content of this article moved to http://azbikelaw.org/valley-attorney-pleads-guilty-in-fatal-hit-and-run/
Category: carlaw
2013: Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers
[Update as of 2/23/2013, The McComish novice cell ban, SB1241, is moving forward. The Farley full text ban SB1218 is dead. See below ]
[Update as of 4/4/2013 McComish bill appears stalled, it is being prevented from coming to a vote in full senate. In other news, Farley tried again, via amendment, to get a texting ban; see notes below on SB2378]
It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)
A cell phone ban has been introduced, SB1241. The same (or similar?) bill was introduced last year, bill-would-ban-cell-phone-use-by-teen-drivers-with-learners-permits. The bill applies only to “novice” drivers, that is those who are 16-18 years old, and the ban only lasts for 6 months. On the brighter side, it is a total ban, which I prefer to, say, a handsfree exception. For background, see NTSB has called for a total ban. Continue reading “2013: Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers”
Bill would ban city’s use of photo enforcement
In what is an annual ritual, HB2579 (51st regular session) a group of Republican Arizona legislators would ban city’s and town’s use of photo enforcement. See here for last session’s go-rounds…. photo enforcement seems to be a pre-occupation with some handful of legislators.
Arizona’s legislators have often voiced frustration over being “told what to do” by, say, the Feds. Proponents of such bills, however, don’t appear to have any qualms about telling cities what they can and can’t do. Certainly, not all Republican lawmakers are on board, and cooler heads ultimately (this time, anyway) prevailed, as the bill failed to pass committee; azcentral.com
“I am not in favor of these things, but as a City Council member I will listen to my chief of police,” said Rep. Sonny Borrelli, a Republican from Lake Havasu City and a former City Council member there. “I can’t buy this that nobody knows about them and are being targeted — it’s no surprise.
As I’ve mentioned before… Completely aside from safety issues, cameras can, and do, provide evidence that has been used to solve crimes; including (that I know of) catching a hit-and-run driver who seriously injured a cyclist in Tucson, a hit-and-run-driver who killed a cyclist in Tempe, and a assault-robbery-murderer in Tempe.
And Another One
HB2477 (51st regular session) is yet another attempt to get rid of photo enforcement. This one harkens back to something i mentioned over a year ago; the legislature is aghast to find the the ARIZONA department of transportation is allowing photo enforcement to be placed along state roads, at the request of local juridictions. Azcentral.com noted in a story about the bill passing the house: “Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said he really wants photo enforcement eliminated, because in his view it is unconstitutional. But with measures outlawing it failing again this year, he said the bills that are advancing at least make it harder for cities and towns to set them up.”
[update 4/3/2013: hb2477 passed full senate along party lines, i presume, and moves back to house for what is assured final approval]
Is Photo enforcement Unconstitutional?
I would like to hear Rep. Seel’s reasoning. I’ve never really seen, other than vague claims, that photo enforcement is itself “unconstitutional”. For example, one Arizona legislator told me that was so because of a “constitutional right to face one’s accusers. With PE, the camera machine cannot be cross examined; it is therefore unconstitutional”. Really. He said that. Apparently according to his theory surveillance video, say in a bank robbery, is unconstitutional as well.
Googling around; I see a county court ruling in Florida, that has been set aside; awaiting review. In any event, there is apparently zero case law in Arizona holding PE to be unconstitutional. And after over 7 years (the loop 101 demonstration project began in the fall of 2005), and untold thousands of cases; I think it’s safe to say that photo enforcement is constitutional in Arizona.
Process Servers and Arizona’s Rules of Civil Procedure
handy link with all Arizona’s Rules for Civil Procedure [which lawyers cite as Ariz.R.Civ.P.] that are of interest to process servers. (e.g. rule 4.1 and 4.2)….
The *statutory* rules about how a ticket gets served is in 28-1593. Service of uniform traffic ticket and complaint,see also 28-1592. Commencement of action. Continue reading “Process Servers and Arizona’s Rules of Civil Procedure”
Driver convicted in Colorado horn-honking incident
If you haven’t yet seen the actual video of the incident, it’s really remarkable.
Kudos to the Colorado Highway Patrol (and the prosecutors) for actually investigating; and bringing the driver to justice.
According to the Daily Camera, driver “James Ernst pleaded guilty to two counts of harassment — a Class 3 misdemeanor — and two counts of improper use of a horn — a traffic offense”, and received 12 months probation, including a court-ordered anger management class. Continue reading “Driver convicted in Colorado horn-honking incident”
Bill makes harassing a ped or cyclist illegal
[Update as of 2/23/2012, HB2528 it is not assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]
It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)
HB2528 makes it explicitly illegal to harass a pedestrian or bicyclist.
Numerous people have pointed out that the language of the bill is odd in that to be in violation of it, the victim must fall. I’m not sure why it was written that way.
Difficulty of proving Neg Hom
This is why prosecutors don’t like to bring neg homicide charges against drivers who are not impaired. A San Antonio jury found the driver not guilty:
Gilbert John Sullaway Jr., 43, could have faced up to 10 years in prison if found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the Oct. 1, 2009, deaths of Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler.
The married couple were sharing a tandem bicycle on a wide, paved shoulder of Texas 16 when they were struck by the defendant’s pickup.
Although there was some wrangling about the driver’s speed and actions just prior to the collision, but the general facts of the case were clear-cut —
a driver left the roadway at speed and rear-ended a pair of cyclists (on a tandem), killing them. There were no visibility limitations; (it was daylight, straight ahead, no sun glare; cyclists were wearing “brightly colored” jerseys… “There’s no explanation as to why he never saw two brightly dressed people riding an 8-foot-long bicycle, Assistant District Attorney Lorina Rummel said”).
The defense, as would be expected, used the there-but-for-the-grace-of-god-go-i argument (But Sullaway’s mistakes that day could have been made by anyone in the courtroom, the defense countered. “Have you ever drifted? Have you ever looked off the roadway?” Mark Stevens asked jurors. “That’s what people do. It doesn’t mean they’re criminals when they do it.”).
—
For the curious; in Arizona, the neg hom statute ,§13-1102, says the accused must be shown to be criminally negligent
” ‘Criminal negligence’ means… that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk…
of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.
—
So you’ve killed somebody with your car, now what?
Motor-vehicle collisions remain the leading cause of death in the US for a broad swath of ages. Notably, you are more far more likely to be killed by a driver than you are to be the victim of murder. A minority of traffic fatalities which involve impaired (mostly alcohol, and a few drug impairments) are treated as serious homicides (something like 30%) however the majority elicit no more than a traffic ticket.
The numbers for serious injury are analogous; e.g. you are far more likely to be injured by a driver than by a mugging or forcible assault, or fall or whatever.
So, suppose you’ve killed or seriously injured somebody with your car, now what? The remainder of this article will focus on the only civil sanctions, and minor criminal offenses — in other words, there is no impairment either suspected or otherwise. It also excludes the possibility of hit-and-run; you didn’t do that, did you?
Arizona has no specific vehicular homicide (or vehicular assault) law, see here for some background.
You will, or perhaps may receive some special treatment in the following ways:
- Defensive Driving (DDP) school, a.k.a. diversion, which dismisses the citation is not an option,
- Traffic Survival School (TSS) is required if found or plea responsible,
- You MAY be required to appear in court, even if you plea.
- You MAY be subject to an enhanced fine if you plea or are found responsible for a particular infraction.
- Police have a longer time to cite you in crashes involving serious injury or death
Continue reading “So you’ve killed somebody with your car, now what?”
Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers
(this article relates to bills introduced in the 50th Second Regular Session of the Arizona Legislature, spring of 2012)
Here’s a news item that has a pretty good rundown on SB1056, introduced by John McComish (R-20, which happens to be my district).
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the NTSB has called for a total ban on use of portable electronic communications by drivers — thats text, talk, handsfree or not — the whole shootin’ match.
This bill is a total ban; but targets only permitees and new drivers under 18 (but only for six months); which seems like a pretty logical place to start. The youngest drivers don’t have the experience and also tend not to understand the consequences of their actions that only comes with maturity and experience. When questioned about difficulty of enforcement, McComish pointed out that it is a secondary offense, like seat-belt laws, and that it will give parents a useful tool.
In case you’re wondering how this affects bicycle riders; it doesn’t. The licensing statutes are in Chapter 8, and bicyclists are only bound to follow Chapter 3, 4, and 5, see 28-812.
The hearing in front of the senate Public Safety and Human Services committee 1/18/2012 (direct link, does that work?) was very good; it’s near the end, and is about 10 minutes. This bill is something of a follow-on to some graduated driver’s license restrictions (the Teen Driver Safety Act, enacted in 2007. Bill number?). Stuart Goodman spoke in favor on behalf of AAA; i would like to quote him, and i might be in the minutes(?) but in sortof paraphrase he said that according to CDC the number one cause of death for teens is traffic collisions; that the graduated license restrictions were good/helpful and there is evidence that as from 198?-2007 as alcohol-involved teen deaths have decreased, the overall rate of teen fatalities has remained largely unchanged… and that is largely attributed to an increase in distracted driving as becoming the primary culprit. He then rattled off a bunch of age-related stats that seemd to indicate teen deaths are way down (due presumably to graduated license restrictions, like nighttime driving, and limiting the number of passengers for novice drivers). It passed unanimously out of committee. Also of note, Representative Vic Williams (R-26) , chair of House Transportation Committee, is a co-sponsor indicating if the bill makes it to the House, it would probably have an easy time getting through committee.
Here are the new sections, as introduced:
28-3154
C. A PERMITTEE SHALL NOT DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE USING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT DURING AN EMERGENCY IN WHICH STOPPING THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS IMPOSSIBLE OR WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY OR SAFETY HAZARD. A PEACE OFFICER SHALL NOT STOP OR ISSUE A CITATION TO A PERSON OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBSECTION UNLESS THE PEACE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE LAW OF THIS STATE.
28-3174
F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION K OF THIS SECTION, FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS THAT A CLASS G LICENSEE HOLDS THE LICENSE, THE LICENSEE SHALL NOT DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE USING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT DURING AN EMERGENCY IN WHICH STOPPING THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS IMPOSSIBLE OR WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY OR SAFETY HAZARD.
…
There’s also a recurring generic texting ban bill that has once again been introduced by Steve Farley (D-28), HB2321 texting while driving; prohibition. I’m not sure if it is significant or not, but it’s worth mentioning that this go-round, Vic Williams (R-26) , chair of House Transportation Committee, is a co-sponsor.
Bad Drivers and friendsofcalholman.com

(motorist) Cal Holman was killed in a horrific traffic collision in 2007 involving very high speeds and alleged street racing. Going on 5 years later a lot has and continues to happen, the two other drivers, Van Brakel and Aronica, have eventually plead guilty to certain crimes, Van Brakel going to prison for manslaughter. Aronica received probation, and subsequently requested it be reduced, but that apparently was denied.
The site friendsofcalholman.com is doing, and has done an excellent job of making court documents available; such as the plea agreements. Van Brakel’s 5 year sentence was reduced to below 3 years actual both by the 1 day for every 7 served (that’s normal; it where the “85%” figure comes from); but also apparently because of “over 2 years credit because he was out on bail while the criminal hearings were going on“. How does that work? Being out on bail somehow counts as the same as being incarcerated? [see suggestion in comment below that this may have been erroneously calculated] This is criminal case CR2008-031157 (minutes) (which i could only find by searching Maricopa County Superior directly) — and here is Van Brakel’s (who is Party 001) 9/16/2011 sentencing minute “5 year(s) from 09/16/2011; Presentence Incarceration Credit: 487 day(s); Presumptive”. Note that this is “non-dangerous” manslaughter — sick joke. p.s. the way sentencing math works apparently is: 85% (assuming he got the most time off) of 5 years is 1551 days minus the 487 leaves 1064 (just under 3 years).
Van Brakel’s pre-sentence credit of 487 days was due to him being incarcerated immediately (i guess) after his initial sentencing in 2010.
Here is Aronica’s 5/18/2010 sentencing minute of probation; pleading guilty to two counts of endangerment which is, like Van Brakel’s manslaughter, designated as a “non-dangerous” crime.
On a larger scope, they have exposed these two men’s driving history; again something we rarely get to see. According to friendsofcalholman the two,
Van Brakel was driving an AMG Mercedes, after hitting Cal Holman his car continued 75 feet past the intersection. Van Brakel hit first on the passenger side. He did not sustain any injuries in the crash… Since 2004 there have been 7 tickets for various moving violations. Driving 55 in a 35 zone, 67 in a 40 zone, and failing to yield in a cross walk are a sample of his driving record… Van Brakel has several previous driving violations. One ticket in 2004, was for doing 120 miles per hour in a 75 miles per hour zone. [link]
and the other:
Aronica’s Mustang flipped on impact and landed in the ditch on the side of Scottsdale … Aronica was injured with a broken arm and his passenger had minor cuts…. Since 2002 Aronica has had 13 citations. On December 3rd, less than four weeks prior to the accident where he hit and killed Cal Holman, he was cited for doing 88 miles per hour in a 60 miles per hour zone. This was in Texas while he was traveling to Arizona… Other citations include speeding. In Virginia speeding 84 in a 65 zone, in Florida traveling 20-29 miles per hour over the posted speed, again in Virginia speeding 79 in a 65 zone, in Maryland he had four speeding violations, and in Michigan he has 3 violations for speeding including a careless driving and a 78 in a 55 zone. [link]
This really makes me wonder how such repeated dangerous driving behavior can be tolerated — why weren’t their licenses suspended or revoked before they killed somebody? Traffic collisions, even after a marked decline, continue to be a leading cause of death for Americans. Who’s minding the store?
Do drivers stop at stop signs?
I thought this was completely non-controversial. We all know that a full stop is required (for bicyclists, too, by the way) by law, always, and that there is no wiggle room. Do drivers slow down? Yes, often. Do they make a full stop? Rarely.
Or rather, it completely depends on traffic — if there is conflicting traffic they do (usually) stop; otherwise RARELY. Here is a brief clip where 1 driver stopped (well, almost, but I’ll give it to him) to yield to cross-traffic, and then the next SIX rolled through without stopping:
If that’s too short for you, here is a longer clip that I didn’t even bother to count — the story is exactly the same; DRIVERS RARELY STOP AT STOP SIGNS. Continue reading “Do drivers stop at stop signs?”
Hit and Run in Arizona
Hit and Run (H&R), also called leaving the scene, failure to stop, fleeing the scene, occurs anytime a driver is involved in a collision, and fails to fulfill their duties. These duties include, first and foremost, stopping, and remaining on the scene in order to complete both paperwork-type things like exchange identification, and also include a duty to “render reasonable assistance…” to anyone injured.
>> AN ASIDE: imposing a duty to render aid under pain of imprisonment is a fairly unusual thing under the law. perhaps there’s some latin phrase? to put it another way, most criminal laws specify what things people must not do, not what they must do <<
It will come as no surprise that bicyclists and pedestrians are over-represented as victims of H&R drivers. For example, 24% (6 of 25) of the cyclists killed in Arizona in 2009 were H&R victims (Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009). Likewise, pedestrian-victim H&R rates are high, 18% nationwide using 1998-2001 FARS data ( DOT HS 809-456 2003). By contrast, only about 2% of motorists killed are victims of a H&R drivers ( AAA factsheet: “Nearly 1,500 people die annually (1994-2003) in hit and run crashes… Approximately 6 in 10 fatally injured victims are pedestrians” ). Three year averages from Arizona are consistent with these number.
H&R is highly correlated with other illicit behavior, such as DWI/DUI and driving on a suspended or no license. And alarmingly, things are trending worse: “Between 1998 and 2007, while the total number of annual pedestrian deaths decreased, the proportion of hit-and-run pedestrian deaths has in fact increase” ( Factors associated with hit-and-run pedestrian fatalities and driver identification MacLeod, 2009).
Recognizing that H&R is a particularly odious and cowardly crime, the penalties can be significant. For example, in the case of a serious injury or death, the crime is a class 2/3 felony (2 if the fleeing driver caused the wreck, 3 if not). To put that in perspective, manslaughter is a class 2 (see roundup of homicide types) and only 1st and 2nd degree murder carry the most-serious category of class 1 felony. Below are excerpts involving H&R involving serious injury and death (note the parts in ALL CAPS are from “Joey’s Law” enacted in 2012, discussed below in section on Legislative History).
§28-661. Accidents involving death or personal injuries; failure to stop; classification; driver license revocation
A. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of a person shall:
1. Immediately stop the vehicle at the scene…
2. Remain at the scene of the accident until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of section 28-663.
B. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 and who fails to stop or to comply with the requirements of section 28-663 is guilty of a class 3 felony, except that if a driver caused the accident the driver is guilty of a class 2 felony.
C. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting in (any other) injury … is guilty of a class 5 felony.
D. The sentence imposed on a person for a conviction under this section shall run consecutively to any sentence imposed on the person for other convictions on any other charge related to the accident.
E. The department shall revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a person convicted pursuant to subsection B of this section AS FOLLOWS:
1. FOR AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, five years, NOT INCLUDING ANY TIME THAT THE PERSON IS INCARCERATED.
2. FOR AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN DEATH, TEN YEARS, NOT INCLUDING ANY TIME THAT THE PERSON IS INCARCERATED.
F. FIVE OR MORE YEARS AFTER THE REVOCATION PERIOD HAS BEGUN PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION E, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THIS SECTION, NOT INCLUDING ANY TIME THAT THE PERSON IS INCARCERATED, A PERSON MAY APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A RESTRICTED PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 28‑3473, SUBSECTION B. THE DEPARTMENT MAY ISSUE A RESTRICTED PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 28‑3473, SUBSECTION B IF THE DEPARTMENT FINDS BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE PERSON IS NOT CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE INVOLVING THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE THE PERSON’S DRIVING PRIVILEGE IS REVOKED.
2. THE PERSON HAS PAID FULL RESTITUTION AS ORDERED BY THE COURT.
G. The department shall revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a person convicted pursuant to subsection C of this section for three years.
§28-663. Duty to give information and assistance; … A3. Render reasonable assistance to a person injured in the accident
§13-702. First time felony offenders; sentencing; definition
A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence…
D. The term of imprisonment for a presumptive, minimum, maximum, mitigated or aggravated sentence shall be within the range prescribed under this subsection. The terms are as follows [for mitigating/aggravating factors, see 13-701 E/D] :
Felony Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggra Class 2 3 years 4 years 5 years 10 years 12.5 years Class 3 2 years 2.5 years 3.5 years 7 years 8.75 years Class 4 1 year 1.5 years 2.5 years 3 years 3.75 years Class 5 .5 years .75 years 1.5 years 2 years 2.5 years Class 6 .33 years .5 years 1 year 1.5 years 2 years
So, in summary, it sounds pretty harsh: somewhere around 3.5 or 5 years in prison, which must run consecutively to any other sentence imposed, and a mandatory 5 year driver’s licence revocation. The prison sentence can vary widely depending on if there are any prior felonies, or mitigating, or aggravating factors. There are even long penalties for the same class of felony as specified in §13-704, if the offense is deemed “dangerous” (it’s not clear to me how that distinction is made) — e.g. the presumptive, first time offender for a dangerous class 2 is 10.5 years.
…
Reality Intrudes
I don’t have any way to extract statistics on sentencing, but it seems like i’ve been noticing case after case with very light sentencing for H&R so here goes the anecdotes.
Cody Ryan Davis Case
Case CR-2010137585 in Maricopa County Superior Court. On July 10, 2010 Moto-cyclist Bradley Scott was killed while proceeding straight through a green signal, “Police (said) video shows Scott was legally riding a bicycle with the flow of traffic”. Hit-and-run driver Cody Ryan Davis was arrested about a week later and subsequently plead guilty in a plea agreement. The main element was a guilty plea to leaving the scene, a class 3 felony. As I read the sentence, he received 1 year (to be served in county jail, not prison; oh, and it includes work release), 3 years of probation, and a handful of seemingly small fines. I don’t know how the 5 year license revocation works, but i am hoping it is automatic, the agreement doesn’t say anything about it. I am told by a source familiar with these matters that this is a pretty standard deal (suspending the sentence).
So I have a bunch of questions: Why a class 3 and not a class 2? It certainly appears Davis was at fault in the collision. But setting that aside, how in the world do they get 1 year for a class 3 felony? 13-702 seems to clearly indicate that no less that 2 years is legal — and that would be including mitigating factors, of which I don’t think there are any; none are mentioned in the agreement.
Was Davis DUI at the time? There is this mention of alcohol in the agreement, during probation Davis may “Not consume or possess any substances containing alcohol”. So since Davis fled and hid out for days, nobody knows legally whether he was or wasn’t. As mentioned previously, H&R drivers are highly correlated with DUI (MacLeod, 2009). In the event that Davis was DUI, he clearly made the right decision to flee — the DUI would have led to a manslaughter charge (5 years presumptive. And that’s in prison, not county, and no work release AFAIK).
But that was the whole point in stiffening the penalties for H&R, to remove the incentive to flee.
Nathan Tom Bartley Case
The lead in the yumasun.com story says it all:
The driver in a hit-and-run accident that killed a 15-year-old Yuma boy earlier this year (1/13/2011) will receive probation instead of prison under the terms of a plea agreement.
Nathan Tom Bartley, 18, an Arizona Western College student and football player at the time, pleaded guilty Friday in Yuma County Superior Court to one count of attempted obstruction of criminal justice and one count of tampering with physical evidence. The plea agreement stipulates that he be sentenced to a term of probation.
In return for his guilty plea, a charge of failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving a fatality was dismissed.
This deal was cooked up by the LaPaz County Prosecutor because of a conflict within the Yuma County’s office — the deal, of course had to have been blessed the (Yuma County Superior) Court. Case number CR-201100131, the case minutes with the actual plead deal aren’t up yet. Since the leaving-the-scene charge was dismissed, that means no license suspension. Nice.
Abigail Allin
Sam Abate was seriously injured while riding his bicycle in Tucson, the driver fled the scene. Police arrested Abigail A. Allin several days later. After a protracted legal goings on (including a legally-interesting case of her withdrawn plea deal going all the way to Court of Appeals); she got incarceration limited to time served (15 months in county jail apparently with releases) and 5 years parole. No prison. Full Story. Her MVD abstract has a blank box under “other” which I believe means the court is suppressing her (what should be automatic, and mandatory) license suspension.
Gary Foshee
Convicted of manslaughter plux 2x endangerment; sentenced to 10.5 years in the death of Russell Jenkins, the hit-and-run and/or additional aggravating circumstances were nowhere to be found in sentencing. I don’t know why.
Benito Gil-Mendoza
Defendant agreed to plea to aggravated assault and hit-and-run. 10 years prison for the assault, and sentence suspended for hit-and-run. Sentencing document linked here.
Roger Stevenson
Defendant plead guilty to extreme DUI and hit-and-run; sentenced to some probation and an additional 30 days in county (in addition to 150 days served while awaiting). Details, see scottsdale-cyclist-dies-after-hit-and-run-crash.
Laura Flanders
Laura Flanders drove onto the sidewalk and killed Joey Romero; then fled the scene. She was sentenced to 6 year incarceration for negligent homicide, followed by 3 years probation for the hit-and-running. Details. See also, “Joey’s law”, below.
Nicholas Linsk
Nicholas Linsk killed Barrow’s neurologist Dr. Marwan Maalouf after striking him from behind with his pickup truck while Dr. Marwan was riding in a bike lane; he stopped, but then drove off. Sentencing is scheduled for early September 2013. Details.
Thomas Cole Wuertz
Thomas Cole Wuertz, 22, ultimately plead guilty to endangerment for the very serious injuries he caused to bicyclist Edward Brennan, 57 on April 3, 2013, In a plea deal that called for no jail time; the hit and run charges were dropped. No one ever said (publicly, or in the news that i can find) why the more serious charges were dropped. Details at casa-grande-pd-nabs-hit-and-run-suspect. The Casa Grande PD needs to be complimented on their police work in catching the driver.
Other Cases
Others can be found by following the hit-and-run tag.
The Dirty Secret of Hit-and-run Sentencing
The pattern seems to be hit-and-runners get some prison (either a little or a lot, typically depending solely on whether or not they were caught impaired), and the hit-and-run charge’s sentence gets “suspended” somehow, and never results in any consecutive prison time. This seems to be in direct conflict with the statutory intentions of the hit-and-run law’s penalties. (it’s not even clear if the mandatory 3/5/10 year license revocations are occurring, see the Allin case for more discussion).
The bottom line is these seemingly harsh penalties are nothing more than an illusion, and there remains a strong incentive for impaired drivers to hit-and-run.
Legislative History
Over the years, the H&R statutes hadn’t changed much. Then relatively recently, legislators recognized the problem that weak penalties for H&R, especially compared to DUI penalties, were encouraging motorists involved in collisions to flee the scene. As a result, penalties were increased twice in the recent past. In 2002, Forty-fifth Legislature Second Regular Session, Chapter 228, added the part about making the prison sentence consecutive (in addition to, as opposed to concurrent which is really like getting no penalty at all) and other penalty. It also added specific, lengthy license revocation period (5/3 years, death or serious / any other injury). “Representative Foster, sponsor of the bill, stated that the law right now requires you to stay and render aid if there is injury or potential death. However, those laws are not being enforced.”
Penalties were increased again in 2007, 48th Legislature, 1st Regular session, Chapter 154 the criminal category of the crime was increased by one across the board. This, for example, elevated a hit and run resulting in a fatal or serious injury to a class 2 (same as manslaughter!), which is where we are today. There was little discussion and the bill passed unanimously according to the minutes of both house and senate transportation committees.
Penalties were increased yet again in 2012 (eff. 8/2/2012), “Joey’s Law”, 50th Legislature, 2nd Regular session, Chapter 191. Senate Bill 1163. For background on the case that inspired Joey Romero’s father to get this law enacted, see driver-gets-6-years-in-sidewalk-killing. The gist of it is putting teeth into 28-661 to require significant (at least 5 years for fatality or serious injury) license revocation; and time spent incarcerated does not count. It’s too soon to know how this will pan out but I feel it is a step in the right direction, as opposed to, say, simply adding more prison time, which as we’ve seen above, never actually gets sentenced anyways. The license revocations should be automatic through already-required court reporting of all (transportation-related) violations to MVD. This general procedure is explained in some detail so-youve-killed-somebody-with-your-car-now-what and scroll down to “The MVD Abstract”
In 2014, once again, Peoria resident Jesse Romero worked with Rep. Rick Gray, R-Sun City to get the law passed. (effective 7/24/2014) HB2505 51st Legislature, 2nd Regular session (or see chaptered version) modified the H&R laws so that a court must order drug/alcohol screening if the fleeing driver was proven to be impaired based on a “preponderance of the evidence” ; or “reasonable suspicion” depending on which statute. Additionally there was an upgrade in 28-663 to the criminal classifications: “(the new law) makes it a felony for a driver involved in a collision to leave the scene without assisting someone who is injured”; from a M3 to a F6 if drugs/alcohol is shown to be a factor.
OLDER (getting in the wayback machine!)
These are accessible via HeinOnline (which can, among other ways, be accessed with and asu login):
1913
1927 8th Legislature, 4th Special Session, HB2 …Code for the systematic and orderly administation of all matters and affairs directly affecting or concerning the highways of the state… the title goes on for several pages. “It may be cited as The Highway Code.” Ch. 2 p5-???. Chapter V, Operation of Motor Vehicles — Rules of the road: Section 27 is hit and run, on p.108-109; and is quoted in State v. Lee.
1935 12th Legislature, Regular Session, HB41 Proof of Financial Responsibility… , Ch 45, pages 165-182. [this is a reference only; it just involves revoking driver license for various reasons including hit and run. I didn’t save a copy of session laws]
1950 19th Leg 1st Special Session (This was apparently co-published with 1951/20th legislature in one document), HB5 Regulating Traffic on Highways, Chapter 3, pages 522-598 (So it’s obviously a big bill. Hit and run is on pages 535-536). The modern numbering of 28-661/2/3 correspond (approximately?) to as Sec. 39, 40 and 41. This is confusing because these section numbers seem to only apply to within the bill itself?
1976 32rd Leg 2nd Regular session, Chapter 142 [reference to 28-661 only] Something to do with setting aside judgement, and exceptions. I didn’t save a copy of the session laws for this.
1977 33rd Leg 1st Regular session, Chapter 142 [reference to 28-661 only] Something to do with exceptions for fines. I didn’t save a copy of the session laws for this.
1978 33rd Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, HB2025 Crimes and Offenses, Ch. 201 page 677-??? (this bill is a huge rewrite of the entire criminal code, the pages of interest are 833-834). Amended 28-661 to get rid of a mandatory 30 day county jail sentence for hit-run w/death or injury to a class 1 misdemeanor. Amended 28-662 from an unspecified misdemeanor to a class 3.
1980 34th Leg 2nd regular session, SB1046 Crimes – Ordinance Violations – Fines and Imprisonments, Ch. 229 pages 718-741. Bump 28-661 criminal classification from a M1 to F6
1985 37th Leg 1st Regular session, Chapter 364 [reference to 28-661 only] added 28-661 to a list of exceptions for criminal judgement to be set aside in 13-907. I didn’t save a copy of the session laws, since it’s just a reference.
1986 37th Leg 2nd Regular session, Chapter 248 [reference to 28-661 only] SB1232. Law involving restitution. I didn’t save a copy of the session laws, since it’s just a reference.
1992 40th Leg 2nd Regular Session, HB2132 vol 2 Session Laws Ch. 330 pages 2012-2026; This was a dui law, did some tinkering with 28-661 that didn’t directly involve dui.
1995 42nd Legislature, 1st Regular Session SB1027, Session Laws Ch. 63 pages 242-243. This was a bill that up’ed the criminal classifications in 28-661 from an F5 to and F4/3 (4 if caused, 3 if not caused by the hit-and-run driver) for serious injury/death. The classification of non-serious stayed at F6. Some other minor grammatical /clarification type changes.
1996 42nd Legislature, 2nd Regular Session SB1076. Session Laws Ch. 76 p.173-198 (it actually goes on way past that). The name of the bill Title 28 Rewrite — Conforming Legislation; is indeed a major re-shuffling of the enter transportation code; as such 661/2/3 appear in this bill as if all new but that’s not really the case.
The site deadlyroads.com is a pretty good resource, unfortunately, the site doesn’t seem to be updated but still has some well written essays and background info.
Hold the horn
Horn honkers take note, hold off on blowing that horn, it’s generally illegal.
§28-954. Horns and warning devices
B. If reasonably necessary to ensure the safe operation of a motor vehicle, the driver shall give an audible warning with the driver’s horn but shall not otherwise use the horn when on a highway.
From ADOT Share the Road Pamphlet:
more materials at azbikeped.org
Audible Signal
There is ONE place where it is permissible for a driver to give an audible signal, i.e. beep (and not blast!) a horn, that is:
§28-723(2) 2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
And note this law does not apply on any road where passing to the right, e.g. a road with two or more lanes in a particular direction, is permitted. In other words, it’s not permitted give an audible signal on a multi-lane arterial road; the only permitted use of horn is as allowed under 28-954.
In the scenario depicted in the graphic, above (a two-lane highway; passing on the right is not permitted), an audible signal is permitted but not recommended; as the cyclist cannot “give way” in any event; since there is no safe place to move to.
.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
Mail Drop 310B
206 S. 17th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 712-8141
www.azbikeped.org
© 2008 Arizona Department of Transportation.
Created by the Pima County Bicycle and Pedestrian Program,
Matthew Zoll, Program Manager.
Design and illustration by David Burnham, Pima County Graphic Services
…
Horrific Crash kills 4 Motorcyclists
There’s a new trial date set for June 6, 2012
The driver of a heavy commercial dump truck piled into a group of motorcyclists who were stopped at a red light; reportedly he was distracted.
Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris described the scene “I have never seen such a horrific accident involving so many motorcycles,”
The crash 3/25/2010 at Carefree Highway and 27th way, Phoenix, initially killed 3, a fourth died a few days later. Several were seriously injured, including a Phoenix Fire Captain in critical condition.
Today the Arizona Republic is reporting in a 3/27/2010 story that the driver has a string of infractions, many of which sound like technical/equipment-related, and several of them were dismissed. However, the driver has an outstanding citation for failure to control about two weeks ago in Scottsdale, related to an (apparently minor) collision. These cases pop up on a search of the Arizona Supreme Court case lookup. But strangely, the reporter seems to be unaware of additional actions in Maricopa Justice Court, including one just dated just a couple of days before the huge crash. (search on Michael Jakscht)
The investigation is still ongoing, but with no hints of impairment the likely outcome, barring a surprise, will be a traffic ticket and no criminal charges.
The Surprise
Driver in fatal Phoenix motorcycle crash booked on 4 manslaughter counts, 4/06/2010 & Bond for driver in fatal motorcycle crash set at $1 million, 4/07/2010, AZ Republic.
Phoenix police arrested Jakscht on suspicion of driving under the influence of methamphetamine. Continue reading “Horrific Crash kills 4 Motorcyclists”
Update on Van Brakel’s manslaughter sentence
There is an update to the who-is-at-fault-in-a-left-turn-collision story from 2007 where former state representative Cal Holman was killed while making a left turn at an intersection and was struck by two motorists who were criminally-speeding, and appeared to be racing.
One motorist, Travis Aronica, plead to endangerment and got probabtion.
The other motorist, Robert Van Brakel, was found guilty of manslaughter and received a five year sentence (which seems light to me, i thought the presumptive for manslaughter is 10.5 years?). Van Brakel (who i presume, is currently imprisoned?) won a review of his sentence by a different judge, claiming improprieties by the sentencing judge. He is scheduled to be re-sentenced “from scratch” by a different judge; because of re-sentencing rules it is extremely unlikely he would draw more than the original 5 years. This is currently scheduled for 8/12/2011.
As Laurie Roberts put it in her July 27, 2011 column “One of the racers gets probation. The other gets five years in prison. Really, that’s what they got… Both men had lousy driving records and both were charged with manslaughter.”
You can also read about the case at friendsofcalholman.com , but be careful because reading that is what got Judge Ryan “in trouble”.
There a newer update at bad-drivers-and-friendsofcalholman-com — Van Brakel was released somehow in 2014.
