Tucson, Arizona Friday, 4 July 2003
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
PHOENIX - A word to would-be criminals: The government doesn't have to give you fair warning of new laws you might be breaking.
In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected arguments by Albert Soltero that he couldn't be convicted on charges of extreme drunken driving because he had no way to know the law had been changed. Soltero said that violated his constitutional rights.
The court, however, said there's no requirement that the government let people know when it enacts new laws, criminal or otherwise.
Soltero was stopped on May 11, 2001, by Mesa police on several charges, including extreme DUI.
Before April 4, it took a blood-alcohol content of 0.18 to be charged with that offense, which carries a mandatory jail term. But on that day Gov. Jane Hull signed an emergency measure reducing that to 0.15.
Attorney Neal Bassett pointed out that most laws do not take effect until the 91st day after the end of a legislative session. In 2001 that would have been Aug. 9.
The earlier enactment, Bassett argued, unconstitutionally left his client without "fair warning" about what is legally permitted and what is not. He said it is irrelevant that his client may have had a blood alcohol content in excess of 0.18 because the new law - and the lower limit - made it more difficult to defend him.
Appellate Judge Lawrence Winthrop was unsympathetic.
"The problem with defendant's argument is that it is grounded upon a false premise," Winthrop wrote. "Contrary to defendant's contention, there is no general due process requirement that the government give notice of the enactment of legislation, criminal or otherwise."
The judge said it defies logic for Soltero to argue he didn't know he was breaking the law.
"Given the essentially universal and longstanding laws throughout our country prohibiting the operation of a vehicle while under the influence, defendant cannot rationally claim that he had no reason to believe his conduct would not be subject to statutory prohibition," Winthrop wrote.