 |
Oregon, DUI, DUII, Drunk Driving, Attorney, Lawyer, DUI Lawyer, DUII Lawyer, Drunk Driving Lawyer, DUI Attorney, DUII Attorney, Drunk Driving Attorney, DUI Defense, DUI Legal Representation, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, Civil Lawsuit, Criminal Lawsuit, Implied Consent License Suspension, Breath Test, DMV Hearing, Commercial Drivers License, DUII Diversion, DUII Conviction Back Sitemap • Advanced Search Terms of Use This Site and its information suppliers make no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to services, information or data made available by This Site, including but not limited to the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability or non-infringement. This Site and its information suppliers make no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to the truth, accuracy or completeness of any statements, information, materials, services or data made available by This Site in the Internet site. This Site and its information suppliers assume no responsibility in connection with the use made available by This Site In no event shall This Site or its information suppliers be liable for any delays or failures in performance or for any interruption of this Internet site. In no event shall This Site or its information suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages or for the loss of profit, revenue, or data however they may arise, even if the user or viewer of this Internet site has been advised of the possibility of potential loss or damage. This Site does not warrant or make representations or endorsements as to the quality, content, accuracy, or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links, and other items contained on this server or any other server. Such materials have been compiled from a variety of sources, and are subject to change without notice from This Site as a result of updates and corrections. Unless otherwise legally permissible, commercial use of the materials is prohibited without the written permission of This Site All trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners. Some of the links on this and subsequent pages may lead to resources outside This Site's control. The user of these resources or links should not construe the presence of these links as an endorsement. This Site is not responsible for the content of such external link. Communications made through E-mail and Messaging system shall in no way be deemed to constitute legal notice to This Site or any of its agencies, officers, employees, agents, or representatives. Privacy Policy This Site is committed to safeguarding your privacy online. Please read the following policy to understand how your personal information will be treated as you use the web site. This policy is subject to change, so please check back here for updates. You can visit this web site and profile yourself for information about This Site News releases, Calendar events and Employment opportunities without telling us who you are and without revealing any personal information, with the possible exception of your email address. Unless it is specifically requested, we do not collect or store personal identifiable, confidential information such as your name, mailing address, phone number, or social security number. To use the profiling capability of this web site we require a certain amount of personal identifying information (examples are: user name, password, email address, etc.) that we can use to verify you as a profiled user and send you email alerts pertaining to information you have asked to receive. We use this information to identify you and to personalize your experience while visiting the site. Providing your email address is optional, but we cannot send you email notifications without it. We will not sell your personal information. We will not use your email address as an alternate means of contacting you, nor will we use it to send you uninvited electronic messages, also known as "spam." You can delete your custom profile at any time. If you are profiled, you will automatically receive the information you have chosen to receive. If you no longer want to receive these emails, modify your online profile by logging in and clicking the "Delete Profile" button. We will not disclose your personal information to any outside organization for any reason. Information about yourself that you volunteer (such as name, address and phone number) will not be given or sold to any outside organization. Printer friendly version If you have questions regarding the site, please contact the webmaster . Terms of Use | Site Credits | Version 5.12.7
|
|
DUI ArrestAnalysis of Drinking Versus Arrest Locations for DWI Offenders Arrested inBernalillo County, N.M. Sign the Resolution Contents | Feedback | Search DRCNet Home | Join DRCNet DRCNet Library | SchafferLibrary | Drugs and Driving Analysis of Drinking Versus Arrest Locations for DWI Offenders Arrested in BernalilloCounty, N.M. Sandra C. Lapham, M.D., M.P.H.; Betty J. Skipper, Ph.D.; I-Yiin Chang, M.S.; KerryBarton, M.A.; and Roderick Kennedy, J.D. The Lovelace Institutes, Institute for Health and Population Research, 1650 UniversityNE, Suite 302, Albuquerque, NM 87102, USA ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to determine whether convicted DWI offenders arrestedfollowing a crash differed in sociodemographic variables or drinking locations from thosearrested for other reasons. The study population included 3,650 clients who completed astructured personal interview during the period October 1, 1989 through April 30, 1994following referral by Bernalillo County, NM, Metropolitan Court. Twelve percent of theseoffenders were involved in crashes. The independent sociodemographic and arrest variablesincluded: age; ethnicity/race; gender; employment; previous DWI arrest; BAC grouo; vehicleage; city quadrant and times of arrest; drinking location; quadrant of residence; andestimated number of miles driven. About half of the clients (51%) reported having beendrinking in a bar. Drinking locations for this subset were clustered in several discreteareas of the city, and arrest locations clustered in approximately the same areas. Amongthose who drove >0 miles, miles driven ranged from 0 to 19.2, with a mean of 2.6 miles(median = 1.6). Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios for driving impaired>0 miles, and for crash involvement. Analysis of variance revealed that among those whodrove >0 miles, those with BACs of >=.20%, those arrested from 6 am to 12 midnightand persons drinking at bars and restaurants drove fewer miles (persons arrested in thenorthwest quadrant of Albuquerque and persons who resided outside the city drove moremiles). The only variable that was statistically associated with having driven 0 miles wasbeing Native American. Crash involvement was associated with higher BACs, driving vehicles<10 years old, client felt intoxicated, driving between 6 am and 12 midnight, and beingarrested in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the city. INTRODUCTION Continued study of DWI offender populations unfailingly points to an expanding view ofits heterogeneous nature. Yet, studies of drinking locations and drunkenness have revealedsome patterns of concern to traffic safety researchers. The incidence of drinking in carshas proved to have an alarmingly high correlation with drunk driving, particularly amongyounger drivers (Snow, 1988; Snow & Landrum, 1986). One recent study found thatsignificantly more persons involved in traffic crashes had been drinking in unlicensedlocations than at bars or restaurants (Land & Stockwell, 1990). This may beattributable to increased police presence at licensed establishments, possibly preventingcrashes by arresting intoxicated persons before they drive very far. In the present studywe examine sociodemographic factors and miles driven prior to arrest in a population ofmixed race and gender, to provide a different perspective to this discussion. The objectives of the present study were: to explore the relationship betweensociodemographic and arrest factors; to estimate the distance driven between the drinkingepisode and arrest; and to determine whether convicted DWI offenders arrested following acrash differed in sociodemographic variables, drinking locations, and arrest variablesfrom those arrested for other reasons. The study population included persons convicted ofa first offense DWI in Bernalillo County, NM, Metropolitan Court, who received screeningservices at the Lovelace Comprehensive Screening Program (LCSP). METHODS Description of the Screening Program Individuals convicted of a DWI offense were referred to the LCSP for evaluation by theMetropolitan Court system (Bernalillo County, N.M.). This program provides assessment forthe presence and severity of alcohol- and drug-related disorders. The screening processconsists of a series of standardized assessments and a structured personal interview andclinical evaluation of the client by a Master's degree level counselor (Lapham et al.,1995). The structured counselor interview obtains information from DWI offenders regardingwhere they were arrested, where they were drinking prior to their arrests (the streetintersections and the quadrant of the city), and the circumstances of the arrest. Thesedata are entered by counselors onto a computerized data file. The study populationincluded all clients who completed a personal interview during the period October 1, 1989through April 30, 1994. Statistical Analyses We used logistic regression to determine odds ratios for driving impaired >0 milesand for crash involvement (the dependent variables were: whether the offender drove >0miles; and whether the arrest followed a crash). The independent sociodemographic andarrest variables included: age group (<31, 31+); ethnicity/race (non-Hispanic white,Hispanic, Mexican, Native American, other); gender; whether the client was employed at thetime of screening; whether the client had a previous DWI arrest; BAC group (<.15,.15-.19, .20+); vehicle type [truck, car, motorcycle); age of vehicle (year at screeningminus year of vehicle (5 or fewer, 6 - 9, 10+]; city quadrant of arrest, as reported bythe client at the time of the screening interview; drinking location (bar or restaurant,home, private party, other, which includes vehicle, stadium, park, movie, drive-up window,or work); area of residence; whether the arrest involved a crash; perceived intoxication;time of day of arrest (6:01 am to 5 pm; 5:01 pm to 12 midnight, 12:01 am to 6 am); andwhether the number of miles driven between the drinking and arrest locations was 0 or>0. In addition, an estimated minimum number of miles driven for each client wascalculated using the shortest road distance between the location of drinking streetintersections and the location of the arrest street intersections.. RESULTS Population Demographics The population consisted of 3,651 persons (59% of the 5,809 persons whocompleted the personal interview); 2,158 (42%) were dropped due to missing or invaliddata. Almost all cases dropped from the investigation were clients who could not recalltheir drinking or arrest location. About 20% of the study population was female and themajority (almost 60%) were age 30 or under at the time of the LCSP interview (Table 1).Almost 80% were employed. Table 1 Characteristics of Offenders, N = 3,650 VARIABLE NUMBER PERCENT Age <30 2132 59% 31+ 1493 41% Gender Male 2871 79% Female 779 21% Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 1389 38% Hispanic 1544 42% Mexican 350 10% Native American 270 7% Other 93 3% Age of Vehicle (yrs) 0-5 933 26% 6-9 825 24% 10+ 1795 50% Year of Referral to Screening 1989-1990 436 12% 1991 1278 35% 1992 1021 28% 1993-1994 913 25% Previous DWI Arrest Yes 57 16% No 3083 84% Drinking Location Bar or Restaurant 1858 51% Home 436 12% Private Party 317 9% Other 1039 28% BAC Group <.15 1214 35% .15-.19 1276 37% .20+ 317 9% Not Available 641 19% Quadrant of Arrest NW 550 15% SW 470 13% NE 2014 55% SE 611 17% Time of Arrest 00:01 to 06:00 1765 49% 06:01 to 17:00 441 12% 17:01 to 24:00 1423 39% Miles Driven After Drinking 0 808 22% >0 2843 78% Perceived Intoxicated Yes 2262 62% No 1387 38% Vehicle Characteristics and Circumstances of the Arrest The majority of the clients (64%) reported driving a passenger car, van, or sportsutility vehicle; 27% a truck; and <1% a motorcycle. The type of vehicle was unknown for274 persons (8%). About half the vehicles were ten years old or older, while about onequarter were under 6 years old. About half of the client population (51%) reported having been drinking in a bar priorto their arrests. An additional 9% reported drinking at a private party; 12% at home; and28% at other locations. Sixty-one percent of the population reported being stopped by thepolice for violations such as running a red light, speeding, weaving, or failure tomaintain lane boundaries prior to their DWI arrests. About one quarter of the populationreported that they were arrested following a moving violation, such as not stopping at astop sign or failing to signal a turn. Twelve percent were arrested because of crashinvolvement: 9% in a non-injury crash and 3% in a crash with injuries. About 3% could notrecall the circumstances of the arrest or the data were missing for this variable. About one quarter of the population reported drinking and being arrested at the sameintersections. Logistic regression analysis comparing those with 0 and >0 miles drivenindicated that the only statistically significant difference, after controlling for othervariables in the model, was that Native Americans and persons in the "otherrace" category were less likely to have driven >0 miles. The minimum miles drivenamong the 75% of offenders who drove >0 miles ranged from 0.1 to 19.2, with a mean of3.3 miles (median = 2.4). Those involved in crashes were less likely to be of Hispanic or Mexican ethnicity, morelikely to have higher BACs, and more likely to be driving vehicles under ten years oldthan persons who were not involved in a crash (Table 2). Persons involved in crashes alsowere more likely to report to the evaluating counselor that they felt intoxicated at thetime of the arrest. Crash involvement was higher among those arrested between midnight and6:00 pm, compared to other times of day. There also were statistically different crashrates among arrest location quadrants. Finally, persons screened within the last threeyears of the study period were more likely to be involved in crashes, compared with thosescreened in earlier years. DISCUSSION Our analysis demonstrated that a substantial percentage of clients reported drinkingand being arrested at the same locations. Native Americans and persons of other races wereoverrepresented in the group of clients who reported driving 0 miles, after controllingfor other factors. Since the statistical model involved 30 variables, 1.5 of thestatistically significant comparisons would have been expected to occur by chance alone.Therefore, this association may have been due to chance or may represent a real differencein arrest patterns. Persons who drove >0 miles before being arrested drove an average ofabout 3 miles; this driving distance was shorter for those with BACs of .20 mg/dl orhigher, compared with that of persons with lower BACs. It is reasonable to expect thatpersons with such high BACs would have drawn attention to themselves by erratic driving.These persons also were more likely to be involved in a crash, thus cutting short theirdriving distances. Table 2 Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for Crash Involvement VARIABLE CRASH OR (95% C.I.) Age <30 1.20 (0.96, 1.51) 31+ 1.00 Gender Male 1.12 (0.85, 1.48) Female 1.00 Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 1.00 Hispanic 0.75 (0.58, 0.97)* Mexican 0.61 (0.40, 0.94)* Native American 0.73 (0.46, 1.18) Other 1.34 (0.71, 2.54) Age of Vehicle (yrs) 0-5 1.00 6-9 0.87 (0.64, 1.17) 10+ 0.77 (0.59, 1.00)* Year of Referral to Screening 1989-1990 1.00 1991 1.20 (0.80, 1.79) 1992 1.60 (1.07, 2.41)* 1993-1994 1.64 (1.09, 2.47)* Previous DWI Arrest Yes 0.80 (0.59, 1.10) No 1.00 Drinking Location Bar or Restaurant 0.72 (0.51, 1.01) Home 1.00 Private Party 0.96 (0.67, 1.36) Other 0.84 (0.53, 1.33) BAC Group <.15 1.00 .15-.19 1.37 (1.02, 1.83)* .20+ 2.23 (1.59, 3.12)** Not Available 2.62 (1.91, 3.59) Quadrant of Arrest NW 1.22 (0.89, 1.68) SW 1.51 (1.06, 2.16)* NE 1.00 SE 0.69 (0.49, 0.97)* Time of Arrest 00:01-06:00 1.00 06:01-17:00 0.54 (0.40, 0.73)** 17:01-24:00 0.41 (0.30, 0.56)** Miles Driven After Drinking 0 1.0 >0 1.19 (0.93, 1.53) Perceived Intoxicated Yes 1.30 (1.03, 1.64)* No 1.00 *p<.05; **p<.001 We found that Hispanics, Mexicans, and persons driving older vehicles were less likelyto be involved in crashes. It appears that police are looking more closely at Hispanics'driving patterns and less closely at persons driving newer cars, unless there was a crashinvolvement. The higher BACs among crash-involved drunk drivers and those driving in theearly morning hours has been described previously (Benjamin, 1980; Lang and Stockwell,1991). The higher crash involvement rates among those referred to screening in the lateryears of the study can probably be explained by decreased enforcement efforts during theseyears. REFERENCES Benjamin, F.B. Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety. Where do we go from here? Charles C.Thomas, Springfield, ILL 1980. Lang, E., and Stockwell, T. Drinking locations of drink-drivers: a comparative analysisof accident and nonaccident cases. Accid. Anal. and Prev. 1991:23(6); 573-584. Lapham, S.C., Skipper, B.J., Owen, J.P., Kleyboecker, K., Teaf, D., Thompson, B., andSimpson, G.L. Alcohol abuse screening instruments: Normative test data collected from afirst DWI offender screening program. J. Studies on Alcohol (In Press, 1994). Lapham, S.C. and Barton, K. Lovelace Comprehensive Screening Program. 1991 AnnualReport. Lovelace Medical Foundation, 1650 University, N.E., Suite 302, Albuquerque, N.M.87102, May 1992. Olden S. and Gerstein, D.R. Alcohol in America: Taking Action to Prevent Abuse.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1985. Snow, R.W. Sociodemographic characteristics and drinking locations of convicted drunkendrivers. Addictive Behaviors 1988:13(1); 119-122. Snow, R.W., and Landrum, J.W. Drinking locations and frequency of drunkenness amongMississippi DUI offenders. Am.J.Drug and Alcohol Abuse 1986:12(4); 389-402.
|
|
Intoxicated DrivingAlcohol Concern Questionnaires — REACH Today - Resolve Each Arising Challenge Head-on Skip to content Skip to navigation Site Map Accessibility Contact Search Site Advanced Search… REACH Today - Resolve Each Arising Challenge Head-on Personal tools Home News *REACH OUT - SendOutCards Interventions Treatment Virtual Coaching Chemical Tests Consultants Reserve Orator Expert Witness Education Tools Words-of-Wisdom Art and Music Jeff's Biography Testimonials Resources Code of Ethics Privacy Act Disclaimer Interventions Education Tools Alcohol Concern Questionnaires Gambling Concerns Document Actions Alcohol Concern Questionnaires MICHIGAN ALCOHOLISM SCREENINGTEST (MAST)* YES NO 0. Do you enjoy having a drink now andthen? ____ ____ 1. Do you feel you are a normal drinker?(By normal we mean you drink less than or as much as most other peopleand you have not gotten into any recurring trouble whiledrinking.) ____ ____ 2. Have you ever awakened the morningafter some drinking the night before and found that you could not remembera part of the evening? ____ ____ 3. Does either of your parents, or anyother near relative, or your spouse, or any girlfriend or boyfriend everworry or complain about your drinking? ____ ____ 4. Can you stop drinking without astruggle after one or two drinks? ____ ____ 5. Do you feel guilty about yourdrinking? ____ ____ 6. Do friends or relatives think you area normal drinker? ____ ____ 7. Are you able to stop drinking whenyou wantto? ____ ____ 8. Have you ever attended a meeting ofAlcoholics Anonymous? ____ ____ 9. Have you gotten into physical fightswhen you have been drinking? ____ ____ 10. Has your drinking ever createdproblems between you and either of your parents, or another relative, yourspouse, or any girlfriend or boyfriend? ____ ____ 11. Has any family member of yours ever gone to anyone for helpabout your drinking? 12. Have you ever lost friends because ofyourdrinking? ____ ___ 13. Have you ever gotten in trouble atwork or at school because ofdrinking? ____ ___ 14. Have you ever lost a job because ofdrinking? ____ ___ 15. Have you ever neglected yourobligations, your school work, your family, or your job for two or more days in arow because you weredrinking? ____ ___ 16. Do you drink before noon fairlyoften? ____ ___ 17. Have you ever been told you haveliver trouble? Cirrhosis? ____ ___ 18. After heavy drinking have you everhad severe shaking, or heard voices, or seen things that really weren’tthere? ____ ___ 19. Have you ever gone to anyone forhelp about yourdrinking? ____ ___ 20. Have you ever been in a hospitalbecause ofdrinking? ____ ___ 21. Have you ever been a patient in apsychiatric hospital or on a psychiatric ward of a general hospital whiledrinking was part of the problem that results in hospitalization? ____ ___ 22. Have you ever been seen at apsychiatric or mental health clinic or gone to any doctor, social worker, orclergy for help with any emotional problem, where drinking was a part of theproblem? ____ ___ 23. Have you ever been arrested fordrunk driving, driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence ofalcoholic beverages or any otherdrug? ____ ___ 24. Have you ever been arrested, ortaken into custody, even for a few hours because of other drunk behavior, whetherdue to alcohol or another drug? (If YES, how manytimes?) ____ ___ *Interpretations: Standard MAST – 0-3points = probable normal drinker; 4 points = borderline score; 5-9 points = 80% associated withalcoholism/chemical dependence; 10 or more = 100% associated withalcoholism. MICHIGAN ALCOHOLISM SCREENINGTEST (MAST)* YES NO 0. Do you enjoy having a drink now andthen? _0__ __0_ 1. Do you feel you are a normal drinker? (By normal we mean youdrink less than or as much as most other people and you have not gotteninto any recurring trouble whiledrinking.) ____ __2_ 2. Have you ever awakened the morning after some drinking thenight before and found that you could not remember a part of theevening? __2__ ___ 3. Does either of your parents, or any other near relative, oryour spouse, or any girlfriend or boyfriend ever worry or complain about yourdrinking? __1__ ___ 4. Can you stop drinking without a struggle after one or twodrinks? ____ __2_ 5. Do you feel guilty about yourdrinking? __1__ ___ 6. Do friends or relatives think you are a normaldrinker? ____ __2_ 7. Are you able to stop drinking when you wantto? ____ __2_ 8. Have you ever attended a meeting of AlcoholicsAnonymous? __5__ ___ 9. Have you gotten into physical fights when you have beendrinking? __1__ ___ 10. Has your drinking ever created problems between you and eitherof your parents, or another relative, your spouse, or any girlfriend orboyfriend? __2__ ___ 11. Has any family member of yours ever gone to anyone for helpabout your drinking? __2__ ___ 12. Have you ever lost friends because of yourdrinking? __2__ ___ 13. Have you ever gotten in trouble at work or at school becauseof drinking? __2__ ___ 14. Have you ever lost a job because ofdrinking? __2__ ___ 15. Have you ever neglected your obligations, your school work,your family, or your job for two or more days in a row because you weredrinking? __2__ ___ 16. Do you drink before noon fairlyoften? __1__ ___ 17. Have you ever been told you have liver trouble? Cirrhosis? __2__ ___ 18. After heavy drinking have you ever had severe shaking, orheard voices, or seen things that really weren’tthere? __5__ ___ 19. Have you ever gone to anyone for help about yourdrinking? __5__ ___ 20. Have you ever been in a hospital because ofdrinking? __5__ ___ 21. Have you ever been a patient in a psychiatric hospital or on apsychiatric ward of a general hospital while drinking was part of the problemthat results in hospitalization? __2__ ___ 22. Have you ever been seen at a psychiatric or mental healthclinic or gone to any doctor, social worker, or clergy for help with anyemotional problem, where drinking was a part of theproblem? __2__ ___ 23. Have you ever been arrested for drunk driving, driving whileintoxicated, driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any otherdrug? __2__ ___ 24. Have you ever been arrested, or taken into custody, even for afew hours because of other drunk behavior, whether due to alcohol or anotherdrug? (If YES, how manytimes?) __2__ ___ *Interpretations: Standard MAST – 0-3 points = probable normaldrinker; 4 points = borderline score; 5-9 points = 80% associated with alcoholism/chemical dependence; 10or more = 100% associated with alcoholism. ©2003- 2006 by J.M. Lees - all rights reserved. Website design by Spinnaker, LLC
|
|
DUI law and science. Arizona DUI Law: Drunk Driving Defense Attorney Daniel Jaffe duiattorney.com Daniel Jaffe Arizona DUI Attorney Contact Did You Know . . . You have the right to remain silent. You should never answer the officer's questions regarding your impairment or the amount you drank. What People Are Saying This was my second DUI and I was a wreck. The prosecutor wouldn't deal, and you told me we would have to "play for the fumble," or accept the jail term they were offering. I was skeptical about paying your litigation fee, but it was worth it because they did fumble and you were there to jump on the ball. I won't be needing your services again because I learned my lesson, but thanks for making it a lesson that didn't involve jail time or further damage to my record. --JG [ more ] Contact Us Daniel Jaffe 9089 E. Bahia Drive Suite 101 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480.951.3200 Request a Consultation Contact Us Not in Arizona? Locate an Attorney near you. ©1999 - 2005 Daniel M. Jaffe Disclaimer Home Our Firm Driving The Law Your Case Tips Links Blog Focused On DUI Defense We are one of the few law firms in Arizona that focuses exclusively on DUI Defense. Mr. Jaffe has been retained by all types of professionals, including lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants, pilots, law enforcement officers, athletes, businesses owners, and regularly receives referrals from other attorneys and from his current and former clients. DEDICATED: Daniel Jaffe is dedicated not only to defending his clients with integrity, honor, skill and diligence, but also to educating the public about the myths and realities of Arizona DUI law and science. He is the author of this website which contains literally thousands of pages of AZ drunk driving law content. FOCUSED: Mr.Jaffe focuses his practice 100% on Arizona DUI defense. That means hedoesn't accept any other type of criminal or civil case.* LOCAL: He accepts only caseswithin Maricopa County (meaning any Superior, Justice or City Courtwithin the boundaries of Maricopa County, including Phoenix, Mesa,Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, Gilbert, Peoria, and all otherValley Cities), or within a one hour drive of his Scottsdale Office. PERSONAL: He keeps his case load small, and he and his small and friendly staff personally handle all important aspects of every case. SOLUTION: You deserve alaw firm that is fully dedicated to solving the exact problem that youhave, and that focuses on a single geographical area within Arizona. * For former DUI clients accused of another crime, we willmake occasional exceptions as long as it won't interfere with our DUIpractice. If an attorney or law firm claims to focus on or specialize in DUI defense, make sure to ask them point blank if they accept or solicit other types of criminal or civil cases. Daniel Jaffe Law Offices Of Daniel M Jaffe, PLLC 9089 E. Bahia Drive Suite 101 • Scottsdale, AZ 85260 • p:480.951.3200 • f:480.951.3208
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
