3.4. The committee recommends that If it is the intent of the statute to permit the
defendant to travel to and from alcohol screening and education as well as a
treatment facility, the legislature should consider amending A.R.S. §§28-1385
and 28-1387 to reflect that intent. A proposed amendment is attached to the
report as Exhibit 9.

Section 4 – Training

4.1. Develop a DUI Case Processing program for the Annual Judicial
Conference.

4.2. Develop Criminal Case Processing Judicial Training Academy for August
2006.

4.3. Continue to incorporate DUI Case Processing information into NJO
curriculum.

4.4. Continue to edit Limited Jurisdiction Court Reference Manual and DUI
Reference Manual to include relevant and current DUI Case Processing
information.

4.5. Develop curriculum for new judicial training programs to include the
following:
       • Judicial Independence and Accountability
       • Court and Case flow Management
                  o Early and Continuous Control of the Case
                  o Early Disposition of the Case
                  o Establishing and Maintaining Firm Dates for all Events
                  o Control Continuances
                  o Specialized Dockets
           • Substantive DUI Statutes



                                        7
          •   Rules
                   o Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, especially relating to:
                            Exclusion and non-exclusion of time pursuant to Rule
                            8
                            Requirements of disclosure pursuant to Rule 15
                            Available sanctions for a witness’ failure to appear at
                            a pre-trial interview, a significant cause of delay in a
                            DUI prosecution
                   o Arizona Rules of Evidence
                   o Arizona Rules of Procedure in Civil Traffic Violation Cases
                   o DHS and DPS Administrative Rules on Blood, Urine and
                      Breath Testing
                   o Relevant DUI Case law
                   o Scientific Evidence
                   o Breath Testing Instruments
                   o Blood Alcohol and Drugs
          • MVD Issues
                   o Case Disposition Coding
                   o Case Reporting Requirements
                   o MVD Requirements and Rejections
                   o Related MVD statutes
          • Use of effective sanctions
                   o Fines
                   o Jail Time
                   o Home Detention
                   o Community Restitution
                   o Ignition Interlock
                   o Probation
                   o Treatment Services
                   o New Technologies
Post-disposition issues including treatment – “What Works” literature

4.6. Include DUI Case Processing requirements into the curriculum as soon as
practicable at regional Judicial Staff Conferences, Arizona Courts Association
Conferences, and local and regional training programs for all AZTEC and non-
AZTEC Courts.

4.7. Present a statewide broadcast regarding DUI Case Processing business
practices.

4.8. Conduct train-the-trainer training for AZTEC field trainers regarding DUI
Case Processing.

4.9. Develop and enhance Centra training programs for all court staff on the
business processes of DUI Case Processing.




                                         8
4.10. Ensure adequate resources to train Superior Court Probation Officers to
employ effective Case Management, Case Documentation, Risk/Needs
Assessments, Evidence-Based Principles, and Motivational Interviewing for
probationers.

4.11. Acquire adequate resources to train and certify city and county probation
officers to supervise misdemeanor DUI probationers.

4.12. Convene a DUI Post-Conviction Summit to include treatment providers,
judges, Arizona Department of Health Services, AOC Probation Divisions and
selected probation office representatives from throughout the state. Invite
national experts where appropriate.

Section 5 – Statistical Reporting

5.1 The committee recommends that courts review the status of their pending
cases and improve the accuracy of the existing data within six months.

5.2. The Committee recommends that all courts, both AZTEC courts and those
with their own case management systems, uniformly count, track and report DUI
cases. The standard for counting and tracking DUI cases must be clearly
defined, consistent among all courts, and capable of accurate measurement. In
this manner, the court community and the public will be confident of obtaining
accurate and consistent information regarding DUI cases throughout the state.
Further, courts and other segments of the criminal justice system will be in a
better position to interpret and utilize the data. Specifically, the committee
recommends that:
    • Cases be reported by defendant.
    • That at least two of the Trial Court Performance Measures developed as
       part of CourTools by the National Center for State Courts be adopted to
       measure performance:
            o Measurement 4; Age of Active Pending Caseload
            o Measurement 5; Trial Date Certainty
            o Other performance measures are available, but the committee
               believes that these two measurements will allow an accurate
               comparison among all courts.
    • Statistical reporting terms should be defined as in CourTools so that all
       courts apply the terms uniformly.
    • The method by which cases are counted must ensure to the extent
       possible that “dismissed” and “re-filed” cases are not counted as two
       separate cases.
    • Any case management system must be capable of producing case aging,
       trial date certainty, and time to disposition reports (discussed under the
       Case Processing section of this report). Standard codes must be
       established and used by the courts in order to accomplish this.
            o For statistical reporting purposes, time should be counted from the


                                       9
              date the case is filed, not the date of arraignment
           o The disposition rate should be identified as a percentage of cases
              completed within various, established time intervals, such as 1 – 30
              days, 31 – 60 days, 61 – 90 days, etc.
   •   The number of trial settings for each case must be captured
   •   The statistical data must be made public record, and made available to all
       courts
           o A report of each court’s status should be made available for all
              courts as a method of comparison
           o The report should be made available on a monthly basis
   •   All courts, AZTEC courts and courts with proprietary case management
       systems must report to the AOC Data Warehouse so that the AOC has
       complete data for all courts, statewide. AOC should distribute this data to
       courts throughout the state, as necessary.

5.3. The committee recommends that the AOC provide all AZTEC courts with the
ability to calculate the above measurements within the AZTEC case
management system as opposed to using a separate software tool. Courts that
maintain their own case management system will need to create this tool
themselves.      Because it will take time for some courts to develop the
programming, methodology, and resources to implement this measurement
ability (or to change how they are currently measuring DUI case management to
conform to the new measurement) and for courts to review the true status of their
cases presently reported as “pending” or “closed,” the committee recommends
that courts be given six months to prepare to report the new DUI case
management performance standards.2 This will also allow courts to clean up
their existing data and work toward improving DUI case management
performance during this period in anticipation of publishing the court’s first report
to the Supreme Court.

5.4. The committee further recommends that the ACJIS system, not the Motor
Vehicle Division, should be the predominant repository of historical and pending
DUI case information as it is for felony case information. To do this, all
applicable agencies will need to maintain complete, consistent, and accurate
records to report to ACJIS.




                                         10
    Re-engineering DUI Case
     Processing in Arizona




                Report of the


        DUI Case Processing Committee




November 2005
Table of Contents


                                                             Page

Table of Contents                                              i

Letter from the Chairman                                      ii

Introduction                                                  iii

Background                                                    iv

Mission                                                       vii

Committee Membership List                                    viii

Executive Summary                                             1

Findings and Recommendations                                  3

  I. Case Processing                                          3

  II. Prior to Filing with the Court and Early Post-Filing    7

  III. Post-Adjudication Sanctions                            10

  IV. Training                                                13

  V. Statistical Reporting                                    18

Exhibits                                                      22




    To assist you in quickly moving through this
    document you can go directly to any page in
    this document by clicking on the topic link listed
    below: [example by clicking on Mission in the
    table of content above you will go directly to
    the mission page]




                                          i
LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN:

Hon. Ruth McGregor,

On behalf of your DUI Case Processing Committee, I am pleased to present the
Committee recommendations. I personally thank you for the opportunity to lead
the extremely important endeavor of reviewing DUI case processing in Arizona
and offering recommendations to enhance the resolution of DUI cases. It is our
hope that our work and the ensuing recommendations will accelerate the
resolution of DUI cases while upholding the tenants of our fair and impartial
system of justice and while contributing to public safety.

I also personally want to thank the members of the committee and the
Administrative Office of the Courts staff for their tireless efforts. The committee’s
success is in large measure due to their commitment, knowledge and devotion to
this project. In addition, I thank all the witnesses of varying disciplines from
throughout the state who gave of their time and their expertise to the committee
discussions and deliberations.




                                                   BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                         ii
INTRODUCTION

 “To develop a fully impartial system of justice, courts must resolve cases swiftly
           and fairly because justice delayed may be justice denied.”
                         – Chief Justice Ruth McGregor
            Good to Great, A Strategic Agenda for Arizona’s Courts

In terms of seriousness and numbers, DUI cases constitute a significant portion
of an Arizona Limited Jurisdiction Court’s caseload. Driving Under the Influence
affects a wide spectrum of society. Conviction of DUI imposes serious burdens
upon the offender. Death and serious injury are common results of collisions
caused by the DUI driver. It is therefore incumbent on Arizona’s courts to resolve
DUI cases in a timely, swift, and fair manner.

The recommendations presented in this report represent the knowledge and
expertise of judges, court staff, defense attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement,
treatment providers, and numerous individuals from other agencies and
organizations with unique knowledge and insight into all aspects of a DUI case.
This knowledge, combined with research into national and local DUI statistics
and case processing standards, provides the basis for the series of
recommendations by the committee that are set forth in the report.




                                                  BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                      To assist you in quickly moving through this
                      document you can go directly to any page in
                      this document by clicking on the topic link listed
                      below: [example by clicking on Mission in the
                      table of content below you will go directly to
                      the mission page]




                                        iii
BACKGROUND

The number of DUI cases filed in Arizona’s limited jurisdiction courts has
increased steadily in recent years. In FY02, there were more than 35,478 cases
filed, in FY03, there were 37,261 cases filed, and in FY04 and FY05, there were
38,348 and 38,478 DUI cases filed, respectively, in limited jurisdiction courts1.

The number of DUI cases filed in Arizona is on the rise despite increasingly
severe penalties enacted by the legislature. For example, the minimum amount
of fines and surcharges a person found guilty of DUI will incur is $1,450, not
including attorney’s fees or costs of compliance with the sentence, such as
collateral sanctions and treatment. Despite the high cost of driving under the
influence, DUI cases continue to increase making it imperative that Arizona’s
limited jurisdiction courts have the ability to process these cases more swiftly.

In FY 05 limited jurisdiction courts in Arizona resolved 66.8 percent of DUI cases
within 120 days and 81.6 percent of DUI cases within 180 days, excluding
warrant time.2 Limited Jurisdiction courts that use the AZTEC system reported it
took 292 days to resolve 90 percent of the DUI cases. 3

In light of these concerns, in June 2005 Chief Justice Ruth McGregor established
the DUI Case Processing Committee to conduct a detailed review of how courts
throughout Arizona process DUI cases. Chief Justice McGregor charged the
committee with examining DUI cases from the time of the commission of the
offense through the imposition of sanctions, with particular emphasis on the
processing of cases once they reach the court. The committee examined the
entire Arizona criminal justice system as it relates to DUI cases and
recommended specific improvements to court processes, rules, and statutes.
The goal of our recommendations is the improvement of DUI case processing as
well as other aspects of the DUI case, ensuring swift justice for DUI defendants
and the citizens of Arizona.

The committee, comprised of limited jurisdiction court judges and court
administrators from around the state and Administrative Office of the Courts staff,

1
  The Administrative Office of the Courts estimated the number of individual defendants charged
with DUI by dividing the number of DUI charges reported by a factor of 2.3, since there are
generally 2.3 DUI charges per defendant. If there is more than one charge on one Arizona Traffic
Ticket and Complaint Form (Multi-charge citation), each charge is counted separately. If there is
more than one charge on one complaint form issued by a prosecutor’s office (Long-form
complaint), the entire complaint (all charges) is counted as one filing and one termination. The
committee believes that this variation in counting should be revised. See Section V. herein for
further discussion.
2
  The data encompasses 93 percent of the DUI cases filed in the state.
3
  AZTEC is the case management system used in the majority of Arizona’s rural courts, but it is
not used in the highest volume courts located in Maricopa and Pima Counties. There is, at this
point, insufficient data in this area to obtain parallel information for the highest volume courts.


                                                iv
moved quickly to complete its assignment. It conducted eleven day-long sessions
of the committee as a whole, in addition to numerous subcommittee
teleconferences, all within a three-month period. The committee held meetings
in Flagstaff, Tucson, Chandler, and Phoenix, making it easier for guests from
throughout the state to participate. Representatives from all levels, and
disciplines of DUI case processing attended, including judges, court
administrators, clerks of court, law enforcement, toxicologists, prosecutors,
defense counsel, a defense toxicology expert, the Motor Vehicle Division, the
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, the Arizona Criminal Justice Information
System, treatment providers, the Department of Health Services, probation
officers, and others. These representatives explained their roles in the DUI case
processing system, presented their concerns with the current system, and
offered suggestions for improvement. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Students
Against Destructive Decisions and the DUI Abatement Council were also invited
to participate, however, were not able to attend any of the committee’s meetings.


The committee also reviewed national research on such topics as caseflow
management, the effectiveness of various types of DUI sanctions, and case
completion time standards. In addition, the committee evaluated DUI case
processing programs from other states. For example, the committee examined
the DUI case processing system in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where DUI
cases are resolved in approximately 45 days.

Although the committee unanimously agreed that Hennepin County’s system
would not be feasible in Arizona, the information gained from Hennepin County
was instructive and a good basis for comparison. For instance, DUI cases in
Hennepin County are not filed with the court until all scientific evidence is
processed. In Arizona, this practice would cause a considerable increase in work
for prosecutors and law enforcement, because all charges would have to be filed
on long-form complaints. In addition, Hennepin County tried six DUI jury trials in
2002. Phoenix Municipal Court alone tried more than 300 DUI jury trials in 2004.
The committee agreed that Hennepin County’s system of processing DUI cases
is so distinguishable from Arizona’s limited jurisdiction court system of processing
these cases, comparison of the two is virtually impossible. However, valuable
information was gained from reviewing the Hennepin County model.

The committee’s report to Chief Justice McGregor presents 30 recommendations
to improve DUI case processing in Arizona. It addresses the entire spectrum of
the process, from offense to completion of treatment or probation. The
recommendations suggest changes to rules and statutes, increased cooperation
between courts and the entire criminal justice system, and a summit to discuss
post-adjudication sanctions.

In making recommendations to amend specific court rules, the committee
focused primarily on misdemeanor DUI cases. However, where appropriate, the



                                         v
committee also addressed Aggravated DUI and criminal traffic cases with
recommendations that affect a broader aspect of the criminal justice system.
The committee does not propose that rule change petitions be filed immediately
to implement the recommendations; a pilot court approach may be more viable.
The committee defers to the discretion of the Chief Justice as to when and how
to employ the various changes.

The committee encourages all courts and judges to look upon these
recommendations as an opportunity to improve the DUI case processing system
in Arizona and move this area of case processing from “Good to Great.”




                                               BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                     vi
Mission
Develop a strategy for re-engineering DUI case processing in order to enhance
public safety and achieve a timely resolution of the case while continuing to
ensure due process and a fair trial for all parties.


Goals
      Identify strengths and weaknesses in the current system.

      Improve court resources by decreasing case processing time, if
      appropriate.

      Assess DUI case processing time from offense to disposition.

      Identify whether a separate speedy trial standard should be set for DUI
      cases.

      Suggest measurable standards by which to evaluate changes.

      Review treatment protocol and availability.

      Assess the effectiveness of sanctions toward preventing DUI.

      Recommend appropriate changes to statute, rule and procedure.




                                            BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                      vii
DUI Case Processing Committee Membership List

Chair:
Jerry Landau, Director of Government Affairs, Arizona Supreme Court


Members:
Hon. James P. Angiulo, Presiding Judge, Pima County Consolidated Justice
Courts

Hon. Thomas L. Chotena, Flagstaff Municipal Court

Hon. B. Robert Dorfman, Chief Presiding Judge, Phoenix Municipal Court

Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer, Arizona Supreme Court

Hon. ManyAnne Majestic, Tempe Municipal Court

Hon. Arthur Markham, Prescott Justice and Municipal Courts

Hon. Jerry Porter, Associate Presiding Judge, Superior Court in Maricopa
County

Marla Randall-Myers, Court Administrator, Superior Court in Navajo County

Hon. Michael Reagan, Presiding Judge, Scottsdale Justice Court

Lisa Royal, Court Administrator, Pima County Justice Court

James R. Scorza, Court Administrator, Phoenix Municipal Court

Hon. Roxanne Song Ong, Assistant Presiding Judge, Phoenix Municipal Court

Hon. J. Matias Tafoya, Presiding Judge, Mesa Municipal Court

Paul Thomas, Court Administrator, Mesa Municipal Court

Hon. R. Michael Traynor, Presiding Judge, Chandler Municipal Court

Hon. David L. Widmaier, Pinetop/Lakeside Justice/City Courts

Hon. Gerald Williams, North Valley Justice Court




                                     viii
Administrative Office of the Courts Staff:
Mary Bellefeuille, AZTEC Trainer

A. Teaunee Duran, Administrative Assistant

Melinda Hardman, Court Management Analyst

Stacy Weltsch, Law Clerk




                                          BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                     ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The DUI Case Processing Committee conducted a comprehensive examination of the
entire spectrum of activity as it relates to the initiation of a DUI criminal complaint,
subsequent filing, scheduling of hearings, sentencing, and post disposition sanctions.
The committee offers this report of its findings and recommendations for improving the
entire spectrum of DUI case processing in Arizona’s courts.

The committee discovered that many external factors influence the time within which
courts are able to process DUI cases. For example, actions of executive branch
agencies, including prosecutors, law enforcement, and crime labs, significantly affect
case processing times prior to, and immediately after, a DUI case is filed. Although the
court does not have direct control over these agencies, it can work in cooperation with
them to improve the timeliness of DUI case processing.

Therefore, the committee recommends that local jurisdictions establish criminal justice
committees to address and resolve DUI processing issues that occur prior to filing and
during the early post-filing stages of a case. These committees should include, but
should not be limited to, representatives from the judiciary, law enforcement,
prosecutors, defense counsel, crime lab personnel, court clerks, court administrators,
MVD, treatment providers, and probation officers. The committees should address such
topics as accelerating the time in which a DUI case is filed, accelerating the completion
of pre-filing documentation, ensuring that fingerprints are taken at the time of the
offense, accelerating disclosure, retaining experienced DUI prosecutors, and preparing
an overall DUI case management plan for improving DUI case processing times.

Additionally, the committee discovered that citations are not always filed timely with the
court, and that law enforcement officers do not always take fingerprints of persons
arrested for DUI at the time of the arrest. These factors create confusion about the
number of prior offenses a defendant has committed, cause delay in resolving a
pending case because of the uncertainty as to whether another charge is forthcoming,
and result in incomplete reporting in criminal history records. The committee, therefore,
recommends specific rule changes to improve the timeliness within which citations are
filed and to ensure that law enforcement officers fingerprint all DUI defendants at the
time of, or shortly after, arrest.

The committee recognizes that Arizona’s courts are making a strong effort to improve
the processing of DUI cases. In many instances, steps taken internally by the courts
have resulted in the reduction of delay and the better utilization of court time and
resources. However, the courts can take additional steps in order to move this area of
case management from good to great. Therefore, the committee recommends that each
limited jurisdiction court develop a specific case management plan for processing the
DUI caseload. These plans should include, at a minimum:
    1. The goal of resolving 80% of DUI cases within 120 days from filing to disposition,
       and 100% of DUI cases within 180 days, understanding that there might be the



                                            1
        need for exceptions to the 100% requirement.4
     2. The steps necessary to accomplish this goal, and
     3. The time within which the court can meet this goal.

The committee discovered several additional factors that have the potential to be
disruptive to effective case management. These include the unilateral ability of an
attorney to file a notice of change of judge; the lack of the defendant’s presence at the
pre-trial conference, effectively preventing any opportunity to settle the case; the
complexity of scheduling attorneys and witnesses for trial; and the ability of the
prosecution to readily dismiss a case, without prejudice, and re-file it later. The
committee recommends a number of specific rule changes to improve these issues.

The committee views post-adjudication sanctions as an important component of the
global DUI picture. Many DUI offenders benefit from supervised probation. However,
the committee discovered that there is limited, direct scientific data available as to the
appropriate sanction for judges to impose in specific cases. Judges are unsure which
sanctions to impose, despite their desire to use criminal justice system resources
effectively and reduce recidivism. Therefore, the committee recommends that additional
funding be sought for probation services for second offense DUI defendants and the
judicial branch sponsor a post-adjudication summit to further study the effective use of
sanctions.

The committee also recognized certain inconsistencies in the penalties imposed after a
finding of guilt that cause delay. These include the conditions under which proof of
financial responsibility insurance is required and confusion over whether a defendant
who receives a restricted driver’s license may travel to and from a screening and an
education facility in addition to traveling to a probation officer or a treatment facility. The
committee recommends amending the particular statutes at issue to eliminate any
inconsistencies or ambiguities.

The committee encourages the development of a comprehensive training program for
all judges and judicial staff in the area of DUI case processing. Arizona ranks as a
leader in the country in effective judicial education programs. By drawing upon internal
talent, in conjunction with experts from throughout the nation, the Administrative Office
of the Courts (AOC) Education Services Division should develop a model program
designed to provide judges and judicial staff with the tools to enhance their ability to
manage the courtroom and improve case processing. The committee has identified a
number of training opportunities for the judicial branch.

The committee believes that effective DUI case processing depends in large part on the
court’s ability to know as much about the status of each case as possible. The
Committee recommends that all courts, both AZTEC courts and those with their own
case management systems, uniformly count, track and report DUI cases to the AOC
data warehouse and that the AOC provide the automation tool to accomplish this
recommendation.
4
    See note to Recommendation 1.1, page 6.
                                                               BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                              2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Case Processing

Arizona’s courts are making a strong effort to improve the processing of DUI cases. In
many instances, steps taken internally by the courts have resulted in the reduction of
delay and the better utilization of court time and resources. However, courts can take
additional steps in order to move this area of case management from “Good to Great.“

Upon filing of the complaint, specific court events are scheduled and subsequently
conducted under the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. These events include the
initial appearance, arraignment, pre-trial conferences, trial and sentencing. It is in the
best case management practice to view every court event as meaningful, an opportunity
to move closer to resolving the case, either by plea or trial. Consequently, examination
of the factors that contribute to the earliest possible disposition, or that operate to
prevent an early disposition, are fundamental to any analysis of timely case processing.
The committee devoted significant discussion and review of these factors, especially
those that appeared to prevent early opportunities for resolution of the case. As a
result, the committee drew several conclusions that were the basis for various rule
change recommendations.

The committee considered the impact of jury trials on DUI case processing. In January
2005, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed misdemeanor jury trial eligibility. As of this
writing, the issue continues to proceed through Arizona trial and appellate courts.
Because the matter is before the courts, the committee does not address DUI jury trial
eligibility in these recommendations.

The committee spent a substantial amount of time debating the value of recommending
an amendment to Rule 8.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, to reduce the time
required to complete a DUI case. While a small minority of the committee’s members
favored such a recommendation, the overwhelming majority did not. Some of the
reasons the committee members expressed for not recommending a change to Rule 8.2
included:
    • A reduced speedy trial time would only benefit the defendant and would not be in
       the best interests of public safety.
    • The reduction in Rule 8 time would be meaningless since the operation of Rules
       8.4 and 8.5 as interpreted by the individual judge could always allow the standard
       to be met.
    • Due to defense counsel conflicts, a true shorter time frame could not be met
       while providing fairness and justice to all parties.
    • The combination of the establishment of case management standards, additional
       training and the rule amendments proposed in this report is a better approach to
       accelerating the disposition of DUI cases.
    • Rule 8.2 addresses the issue of due process, rather than case management, and
       therefore does not go to the heart of case management.



                                            3
However, the committee also notes that in FY 05 limited jurisdiction courts in Arizona
resolved 66.8 percent of DUI cases within 120 days and 81.6 percent of DUI cases
within 180 days, excluding warrant time.5 Limited Jurisdiction courts that use the AZTEC
system reported that it took 292 days to resolve 90 percent of their DUI cases. 6

The committee also considered the American Bar Association’s recommendation that
90% of misdemeanors be completed within 30 days and 100% within 90 days (from
arrest or citation to adjudication or conclusion) and the Conference of State Court
Administrators recommendation that 100% of misdemeanors be completed within 90
days. The committee further considered the positive impact of Maricopa County
Administrative Order No. 2003-038, issued by the Honorable Colin F.Campbell, in the
Superior Court for Maricopa County on April 10, 2003, that required all Maricopa County
trial courts to complete the trial or change of plea in each DUI case within 150 days of
arraignment for in-custody cases and 180 days for out-of-custody cases. Unlike Rule 8,
Judge Campbell’s order addressed actual elapsed days, and only allowed excluded
time for warrants and appeals. The members of the committee concluded that this
Administrative Order resulted in improved DUI case processing times in Maricopa
County trial courts. However, the committee also agreed that more could be done.

Therefore, the committee believes the Supreme Court should establish a specific time
standard goal for limited jurisdiction courts to resolve 80 percent of DUI cases within
120 days from filing to disposition, and 100 percent within 180 days, understanding that
there might be the need for exceptions to the 100% requirement. The committee
believes this standard is realistic but still “sets the bar high” enough to motivate even the
best performing courts to improve their DUI case management performance. With
appropriate resources, a change in culture and many of the proposals recommended by
this committee the courts could achieve this goal. Most importantly, this standard
provides swift, fair justice and enhances public safety. This performance standard
should be reviewed periodically in light of evolving trends and technology.

While the Supreme Court recently considered and rejected proposals to eliminate the
peremptory challenge provision of Rule 10.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
committee believes the rule creates an impediment to effective case management by
providing an attorney with ability to file unilaterally a notice of change of judge. Due to
the volume of cases filed in limited jurisdiction courts, Rule 10.2 has the potential to be
disruptive to effective case management, especially in one or two judge courts. In many
instances, a judge is not immediately available for appointment subsequent to the filing
of a 10.2 notice. There is also an apparent tendency for attorneys to file a 10.2 notice
whenever a pro-tem judge is assigned to a case. The committee believes Rule 10.2
compromises the presiding judge’s ability to manage the court’s calendar effectively and
that amending the rule to preclude an automatic change of judge in misdemeanor cases
will improve case management and reduce case processing times. However, the

5
  The data encompasses 93 percent of the DUI cases filed in the state
6
   AZTEC is the case management system used in the majority of Arizona’s rural courts, but it is not used
in the highest volume courts located in Maricopa and Pima Counties. There is, at this point, insufficient
data to obtain parallel information for the 93 percent of the cases filed.


                                                    4
committee makes a significant distinction between felony and misdemeanor cases
regarding the application of Rule 10.2 and does not recommend any modification to
Rule 10.2 as it pertains to felony cases.

The committee finds that establishing firm hearing and trial dates at the earliest possible
time will emphasize the importance of these court events, as well as clarify the
schedule. Additionally, the committee finds that the court and the parties do not always
fully exploit pre-trial conferences in an effort to resolve issues, facilitate disclosure or
pursue resolution of the case. Many times, as the current rules provide, the defendant
is not present at the pre-trial conference. The defendant’s absence effectively prevents
any opportunity to settle the case.

The committee finds that a significant cause of delay in the ultimate resolution of a DUI
case is the practice of dismissing the case without prejudice, allowing for re-filing. In
this situation, the prosecutor for various reasons may not be ready to proceed on the
day of trial and subsequently moves for dismissal, resulting in a dismissal without
prejudice. The state may then re-file a complaint later and the entire case sequence
starts all over again. The committee determined the reason for this to be failure of the
state’s witness to be present or the scientific evidence is not available by the time of
trial. This scenario can lead to a single case requiring more than a year to resolve. The
committee finds that this practice is not in the public’s interest and undermines the
public safety and the expectation of a timely resolution of the case.

The committee finds that a significant obstacle to faster resolution of DUI cases is the
courts’ difficulty in coordinating attorney and witness schedules. A small number of
Arizona attorneys represent a large number of DUI defendants. Sometimes, these
attorneys are scheduled to appear in multiple courts at the same time, complicating trial
scheduling for any given court. Availability of law enforcement is also a complicating
factor for trial scheduling. Officer training, vacation, and other conflicts must be
considered.

The committee finds that a major scheduling impediment in DUI cases is the defense
toxicology expert. In Arizona, one defense expert testifies in nearly all of the DUI trials,
and it is difficult for courts to schedule a trial on a day when this expert is not already in
court. In essence, this expert’s schedule holds the courts hostage, often causing judges
to grant multiple continuances to accommodate the defense expert. This is an issue to
some degree outside the scope of the committee’s authority to change. However, by
recommending criminal rule amendments the committee hopes to enable courts to
better manage attorney and witness schedules.

Recommendations

1.1 The committee recommends that within six months, each limited jurisdiction court be
required to develop its own specific case management plan for processing its DUI
cases. These plans are for the purpose of determining strategies and identifying tools
available to the court for meeting an established performance standard. The plans



                                              5
should be submitted to the presiding judge of the county where the court is located who
in turn should file all of the plans with the Supreme Court. Each court should update its
court management plan annually. At a minimum, the plan should contain the following:
        • Goal of resolving 80 percent of DUI cases within 120 days from filing to
           disposition, and 100 percent of the cases within 180 days, understanding that
           there might be the need for exceptions to the 100% requirement.
        • The steps necessary to accomplish this goal, and
        • The time in which the court can meet this goal.

Note: A review of case processing standards as noted in this report shows that
traditionally most case processing standards are set at a minimum of 90%. The chair of
the committee and the AOC staff are recommending a standard of resolving 90 percent
of DUI cases within 120 days and 98% of DUI cases within 180 days.

1.2. The committee recommends amending Rule 10.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to preclude an automatic change of judge in misdemeanor cases. The
proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit 1.

1.3. The committee recommends amending Rule 14.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to require a firm pre-trial and trial date, and to advise the parties of specific
motion and pre-trial conference dates required by Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit 2.

1.4. The committee recommends amending Rule 16.5, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to require that in a case involving a misdemeanor violation of Title 28,
Chapter 4 (DUI), the presence of all parties at the pre-trial conference be mandatory.
Further, the committee recommends that a pre-trial conference be held no later than 30
days after the arraignment, that counsel inform the court of witness availability for the
purposes of setting a trial date, and that all motion deadlines pursuant to Rule 16.1 be
set at the pre-trial conference. The proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit 3.

1.5. The committee recommends amending Rule 16.6, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to provide for dismissal of a case with prejudice, upon a prosecutor’s motion
to dismiss on the day of trial, unless the court finds that the interests of justice deem
otherwise. The committee is convinced little justification should exist for a dismissal on
the day of trial in an environment of effective case management, which provides
reasonable and sufficient time for the case to develop, evidence to be processed,
disclosure to be completed and the necessary pre-trial activity to take place. The
proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit 4.

1.6. The committee recommends amending Rule 8.1, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to require both the prosecutor and defense counsel to notify the court of any
conflict in their schedules or their witnesses’ schedules that might prevent counsel from
proceeding to trial on the assigned date. The proposed amendment is attached as
Exhibit 5.


                                                           BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                             6
II. Prior to Filing with the Court and Early Post-Filing

Many external factors significantly affect the time within which courts are able to
process DUI cases. Actions of executive branch agencies, including prosecutors, law
enforcement, and crime labs significantly affect case processing times prior to, and
immediately after, a DUI case is filed. Although the court does not have direct control
over these agencies, it can work in cooperation with them to improve the timeliness of
DUI case processing.

The committee identified several sources of delay during the time commencing with the
commission of the offense to the early stages of the case after filing. Law enforcement
agencies do not always complete their departmental reports timely. A law enforcement
departmental report consists of many parts and separate documents that may include a
copy of the defendant’s Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) record, breath test results, a tow
truck form, a property control form, and other documents. The failure to submit a
complete departmental report timely to the prosecutor causes delay in the exchange of
disclosure and delay in the resolution of a case. In fact, prosecutors and defense
attorneys are often not able to determine what forms of evidence are available on a
particular case until the departmental report is completed and filed with the prosecutor.

Another cause for delay is that citations are not always filed with the court timely. The
failure to file citations promptly creates confusion about the number of prior offenses a
defendant has committed. It may also cause delay in resolving a pending case when
there is uncertainty as to whether another charge is forthcoming.

In addition, some law enforcement agencies do not deliver blood samples to the crime
laboratory promptly. Law enforcement officers take anywhere from two weeks to two
months to get blood samples to the lab. In those jurisdictions where the prosecutor files
DUI charges immediately upon the commission of the offense, the failure to deliver
blood samples to the lab causes delay in the exchange of disclosure. In those
jurisdictions where DUI charges are not filed until blood test results are completed, the
failure to deliver samples timely results in delay and confusion about the status of
forthcoming or pending charges.

Another impediment to the use of blood testing is the time the crime lab takes to
process blood alcohol samples, while not universal, in some cases two to four months.
Blood drug tests can take even longer. Some jurisdictions wait until they receive the
results of the test before filing a case. Other jurisdictions file a case immediately, and
then wait for the results. While improvements are in the offing, slow turn around time for
blood tests in some cases currently an impediment to DUI case processing.

Finally, law enforcement officers do not always take the fingerprints of persons arrested
for DUI at the time of the arrest. Although A.R.S. § 41-1750(U) requires the arresting
authority to take legible fingerprints of all persons arrested for DUI, the committee found




                                            7
that many officers do not do so.7 A contributing factor is that many DPS substations are
not equipped with fingerprinting equipment, such as LiveScan, primarily because of the
cost, which DPS estimates to be $50,000 per machine. LiveScan fingerprints are
superior to ink fingerprints because the quality is better and there is no delay caused by
mailing the prints to the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AzAFIS).
However, law enforcement officers do not normally take manual fingerprints, either.
Another factor contributing to the failure to take fingerprints at the time of an arrest is
that the AzAFIS office in Phoenix is not open from midnight to 6:00 AM for
fingerprinting, even though this period coincides with the most DUI arrests.

If a law enforcement officer cites and releases a defendant without fingerprinting a
number of problems occur. First, law enforcement has trouble tracking down the
defendant later. In fact, due to limited resources many law enforcement agencies do
not even serve warrants for misdemeanor cases. Then, if a defendant is eventually
found, the court then must assume the responsibility to order fingerprinting.
Additionally, if a person is arrested for DUI and not fingerprinted, the arrest is not
entered in the criminal history record, so if a defendant is not fingerprinted at the outset,
prior convictions may not be discovered timely. Furthermore, a fingerprint taken at the
time of conviction is often only taken as a “non-arrest” print. This means it is taken only
so that the jail can identify who is in the facility and the print never is entered into the
criminal history record or the national FBI system. Finally, some law enforcement
agencies will not fingerprint a defendant arrested by another agency, so law
enforcement rarely, if ever, fingerprint those defendants. A more thorough print policy
would not only benefit the courts, it would also reduce the number of identification
hearings an officer must attend.

Recommendations

2.1. The committee recommends that local jurisdictions establish criminal justice
committees to address and resolve DUI processing issues that occur prior to filing and
during the early post-filing stages of a case. Although the court does not have control
over other agencies within the criminal justice system, the judicial branch should take
reasonable steps to work with its criminal justice system partners in order to expedite
DUI case processing times. Each agency involved must address pre-filing issues in
order to expedite processing from the time the defendant first encounters a law
enforcement officer. Criminal justice groups that meet on a regular basis to address
these issues of mutual concern help improve case processing times.

These committees should include, but should not be limited to, representatives from the
judiciary, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense counsel, crime lab personnel, court
clerks, court administrators, MVD, treatment providers, and probation officers. The
committees should address topics such as accelerating the time in which a DUI case is
filed, accelerating the completion of pre-filing documentation, ensuring that fingerprints

7
   On the issuance and service of a summons for a defendant charged with DUI, the court must order
fingerprinting of the defendant, however serving a citation upon the defendant is not considered a
summons.


                                                8
are taken at the time of the offense, accelerating disclosure, retaining experienced DUI
prosecutors, and preparing an overall DUI case management plan for improving DUI
case processing times.

2.2. The committee recommends that Rule 3, Arizona Rules of Procedure in Traffic and
Boating Cases, be amended to require a citation be filed with the court within ten
business days of being issued. If law enforcement does not file the citation within ten
business days, the citation will not constitute a valid charging document and the court
will reject it. The specific, proposed amendment and the conforming change to Rule 4
are attached as Exhibit 6.

2.3. The committee recommends that Rule 4.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, be
amended to ensure that all DUI defendants are fingerprinted at the time of arrest,
thereby conforming to A.R.S. § 41-1750(U), but never later than the first pre-trial
conference. The specific, proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit 7.

2.4. The committee recommends that the Rules of Procedure in Traffic and Boating
Cases, Appendix A, the Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint (ATTC) be modified to
resemble the ATTC used by the City of Glendale, specifically adding check-off boxes for
law enforcement personnel to identify the evidence that is available in the case. A more
detailed ATTC will alert the court and parties to disclosure and other issues. The check-
off boxes offered by the City of Glendale are:
    • Harassment/Protection Order,
    • 911 Tape,
    • Video Tape,
    • DRE Supplement,
    • Prints Taken,
    • Officer Notes,
    • Color Photos,
    • Interview Tape,
    • Blood Draw, and
    • Fire Incident Number.
The ATTC should also contain a check-off box indicating the language spoken by the
defendant and another to indicate whether the driver has a prior or pending DUI
violation, if known. Finally, the ATTC should contain a box for a right index finger print.
A copy of the Glendale ATTC form is attached as Exhibit 8.8




8
  The Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint is also utilized for non-traffic related misdemeanors such as
harassment and domestic violence offenses, thus the reference to harassment/protection order and 911
tape.

                                                                      BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                    9
III. Post Adjudication Sanctions

The committee viewed post-adjudication sanctions as an important component of the
global DUI picture. Although the committee’s overriding concern was public safety, the
committee realized the importance of working with a defendant and treating any
underlying substance abuse problem that may lead to recidivism. However, the
committee discovered that there is limited, direct scientific data available as to which
sanctions work better than others for defendants found guilty of DUI in Arizona. As a
result, judges are unsure as to which sanctions will ultimately make a positive change in
the defendant’s behavior, despite the judge’s desire to use criminal justice system
resources effectively and reduce recidivism. The committee recommends that the
judicial branch sponsor a post-adjudication summit to further study the effective use of
sanctions.

Arizona law currently authorizes a variety of sanctions, including mandatory alcohol
screening, education, treatment, jail, fines, and driving privilege sanctions. Despite the
lack of adequate, sufficient scientific data defining the appropriateness of some
sanctions, testimony presented convinced the committee that increased probation
supervision, screening, education, and treatment are important components of a DUI
sentence.

The committee did identify several specific problems in the area of post-adjudication
sanctions. First, the Department of Corrections (DOC) does not provide substance
abuse education or treatment for inmates who are sentenced to less than six months in
prison. Since the minimum sentence and the one most often imposed for an
Aggravated DUI, is four months in prison, with the possibility that a defendant may
spend a portion of that time in the county jail as “time served” a defendant sentenced to
the statutory minimum for an Aggravated DUI does not receive any education or
treatment until released from prison. The committee urges DOC to review its DUI
program.

Second, although A.R.S. §36-2006 grants some authority to the Department of Health
Services to monitor education and treatment programs, it does not provide the
Department the authority to establish the curriculum for education and treatment. Since
the education and treatment facilities are free to establish their own curriculum within
broad guidelines there is variation in the effectiveness of the programs.

Third, the committee was reminded that there is limited availability in rural Arizona of
screening, education, and treatment services. This point has been well known for years.

Furthermore, the committee learned that the various agencies that provide screening,
education, and treatment to defendants found guilty of DUI do not coordinate their
efforts to maximize the limited resources available. The Department of Health Services,
probation departments, courts, Regional Behavioral Health Associations, Department of
Corrections, and private providers all play a part in the assessment, education, and
treatment of these defendants. However, communication among these entities is



                                           10
limited at best.

Finally, the committee heard from and was impressed with the Maricopa County and
City of Glendale DUI Courts. These DUI Courts process cases more effectively, since
DUI judges and commissioners devote all of their time to handling only these types of
cases. These judges and commissioners know the issues, the attorneys who routinely
handle the cases, and the defendants. The Committee was presented with a publication
from the National Drug Court Institute web site noting that DUI Courts achieve
increased success with individual defendants based upon treatment with intensive
supervision9 in areas such as completion of alcohol assessments and treatment
programs and compliance with probation, thereby reducing recidivism among these
defendants. However, the Maricopa County and the City of Glendale DUI Courts report
that their intensive efforts come at a price in that a significant amount of the judge’s or
commissioner’s time is spent on each case.

The committee identified a specific inconsistency in current statutes that regulate the
action the Motor Vehicle Division can take against the license of a driver found to be
driving with a BAC of .08 or above. If a defendant’s driving privilege is first suspended
under A.R.S. §28-1387, Arizona’s “administrative per se law,” the defendant is not
required to obtain proof of financial responsibility (SR-22) in order to have the license
reinstated. However, pursuant to §28-3319, if a defendant is found guilty of DUI,
without first receiving an administrative per se suspension, the defendant must present
proof of financial responsibility. If the driver later receives an administrative per se
suspension for the same DUI arrest, MVD will cancel the SR-22 insurance requirement.

This inconsistency results in delay in the resolution of DUI cases as attorneys seek to
continue the case until after the administrative per se suspension is imposed. The
committee is not offering a recommendation on how to resolve this inconsistency. That
is for the legislature to address. However, it is the committee’s opinion that the
inconsistency should be resolved. Removing the inconsistency will reduce delay.

The committee also learned that A.R.S. §§ 28-1385(F) and 28-1387(E) (3) only
specifically allow a defendant convicted of DUI, who receives a restricted driver’s
license, to travel to and from a “treatment facility.” This term is sometimes interpreted
narrowly, prohibiting the defendant from traveling to and from a screening facility or an
alcohol education program. If it is the intent of the statute to permit the defendant to
travel to and from alcohol screening and education as well as a treatment facility, the
legislature should consider clarifying the statutes in that regard.

Recommendations

3.1. The committee recommends that the judicial branch sponsor a post-adjudication
sanction summit to study which sanctions work better than others do for defendants
found guilty of DUI. The summit should explore the effectiveness of all types of DUI
sanctions, including those currently authorized by Arizona law as well as newer
9
    DWI Courts and DWI/Drug Courts: Reducing Recidivism, Saving Lives, www.ndci.org/dwi_court.htm


                                                  11
products and sanctions such as ankle bracelets and other electronic monitoring devices.
The summit should also evaluate the effectiveness of the screening, education and
treatment programs utilized throughout the state. The summit should consider the
results achieved by existing DUI Courts in Arizona. In addition, the summit should
review prevention measures as well.

The summit should include, but should not be limited to representatives from the
judiciary, probation officers and administrators, Department of Health Services,
Department of Corrections, prosecutors, defense counsel, treatment providers,
legislators, addiction physician specialists, and research and statistics specialists.

3.2. The committee recommends that funding be sought for supervised probation
services for second offense DUI defendants. Presently, one superior court is using
state funded probation officers to supervise DUI defendants from limited jurisdiction
courts. The committee believes it is beneficial to provide supervised probation services
for persons convicted of a second offense DUI, thereby accelerating the pace of
intervention. Probation services are available for third offense DUI defendants, because
a third DUI offense is a felony.

3.3. The committee recommends resolution of the current inconsistency between A.R.S.
§§ 28-1387 and 28-3319 that requires proof of financial responsibility when a defendant
is found guilty of a first offense DUI but not for an administrative per se suspension. The
committee believes it is for the legislature to determine how to resolve the
inconsistency.

3.4. The committee recommends that If it is the intent of the statute to permit the
defendant to travel to and from alcohol screening and education as well as a treatment
facility, the legislature should consider amending A.R.S. §§28-1385 and 28-1387 to
reflect that intent. A proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit 9.




                                                    BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                            12
IV. Training

In order for the Court to accomplish the first goal of the Strategic Agenda for Arizona’s
Courts “Providing Access to Swift and Fair Justice,” the committee recommends the
continuation and further development of a comprehensive training program for all
judges and judicial staff in the area of DUI case processing. Because of a wealth of
talented trainers and a history of effective judicial branch education programs, Arizona
ranks as a nationwide leader in judicial training. In conjunction with experts from
throughout the nation, the AOC Education Services Division should continue to develop
model programs designed to provide judges and judicial staff with the tools to enhance
their ability to manage the courtroom and improve case processing.

Arizona should serve as a leader in the national focus on DUI training through its
participation with the National Center for State Courts, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and the National Judicial College.             After hearing from
representatives of multiple disciplines within and outside the judicial community, the
committee identified a number of training opportunities for the judicial branch in order to
enhance DUI case processing.


Judicial Education

The Arizona Supreme Court currently provides a number of training opportunities for
judges through the Annual Judicial Conference, Judicial Training Academies, New
Judge Orientation, and computer-based learning.

Annual Judicial Conference. Pursuant to Administrative Order 99-08, all judges must
attend the Annual Judicial Conference. Each year the conference showcases national
speakers and offers a number of relevant training opportunities for all judges. The
Judicial College of Arizona Subcommittee on the Judicial Conference creates the
curriculum for the three-day conference.

Judicial Training Academy. The Arizona Judicial College conducts two Judicial Training
Academies for limited jurisdiction court judges each year. These intensive three-day
training programs focus on topics such as jury trials and advanced evidence.

New Judge Orientation. Following Supreme Court Administrative Order 99-08, the
Committee on Judicial Education and Training (COJET) oversees a three-week New
Judge Orientation (“NJO”) for all new limited jurisdiction court judges and two weeks for
all general jurisdiction court judges. During NJO, faculty train new judges on
substantive law and procedures and functions of the court. Relevant NJO (limited
jurisdiction court) curriculum focuses on DUI Laws and Effective Case Management.
NJO curriculum also includes activities for new judges to conduct various criminal
proceedings in a mock trial setting with evaluations from expert judges. At NJO, new
judges receive an annually updated Limited Jurisdiction Court Reference Manual and
DUI Reference Manual with sections relevant to DUI Case Processing.



                                            13
Distance Learning. Currently, six computer-based training programs provide a self-
paced learning opportunity for judges. In addition, periodic satellite broadcasts provide
an excellent opportunity for judicial staff and judges to learn new information without
leaving the courthouse.

Annual Justice of the Peace and Magistrate Associations’ Conferences. Both the
Arizona Justice of the Peace Association and the Arizona Magistrate’s Association hold
annual conferences. These conferences provide excellent opportunities for the judges
to receive training on current issues in the law and to participate in many other
substantive and procedural courses.

Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Judicial Conference – The Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety holds a judicial conference each year. This conference provides an
excellent opportunity for judges to receive training in criminal and civil traffic related
matters and to exchange ideas.

Recommendations

4.1. Develop a DUI Case Processing program for the Annual Judicial Conference.
4.2. Develop Criminal Case Processing Judicial Training Academy for August 2006.
4.3. Continue to incorporate DUI Case Processing information into NJO curriculum.
4.4. Continue to edit Limited Jurisdiction Court Reference Manual and DUI Reference
Manual to include relevant and current DUI Case Processing information.
4.5. Develop curriculum for new judicial training programs to include the following:
       • Judicial Independence and Accountability
       • Court and Case flow Management
                   o Early and Continuous Control of the Case
                   o Early Disposition of the Case
                   o Establishing and Maintaining Firm Dates for all Events
                   o Control Continuances
                   o Specialized Dockets
          • Substantive DUI Statutes
          • Rules
                   o Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, especially relating to:
                           Exclusion and non-exclusion of time pursuant to Rule 8
                           Requirements of disclosure pursuant to Rule 15
                           Available sanctions for a witness’ failure to appear at a pre-
                           trial interview, a significant cause of delay in a DUI
                           prosecution
                   o Arizona Rules of Evidence
                   o Arizona Rules of Procedure in Civil Traffic Violation Cases
                   o DHS and DPS Administrative Rules on Blood, Urine and Breath
                      Testing
                   o Relevant DUI Case law
                   o Scientific Evidence


                                           14
                   o Breath Testing Instruments
                   o Blood Alcohol and Drugs
          •   MVD Issues
                   o Case Disposition Coding
                   o Case Reporting Requirements
                   o MVD Requirements and Rejections
                   o Related MVD statutes
          •   Use of effective sanctions
                   o Fines
                   o Jail Time
                   o Home Detention
                   o Community Restitution
                   o Ignition Interlock
                   o Probation
                   o Treatment Services
                   o New Technologies
          •   Post-disposition issues including treatment – “What Works” literature

Judicial Staff Training

Currently, the COJET Judicial Staff Education Committee (JSEC) sponsors three
Judicial Staff Conferences each year. JSEC holds these conferences in Phoenix,
Tucson, and Flagstaff. Statewide, 117 training coordinators provide a vital training
liaison between the Education Services Division of the Administrative Office of the
Courts and the approximately 10,000 court staff located around the state. Education
Services also coordinates training through statewide broadcasts and instructor-led
online training using Centra, a virtual classroom application.

Approximately 1900 individuals (excluding probation employees) in 130 courts
statewide use AZTEC, the Arizona state case/financial management system. The Court
Services Division of the AOC and statewide field trainers provide ongoing AZTEC
training, in both face-to-face and distance learning formats. Every month, AZTEC
trainers conduct on-line courses using Centra.

The remaining non-AZTEC courts conduct their own training within individual courts and
within designated regions of the state. The diversity among non-AZTEC courts requires
individualized automation training for each court. Non-AZTEC courts may not have
access to Centra training. Centra access will require an investment in hardware and
ITD time for these courts. All AZTEC and non-AZTEC court staff must understand the
business process of DUI case processing.

Recommendations

4.6. Include DUI Case Processing requirements into the curriculum as soon as
practicable at regional Judicial Staff Conferences, Arizona Courts Association




                                           15
Conferences, and local and regional training programs for all AZTEC and non-AZTEC
Courts.
4.7. Present a statewide broadcast regarding DUI Case Processing business practices.
4.8. Conduct train-the-trainer training for AZTEC field trainers regarding DUI Case
Processing.
4.9. Develop and enhance Centra training programs for all court staff on the business
processes of DUI Case Processing.

Probation Officer Training

The COJET Subcommittee on Probation Education (COPE) oversees probation officer
training. Arizona requires all probation officers responsible for supervising felony DUI
probationers to complete the Probation Officer Certification Academy. Probation
officers supervising felony DUI probationers work for the superior court.

No standard certification exists for county and city probation officers who supervise
misdemeanor DUI probationers. Education, skills and abilities vary among probation
officers supervising misdemeanant probationers. In most jurisdictions, probation
officers do not supervise misdemeanor DUI offenders. Some jurisdictions, such as the
Chandler Municipal Court, utilize a staff of probation officers to supervise DUI offenders.
Most limited jurisdiction courts either sentence DUI offenders to unsupervised probation
or do not include any probation sentencing. Currently, Superior Court Probation
Officers fill all the available slots at the academies; no funding exists for city and county
probation officers to attend the probation academies.

Adequate training for probation officers supervising alcohol and substance abusers
must include Case Management, Case Documentation, Risk/Needs Assessments,
Evidence-Based Principles, and Motivational Interviewing.                 In addition, Arizona
Certification requires new probation officers to complete one year of service in the field
and receive a formal recommendation from Chief Probation Officers. Because Chief
Probation Officers do not supervise city probation officers, the Chiefs could not certify
that the city probation officers have the skills and abilities for certification.

The Arizona Probation Certification Academy training includes the following relevant
DUI case processing aspects:

   •   Criminal Conduct and Addictive Behavior
          o Identifying pathways to alcohol addiction
          o Relationship between alcohol and criminal conduct cycle
   •   Treatment and Supervision of Substance Abusing Offenders
          o Identifying principles of effective substance abuse treatment
          o Role of the officer in the treatment process
          o Process used for treatment placements
          o Sanctions for continued substance abuse
   •   Lapse Relapse, Aftercare and Maintenance
          o Methods that offenders use to avoid compliance


                                             16
          o Common stressors for adults and juveniles
          o 12-Step Programs

Recommendations

4.10. Ensure adequate resources to train Superior Court Probation Officers to employ
effective Case Management, Case Documentation, Risk/Needs Assessments,
Evidence-Based Principles, and Motivational Interviewing for probationers.
4.11. Acquire adequate resources to train and certify city and county probation officers
to supervise misdemeanor DUI probationers.
4.12. Convene a DUI Post-Conviction Summit to include treatment providers, judges,
Arizona Department of Health Services, AOC Probation Divisions and selected
probation office representatives from throughout the state. Invite national experts where
appropriate.




                                                BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                           17
V. Statistical Reporting

Effective DUI case processing depends in large part on the court’s ability to know as
much about the status of each case as possible. However, the data that the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) collects, while beneficial in determining court
workload, is not optimum for purposes of case management. Additionally, courts
throughout the state do not use consistent codes when inputting the data, thereby
creating problems in interpreting the data at a statewide level. For example, there are
640 different codes in AZTEC, statewide, related to setting trials alone. The Committee
recommends that all courts, both AZTEC courts and those with other case management
systems, uniformly count, track and report DUI cases, and that the Supreme Court
provides AZTEC courts with a tool to do so.

The committee finds that the statistics presently collected are inconsistent for purposes
of DUI case processing. For example, a case filed on an ATTC is counted separately
by individual charges, while a case that is filed by a long-form complaint is counted as
one case. Although this practice follows statute, tracking caseload by charge does not
provide an accurate measure for case management. In fact, it portrays an inaccurate
picture of case dispositions, because it does not clearly reflect whether a case that is
filed, then dismissed and re-filed, is double counted. Cases must be reported by
defendant in order to present an accurate picture of the number of DUI offenders in this
state10.

Effective case management and processing depends in large part on a court’s ability to
know as much information about the status of a case as possible. For instance, the
court will benefit from knowing the time to disposition, age, and number of
continuances, amount of excluded time, and other data elements for a particular case.
Complete data will allow the court to develop a case management plan, engage in
future planning, learn the demographics of those appearing before the court, and
develop and use appropriate sanctions for sentencing.

Currently, the AOC collects data through its AZTEC case management system.
Approximately 42% of all cases in the state are processed through AZTEC. The
remaining 58% of the cases are processed through a courts’ own separate case
management systems and with data being reported to the AOC individually. The data
between these two groups of courts, as well as the data within each group, is often
inconsistent due to data input error and lack of consistency across the courts in the use
of specific codes for specific events.

A new generation of case management systems is currently being developed. The
Tempe Municipal Court and the Superior Court in Pima County, in conjunction with the
AOC, are each developing a system to replace the AZTEC case management system in
limited jurisdiction courts and general jurisdiction courts, respectively. These new
10
  The committee realizes that current law requires the reporting of DUI cases by charge in order to
determine judicial productivity credits for Justices of the Peace pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-125 . So long as
the JPC formula remains in place reporting by charge must continue as well.



                                                   18
systems will greatly enhance the courts’ ability to collect and use data. The
development of these systems is a positive step forward and is in line with the findings
and recommendations of the committee.

The committee finds a strong need to enhance the statistical gathering and reporting
capabilities for DUI caseloads in order to assist courts. Presently, courts do not have all
of the data elements needed to manage their caseload effectively. Courts find it difficult
to accurately measure the number of DUI cases filed in their court and track the
timeliness with which these cases are processed.              Without easily accessible
information, courts are unable to take the necessary steps to improve. Despite these
limitations, courts are accomplishing a great deal with the data that is available to them.
However, in the future, courts will need to be vigilant about entering all relevant
information utilizing standard practices in order to gain greater benefit in reporting and
tracking specifically on DUI caseloads.

The committee finds that accurate historical data of DUI adjudications throughout
Arizona is nearly impossible to obtain. The most complete statewide repository of DUI
convictions is the Motor Vehicle Division database, which receives all of its conviction
information from the courts.11 This database does not include pending cases, however
pending case information could possibly be extrapolated by searching the MVD
database for implied consent or administrative per se affidavit records. Unfortunately,
even this attempt is elusive since an increasing number of agencies are switching to the
use of blood samples and an administrative per se affidavit is not filed with MVD until
the results of the blood test are received. This could take many months.

Since prior conviction and pending case information is hard to obtain, judges regularly
do not have complete information about a defendant at the time of sentencing.
Accordingly, judges often do not know the “whole story.” This means that some
defendants are found guilty of a first DUI offense when, in fact, the defendant may
actually be guilty of his second or third DUI offense.

Recommendations

The committee offers a number of recommendations to enhance the statistical, data
collection and data usage capabilities of the judicial branch.

5.1 The committee recommends that courts review the status of their pending cases
and improve the accuracy of the existing data within six months.

5.2. The Committee recommends that all courts, both AZTEC courts and those with
their own case management systems, uniformly count, track and report DUI cases. The
standard for counting and tracking DUI cases must be clearly defined, consistent among
all courts, and capable of accurate measurement. In this manner, the court community
and the public will be confident of obtaining accurate and consistent information
regarding DUI cases throughout the state. Further, courts and other segments of the
11
     The MVD database contains conviction information only, not pending caseload.


                                                    19
criminal justice system will be in a better position to interpret and utilize the data.
Specifically, the committee recommends that:
    • Cases be reported by defendant.
    • That at least two of the Trial Court Performance Measures developed as part of
       CourTools by the National Center for State Courts be adopted to measure
       performance:
           o Measurement 4; Age of Active Pending Caseload
           o Measurement 5; Trial Date Certainty
           o Other performance measures are available, but the committee believes
               that these two measurements will allow an accurate comparison among all
               courts.
    • Statistical reporting terms should be defined as in CourTools so that all courts
       apply the terms uniformly.
    • The method by which cases are counted must ensure to the extent possible that
       “dismissed” and “re-filed” cases are not counted as two separate cases.
    • Any case management system must be capable of producing case aging, trial
       date certainty, and time to disposition reports (discussed under the Case
       Processing section of this report). Standard codes must be established and used
       by the courts in order to accomplish this.
           o For statistical reporting purposes, time should be counted from the date
               the case is filed, not the date of arraignment
           o The disposition rate should be identified as a percentage of cases
               completed within various, established time intervals, such as 1 – 30 days,
               31 – 60 days, 61 – 90 days, etc.
    • The number of trial settings for each case must be captured
    • The statistical data must be made public record, and made available to all courts
           o A report of each court’s status should be made available for all courts as a
               method of comparison
           o The report should be made available on a monthly basis
    • All courts, AZTEC courts and courts with proprietary case management systems
       must report to the AOC Data Warehouse so that the AOC has complete data for
       all courts, statewide. AOC should distribute this data to courts throughout the
       state, as necessary.

5.3. The committee recommends that the AOC provide all AZTEC courts with the ability
to calculate the above measurements within the AZTEC case management system as
opposed to using a separate software tool. Courts that maintain their own case
management system will need to create this tool themselves. Because it will take time
for some courts to develop the programming, methodology, and resources to implement
this measurement ability (or to change how they are currently measuring DUI case
management to conform to the new measurement) and for courts to review the true
status of their cases presently reported as “pending” or “closed,” the committee
recommends that courts be given six months to prepare to report the new DUI case
management performance standards.12 This will also allow courts to clean up their
12
  While a six month period is optimum, the committee is aware it may be unrealistic due to available
resources and pending AOC projects.


                                                   20
existing data and work toward improving DUI case management performance during
this period in anticipation of publishing the court’s first report to the Supreme Court.

5.4. The committee further recommends that the ACJIS system, not the Motor Vehicle
Division, should be the predominant repository of historical and pending DUI case
information as it is for felony case information. To do this, all applicable agencies will
need to maintain complete, consistent, and accurate records to report to ACJIS.




                                                    BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                           21
Exhibit 1

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 10.2. Change of judge upon request

a. Entitlement. In any death penalty case, any party shall be entitled to request a
change of judge as a matter of right no later than ten (10) days after the state files a
notice of intention to seek the death penalty. In any felony criminal case other than a
death penalty case, each side is entitled as a matter of right to a change of judge. Each
non-death penalty case, whether single or consolidated, shall be treated as having only
two sides; except that, whenever two or more parties on a side have adverse or hostile
interests, the presiding judge or that judge's designee may allow additional changes of
judge as a matter of right. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, the right to a change
of judge shall be inapplicable to Rule 32 petitions for post-conviction relief or remands
for resentencing.

b. Procedure. A party may exercise his or her right to a change of judge by filing a
pleading entitled "Notice of Change of Judge" signed by counsel, if any, stating the
name of the judge to be changed. The notice shall also include an avowal that the
request is made in good faith and not:

1. For the purpose of delay;

2. To obtain a severance;

3. To interfere with the reasonable case management practices of a judge;

4. To remove a judge for reasons of race, gender or religious affiliation;

5. For the purpose of using the rule against a particular judge in a blanket fashion by a
prosecuting agency, defender group or law firm (State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz.
99, 722 P.2d 267 (1986));

6. To obtain a more convenient geographical location; or

7. To obtain advantage or avoid disadvantage in connection with a plea bargain or at
sentencing, except as permitted under Rule 17.4(g).

The avowal shall be made in the attorney's capacity as an officer of the court.

c. Time for Filing. A notice of change of judge in a non-death penalty case shall be
filed within ten days after any of the following:

(1) Arraignment, if the case is assigned to a judge and the parties are given actual
notice of such assignment at or prior to the arraignment;

(2) Filing of the mandate from an Appellate Court with the clerk of the Superior Court;



                                            22
(3) In all other cases, actual notice to the requesting party of the assignment of the case
to a judge.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, if a new judge is assigned to a non-death
penalty case fewer than ten (10) days before trial (inclusive of the date of assignment),
a notice of change of judge shall be filed, with appropriate actual notice to the other
party or parties, by 5:00 p.m. on the next business day following actual receipt of notice
of the assignment, or by the start of trial, whichever occurs sooner.

d. At the time of the filing of a notice of change of judge, the parties shall inform the
court in writing if they have agreed upon a judge or judges who are available and are
willing to have the action assigned to that judge. An agreement of all parties upon such
judge may be honored and, if so, shall preclude further changes of judge as a matter of
right unless the agreed-upon judge becomes unavailable. If no judge has been agreed
upon, then the presiding judge shall immediately reassign the action.

If a judge to whom the action has been assigned by agreement later becomes
unavailable because of a change of calendar assignment, death, illness, or other legal
incapacity, the parties shall be restored to their rights under this rule as they existed
immediately before the assignment of the action to such judge.




                                            23
Exhibit 2

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 14.3. Proceedings at arraignment

The court shall:

a. Ascertain the defendant's plea of not guilty, guilty, or no contest. Unless the
defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty.

b. Hear and decide motions concerning the conditions of release under Rule 7. Unless
the arraignment is held in conjunction with the defendant's initial appearance before a
magistrate under Rule 4.2, a contested release motion shall be heard upon at least 5
days prior notice, unless such time is waived by all parties.

c. Set the date for trial and/or pretrial conference.

d. Advise the parties in writing of the dates set for further proceedings and other
important deadlines.

e. Advise the parties of any specific dates set pursuant to Rule 16 of these rules

e f. Advise the defendant of the right to be present at all future proceedings, that
proceedings may be held in the defendant's absence, or that defendant may be charged
with an offense and a warrant issued for defendant's arrest without further notice.

f g. Advise the defendant of the right to jury trial, if applicable.

g h. For misdemeanors, inform the defendant of the right to counsel and the right to
court-appointed counsel if eligible. As necessary, the court shall appoint counsel.




                                               24
Exhibit 3

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 16.5. Procedure on Pretrial Conference

a. Adoption of Procedure.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any court may conduct pretrial
conferences. Attendance at the pretrial conference by the parties may be made
mandatory by the court.

(2) If a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor violation of Title 28, Chapter 4,
Arizona Revised Statutes the court shall hold a pretrial conference within 30 days of
arraignment. Attendance by all parties at the pretrial conference shall be mandatory.

b. Purposes. The purposes of the pretrial conference may include:

(1) To provide a forum and procedure for the fair, orderly and just disposition of cases
without trial;

(2) To permit the parties, without prejudice to their rights to trial, to engage in disclosure
and conduct negotiations for dispositions without trial;

(3) To provide an opportunity for complying with the requirement of discovery disclosure
as required by these rules and by constitutional law;

(4) To eliminate the need for setting for trial cases which may be disposed of without
trial; or

(5) In all cases which cannot be fairly disposed of without trial, to enable the court to set
a date certain for trial.

(6) To require counsel to advise the court of their availability and the availability of their
witnesses for the purposes of selecting a trial date.

(7) To set the time for filing motions pursuant to Rule 16.1 (b) of these rules.

c. Procedure. Except as provided in section (a) (2) of this rule the court may designate
the types of cases to be made subject to the pretrial conference, designate the persons
who are required to attend the pretrial conference, provide for sanctions in the event of
failure to attend, and establish other procedures and regulations that are reasonable
and necessary for the conduct of the pretrial conferences and for carrying out the
purpose of the pretrial conferences.

Comment: This Rule is not intended to restrict the ability of the court to accept a plea of
“guilty” or “no contest” from a defendant at any proceeding prior to a pre-trial
conference, thereby eliminating the need for the pre-trial conference.



                                             25
Exhibit 4

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 16.6. Dismissal of prosecution

a. On Prosecutor's Motion. The court, on motion of the prosecutor showing good
cause therefor, may order that a prosecution be dismissed at any time upon finding that
the purpose of the dismissal is not to avoid the provisions of Rule 8.

b. On Defendant's Motion. The court, on motion of the defendant, shall order that a
prosecution be dismissed upon finding that the indictment, information, or complaint is
insufficient as a matter of law.

c. Record. The court shall state, on the record, its reasons for ordering dismissal of any
prosecution.

d. Effect of Dismissal. Dismissal of a prosecution shall be without prejudice to
commencement of another prosecution, unless the court order finds that the interests of
justice require that the dismissal be with prejudice.

e. Dismissal of certain misdemeanor prosecutions. Dismissal of a misdemeanor
prosecution for a violation of an offense listed in Title 28, Chapter 4, Arizona Revised
Statutes upon motion of the prosecutor made at the time of trial shall be with prejudice,
unless the court finds that the interests of justice require that the dismissal be without
prejudice.

e f. Release of Defendant; Exoneration of Bond. When a prosecution is dismissed,
the defendant shall be released from custody, unless the defendant is in custody on
some other charge, and any appearance bond exonerated.




                                           26
Exhibit 5

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 8.1. Priorities in scheduling criminal cases

a. Priority of Criminal Trials. The trial of criminal cases shall have priority over the trial
of civil cases. Any scheduling conflicts will be resolved in accordance with Rule 5(j),
Uniform Rules of Practice.

b. Preferences. The trial of defendants in custody and defendants whose pretrial liberty
may present unusual risks shall be given preference over other criminal cases.

c. Duty of Prosecutor. The prosecutor shall advise the court of the following:

       1. Facts relevant to determining the order of cases on the calendar.

       2. Any conflict in the prosecutor’s or a witness’ schedule that would prevent the
          counsel from proceeding to trial on the assigned date.

d. Duty of Defense Counsel. The defendant's counsel shall advise the court of the
following:

       1. Impending expiration of time limits in the defendant's case. Failure to do so
          may result in sanctions and should be considered by the court in determining
          whether to dismiss an action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 8.6.

       2. Any conflict in the counsel’s or a witness’ schedule that would prevent the
          counsel from proceeding to trial on the assigned date.

e. Extraordinary Cases. Within twenty-five days after the arraignment in Superior
Court either party may apply in writing to the court for a hearing to establish
extraordinary circumstances requiring the suspension of Rule 8 in a particular case.
Within five days of the receipt of the application the court shall hold the hearing and
make findings of fact. The findings shall be immediately transmitted to the Chief Justice
who may approve or decline to approve them. Upon approval of the findings by the
Chief Justice, they shall be returned to the trial court where upon motion of either party
the trial court may suspend the provisions of Rule 8 and reset the trial date for a time
certain.


Comment: This Rule is intended to refer to pro per defendants also.




                                             27
Exhibit 6

Rules of Procedure in Traffic and Boating Cases

Rule 3. Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint

(a) The Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint shall be in at least triplicate, in dimensions
of approximately 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches, consisting of the original Complaint,
violator/Defendant copy, and Law Enforcement Copy, substantially in the form set forth
in Appendix A annexed to these rules. A Court Report copy is required if no other
method is used to forward disposition to the Department of Transportation, Motor
Vehicle Division. Additional copies are optional.

(b) Any substantial variation from the form of the Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint
must first be approved by the Supreme Court.

(c) Every Court, law-enforcement agency or public body responsible for issuing the
Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint shall promptly forward one form copy and any
subsequent changes therein, to the Supreme Court.

(d) An action shall not be commenced on an Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint that
is not filed with the court within 10 days of the date the complaint is issued to the
defendant.


Rule 4. Responsibilities of Arresting Officer

The officer who arrests a person for a Traffic or Boating Offense shall properly
complete, certify and deliver the Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint as follows:

(a) The Complaint and Defendant Copy. When the person is taken before a Judge, as
provided in Section 13-3898, Arizona Revised Statutes, or is taken before a deputy
designated by the Judge to set and collect ball, as provided in Sections 22-112 and 22-
424, Arizona Revised Statutes, the officer thereupon shall deliver the Complaint to that
Judge or deputy, and shall deliver the Defendant Copy to the person. When the person
is released from custody, as provided in Section 13-3903, Arizona Revised Statutes,
upon the person's written promise to appear in Court on a designated date, the officer,
shall immediately deliver the Defendant Copy to the person and shall prior to the
designated date as provided in Rule 3 of these Rules deliver the Complaint to that
Court.

(b) Court Report. The officer shall deliver the Court Report to the Court, Judge or deputy
at the same time the Complaint is delivered in accordance with (a), above.

(c) Enforcement Copy. The officer may retain the Enforcement Copy in accordance with
instructions of his or her law-enforcement agency.




                                            28
Exhibit 7

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 4.2. Initial Appearance

a. In General. At the suspect's initial appearance, the magistrate shall:

(1) Ascertain the suspect's true name and address and, if necessary, amend the formal
charges to reflect it, and instruct the suspect to notify the court promptly of any change
of address;

(2) Inform the defendant of the charges;

(3) Inform the defendant of the rights to counsel and the right to remain silent;

(4) Determine whether probable cause exists for the purpose of release from custody. If
no probable cause is found, the defendant shall immediately be released from custody;

(5) Appoint counsel if the suspect is eligible for and requests appointed counsel under
Rule 6;

(6) Consider comments offered by the victim concerning the conditions of release. The
magistrate shall permit the victim to comments, orally or in writing, on the issue of the
suspect's release;

(7) Determine the conditions of release in accordance with Rule 7.2; and

(8) For summoned defendants charged with a felony offense, a violation of Title 13,
Chapter 14, or Title 28, Chapter 4, or a domestic violence offense as defined in § 13-
3601 the court shall order that the defendant be fingerprinted at a designated time and
place if it appears that the defendant was not previously fingerprinted.

(9) At the arraignment of a defendant who is charged on an Arizona Traffic Ticket and
Complaint with a violation of Title 13, Chapter 14 or Title 28, Chapter 4 or a domestic
violence offense as defined in § 13-3601 the court shall order that the defendant be
fingerprinted at a designated time and place, but not later than the first pre-trial
conference by the appropriate law enforcement agency if the court has reasonable
cause to believe that the defendant was not previously fingerprinted as prescribed in §
41-1750.


b. Misdemeanors: Felonies Charged by Indictment. When a suspect charged with a
misdemeanor or indicted for a felony is brought before a magistrate for defendant's
initial appearance, defendant may, in addition to the procedures set forth in Section (a),
be arraigned in the manner prescribed by Rule 14, if counsel is present or waived. If the
appearance is before a magistrate without jurisdiction to try the offense, the magistrate
shall transfer the case to the proper court for arraignment. If the court finds that delay of


                                             29
the arraignment is indispensable to the interests of justice, the court shall provide
sufficient time for notice pursuant to Rule 39(b) (2) when setting a date and time for the
continued arraignment.

c. Felonies Charged by Complaint. When a suspect is charged in a complaint, the
magistrate shall, in addition to the procedures required by Section (a);

(1) Inform the suspect of the right to a preliminary hearing and the procedures by which
that right may be waived; and

(2) Unless waived, set the time for a preliminary hearing in accordance with Rule 5.1




                                           31
Exhibit 8                                                                                                                        OD7667-Ma            01/04




                                                                                CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY
                                                            ARIZONA TRAFFIC TICKET AND COMPLAINT
Complaint                     SSN                                                        Military             Accident                         Commercial                 DR Number

                                                                                                              Fatality                         Haz. Material
Driver’s License Number                                  ID IN POSSESSION       State           Class                             Endorsements                               Restrictions
                                                                                                           M        H         N         P         T           X       D
                                                            YES           NO
Defendant                     First                                             Middle                                                  Last                                          SPANISH SPEAKING ONLY
                                                                                                                                                                                      Other Language _______________
Residential Address                                                                             City                                    State                                Zip                                       Telephone


Sex       Weight              Height           Eyes             Hair            Origin        Date of Birth                                           Grid # of Home Address (Use XX-99 for Out of City)


Business Address                                                                                City                                    State                                Zip                                       Telephone


                              Color                      Year           Make                            Model                 Style                   License Plate                                     State          Expiration
  VEHICLE
Registered Owner (Name & Address)             SAME AS DRIVER                                                                                          Vehicle Identification Number



                                                                                            THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT:
          Month         Day            Year         Time                   AM                             Approx        Posted        R&P             Direction       Lane                                   Speed Measurement Device
ON                                                                         PM        SPEED                                                                                                                     Laser         Radar
          Location                                                                                                                                            City of Glendale
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Pace          Visual
AT                                                                                                                                                            Maricopa County
                                                                                                                                                              State of Arizona                                               or Other
                                                                                            the defendant committed the following:
        Section                           ARS Violation
                                                                                                                                 Domestic Violence
                                          CC                                                                                                                                        Criminal                               Criminal Traffic
A       Docket Number                            Disp. Codes                        Date of Disposition                    Sanction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           City Code
                                                                                                                                                                                    Civil Traffic                          Petty Offense

        Section                           ARS Violation
                                                                                                                                 Domestic Violence
                                          CC                                                                                                                                        Criminal                               Criminal Traffic
B       Docket Number                            Disp. Codes                        Date of Disposition                    Sanction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           City Code
                                                                                                                                                                                    Civil Traffic                          Petty Offense

        Section                           ARS Violation
                                                                                                                                 Domestic Violence
                                          CC                                                                                                                                        Criminal                               Criminal Traffic
C       Docket Number                            Disp. Codes                        Date of Disposition                    Sanction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           City Code
                                                                                                                                                                                    Civil Traffic                          Petty Offense

        Section                           ARS Violation
                                                                                                                                 Domestic Violence
                                          CC                                                                                                                                        Criminal                               Criminal Traffic
D       Docket Number                            Disp. Codes                        Date of Disposition                    Sanction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           City Code
                                                                                                                                                                                    Civil Traffic                          Petty Offense

        Section                           ARS Violation
                                                                                                                                 Domestic Violence
                                          CC                                                                                                                                        Criminal                               Criminal Traffic
E       Docket Number                            Disp. Codes                        Date of Disposition                    Sanction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           City Code
                                                                                                                                                                                    Civil Traffic                          Petty Offense

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Court Number
                                                                                                                                        ADULT                 GLENDALE CITY COURT
   YOU MUST
  APPEAR AT                                                                                                                           JUVENILE
                                                                                                                                                              5711 W. GLENDALE AVE.                                                 0747
                                              COURT NUMBER:                                                                           WITH PARENT
                                                                                                                                                              GLENDALE, ARIZONA
                                                                                                                   Month                        Day               Year                Time                                              AM
                      at the date and time indicated                                                                                                                                                                                    PM

        IS THERE A VICTIM?                                                                      I certify upon reasonable grounds, I believe the person named above committed the acts described and I have served a
                                                                                                copy of this complaint upon the defendant.
        VICTIM NOTIFIED?
      Without admitting guilt, I promise to appear as directed hereon.
      Without admitting responsibility, I acknowledge receipt of this complaint.


X                                                                                               Complainant                                                                   ID Number                                    Dept.
                                                                                                                                                                                        RIGHT INDEX FINGER




      Harassment/Protection Order             911 tape                 Video tape           DRE Supplement               Prints Taken           Officer Notes

      Color Photos                            Interview tape           Blood Draw           Fire Incident Number ___________________________


OFFICER: DO NOT WRITE COMMENTS IN THIS AREA ON THIS COPY
    1 of _____                         2 of _____                       3 of _____
Exhibit 9

28-1385. Administrative license suspension for driving under the influence;
report; hearing; summary review
A. A law enforcement officer shall forward to the department a certified report as
prescribed in subsection B of this section, subject to the penalty for perjury prescribed
by section 28-1561, if both of the following occur:
1. The officer arrests a person for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 33, section 28-
1381, section 28-1382 or section 28-1383.
2. The person submits to a blood or breath alcohol test permitted by section 28-1321,
the results of which indicate either:
(a) 0.08 or more alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath.
(b) 0.04 or more alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath if the person was
driving or in actual physical control of a commercial motor vehicle.
B. The officer shall make the certified report required by subsection A of this section on
forms supplied or approved by the department. The report shall state information that is
relevant to the enforcement action, including:
1. Information that adequately identifies the arrested person.
2. A statement of the officer's grounds for belief that the person was driving or in actual
physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 4-244, paragraph 33, section
28-1381 or section 28-1382.
3. A statement that the person was arrested for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph
33, section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or section 28-1383.
4. A report of the results of the chemical test that was administered.
C. The officer shall also serve an order of suspension on the person on behalf of the
department. The order of suspension:
1. Is effective fifteen days after the date it is served.
2. Shall require the immediate surrender of any license or permit to drive that is issued
by this state and that is in the possession or control of the person.
3. Shall contain information concerning the right to a summary review and hearing,
including information concerning the hearing as required by section 28-1321,
subsections G and H.


                                               32
4. Shall be accompanied by printed forms ready to mail to the department that the
person may fill out and sign to indicate the person's desire for a hearing.
5. Shall be entered on the department's records on receipt of the report by the officer
and a copy of the order of suspension.
D. If the license or permit is not surrendered pursuant to subsection C of this section,
the officer shall state the reason for the nonsurrender. If a valid license or permit is
surrendered, the officer shall issue a temporary driving permit that is valid for fifteen
days. The officer shall forward a copy of the completed order of suspension, a copy of
any completed temporary permit and any driver license or permit taken into possession
under this section to the department within five days after the issuance of the order of
suspension along with the report.
E. The department shall suspend the affected person's license or permit to drive or right
to apply for a license or permit or any nonresident operating privilege for not less than
ninety consecutive days from that date.
F. Notwithstanding subsections A through E of this section, the department shall
suspend the driving privileges of the person described in subsection A of this section for
not less than thirty consecutive days and shall restrict the driving privileges of the
person for not less than sixty consecutive additional days to travel between the person's
place of employment and residence and during specified periods of time while at
employment, to travel between the person's place of residence and the person's
secondary or postsecondary school, according to the person's employment or
educational schedule, to travel between the person's place of residence and the office
of the person's probation officer for scheduled appointments or to travel between the
person's place of residence and a SCREENING, EDUCATION OR treatment facility for
scheduled appointments if the person:
1. Did not cause serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person
during the course of conduct out of which the current action arose.
2. Has not been convicted of a violation of section 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383 within
sixty months of the date of commission of the acts out of which the current action arose.
The dates of commission of the acts are the determining factor in applying the sixty
month provision.



                                            33
3. Has not had the person's privilege to drive suspended pursuant to this section or
section 28-1321 within sixty months of the date of commission of the acts out of which
the current action arose.
G. If the department receives only the report of the results of the blood or breath alcohol
test and the results indicate 0.08 or more alcohol concentration in the person's blood or
breath, or show a blood or breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more and the person
was driving or in actual physical control of a commercial motor vehicle, the department
shall notify the person named in the report in writing sent by mail that fifteen days after
the date of issuance of the notice the department will suspend the person's license or
permit, driving privilege or nonresident driving privilege. The notice shall also state that
the department will provide an opportunity for a hearing and administrative review if the
person requests a hearing or review in writing and the request is received by the
department within fifteen days after the notice is sent.
H. A timely request for a hearing stays the suspension until a hearing is held, except
that the department shall not return any surrendered license or permit to the person but
may issue temporary permits to drive that expire no later than when the department has
made its final decision. If the person is a resident without a license or permit or has an
expired license or permit, the department may allow the person to apply for a license or
permit. If the department determines the person is otherwise entitled to the license or
permit, the department shall issue, but retain, the license or permit, subject to this
section. All hearings requested under this section shall be conducted in the same
manner and under the same conditions as provided in section 28-3306.
I. For the purposes of this section, the scope of the hearing shall include only the
following issues:
1. Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving or was
in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor.
2. Whether the person was placed under arrest for a violation of section 4-244,
paragraph 33, section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or section 28-1383.
3. Whether a test was taken, the results of which indicated the alcohol concentration in
the person's blood or breath at the time the test was administered of either:



                                             34
(a) 0.08 or more.
(b) 0.04 or more if the person was driving or in actual physical control of a commercial
motor vehicle.
4. Whether the testing method used was valid and reliable.
5. Whether the test results were accurately evaluated.
J. The results of the blood or breath alcohol test shall be admitted on establishing the
requirements in section 28-1323 or 28-1326.
K. If the department determines at the hearing to suspend the affected person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle, the suspension provided in this section is effective
fifteen days after giving written notice of the suspension, except that the department
may issue or extend a temporary license that expires on the effective date of the
suspension. If the person is a resident without a license or permit or has an expired
license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the department shall deny the
issuance of a license or permit to the person for not less than ninety consecutive days.
L. A person may apply for a summary review of an order issued pursuant to this section
instead of a hearing at any time before the effective date of the order. The person shall
submit the application in writing to any department driver license examining office
together with any written explanation as to why the department should not suspend the
driving privilege. The agent of the department receiving the notice shall issue to the
person an additional driving permit that expires twenty days from the date the request is
received. The department shall review all reports submitted by the officer and any
written explanation submitted by the person and shall determine if the order of
suspension should be sustained or cancelled. The department shall not hold a hearing,
and the review is not subject to title 41, chapter 6. The department shall notify the
person of its decision before the temporary driving permit expires.
M. If the suspension or determination that there should be a denial of issuance is not
sustained after a hearing or review, the ruling is not admissible in and does not have
any effect on any civil or criminal court proceeding.
N. If it has been determined under the procedures of this section that a nonresident's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended, the department
shall give information in writing of the action taken to the motor vehicle administrator of



                                            35
the state of the person's residence and of any state in which the person has a license.

28-1387. Prior convictions; alcohol or other drug screening, education and treatment;
license suspension; supervised probation; civil liability; procedures
A. The court shall allow the allegation of a prior conviction or any other pending charge
of a violation of section 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383 or an act in another jurisdiction
that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-
1383 filed twenty or more days before the date the case is actually tried and may allow
the allegation of a prior conviction or any other pending charge of a violation of section
28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383 or an act in another jurisdiction that if committed in this
state would be a violation of section 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383 filed at any time
before the date the case is actually tried if this state makes available to the defendant
when the allegation is filed a copy of any information obtained concerning the prior
conviction or other pending charge. Any conviction may be used to enhance another
conviction irrespective of the dates on which the offenses occurred within the sixty
month provision. For the purposes of this article, an order of a juvenile court
adjudicating a person delinquent is equivalent to a conviction.
B. In addition to any other penalties prescribed by law, the judge shall order a person
who is convicted of a violation of section 28-1381 or 28-1382 to complete alcohol or
other drug screening that is provided by a facility approved by the department of health
services or a probation department. If a judge determines that the person requires
further alcohol or other drug education or treatment, the person may be required
pursuant to court order to obtain alcohol or other drug education or treatment under the
court's supervision from an approved facility. The judge may review an education or
treatment determination at the request of the state, the defendant or the probation
officer or on the judge's initiative. The person shall pay the costs of the screening,
education or treatment unless, after considering the person's ability to pay all or part of
the costs, the court waives all or part of the costs. If a person is referred to a screening,
education or treatment facility, the facility shall report to the court whether the person
has successfully completed the screening, education or treatment program.
C. After a person who is sentenced pursuant to section 28-1381, subsection I has
served twenty-four consecutive hours in jail or after a person who is sentenced pursuant


                                             36
to section 28-1381, subsection K or section 28-1382, subsection D or F has served
forty-eight consecutive hours in jail and after the court receives confirmation that the
person is employed or is a student, the court may provide in the sentence that the
defendant, if the defendant is employed or is a student and can continue the
defendant's employment or schooling, may continue the employment or schooling for
not more than twelve hours a day nor more than five days a week. The person shall
spend the remaining day, days or parts of days in jail until the sentence is served and
shall be allowed out of jail only long enough to complete the actual hours of employment
or schooling.
D. Unless the license of a person convicted under section 28-1381 or 28-1382 has been
or is suspended pursuant to section 28-1321 or 28-1385, the department on receipt of
the abstract of conviction of a violation of section 28-1381 or 28-1382 shall suspend the
license of the affected person for not less than ninety consecutive days.
E. When the department receives notification that the person meets the criteria provided
in section 28-1385, subsection F, the department shall suspend the driving privileges of
the person for not less than thirty consecutive days and shall restrict the driving
privileges of the person for not less than sixty consecutive additional days to travel
between any of the following:
1. The person's place of employment and residence and during specified periods of time
while at employment.
2. The person's place of residence and the person's secondary or postsecondary
school, according to the person's employment or educational schedule.
3. The person's place of residence and a SCREENING, EDUCATION OR treatment
facility for scheduled appointments.
4. The person's place of residence and the office of the person's probation officer for
scheduled appointments.
F. If a person is placed on probation for violating section 28-1381 or 28-1382, the
probation shall be supervised unless the court finds that supervised probation is not
necessary or the court does not have supervisory probation services.
G. Any political subdivision processing or using the services of a person ordered to
perform community restitution pursuant to section 28-1381 or 28-1382 does not incur



                                           37
any civil liability to the person ordered to perform community restitution as a result of
these activities unless the political subdivision or its agent or employee acts with gross
negligence.
H. Except for another violation of this article, the state shall not dismiss a charge of
violating any provision of this article unless there is an insufficient legal or factual basis
to pursue that charge.




                                             38
Exhibit 10

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 16.6. Dismissal of prosecution (alternative)

a. On Prosecutor's Motion. The court, on motion of the prosecutor showing good
cause therefor, may order that a prosecution be dismissed at any time upon finding that
the purpose of the dismissal is not to avoid the provisions of Rule 8.

b. On Defendant's Motion. The court, on motion of the defendant, shall order that a
prosecution be dismissed upon finding that the indictment, information, or complaint is
insufficient as a matter of law.

c. Record. The court shall state, on the record, its reasons for ordering dismissal of any
prosecution.

d. Effect of Dismissal. Dismissal of a prosecution shall be without prejudice to
commencement of another prosecution, unless the court order finds that the interests of
justice require that the dismissal be with prejudice.

e. Dismissal of certain misdemeanor prosecutions. If the court, upon motion of the
prosecutor made at the time of trial, grants a motion to dismiss a misdemeanor
prosecution for a violation of an offense listed in Title 28, Chapter 4, Arizona Revised
Statutes the court may impose any sanction it finds appropriate that is reasonably
related to the reason for the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss to apply in all further
proceedings should the case be refilled. Available sanctions include, but are not limited
to:

(1) Precluding or limiting the calling of a witness, use of evidence or argument in
support of a charge, or

(2) Imposing costs of continuing the proceedings, or

(3) Any other appropriate sanction, or

(4) Dismissal of the case with or without prejudice

e f. Release of Defendant; Exoneration of Bond. When a prosecution is dismissed,
the defendant shall be released from custody, unless the defendant is in custody on
some other charge, and any appearance bond exonerated.




                                                             BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                           39

				
DOCUMENT INFO