Deliver Your News to the World

Two New Case Wins For Tucson DUI Attorneys at Thrush Law Group


As a result of a new law from the Supreme Court of Arizona and the U.S. Supreme Court, Tucson DUI attorneys at Thrush Law Group have won two new cases for their clients allowing them to suppress blood evidence taken at DUI checkpoints and during medical blood draws.

Thrush Law Group lawyers used motions and arguments from previous cases to prove evidence in their clientís favor.

In the first case (State v. William), evidence from a former case (State v. Butler) was used to suppress blood evidence that had been taken at a DUI checkpoint. In State v. Butler, the defendant argued that a blood draw was a search subject to the Fourth Amendment and, to be valid, required either a warrant or an exception such as voluntary consent. The Supreme Court noted that a compelled blood draw was a search subject to the Fourth Amendmentís constraints. The court determined that when the defendant, who was a juvenile at the time, was being questioned by law enforcement, factors such as age and the presence of parents were properly considered. However, the court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence supporting the juvenileís consent to a blood draw, which would require a warrant since the defendant was a minor.

The judge in the State v. William case ruled that the officers did not have voluntary consent to take the blood at the checkpoint, and should have obtained a search warrant. The case was plead to a reckless driving charge.

The second case (State v. Kelly L.) was based on the former case of Missouri v. McNeely, and Thrush Law Group Tucson defense attorneys were able to get blood evidence suppressed by proving that officers took blood during a medical draw claiming exigent circumstances, but did not attempt to obtain a warrant. In the Missouri v. McNeely case, the question presented was whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presented a per se exigency that justified an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. The Court held that it did not. Because the case was argued on the broad proposition that drunk driving cases present a per se exigency, the Court was not provided with an adequate analytic framework for a detailed discussion of all the relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of acting without a warrant.

The charges in the State v. Kelly L. case are still pending.

These cases are the first to take place in Arizona in regards to the new laws set forth by the Arizona and U.S. Supreme Courts. Thrush Law Group criminal attorney John S. Illes was the defense attorney in both cases. He has extensive jury trial experience with acquittals in misdemeanor and felony trials. John is also successful in negotiations and probable cause hearings.

About Thrush Law Group
Bradley Thrush, who has devoted his life to protecting the rights of others, heads Thrush Law Group. The firm is dedicated to DUI defense cases and will leave no stone unturned to protect your rights. Thrush Law Group has offices in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona.† Please visit the Thrush Law Group website for more information:


This news content may be integrated into any legitimate news gathering and publishing effort. Linking is permitted.

News Release Distribution and Press Release Distribution Services Provided by WebWire.