BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21; extreme DUI at 0.15% and super-extreme at 0.20%. A first offense: First-offense DUI is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail, fines, alcohol screening, license consequences, and ignition-interlock requirements. Felony threshold: A third DUI within 84 months is typically a felony; aggravated DUI (e.g., while suspended or with a child in the vehicle) is also a felony. That is what separates Arizona DUI penalties from a generic national summary. Read Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1381, 28-1382 before the background sections below. Lookback: Prior DUI convictions within 84 months (7 years) generally enhance classification and mandatory penalties.. Ignition interlock: Arizona requires ignition interlock for most DUI convictions as a condition of driving privileges.
Lookback window for prior offenses
Prior DUI convictions within 84 months (7 years) generally enhance classification and mandatory penalties.
First-offense penalties
First-offense DUI is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail, fines, alcohol screening, license consequences, and ignition-interlock requirements.
When a Arizona DUI becomes a felony
A third DUI within 84 months is typically a felony; aggravated DUI (e.g., while suspended or with a child in the vehicle) is also a felony.
A concrete Arizona scenario
Here is one way the Arizona pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A driver in Arizona is charged with a first impaired-driving offense and wants to know what the statute actually sets.
- Start with the alcohol limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21; extreme DUI at 0.15% and super-extreme at 0.20%
- Read the first-offense range: First-offense DUI is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail, fines, alcohol screening, license consequences, and ignition-interlock requirements.
- Ask when the charge becomes a felony: A third DUI within 84 months is typically a felony; aggravated DUI (e.g., while suspended or with a child in the vehicle) is also a felony. Lookback: Prior DUI convictions within 84 months (7 years) generally enhance classification and mandatory penalties.
- Interlock: Arizona requires ignition interlock for most DUI convictions as a condition of driving privileges.
Arizona DUI cases under §§ 28-1381 and 28-1382 carry aggressive mandatory minimums. Parallel MVD actions start quickly after arrest. Defendants evaluate the traffic stop, roadside tests, and Intoxilyzer records.
Ignition interlock and license consequences
Arizona requires ignition interlock for most DUI convictions as a condition of driving privileges.
How a typical Arizona DUI case unfolds
Arizona DUI cases under §§ 28-1381 and 28-1382 carry aggressive mandatory minimums. Parallel MVD actions start quickly after arrest. Defendants evaluate the traffic stop, roadside tests, and Intoxilyzer records.
Related Arizona guides
- How to file for divorce in Arizona
- Child custody and parenting time in Arizona
- Security deposit return in Arizona
Case law: DUI penalties in Arizona
Donald Lee DESMOND, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of MARICOPA COUNTY, and the Honorable Rudolph J. Gerber, a Judge
…not conclusively establish or imply that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol is the sole responsibility of the State, and the statutory limit of .10 does not relieve them of that burden. Desmond was convicted by a jury of the violation of A.R.S. §…
Arizona opinions such as Donald Lee DESMOND, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of MARICOPA COUNTY, and the Honorable Rudolph J. Gerber, a Judge are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol is the sole responsibility of the State, and the statutory limit of .10 does not relieve them of that burden. Desmond was convicted by a jury of the violation of A.R.S." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jose CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. the Honorable Robert HOUSER, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in
…nt law, A.R.S. § 28-1321 (Supp.2009), a person arrested for driving under the influence is asked to submit to testing, such as a blood draw, to determine alcohol concentration or drug content. If the arrestee refuses the test — and the statute deems a failure to expressly agree to be a refusal — the arrestee’s license is administratively suspended. We today hold that the statut…
Jose CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. the Honorable Robert HOUSER, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in is worth reading on Arizona DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "A.R.S. § 28-1321 (Supp.2009), a person arrested for driving under the influence is asked to submit to testing, such as a blood draw, to determine alcohol concentration or drug content." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Allen VANNOY, Appellant
STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Allen VANNOY, Appellant, 177 Ariz. 206 (1993)
…te must provide a breath sample to a defendant charged with driving under the influence of alcohol when the defendant has given a deficient sample in the breath test, but the state still uses the test results at trial. Defendant David Allen Yannoy was convicted following a jury trial of one count of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, a class 5 felony. He appeals…
Practitioners open STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Allen VANNOY, Appellant when Arizona DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Defendant David Allen Yannoy was convicted following a jury trial of one count of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, a class 5 felony." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. George E. HARRISON, Appellee; STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Halbert Franciss
…d Halbert F. Laiwakete were each charged with two counts of driving under the influence while their operator’s licenses were suspended, cancelled, revoked or refused, both class 5 felonies. The first count, filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-692(A), was for driving under the influence, and the second, filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-692(B), was for driving with a 0.10 percent or more…
Practitioners open The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. George E. HARRISON, Appellee; STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Halbert Franciss when Arizona DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Halbert F. Laiwakete were each charged with two counts of driving under the influence while their operator’s licenses were suspended, cancelled, revoked or refused, both class 5 felonies. The first count, filed pursuant to A.R.S." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner/Appellant, v. the SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY, the Honorable Gary Grynkewich, a
…guilty under § 28-692(A) it must prove that the person was driving under the influence of intoxicants. A person is “driving under the influence” if his control of his vehicle is to the slightest degree affected by his consumption of the intoxicant. Davis v. Waters, 103 Ariz. 87, 436 P.2d 906 (1968). Under § 28-692(B) the state does not have to prove that the defendant’s intoxi…
Arizona opinions such as The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner/Appellant, v. the SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY, the Honorable Gary Grynkewich, a are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "A) it must prove that the person was driving under the influence of intoxicants. A person is “driving under the influence” if his control of his vehicle is to the slightest degree affected by his consumption of the intoxicant. Davis v. Waters, 103 Ariz. 87, 436 P.2d 906 (1968)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Arizona, Ex Rel. Dennis M. O’NEILL, Chandler City Attorney, Petitioner, v. Honorable I. Sylvan BROWN
…The question presented in this case is whether a charge of driving under the influence or with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more in violation of A.R.S. § 28-692(A) may be proven by circumstantial evidence. I. INTRODUCTION On September 13, 1992, two Chandler police officers traveling in separate vehicles noticed a cloud of dust coming from a field near Alma School Road. T…
STATE of Arizona, Ex Rel. Dennis M. O’NEILL, Chandler City Attorney, Petitioner, v. Honorable I. Sylvan BROWN is worth reading on Arizona DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "The question presented in this case is whether a charge of driving under the influence or with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more in violation of A.R.S. § 28-692(A) may be proven by circumstantial evidence. I." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Michael Joseph MARZOLF v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, The Honorable
…ecludes, on Double Jeopardy grounds, a later punishment for driving under the influence (“DUI”). We are aware that Division Two of this Court has already addressed this question in State v. Nichols, 169 Ariz. 409, 819 P.2d 995 (App.1991). We take up the issue again because Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), which was decided after Nic…
Arizona opinions such as Michael Joseph MARZOLF v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, The Honorable are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "Double Jeopardy grounds, a later punishment for driving under the influence (“DUI”). We are aware that Division Two of this Court has already addressed this question in State v. Nichols, 169 Ariz. 409, 819 P.2d 995 (App.1991). We take up the issue again because Austin v." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, in and for the COUNTY OF COCONINO; The
…olating Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) section 28-692(A)(l) (driving under the influence) from the charge of violating A.R.S. section 28-692(A)(2) (having a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of .10 or more within two hours of driving). In order to resolve that issue, we must decide a subordinate issue: Whether the results of a valid intoxilyzer test taken within two hours of d…
The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, in and for the COUNTY OF COCONINO; The is worth reading on Arizona DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) section 28-692(A)(l) (driving under the influence) from the charge of violating A.R.S. section 28-692(A)(2) (having a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of .10 or more within two hours of driving)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21; extreme DUI at 0.15% and super-extreme at 0.20%
- Lookback period: Prior DUI convictions within 84 months (7 years) generally enhance classification and mandatory penalties.
- First-offense range: First-offense DUI is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail, fines, alcohol screening, license consequences, and ignition-interlock requirements.
- Felony threshold: A third DUI within 84 months is typically a felony; aggravated DUI (e.
- Ignition interlock: Arizona requires ignition interlock for most DUI convictions as a condition of driving privileges.
- Primary authority: Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1381, 28-1382.
Blood alcohol limits in Arizona
0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21; extreme DUI at 0.15% and super-extreme at 0.20%
Frequently asked questions
What is the legal BAC limit in Arizona?
0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21; extreme DUI at 0.15% and super-extreme at 0.20%
Is a first DUI a felony in Arizona?
A third DUI within 84 months is typically a felony; aggravated DUI (e.g., while suspended or with a child in the vehicle) is also a felony.
Will I need an ignition interlock device?
Arizona requires ignition interlock for most DUI convictions as a condition of driving privileges.
This guide covers Arizona impaired-driving law as of 2026. Sentencing grids, administrative DMV rules, and local diversion programs change — verify the live statute and speak with counsel about your charging document.