A. A person commits aggressive driving if both of the following occur:
1. During a course of conduct the person commits a violation of either section 28-701, subsection A or section 28-701.02 and at least two of the following violations:
(a) Failure to obey traffic control devices as provided in section 28-644.
(b) Overtaking and passing another vehicle on the right by driving off the pavement or main traveled portion of the roadway as provided in section 28-724.
(c) Unsafe lane change as provided in section 28-729.
(d) Following a vehicle too closely as provided in section 28-730.
(e) Failure to yield the right-of-way as provided in article 9 of this chapter.
2. The person's driving is an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle.
B. A person convicted of aggressive driving is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
C. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law:
1. A person convicted of a violation of this section shall attend and successfully complete approved traffic survival school educational sessions that are designed to improve the safety and habits of drivers and that are approved by the department.
2. The court shall forward the abstract of conviction to the department and may order the department to suspend the person's driving privilege for thirty days.
D. If a person who is convicted of a violation of this section has been previously convicted of a violation of this section within a period of twenty-four months:
1. The person is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
2. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall forward the abstract of conviction to the department. On receipt of the abstract of conviction, the department shall suspend the driving privilege of the person for one year.
E. The dates of the commission of the offense determine whether subsection D of this section applies. A second or subsequent violation for which a conviction occurs as provided in this section does not include a conviction for an offense arising out of the same series of acts.
F. After completing not less than forty-five consecutive days of the suspension period required by subsection D of this section, a person whose driving privilege is suspended for a violation of this section and who is sentenced pursuant to subsection D of this section may apply to the department for a restricted driver license that allows the person to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension subject to the restrictions described in section 28-144.
G. For the purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means a series of acts committed during a single, continuous period of driving.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 24× “Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
State v. Tyszkiewicz, 104 P.3d 188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 11× “He claims that the trial court erred by admitting his breath test results without satisfying the foundational requirements set forth in former A.R.S. § 28-695(A)(4) 1 and that the state did not present sufficient evidence of his time of driving to support his conviction under…”
State v. Nihiser, 953 P.2d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, "those whose breath is collected under § 28-695(A) are granted foundation as to the collector's qualification[s], and those whose blood is collected under § 28-692(F) are not granted foundation as to the collector's qualifications.”
Caretto v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 965 P.2d 31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “1997), which provides for admissibility of BAC results obtained either through duplicate breath tests or a single breath test preceded by a twenty-minute observation period, is phrased in the disjunctive.”
MacK v. Cruikshank, 2 P.3d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See former A.R.S. § 28-695(D)(2), now A.R.S. § 28-1324(2) (procedures must ensure accurate results are obtained from approved breath-testing devices).”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Johnson, 891 P.2d 871 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “sections 12-120.21.A.1 (1992), 12-2101.B (Supp. 1993), and Rule 8(a), Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.”
Golob v. Arizona Med. Bd. of State, 176 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2d 121, 129 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S. § 28-695(B) (1984). “Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.”
State v. Duber, 930 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 11× “The state argues that the test results are admissible under the Division One holding of Stock.”
State v. Keyonnie, 892 P.2d 205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“A.R.S. §§ 28-692(A)(2) and former 28-692.02(A)(2).”
State v. Sabalos, 874 P.2d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“03 (renumbered as § 28-695), which in turn establishes the foundational requirements for admission into evidence in any proceeding under § 28-692 of breath test results to determine a person’s blood alcohol level.”
State v. Superior Court, 991 P.2d 258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“…justice courts for trial. CONCURRING: JAMES B. SULT, Presiding Judge, and MICHAEL D. RYAN, Judge. 1 . Formerly A.R.S. section 28-695.”
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 11× “He claims that the trial court erred by admitting his breath test results without satisfying the foundational requirements set forth in former A.R.S. § 28-695(A)(4)1 and that the state did not present sufficient evidence of his time of driving to support his conviction under…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(A) — 3 cases
State v. Nihiser, 953 P.2d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“Specifically, "those whose breath is collected under § 28-695(A) are granted foundation as to the collector's qualification[s], and those whose blood is collected under § 28-692(F) are not granted foundation as to the collector's qualifications.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
State v. Duber, 930 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“The state argues that the test results are admissible under the Division One holding of Stock.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. Nihiser, 953 P.2d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“Specifically, "those whose breath is collected under § 28-695(A) are granted foundation as to the collector's qualification[s], and those whose blood is collected under § 28-692(F) are not granted foundation as to the collector's qualifications.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(A)(3) — 4 cases
Caretto v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 965 P.2d 31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“1997), which provides for admissibility of BAC results obtained either through duplicate breath tests or a single breath test preceded by a twenty-minute observation period, is phrased in the disjunctive.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Johnson, 891 P.2d 871 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“sections 12-120.21.A.1 (1992), 12-2101.B (Supp. 1993), and Rule 8(a), Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.”
State v. Keyonnie, 892 P.2d 205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“A.R.S. §§ 28-692(A)(2) and former 28-692.02(A)(2).”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(A)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Tyszkiewicz, 104 P.3d 188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“He claims that the trial court erred by admitting his breath test results without satisfying the foundational requirements set forth in former A.R.S. § 28-695(A)(4) 1 and that the state did not present sufficient evidence of his time of driving to support his conviction under…”
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“He claims that the trial court erred by admitting his breath test results without satisfying the foundational requirements set forth in former A.R.S. § 28-695(A)(4)1 and that the state did not present sufficient evidence of his time of driving to support his conviction under…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(A)(5) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(B) — 3 cases
Golob v. Arizona Med. Bd. of State, 176 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“2d 121, 129 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S. § 28-695(B) (1984). “Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
State v. Duber, 930 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“The state argues that the test results are admissible under the Division One holding of Stock.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(D) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
State v. Duber, 930 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“The state argues that the test results are admissible under the Division One holding of Stock.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-695(D)(2) — 2 cases
MacK v. Cruikshank, 2 P.3d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“See former A.R.S. § 28-695(D)(2), now A.R.S. § 28-1324(2) (procedures must ensure accurate results are obtained from approved breath-testing devices).”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 28-695 provides in part: A. The results of a breath test administered for the purpose of determining a person’s alcohol concentration are admissible as evidence in any trial, action or proceeding upon establishing the following foundational requirements: 1.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.