As the CEO of Stonewall DUI Services and a licensed therapist, I’ve had the privilege of walking alongside countless Arizonans as they navigate life after a DUI conviction.

Over the years, I’ve learned that, while the legal system can feel overwhelming, the human side of recovery is often the bigger challenge. But the great thing is, there’s also a greater opportunity for growth, especially in supportive and compassionate DUI education programs.

From courtroom shock to first steps forward

One of the hardest moments for people is that first walk into my office after a conviction. So many come in believing they’re terrible people because of one mistake. That breaks my heart. It’s simply not true.

Arizona sees about 27,000 DUI arrests every year. Can you imagine? That’s thousands of people facing the same sinking feeling in the courtroom, wondering what comes next.

The first thing I always tell them is simple: breathe. You’re probably feeling overwhelmed, ashamed and unsure about the road ahead. These feelings are completely normal, and they don’t mean you’re a bad person.

Yes, Arizona has some of the toughest DUI laws in the nation. But there’s always a way forward, and it begins with proper DUI education, accountability and support.

Finding your way through the system

I often tell clients: knowledge is power. The system feels intimidating when you don’t understand it, but once we break it down step by step, it becomes manageable. It’s strict, yes — but it’s also predictable.

For most people, the journey starts with alcohol education and DUI counseling programs. These aren’t about shaming you or making you feel worse. They’re opportunities to truly understand your relationship with alcohol and how it impacts decision-making.

The human side of recovery

Legal requirements are one thing, but I truly believe that emotional healing is another.

Shame can be shattering. I’ve seen firsthand how people isolate themselves because they’re afraid of judgment, but isolation only makes recovery harder.

You can complete all the court requirements, regain your license, and check every box, but if you haven’t done the inner work to understand what led to your DUI, you’re missing the most important part of the process.

That’s where we as therapists are here for — not only to meet a legal mandate, but to help uncover and address the underlying issues so as to lower the risk of recidivism.

Building a support network

One of the biggest mistakes people make is trying to go through this alone. Arizona has many resources: state-approved education providers, support groups and DUI programs like ours at Stonewall DUI Services.

Our team does more than just guide people through requirements and paperwork. We advocate for our clients and, most importantly, provide emotional support during what is often one of the most difficult times in their lives.

Support is especially critical during high-risk periods. For example, over Memorial Day weekend in 2025, Arizona recorded 436 DUI arrests, with an average BAC of 0.150, nearly twice the legal limit. In moments like these, a strong network can mean the difference between relapse and resilience.

Looking ahead – life beyond the conviction

If you’re going through this now, start by learning exactly what’s required for your situation. Don’t try to tackle everything at once — just focus on the next step.

Most importantly, remember this: your conviction doesn’t define you. What matters is how you respond, how you grow, and the choices you make from here forward.

Kyle J. Penniman is CEO of Stonewall DUI Services and a licensed therapist specializing in alcohol abuse education, recovery and relapse prevention. 

The post Life after DUI – the road to recovery and redemption first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points:

• Two Arizona motorists claim they didn’t know driving the wrong way was illegal

• State Court of Appeals says some offenses are strict liability, knowledge of the law is not required

• Prosecutors must show sufficient signage for conviction in wrong-way DUI cases

Two Arizona motorists argue that they cannot be convicted of driving the wrong way in traffic because no one has proven they knew it was illegal.

But the state Court of Appeals says that claim won’t work.

In a new ruling, the three-judge panel said some offenses are those of strict liability. That includes most civil traffic violations.

So someone trying to fight a ticket for running a red light can’t escape being fined by saying they didn’t know the light was red. The same goes for exceeding the speed limit, failing to use turn signals or driving around a school bus that is loading or unloading children.

Attorneys for the two defendants, however, pointed out they were charged with something that actually is a crime: driving the wrong direction on a highway while under the influence. And that, they argued, is different.

The judges didn’t accept that theory.

But they did agree with the defense lawyers on at least one point: Prosecutors must show that the road signs were in sufficient enough quantity that a reasonable person would know which way traffic has to go to get a conviction.

In the first instance, police stopped Katherine Franz after she was observed driving west in the eastbound lanes of Interstate 10 in Maricopa County. One officer noticed she appeared to be intoxicated.

According to court records, Franz said she had been drinking and did not know how she ended up on State Route 202 — even while she was still on I-10.

A test showed a blood-alcohol reading of 0.134; 0.08 is considered presumptive evidence of being intoxicated.

The other case involves Arthur Schlemmer, who police found driving westbound on Jefferson Street in Phoenix, a one-way eastbound street. He tested at 0.250 blood alcohol content.

Attorneys for both argued that jurors should be told that prosecutors must prove that they knew or should have known they were driving in the wrong direction. The cases wound up at the Court of Appeals after the trial judges denied both requests.

Appellate Judge Paul McMurdie, writing for the court, acknowledged that in criminal cases, the presumption is that the state must “demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent.” That is defined as “mens rea,” a Latin term meaning a “guilty mind.”

By contrast, he said, the strict liability standard applies only where there is “clear legislative intent that the crime does not require any degree of mens rea.”

McMurdie noted that this particular offense has two elements that have to be established: that someone was driving while intoxicated, and that someone was driving the wrong way on a highway.

He pointed out that there is clear case law that there is no mens rea requirement for the first part: Simply being drunk while driving is sufficient to sustain a conviction, regardless of what the motorist knew about being intoxicated.

What that leaves, McMurdie said, is the other half of what’s necessary for conviction: driving the wrong way.

He said that can include driving on the wrong side of a two-way road. But what it also means is that driving the wrong way on a road designated and signed for one-way traffic.

Put simply, McMurdie said, failing to obey those signs, by itself, is sufficient to sustain a conviction — regardless of whether motorists know they are going the wrong way.

But the judge said there is a defense of sorts against such charges.

“The state must move that the highway is appropriately marked or signed,” he wrote. “A defendant may present evidence and argument that, given how he or she entered or drove on the highway, the markings or signage were inadequate.”

McMurdie said, though, that still doesn’t shift the burden to the state to prove that individuals knew they were going the wrong way.

“Such evidence pertains to the legal flow of traffic, not the defendant’s mens rea,” he said. “This is true even if the signage requirement is to give reasonable motorists notice of the legal duties of traffic flow.”

All of this sends both cases back to the trial judges, who are being told they should not be telling jurors the state has to show they knew they were going the wrong way. But they should be instructing those same jurors that it is the state’s burden to prove that, based on the evidence, there was sufficient signage to show the legal flow of traffic.

Attorney Gregory Zamora, who represents Schlemmer, said it makes sense for the state to have to show that the person was driving the wrong way.

“That’s not an intuitive thing,” he said.

“You don’t just know which direction you’re supposed to be traveling on the roads,” Zamora said. “You’re given clear indications from the government.”

And he suggested there is evidence that the signage is not clear “because it keeps happening, at least in downtown Phoenix,” that motorists are stopped for going the wrong way on city streets.

The post Court of Appeals rejects ‘I didn’t know it was illegal’ defense in DUI cases first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

I support the recent ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals, but I fear its unintended consequences. While the decision rightly acknowledges that THC can linger in the bloodstream long after impairment has passed, the ruling may lead to a dangerous misconception: that it’s safe to drive after using marijuana. Just like some alcohol users think they can beat the system, some believe they drive better under the influence of marijuana. Now, these individuals may feel emboldened, knowing that science alone won’t convict them if they’re caught driving high.

Before this ruling, if THC metabolites were found in a driver’s blood, it was often presumed to be enough for a DUI conviction. But things shifted in 2020 when voters approved Proposition 207, legalizing recreational marijuana. Under the new law, the state could only impose penalties on drivers if they were “impaired to the slightest degree” by marijuana. However, THC’s prolonged presence in the bloodstream complicates things. The court’s ruling has now clarified this: THC metabolites alone are not enough to prove impairment. Law enforcement must show additional subjective evidence of a driver being impaired.

This stands in stark contrast to Arizona’s rules for alcohol. If a driver blows a .08 on a breathalyzer, that’s considered a clear-cut sign of impairment, and the law presumes DUI. For marijuana, no such scientific standard currently exists, leaving law enforcement with a more subjective—and less reliable—method of determining impairment.

While we’re making progress toward the development of a THC breathalyzer that could establish a clear standard for marijuana impairment, it’s now up to our lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to adopt such tools once available. The goal must be to create a standard that can reliably indicate when someone is truly impaired by marijuana, similar to the .08 limit for alcohol.

For the sake of safety on Arizona’s roads, we need to move quickly. This ruling, while correct, should not be misconstrued as a green light to drive under the influence of marijuana. Until we have the right tools and standards in place, we risk perpetuating dangerous myths that could lead to more accidents, injuries, and loss of life.

Marc Lamber is a Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent-rated trial attorney and public safety advocate. A director at the Am Law 200 firm Fennemore, Lamber chairs the Personal Injury Practice Group and has been featured in national and local media, including the USA Today, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the ABA Journal and many others.

The post Arizona court ruling on marijuana: A win for justice, but a risky message for drivers first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Simply driving with marijuana in your system isn’t enough for the state to suspend someone’s license, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Oct.2.

The judges rejected arguments by the Motor Vehicle Division that a blood test showing metabolites of the drug is sufficient to prove a claim by the agency that there were grounds to believe that Aaron Kirsten was driving “under the influence” of the drug.

Appellate Judge Andrew Jacobs, appointed by Gov. Katie Hobbs and writing for the unanimous court, said when voters legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2020, they spelled out in Arizona law that the state may impose penalties on drivers – but only if it can first show that person is “impaired to even the slightest degree by marijuana.”

“But that was not the case here,” Jacobs  said. “Instead, the state claims it can suspend Kirsten’s privilege of driving for his prior use of marijuana, as evidenced by metabolites of cannabis in his blood, without any impairment.”

In some ways, the ruling is not a surprise. The Arizona Supreme Court in 2014 barred the state from bringing criminal charges of driving while impaired against a medical marijuana user, absent proof that the person was affected by the drug.

This case is significant in two ways.

It is believed to be the first appellate court ruling on the issue since voters expanded the legal use of the drug from not just those with a doctor’s recommendation – what was permitted in the 2010 voter-approved medical marijuana law – but to any adult.

And it also extends the protections for marijuana users not just against criminal charges of driving under the influence of the drug but protects them against this kind of administrative suspension of driving privileges by the Motor Vehicle Division, something the agency can do without getting court approval.

The whole issue comes down to a mix between medicine and politics.

According to court records, Sedona police stopped Kirsten in 2022 for speeding. The officer reported that he had bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech and was unsteady on his feet.

Kirsten refused to take a standardized field sobriety test, though a preliminary blood test showed a blood-alcohol content slightly above the 0.08% that is a presumption for intoxication. But an actual blood draw came back below that number.

A DPS forensic scientist also analyzed the blood for drugs and found some presence of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

At an administrative hearing, Kirsten testified he had not used marijuana within 24 hours of the traffic stop. And he had testimony from a chiropractor and nurse practitioner that THC – or at least the metabolites of the drug, meaning the chemicals produced when the body breaks it down – can stay in a person’s system for weeks.

The hearing officer suspended Kirsten’s driving privileges for 90 days, a decision that was upheld by Coconino County Superior Court Judge Stacey Lynn Krueger.

The politics of it all, according to Jacobs, come in with what voters enacted.

That statute, said the appellate judge, says Kirsten could be found guilty of driving with metabolites of marijuana in his blood only if there was a finding he was “also impaired to the slightest degree.”

“This reinforces our understanding of the voters’ intent, expressed through their enactment of Proposition 207, that unimpaired driving after consuming marijuana cannot be penalized,” he wrote.

In this case, Jacobs said, the state was seeking to impose a penalty on Kirsten “for reason of his otherwise legal use of marijuana.”

The appellate judge also said the law says the state cannot “abrogate or limit any right or privilege conferred or protected by the laws of this state.” And driving, he said, is definitely a privilege.

“The design of Proposition 207 is unambiguous,” Jacobs wrote. “The slightest degree of impairment is required before the state may punish prior marijuana use.”

Nor was the appellate court swayed by the fact that all this was enacted not by the Legislature but by voters. In fact, Jacobs said, the reverse may be true.

“Courts must not intrude on the people’s power to legislate,” he wrote, citing prior Supreme Court rulings. And he said that “voter-enacted laws are even more consequential than those enacted by the Legislature.”

The post Court rules driving after consuming marijuana is OK – sometimes first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The post Yavapai County judge has cases reassigned after a DUI arrest first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The post Lawmakers seek data on pot-related DUI first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The post Allister Adel is a hypocrite first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The post Arizona charter schools executive director faces DUI charges first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The post Arizona lawmaker to spend 1 day in jail for drunken driving first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The post Rep. Cook arrested on suspicion of DUI, flashes House ID first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.