Phoenix Criminal Lawyer Blog

After every trial, regardless of the outcome, one side will always analyse the results and ask themselves if another strategy or approach would have been better. In the context of the Jodi Arias trial, I have heard a few commentators mention that she would have been off not arguing self defense, but had instead tried something different like diminished capacity. For trial watchers who also happen to watch a lot of TV procedural shows, they will know diminished capacity is the favorite defense strategy of fictional TV criminal defense lawyers. So what exactly is the defense of "diminished capacity"?

Briefly, it is "evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect that would prove that the defendant did not have a state of mind that is an element of the defense" (Model Penal Code 4.02(1)). The important point here is that diminished capacity is the same thing as the so called "insanity defense", or in Arizona "not guilty except insane", but is a lesser version of it. Diminished capacity is a "mental illness that falls short of that required to invoke the defense of irresponsibility, but that may be put in evidence as tending to show that the defendant lacked the specific mens rea required for commission of offense charged." In layman's terms, diminished capacity means the defendant knew right from wrong, and thus the insanity defense would not apply, but the defendant did not have the required intent to commit the crime because of a mental disease.

In the case of Jodi Arias, if her defense team had argued diminished capacity instead of self-defense, the argument would have been she was not criminally insane when she killed Travis Alexander, but instead, she did not have the specific intent to kill Mr. Alexander as a result of mental illness, and thus, at the very least was not guilty of first degree murder.

In contrast to diminished capacity, Arizona uses the M'Naghten test for the "guilty except insane" defense:

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct by reason of insanity if at the time of such conduct the person was suffering from such a mental disease or defect as not to know the nature and quality of the act or, if such person did know, that such person did not know that what he was doing was wrong. (State v. Ramos)

While guilty except insane wouldn't work, diminished capacity seems like a plausible argument, at least according to Monday morning quarterbacks criticizing her defense team. So why wasn't that the defense she actually used in her case? The answer is very simple: because neither she, nor any defendant for that matter in Arizona state court, is allowed to use it. In State v. Mott, the Arizona Supreme Court held the defendant was not entitled to present evidence of "battered women syndrome" or diminished capacity because the Arizona legislature had did not include it as a justification to criminal conduct. And thus, even if Ms. Arias would have had a better result with that defense than self-defense, it was not available at all.

Even though Arizona voters recently passed a medical marijuana law, Arizona prosecutors are not giving the new law much respect. As I have written about before, Arizona has an illegal metabolite statute, 28-1381(A)(3) that makes it illegal to drive a motor vehicle with an illegal drug or metabolite in the driver's system.

That means even if someone is driving perfectly fine without any sign or symptoms of impairment, that driver will be guilty of a DUI just because he or she has an illegal drug in their system, even if it is only the metabolite and not the active ingredient (see "Arizona court ruling upholds DUI test for marijuana".

An appeals court has issued a ruling that upholds the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers in Arizona for driving under the influence even when there is no evidence that they are actually high.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals focuses on the chemical compounds in marijuana that show up in blood and urine tests after people smoke pot. One chemical compound causes drivers to be impaired; another is a chemical that stays in people's systems for weeks after they've smoked marijuana but doesn't affect impairment.

The court ruled that both compounds apply to Arizona law, meaning a driver doesn't have to actually be impaired to get prosecuted for DUI. As long as there is evidence of marijuana in their system, they can get a DUI, the court said.

The ruling overturns a decision by a lower court judge who said it didn't make sense to prosecute a person with no evidence they're under the influence.

But what is even worse than that is that if someone has a medical marijuana card that is not a defense to the metabolite charge. That is because while having a valid prescription is a defense to the metabolite charge, the medical marijuana card is a "certification", not a prescription, and thus no defense. That means an Arizona driver can consume marijuana legally pursuant to the medical marijuana statute, drive perfectly fine, and still convicted of a DUI even though they did not have any active ingredient in their system.

Also, the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles (MVD) started conducting administrative hearings to possibly suspend the driver's licenses of drivers cited with a drug DUI. The important point here is that a driver can lose their license even if they are not convicted at court. I recently asked a MVD judge if MVD considers a medical marijuana card sufficient to keep a driver cited with a marijuana DUI from losing their license, and she told me MVD has not yet decided on the issue.

If you have been charged with a DUI, call me right away for a consultation at 602-955-1985.

Some crimes are alleged as "dangerous" because a deadly weapon was used by the defendant. For example, if a defendant uses a deadly weapon while committing misdemeanor assault, the charge will be aggravated or felony assault and as "dangerous". That is true even if the victim was not hurt at all. If someone disturbs the peace of another person while displaying a deadly weapon, that is a felony even if no one was hurt.

So what exactly is a deadly weapon? Under ARS 13-105(15), a deadly weapon "means anything designed for lethal use, including a firearm." That is obviously circular, but ARS 13-105(12) defines "Dangerous instrument" is more helpful:

means anything that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

The important point here is that a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument can be anything under the sun, and is not limited to obviously deadly weapons like guns or knives. For example, I go to a bar and have a beer and go home. In that instance, the beer bottle is nothing more than a bottle. But let's say I get into an argument and I grab the bottle by the neck threatening to hit someone. In that instance, the beer bottle would be a deadly weapon and I would be charged with aggravated assault. I would venture to guess the instrument most charged as dangerous would be a car. I once had a case where the county attorney claimed the sidewalk was a dangerous weapon because a defendant was trying to slam a boy against it causing injury.

I bring this up in the context of the Jodi Arias trial. The prosecutor has alleged Ms. Arias stole her grandfather's handgun to kill Mr. Travis Alexander, which, in the eyes of the government, proves the crime was premeditated and therefore murder one. There is only one problem with that proposition, Mr. Alexander did not die from a gun shot, but from multiple stab wounds. He was shot after he was already dead or nearly dead. So how does the fact Ms. Arias stole a gun to kill Mr. Alexander, assuming that point is sufficiently proven to the jury, prove premeditation?

It doesn't. Imagine the following scenario: the government alleges Ms. Arias stole a pillow from her grandfather with the intention of smothering Mr. Alexander in his sleep. A pillow, as defined by ARS 13-105, is a deadly weapon under that particular scenario. Also imagine the evidence proves Mr. Alexander was only smothered after he was already dead. Would anyone, under those set of facts, believe beyond a reasonable doubt stealing the pillow and smothering Mr. Alexander after his death proved Ms. Arias intended to kill Mr. Alexander with premeditation? Of course not, but the broader point is that this "pillow" scenario is legally absolutely the same as the "she stole the gun to kill him" theory as the government has presented.

Under some circumstances, someone who is convicted of a sexual offense could have the requirement to register as a sex offender. That means once they are on probation, usually after being released from jail or from the Arizona department of corrections, they must tell the local police station that they are living in the neighborhood within 10 days of moving in. The police will then notify all local residents, through the mail, that a registered sex offender is in the vicinity.

The theory behind having sex offenders register is that parents and citizens will be careful if they know someone convicted of a sex crime is nearby. For many people convicted of a sex crime felony, probation can last for the "lifetime" of the defendant, which would include the lifetime requirement of registering as a sex offender. But is there a way to get rid of that requirement to have to register as a sex offender. The answer is yes.

If someone was convicted under the 18 or as Arizona's guilty except insane, then the person can petition the court to eliminate the requirement to register as a sex offender. The statute is found under ARS 13-3821(G):

The court may order the termination of any duty to register under this section on successful completion of probation if the person was under eighteen years of age when the offense for which the person was convicted or adjudicated guilty except insane was committed.

The important point here is that the person must have completed probation for the court to release him from the duty to register as a sex offender. Also, while at first blush this statute may seem generous, it is actually very limited. In comparison with most people who are convicted of sex crimes, a very small percentage of them are under 18 or adjudicated guilty except insane. Guilty except insane is what Arizona has in place of the traditional common law "not guilty for reason of mental defect".

Many Arizonans are not aware of a serious trap in the DUI laws. Most people assume that the police must obtain a search warrant to seize a person's belongings if the person does not consent to a search. After all, isn't that what we all learned in elementary school about the American Revolution? And since no possession is more important to a person than that person's body, one would naturally assume that the police have to get a search warrant to get blood from a DUI suspect. Right?

That answer is complicated. Under the implied consent laws of Arizona, every Arizona driver has already "consented" to the police taking his or her blood upon probable cause for believing the driver has committed a DUI in Arizona. That means once you sign for your driver's license at MVD, you have given the police permission to take your blood, whether you say so or not when actually arrested, when the police arrest you for DUI. So what happens if you are arrested for DUI but don't let the police take your blood voluntarily and you tell them to get a warrant?

That is exactly what the police will do: they will get a warrant. That is a process that has gotten a whole lot easier lately.

Phoenix police officers can now get a signed search warrant for a blood sample from a suspected drunken driver within minutes from their patrol car. Officers don't have to drive to a station, type or write up a warrant, fax it to the court and then wait up to an hour or more for a faxed approval from a judge.... An officer stopping a suspected impaired driver must obtain a search warrant if the driver refuses to provide a blood sample. (see "Search-warrant process in DUIs faster for Phoenix police" by Cecilia Chan")

So no big deal right? A driver doesn't let the police take his or her blood and the police get a warrant through a streamlined process. What could be more American than a citizen enforcing his Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures? You can get my stuff but only if you get a warrant. That, to most citizens, is as American as apple pie.

Unfortunately, however, that is not the law. If a DUI suspect does not consent to a blood draw upon probable cause for believing the driver has committed a DUI and the police get a warrant, the consequence is you will lose your license not for the standard 90 days (standard for first time misdemeanor DUIs), but for a whole year. The 90 day suspension is very limited. The first 30 days are a complete ban on driving, but the final two months include the right to drive for work, school, health, and legal reasons. This is what is called an admin per se suspension.

The implied consent suspension (refusal) is a complete ban on driving for 90 days, but then a driver is eligible for a restricted license for the remaining 9 months if he or she installs an interlock device in their car. That is a change in the law from a few years ago when the one year ban was a total ban on driving for the entire year.

If someone is arrested for a DUI and the police got a warrant for the driver's blood, does that end the matter? Is there a way to challenge the police allegation the driver refused and deserves a one year suspension? Yes there is. If a driver, or his attorney, requests a hearing with MVD within 15 days of the date of stop and arrest, the MVD will have an administrative law judge determine if the police was correct the driver refused. If the driver does not request a hearing however, the one year ban will start automatically 15 days after the arrest date.

So what should someone do if stopped by the police for a DUI? How is an average citizen supposed to know what tests he has to take, what he has to do, and what he has a right to refuse to do? Simple, if you are stopped for a DUI, always ask to talk to a lawyer. The police must give every DUI suspect a "reasonable opportunity to consult with a lawyer" so long as that does not interfere with the investigation. What that usually means is 20 minutes of privacy with a cell phone and phone book.

While most police officers get this process right, you would be surprised how many don't and fudge the right to counsel. Fortunately for the public, Arizona courts take the right to counsel very seriously and hold police officers to strict compliance. The benefit of speaking with a lawyer is he will tell you what you must do and what not do. Usually that means don't answer any questions, don't do the field sobriety tests, don't do the portable breath test, be polite, and if you are arrested and the officer reads you the admin per se form: comply with it. Most importantly, once you are released go to a hospital to have them draw your own blood specimen to challenge the police blood draw.

While the police say they draw two tubes of blood for you and you can get an independent test done yourself, there are a couple of problems with that: first, if the police made a mistake with the blood draw itself, ie, tubes not preserved, mis-labelled, etc..., testing their tubes won't catch that. Second, if you request your B specimen for an independent test, but the results are not different from the "official" government result, the prosecutor can mention you requested a independent test during trial. But if you got your own specimen without asking the police, they will have no way of knowing what the results are.

Again, at the risk of being tedious, the only thing to remember is call a lawyer if you have been stopped for a DUI, the sooner the better.

Recently, a man who spent 42 years in prison was finally released from custody. The man was convicted at the age of 16 of starting a fire that killed over 20 people. New evidence, however, convinced the government that it might not be such a bad idea to let him go. See "After 42 Years in Jail, Conviction Overturned in Case of Deadly Fire":

Louis Taylor was a teenager when he was convicted of murder for supposedly starting a fire that killed 29 people. Now 58, Taylor has been released from an Arizona prison after new information cast doubt on the evidence he committed arson.

The problem with so many people who are in custody that it is very difficult to get them out even if new evidence is discovered. Arizona has a procedure called a petition for post conviction relief, more commonly known as Rule 32. This procedure is most commonly used when a defendant claims his lawyer was ineffective. That's why is known as a petition for ineffective assistance of counsel. It is usually only available if the defendant went to a trial and lost. While it can be used if the defendant pled guilty, it is rare for it to be successful. The main problem with the rule 32 petition is that it goes to the same trial judge who heard the defendant's trial. As one may imagine any trial judge is unlikely to overturn a conviction that happened in his or her court.

The defendant has what is called a petition as a matter of right for the first rule 32 and that's is filed. That means the court must consider the petition. If the defendant files in a later rule 32 petitions, the court does not have to actually consider the petition.

If somebody has exhausted all state court remedies, which means appeal and a rule 32 petition, then they could go to federal court even though the conviction is in state court. If somebody is still in custody they can do what is called a petition of habeas corpus. If they are out of custody but still facing civil sanction, they can do another procedure called a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

The problem with any petition in federal court is that a federal judge is unlikely to overturn a state court conviction. And the simple fact of the matter is when somebody has been convicted of a crime they are more than likely to stay convicted of a crime whether or not they were truly guilty.

One of the tools that prosecutors, both in state and federal court, love to use is called civil asset forfeiture. That is when the government prosecutors seize the personal property (cars, cash, computers, guns, etc) and real property (houses, land, condos) of a person with the civil process. What that essentially means is the government takes your stuff even though they are not necessarily trying to convict of you of a crime.

Of course, in a criminal case, forfeiture can happen as a result of a criminal conviction. In Arizona state court, criminal forfeiture falls under Arizona Revised Statutes A.R.S. 13-4312.
Civil forfeiture proceedings usually occur in drug cases, in which the government tries to take the cash proceeds of drug trafficking. It usually happens in conjunction with a criminal prosecution, but not necessarily. The government confiscates the property because it has been used in violation of the law and to require disgorgement of the fruits of the illegal conduct. (see United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267,284 (1996)).

The benefit to the government is that to take someone's real or personal property, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary and the lower civil standard of proof is sufficient. In other words, the government does not have to have enough evidence to convict you of a crime, you can be innocent, to take your stuff. In fact, unlike criminal trials, hearsay evidence is admissible. Federal civil forfeiture states are found at 21 USC 881 and Arizona civil forfeiture statutes are found at ARS 13-4311. Forfeiture is usually based on either contraband forfeiture, proceeds forfeiture, facilitation forfeiture, or enterprise forfeiture.

Needless to say, there is a quite a lot of room of abuse by prosecutors, which brings up the obvious question: can you fight the government if they are trying to take your stuff? Yes, of course you can. For example, see  US v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts. In that case, the federal district court denied forfeiture of a motel, pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act ("CAFRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1), where drug transactions were allegedly taking place. The court ruled in the matter that the federal prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof, and the court vacated the forfeiture. Even more importantly, the Court found Mr. Caswell, the defendant, to be an innocent owner:

This court also finds that the Claimant has met his burden of proving that he is an innocent owner of the Property. He did not have actual knowledge of the forfeitable drug crimes before or while they were occurring, and there is no evidence that he should have known that they were likely to occur. I further find that Mr.Caswell has met his burden of proving that he was not willfully blind to the drug crimes. Finally, I find that Mr. Caswell took all reasonable steps to prevent drug crime on the Property.

What does all this mean? If the government is trying to take your property through a forfeiture proceeding, fight it!

CBS 5 - KPHO

In an unusual move, a local Bank of America branch froze the operating account of a Phoenix area gun manufacturer. As reported by KPHO CBS channel 5 ("Valley gun manufacturer: BOA froze funds over product") by Greg Argos:

A local gun manufacturer says Bank of America withheld nearly $100,000 worth of deposits because of what he is selling. Joseph Sirochman owns American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale. The company manufactures high-end rifles like the AR15, M16 Rifle and M4 Carbine.

What is so unusual about what Bank of America did is that Mr. Sirochman and American Spirit Arms have not broken any laws, nor have they been sued. In other words, banks have the right to freeze a bank account, but it must be done pursuant to a court order. For example, if someone had sued American Spirit Arms and was attempting to collect a judgment by garnishing the bank account, then Bank of America has the obligation to freeze the account. 

One of the biggest problems of a conviction for an illegal drug DUI in Arizona is that there is an ignition interlock requirement if somebody is convicted of that charge. That means, for example, even if somebody has never had a drink of alcohol in their entire life, but they are convicted of having illegal drug in their system, they would have to get an ignition interlock device installed in their car for 12 months.

Of course, the point of the ignition interlock device is that it keeps somebody from driving drunk. It does not, however, have the ability of keeping somebody who is high on drugs from driving their car. And even more to the point, the ignition interlock device will not prevent somebody who has an illegal metabolite, for example something like carboboxy THC, in their system from driving.

Fortunately, in the last year that has all changed. Now, if somebody is convicted of an illegal drug DUI only, and they pass an alcohol screening and assessment that shows they are not at risk for driving drunk, they do not have to get an ignition interlock device in their car. This comes up most commonly when somebody smokes marijuana and they have the metabolite in their system. Before this change in the law that driver would have to have an ignition interlock device in their car for 12 months. But so long as that person does not have a drinking problem, they will now not have to get the ignition interlock device.

But the penalties for a drug conviction are still worse than drunk driving. That is because the first time alcohol DUI, even super extreme DUI, the license suspension is only for 90 days. And only the first 30 days of that 90 day suspension is a flat revocation. During the final 60 days of that 90 day suspension a driver is eligible for restricted permit, meaning they can drive to and from work and to and from school.

But with an illegal drug conviction there is a flat one year suspension of a license. That means the person he cannot drive his vehicle for any reason whatsoever. That means if somebody is convicted of illegal drug DUI he cannot drive to and from work for one year.

When someone is convicted for a DUI charge in Arizona, one of the most questions that people ask is "can I do home arrest?". It is an understandable question as most people would rather serve their sentence at home instead of the county jail.

The most important point in answering this particular question is in "which jurisdiction did the DUI conviction happen?". That is because a DUI defendant can only serve his or her sentence under home arrest if the particular jurisdiction has a home arrest program in place. For example, the city of Peoria and Phoenix both have a home arrest, or in legalese "home detention" program, but some other jurisdictions do not.

The statutory breakdown for the home detention if found in Arizona Revised Statute 11-251.15, which basically states any DUI defendant must serve at least 20 percent of the minimum required jail time in the county jail, but can serve the remainder of the sentence under home arrest.

For example, for an extreme DUI, in which the minimum sentence is 30 days in jail, 6 days would be served in county jail and the remainder of the sentence under home arrest or detention. To be eligible for home arrest, judges require at least one year installation of a certified ignition interlock device.

My own experience has been that every jurisdiction, and seemingly, each judge within particular jurisdictions, have their own formula for deciding home many days one must serve in county jail and how many days under home arrest. For example, in the City of Phoenix, for an extreme DUI, a DUI defendant will serve 6 days in the county jail and then 3 days under home arrest. In Peoria, however, DUI defendants will serve 2 days in county jail, and 14 days under home detention. For a super-extreme DUI, a Phoenix DUI defendant will serve 9 days in county jail and 5 days under home arrest, while in Peoria, it will be 3 days in county jail and 22 days under home detention.

An Avondale police detective, Adam Lewis, was recently fired by the Avondale Police Department, and the firing was upheld by AZ POST, the state agency that certifies police officers. According to Lindsey Reiser of KPHO channel 5 "see AZPOST: Former Avondale detective used coercion to search homes":

[AZ POST claims] in a four-month period, between July and November 2010, Adam Lewis violated policies in 10 criminal cases. They say he used coercion and asked suspects questions before he read them their Miranda rights. In one case they say Lewis threatened to take someone to jail for outstanding warrants unless they let him search a business and even promised to have a current charged dismissed. 

"When people interact with officers, they ought to know what their rights are or what their rights aren't," said defense attorney Vladimir Gagic, who is not associated with this case. He said it's important that officers follow the rules to maintain the integrity of our system.

"I think good police realize that doing things by the book is easier and more convenient than playing off the cuff," Gagic said.

Logan McQuery, the father of missing and presumed dead Baby Gabriel, is set to testify against the mother Elizabeth Johnson. Why will he say and why does the state need him? See my interview with ABC 15 to find out what I think.

I will be hosting a radio show on this topic Wednesday Dec 19 at Noon Arizona time. You can see it here "Newtown School Shooting: What can be done?".

It's a simple enough question right? If gun makers are making a killing, literally, by selling guns and ammunition to the public at large, and that profit is to the detriment of society at large, why can't those victims sue gun makers?

The line of reasoning is similar to what happens when a big, bad company makes a ton of money by polluting the environment and expects everyone else to clean up the mess. In the parlance of law and economics, it is called an externality and the "tragedy of the commons".

The reason consumers can't sue a gun maker for the injury and cost it causes to victims is because back in 2005, democrats and republicans, under NRA pressure, passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act or 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. That law specifically bans all lawsuits in state and federal court.

Interestingly enough, Mexico wants to sue American gun makers and distributors because most of the guns used in the narco-trafficking war in Mexico come from the United States. I have always thought it ironic that the United States put so much time, money, and energy in civilizing Iraq, when Mexico, a nation that is orders of magnitude more important to the United States, is falling into anarchy. And, I think, one of the simple ways we could help Mexico is by letting them get justice for the damage that American gun makers and distributors have caused their nation (see "Mexico wants to sue U.S. gun makers").

President Felipe Calderon expressed his frustration to CBS News correspondent Peter Greenberg: "We seized more than 90,000 weapons...I am talking like 50,000 assault weapons, AR-15 machine guns, more than 8,000 grenades and almost 10 million bullets. Amazing figures and according to all those cases, the ones we are able to track, most of these are American weapons."

According to sources, investigators will obtain makes and serial numbers of guns seized by Mexican authorities and trace them to their U.S. distributors and manufacturers.

I think a reference is appropriate to the Ford Motor Company and their reaction to when they figured out it would be cheaper to pay for wrongful death lawsuits than to redesign and fix their deadly Pinto fuel tanks (see "Pinto Madness A Mother Jones Classic: For seven years the Ford Motor Company sold cars in which it knew hundreds of people would needlessly burn to death"). In other words, it was cheaper to kill and pay rather than to save lives. But at least Ford considered the possibility of lawsuits in changing their car design. As it stands now, gun makers have no such incentive. 

Two years ago, by way of voter referendum, Arizona voters passed a medical marijuana law similar to California and other states that allowed certain individuals with medical conditions to use grow and use marijuana. But just like those other states, while the state may have legalized marijuana grow and use, it is still a violation of federal law.

One would assume, however, that it is up to the federal government whether or not to enforce federal law. That is exactly what the United States Supreme Court decided when they said Arizona could not impose state penalties for violation of federal immigration law under SB 1070 (see "Supreme Court upholds Arizona SB 1070 in part, but does it matter?").

Having stated that though, it does not seem like 12 out 15 Arizona county attorneys agree with that legal principle (see "Medical-marijuana growers await outcome of Arizona lottery for dispensaries" by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez):

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who has urged Brewer to halt licensing of dispensaries because marijuana is illegal under federal law... Polk and 12 of the state's 15 county attorneys are fighting the marijuana law and sought a legal opinion from Attorney General Tom Horne as to whether the state law is pre-empted by federal law.

Horne on Monday issued an opinion that the law's provisions "authorizing any cultivating, selling and dispensing of marijuana" are pre-empted but that issuing registry cards to patients and caregivers is not.

My own feeling is that people can disagree about whether medical marijuana is a good idea, but once the voters have spoken directly through a plebiscite, state officials have no business deciding on their own to enforce federal law. My hope is that the 15 county attorneys and Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne will allow the voice of the people to stand unfettered.

One of the ironic things about a DUI charge in Arizona was that when someone was convicted of a DUI because of an illegal drug, for example, marijuana, that person would lose his license for year, a total ban, and still have an ignition interlock requirement.