Homeless in Arizona

My self I always take the 5th when stopped by the cops. And in almost every case the police are pathological liars who tell me that I don't and 5th Amendment rights in "this case". That's despite the fact that Miranda v Arizona says when a person takes the 5th, the police shall immediately cease questioning the person.

The cops also behave like Mafia thugs in my case and always say that if don't allow them to flush my Constitutional rights down the toilet, bad, bad, bad things will happen to me.

I am surprised because yesterday I posted the article saying the Arizona Supreme Court was going to rule on this, and in today's newspaper they had the ruling.

Source

Arizona police can't say DUI tests are required, court rules

What you could face if charged with DUI in Arizona

Arizona is also no-tolerance state for DUI, meaning you can be arrested with a blood-alcohol content of less than the legal limit of 0.08 percent. There are three types of DUIs, each taking into account BAC levels and other factors, like a previous conviction, whether any minors were in the vehicle, etc. The more serious the DUI, the more you can expect to pay. Here's a look at the penalties under state law. Photo: Jeffrey Lowman/The Republic

Associated Press 8:01 a.m. MST April 27, 2016

Police in Arizona can't flatly tell drunken-driving suspects that state law requires them to submit to alcohol testing, the Arizona Supreme Court said Tuesday in a ruling that acknowledges that a state-provided form and earlier rulings by courts indicated otherwise.

Because suspects actually can refuse to submit to alcohol testing if police haven't obtained a warrant from a judge, it violates the suspects' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable warrantless searches to tell them they must consent, the court's ruling said.

That's because the suspects would believe they must comply, Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer wrote for the court. "Our society expects, and unquestionably demands, that people follow directives issued by law enforcement officials."

The ruling provided guidance, saying officers should ask suspects to consent to alcohol tests and then tell those refusing that they face non-criminal consequences such as loss of their driver's license for a year or longer.

While the justices said a man arrested in a Cochise County DUI case was wrongly told he had to submit to tests, the ruling nevertheless upheld his convictions and sentence.

The ruling said that's because the state trooper who arrested the man acted in good faith based on what was understood to be the law based on decades-old court rulings and on a state-provided form used by police.

While part of the form says a person's driving privileges will be suspended for varying periods of time if the person doesn't submit to testing or complete it, the ruling noted that the form states several times that people are required to submit and complete the testing.

Justices rule on boating case

Three justices — two current ones and one retired justice — joined in Timmer's opinion. A fifth justice agreed with parts of the majority opinion but dissented on other parts.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday also issued a ruling on a similar testing-consent issue in a Maricopa County case involving a man convicted of operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol.

While the ruling in the boating case reiterated the court's overall finding from the other case, it overturned the boater's convictions because prosecutors early in the case didn't raise the issue of whether the arresting officer was acting in good faith. The boater's case now returns to a trial court for further consideration.

Trial judges in both cases had rejected defense requests to block use of alcohol test results on grounds that they were coerced. Courts that reviewed initial appeals in both cases upheld the convictions.