News Archive
The DUI Processing Committee
Jan 30, 2006
by Curtis Rau
In November 2005, the DUI Processing Committee of the Supreme Court of Arizona issued a Report on the condition of the DUI case in the Arizona Court System, its lifecycle, and how these cases are processed. The stated goal of the Supreme Court in convening the Committee was to figure out how to "speed up" the lifecycle of DUI cases - a premise which finds greater root in the lex specialis of suffrage than in the lex generalis of the constitution. The committee, comprised of limited jurisdiction court judges and court administrators from around the state and Administrative Office of the Courts staff 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. 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.
Approximately ten members of the Defense Bar attended a couple of the DUI Processing Committee meetings, however, we were without notice on several occasions and were unable to attend. Our participation in forming any policy was de minimus, or non-existent. Generally, we are of the opinion that the press for more speed will lead to the unintended consequence of judicial arm-twisting - and that arm-twisting will necessarily violate a defendant's rights, and will compromise both the judges' and the lawyers' ethical obligations. Included in the Document Library is Draft II of our response. Draft III should be our final version, and should be complete shortly.