Although Arizona has been deemed one of the most lenient states on gun control, new gun laws are still difficult to navigate and if not followed correctly, consequences can be severe.

How will Arizona’s new gun laws affect citizens?
Governor Doug Ducey recently signed two new gun bills which go into effect on August 6, 2017, one allowing guns to be closer in range to schools and the other, discipling cities with harsher gun laws than Arizona’s.

What is Senate Bill 1266?
This bill states that opposing local regulations which go against Arizona’s statute to withhold the power of regulating firearms within the state’s counties and cities will allow courts to fine those counties and cities up to $50,000. The individual involved can sue a county or city and be awarded up to $100,000 in damages.

What is House Bill 2338?
This bill denies K -12 all the way up to university school governing boards from “banning someone from legally possessing a deadly weapon on a public right of way adjacent to campus,” according to AZCentral.

While the state’s new gun laws may seem simple, the slightest mistake can result in trouble and in Arizona, weapon possession charges are prosecuted aggressively.

Weapons charges include:

• Concealing a weapon illegally
• Possessing a firearm or other weapon illegally
• Prohibited possessor under Arizona law
• Using a firearm or other weapon during a crime

In the state of Arizona, an experienced criminal defense attorney is necessary when it comes to weapon possession.

Why?

• The knowledge and experience of an Arizona criminal defense lawyer who has dealt with similar cases is crucial in fighting for the best outcome.
• You need a criminal defense lawyer who will protect your rights along the way.
• Consequences can be severe including:
• Expensive fines
• Jail time
• Prison

Our criminal defense attorneys have extensive experience defending weapons charges in Arizona. Schedule your free consultation today and let us help you. Call (480) 471- 4616.

In states where medical and recreational marijuana are legal, how much is too much when it comes to getting behind the wheel? In this post, we examine THC limits.

Recently, new data revealed that it’s difficult to put into place a DUI limit for marijuana stating that “legal limits, also known as per se limits, for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science,” according to the AAA Foundation for traffic safety.

As a result, the AAA Foundation suggests that legal limits for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), should be eliminated and police departments should train their officers to become certified drug recognition experts (DREs).

What would this mean to the public?
A DRE is there to prove that drugs are present in the defendant’s system. Just because a police officer is a certified DRE, doesn’t make him a medical expert. From a defense point of view, science trumps what a DRE says happened or what they saw while pulling someone over.

A highly qualified drug expert is still necessary as Marijuana DUIs can result in severe consequences. In Arizona, if the substance is recognized as a drug, it’s illegal to drive with it in your system. This ignites issues with the fact that marijuana lingers in one’s system.

How can a criminal defense lawyer help?
Although Arizona doesn’t have a set THC limit, this type of situation is still complex. In a marijuana DUI case, hiring an experienced Scottsdale defense lawyer is important. The right criminal defense lawyer will defend the rights of the client while aggressively and professionally defending their situation.

The way marijuana is treated by the courts is important for a defendant to understand. In a zero-tolerance state like Arizona, knowing the right steps to take is crucial.

Our team of experienced criminal defense lawyers handle cases like these everyday. We’re prepared, knowledgeable and known for our detailed defense strategies. During each step along the way we will treat with you with the respect you deserve, keeping you informed during the entire process.

It’s important to see what our other clients have to say about us too. Read our Corso Law Group reviews page for more information.

An Arizona marijuana DUI is not something that should be handled alone or by a public defender. Let us help. Schedule your free consultation today at (480) 471- 4616.

Arizona is known for some of the strictest DUI (driving under the influence) laws in the country, with a zero-tolerance policy and tough, extensive penalties including hefty fines, jail-time, tent city sentencing and lifelong repercussions impacting one’s family, career, educational opportunities and much more.

The process of being pulled for an Arizona DUI is also demanding, but the current procedures used when officers pull over a driver have recently been deemed unfair.

The Arizona Supreme Court is now forcing police officers to alter the way they obtain evidence when pulling someone over for being under the influence, changing the script they recite.

Before, police were able to say that Arizona state law requires that the driver give a blood sample, telling the driver that if they disagree, they could lose their license for up to year.  Now, the court says police officers can only remind drivers of the law after they refuse to give a blood sample.

Will this change have an impact on past and future DUI cases?

Yes, this Arizona Supreme Court decision could have a significant impact on past and future Arizona DUI cases. It’s crucial for past DUI offenders to meet with a lawyer, to discuss their situation and what occurred during their case. Current cases should also be assessed and reviewed, in accordance with the new process.

It’s important for all Arizona drivers to understand their rights and to know law enforcement across the state of Arizona can and can’t say.

Can police still demand a blood sample?

Yes. If you refuse to give a blood sample, an officer can still get a search warrant for it which in Maricopa County, only takes 10 minutes. However, it’s crucial for Arizona drivers to fully understand their rights throughout this entire process.

Review these Arizona DUI FAQs today: http://bit.ly/23mEvqY.

This decision may have an affect on your current and past Arizona DUI case. For more information, contact the Arizona DUI lawyers at Corso Law Group – Arizona at (480) 471-4616.

Last September, Judge Berman eliminated Tom Brady’s four-game “Deflategate” suspension, a punishment given to him by the National Football League (NFL) for being apart of the scandal in which footballs were deflated in last year’s Super Bowl.

Among other reasons, Judge Berman said his decision to throw out the suspension was because of “inadequate notice of punishment and misplaced reliance on NFL’s ‘conduct detrimental’ policy,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

Seven months later, Brady’s suspension has been reinstated. This past week, “a divided federal appeals court in Manhattan has upheld the National Football League’s four game suspension,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

It was a decision that reflected an investigation which revealed rule violations at a high level. The three judge panel agreed 2-1 with the original suspension placed on Tom Brady by the National Football League (NFL) and that the reinstatement of the Tom Brady’s punishment was fair and right.

For a legal debate that continues to gain press and break new grounds, this ruling revealed the Judges’ mindset of treating everyone equally and sticking to a ruling they believed was fair and just in the first place.

Judge Barrington Parker who wrote for the majority stated that while the suspension may seem “unorthodox”, it was a collective agreement and it shouldn’t serve as an exception to the rule.

This ruling surrounds equal protection and due process, important factors when it comes to high-profile cases. It also received an incredibly large and diverse reaction from Tom Brady fans, New England Patriot fans and a slew of football fans in general.

Judge Katzmann however, disagreed. In his dissent, he called the suspension “unprecedented” and went on to say that The Commissioner who implemented the punishment “failed to even consider a highly relevant alternative penalty.”

Corso Law Group deals with difficult cases everyday. As your voice in the courtroom, we are deeply dedicated to our clients and their families.

For a free consultation, please call Corso Law Group – Texas at (713) 231-0499.

Should Federal agents be allowed to access a phone caller’s location without a warrant?

A Cincinnati-based federal appeals court recently said yes with their latest ruling on the topic of protecting the privacy of data which is transmitted by one’s personal device.

The records in question, obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), were that of two men located near multiple robberies when they occurred.

Timothy Carpenter and Timothy Sanders were found guilty of being involved in nine armed robberies but argued that their phone records should have been dismissed as evidence.

Why did they argue this?

• The phone records were obtained without a search warrant.
• The Fourth Amendment should have protected the FBI’s access to their phone records.

Unfortunately, the court ruled against them.

In a 2-1 panel, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision stated that collecting this information did not require a search warrant and was not categorized as a “search”.

Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote, “Cell-site data—like mailing addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses—are information that facilitate personal communications, rather than part of the content of those communications themselves.”

Carpenter’s lawyer continues to focuses on the next step. In these situations, it’s crucial to secure a criminal defense lawyer who is willing to fight till the end and be the client’s voice in the courtroom.

Carpenter’s lawyer will either ask the Sixth Court to rehear the case or head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s the Supreme Court’s record when it comes to privacy?

Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of privacy. However, Judge Kethledge wrote that his decision was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Smith V. Maryland. The Smith V. Maryland ruling stated that when a person dials a number on their landline, they are willingly releasing that information to phone companies and therefore, it’s not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

While landlines and cellphones are different, Judge Kethledge saw this as a solid reference for his decision.

What’s next?

This controversy will continue to be disputed as similar cases appear and questions continue to be asked.

Is this fair? Should the FBI be able to access this information? If police have access to this type of data, especially this much, shouldn’t they have to have a search warrant?

In this case, police had extensive amounts of information. They had months of data from more than 1,000 different locations. Carpenter was sentenced to more than 116 years in prison and Sanders was sentenced to approximately 14 years in prison.

To schedule a free consultation, please call Corso Law Group at (480) 471- 4616.

Former NFL player and current Scottsdale resident Derek Loville has been accused of operating in an international drug trafficking ring.

According to court documents, Lovelle was in a federal grand-jury indictment that includes charges of:

• Racketeering conspiracy
• Drug trafficking
• Illegal gambling
• Money laundering

Led by Owen Hanson, a former athlete from USC, the operation went by the name of “ODOG”, which made fake companies to cover up illegal gambling and drug trafficking.

Along with other crimes, Hanson and others threatened someone to pay them a $2.5 million debt, according to the indictment.

The threat included a delivered package containing photos of the customer’s spouse and family. Allegedly, they also sent an email titled “Operation Shovel”. In the email, it contained a photo of the customer’s gravestone, implying they would die soon.

Later, “ODOG” sent a DVD showing a masked person beheading two men with a chainsaw and a knife. The DVD had a message that said “If you don’t pay us our money, this will happen to you.”

According to authorities, Loville sold illegal narcotics to someone in Phoenix for “ODOG”. Then, two days later, Loville transferred $1,150 to Hanson.

On January 13 the U.S District of Southern California issued a warrant for Lovell’s arrest. Loville then made his appearance in court on January 27 and then was released.

With more court dates to come, we will soon find out if Loville was a part of “ODOG” and whether he distributed drugs for Hanson.

Imagine getting a photo radar ticket for something you didn’t do. Arizona Rep. Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff is proposing a bill (HB 2366) that would do just that.

With this new bill, it would end the requirement for photo radar tickets to have a picture of the vehicle’s driver. The only thing the government would need is a picture of the license plate.

On its face, the bill’s main purpose is to put photo radar cameras on school buses. With a camera attached to a bus, Arizona law enforcement hopes it will be be able to catch drivers who don’t stop for school buses.

Under Arizona law, motorists must stop when a school bus has its flashing lights on and a stop sign extended. Anyone who violates this law must pay a $250 fine. If the violation occurs three times within a 36-month period, motorists can lose their license for at least six months.

If the bill is approved, however, the photo radar law will affect more than just school buses. Car owners will no longer be able to prove who was driving their vehicle. When a photo radar camera takes a picture of the license plate and not the driver, car owners will have two options; pay the ticket or provide the name of who was driving the vehicle.

Since it’s entirely plausible that a family member, friend or mechanic could drive someone else’s car from time to time, the threat of overreaching and unfair photo radar ticketing becomes a concern. If for some reason, the car exceeds the speed limit, the government won’t know who’s behind the wheel. The car owner will then receive the ticket and face the penalty unless they can provide another name.

As this new bill makes it way through the legislature, it’s clear it is more about making a profit than safety. Every year, photo radar companies and the government look to maximize their revenue from photo radar tickets.

As the process for prosecuting photo radar tickets continues to change, Corso Law Group is one of the few firms in Arizona that specializes in photo radar defense and understands how to fight them. Should you have questions about photo radar or any other moving violation, please contact us for a free consultation or call (480) 471-4616.

Have you ever received a speeding ticket? Did you wonder where the money went after you paid the ticket? Most likely you and many others in Arizona contributed tens of millions to government programs through unnecessary citation costs.

Instead of local and state taxes contributing to government programs, Arizona legislation has shifted the burden to those who have committed a crime.

Over the last two decades, Arizona’s state-mandated surcharges went from 56 percent to 83 percent, according to the Arizona Republic.

When you pay the state $95 for a speeding ticket, you’ll also be required to pay for programs and flat fees that could raise the price to as much as $243.

Because of these surcharges you’ll be paying:

• $95 for the ticket
• $79 for state programs
• $13 for police training
• $2 for a victim’s rights fund
• $7 court-restitution fund
• $27 for court technology
• $20 for the county probation department.

Penalizing drivers with additional costs and surcharges should not be practiced by the state of Arizona. Government-run programs should receive their funding from taxpayers, without drivers picking up the remainder of the tab.

Along with the financial consequences, there also can be a personal impact from a criminal speeding ticket. In Arizona, a criminal speeding ticket is a class 3 misdemeanor. If you’re found guilty, every time you’re asked if you have a criminal record, you’ll have to answer “yes”.

At Corso Law Group, we understand the consequences and the true costs of a speeding ticket in Arizona. If you are charged with speeding, the lawyers at Corso Law Group will fight for you and obtain the best possible outcome.

Click for a free consultation or call (480) 471-4616.

Texas remains third on the list of states with the highest number of death row inmates. But in 2015, new death sentences reached their lowest point since 1976. This was the year that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’ revised death penalty statute. However, prosecutors are still fighting for unfair death-row sentences in a completely illegal manner. One recent case of false testimony illustrates this.

Anthony Graves was sentenced to death in 1994 for the murder of six people. He spent 18 years in prison, with 12 of those years on death row. But Graves wasn’t guilty and he wasn’t the right person to be sentenced to death.

Although Graves conviction was overturned in 2006, he wasn’t exonerated till 2010. Several pieces of evidence lead to his exoneration.

The prosecutor in Graves’ case, Charles Sebesta “failed to provide several items of exculpatory evidence to the defense during Graves’ trial, presented false testimony to the jury, made a false statement of material fact to the trial judge and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Recently, the State Bar of Texas made the decision to disbar Sebesta. But yet, disbarring Sebesta can only go so far as to right the wrongs of Sebesta.

Corso Law Group knows the facts about death row sentences. They know why cases with certain evidence should be not be legal in the first place. In Graves’ case, the prosecution presented evidence that should have never been accepted.

Our firm seeks to fix this problem. It’s the main reason our criminal defense attorneys always fight for our client’s rights.

For life-altering, difficult situations, an experienced, aggressive defense attorney is crucial. Having a criminal defense attorney who also has prior prosecutorial experience is an advantage.

Our firm knows how prosecutors operate and we fight to defend your rights.

Graves experienced unimaginable suffering. He served 18 years in prison, thinking he was going to be executed for a crime he didn’t even commit.

Corso Law Group operates in a different way. Our focus is to help the person, not just the client.

Body cameras for all Phoenix police officers might be on their way. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and Councilwoman Thelda Williams have asked for all patrol officers to wear body cameras in the next three years.

However, this request comes with an expensive price tag. Last year, Phoenix Police Chief Joe Yahner said equipping police officers with body cameras would cost more than $3.5 million.

Despite the high price, Stanton and Williams are asking for the proposal to move forward due to the camera’s success in the Maryvale precinct.

In a memo to City Manager Ed Zuercher, Williams and Stanton said:

“In the areas where cameras were used, Phoenix saw significant drops in complaints against officers, more effective processing of cases in court and improved evidence in the prosecution of domestic-violence cases.”

If the proposal passes, behavior among police officers might improve. With the potential to make police officers more trustworthy and transparent, body cameras seem ideal. The body cameras seem a natural fit in the courtroom as well. In court, it’s usually the police officer’s word versus the defendant’s testimony. With body cameras on every officer, cases could change for defendants in the Valley. By using video evidence, cases will become clearer since video footage will be available for review.

Putting body cameras on all police officers could move Phoenix toward a new generation of policing by building trust between the officers and the communities they serve.