Prescott Valley Criminal Law Blog

People in Prescott Valley frequently use social media for various activities. Some will use it to try and meet people and engage in a relationship. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it can be difficult to know whether the person with whom an individual is communicating is of legal age to do so. This can result in exchanging photos and getting involved in situations that are illegal and can spark criminal charges. Being accused of cybercrime and sexual misconduct can cause major problems in a person's life and requires a strong legal defense.

Two men, 50 and 19, were arrested for allegations of engaging in sexual conduct with a 16-year-old girl. According to the charges, the men interacted with the girl and shared pornographic images and videos while in a chat room. Law enforcement met with the girl's mother after this was discovered. Deputies saw the images on her phone as well as the text of the discussion with the men. One of the men had bought her the phone and provided the messaging service. The men were accused of sending her images of themselves and she responded. She claimed that there had not been in-person sexual contact, but other videos insinuated that there was. The men were arrested and charged with various charges related to sexual contact with minors.

Arizonans who are arrested on drug charges must remember the penalties and the long-term consequences that accompany a conviction. This is true whether it is a person who is facing arrest for trafficking drugs, distributing drugs, selling it at a low level, or is simply accused of drug possession. There are many factors that are part of lodging a strong defense after an arrest for drug possession. Understanding the elements of these drug crimes when the case is prosecuted can be important to the defense.

When the arrest is made, it is important to determine whether the person was in knowing possession of the drug or not. If the person is in the location where the drugs were found, it is not sufficient for a conviction. Law enforcement must connect the person to the drugs so the reasonable inference can be made that the person was aware that the drug was there. It is also necessary for it to be proven that the person was in control of the drugs. Simply having a usable quantity is not part of this requirement and is not needed for there to be a conviction.

Being charged with drug offenses in Prescott Valley and throughout Arizona carries serious consequences. The type of drugs the person is accused of being involved with will largely dictate how serious the potential penalties are. For example, people who are accused of possessing marijuana for personal use will not be treated as harshly if there is a conviction as those who are accused of manufacturing, selling and distributing a drug like methamphetamine.

A woman, 38, was arrested for allegations that she was delivering methamphetamine in her vehicle. The vehicle, a white Dodge SUV, was stopped by law enforcement because of a basic violation with her registration. Upon investigating, the woman denied a request on the part of law enforcement to search her vehicle. A K9 unit gave an indication that there were drugs in the SUV. Upon searching, law enforcement said they found 2.2 kg (one pound) of methamphetamine. The value of the drug was estimated to be $9,000.

Those in Prescott who are facing drunk driving charges might be thinking about how they can lodge an effective defense to avoid the harshest penalties. They might not be considering how some of the procedures that law enforcement used as part of the investigation, such as a field sobriety test or a breath test, will be considered when the case goes to trial.

Understanding the law for blood and breath tests and when they are admissible as evidence is important in this respect. When there is blood drawn in connection with a drunk driving investigation, it can only be done by a registered nurse, a physician or a person who is qualified to do so for blood-alcohol concentration determination. The person's qualifications are not a basic prerequisite for the determination made by the test to be admissible. Should a law enforcement officer order a breath test and the person is granted a chance to have a second test by a registered nurse, physician or qualified person, the sample is not required to be preserved to collected. Failing to give the opportunity to have the additional test does not mean the test given by the officer is inadmissible.