Arizona court of appeals - emblem seal of the Arizona court of appeals

Court of Appeals Accepts Jurisdiction and Issues Memorandum Decision in Coolidge Case

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Coolidge Law Firm is proud to announce that we recently had the Court of Appeals accept jurisdiction and issue a memorandum decision in a case of ours regarding the right to counsel (attorney) during an investigation.

The case involved Adrian Reyes, to whom we provided counsel, who was pulled over for speeding. After failing field sobriety tests, the officer found an open container and asked Reyes who it belonged to. At that point Reyes asked for an attorney. Before he could obtain legal counsel, his blood was drawn to test for BAC and to be used for evidence in the DUI case.

The charges were originally dismissed due to the following:

“At the evidentiary hearing, the officer testified that he believed that Reyes’ invocation of his right to counsel applied only to the contraband investigation. However, Reyes introduced the officer’s prior statements from an administrative hearing that Reyes’ invocation meant the officer had to be “hands off” and that it applied to the “whole investigation.” The officer subsequently testified that he understood that he could not “ask any more questions or do any other tests” after Reyes asked for an attorney. The municipal court found that Reyes’ request for an attorney applied to both the DUI and contraband investigations and that the police therefore violated Reyes’ rights by drawing a blood sample without allowing Reyes an opportunity to speak with his attorney. Thus, the municipal court dismissed the DUI charges. The court also dismissed the open container charge, finding that Reyes’ right to counsel extended to that matter as well.”

This ruling was appealed by the State to the superior court. Claiming that the right to counsel “did not attach before the blood draw.” The superior court found that “Reyes’ request for counsel applied only to the contraband investigation because he had agreed to answer questions and provide the blood sample for the DUI investigation before asking to speak with an attorney.”

With counsel form Coolidge Law Firm, Reyes argued that this the superior court erred when it reversed the municipal court’s order dismissing the DUI charges but denied relief  from the open container charge. After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals stated the following:

“For the foregoing reasons, we grant Reyes relief from the superior court’s ruling reversing the dismissal of the DUI charges, but deny relief from the superior court’s ruling reversing the dismissal of the open container charge.”

In summary, the Court of Appeals granted our client relief from the superior court’s ruling reversing the dismissal of DUI charges.

For more information you can read the official Memorandum Decision here: http://goo.gl/K9O5TU

*The information in this blog is for general information purposes only. This blog post should not be taken to constitute a formal recommendation or professional advice. We exclude all representations, warranties, legal liability or responsibility relating to its content.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail