By Jefferson Simmons
Partner & Advanced DUI Trial Attorney
Long & Simmons Law
Phoenix, Arizona
Published
April 2025
The Scottsdale Police released body camera footage of Phoenix Suns forward Dillon Brooks’ DUI arrest. Arizona DUI trial attorney Jefferson Simmons goes through the footage frame by frame – identifying critical legal issues, exposing gaps in marijuana impairment evidence, and explaining exactly what this arrest reveals about DUI enforcement in Arizona.
IN THIS ARTICLE
1. The Traffic Stop: Lane Violations & a Shifting Story
2. Arizona Marijuana DUI Law Explained
3. The Smell of Marijuana: Not a DUI
4. What the Body Cam Actually Shows: No Signs of Impairment
5. The Arrest: “Totality of Circumstances” Scrutinized
6. Blood Test, Implied Consent & the Search Warrant
7. The DRE Evaluation That Never Happened
8. No Dashcam: Officer Testimony as the Only Evidence
9. What Happens If the Blood Comes Back Clean
10. Frequently Asked Questions
SECTION 01
The Traffic Stop: Lane Violations & a Shifting Story
The footage begins – as is common with body camera recordings – with approximately thirty seconds of silence. This is by design: officers activate recording and the camera captures the thirty seconds preceding that activation. What follows is a traffic stop that raises significant questions from the very first exchange.
BODY CAMERA - INITIAL STOP
OFFICER: You failed to maintain your lane six different times as we traveled north on Scottsdale Road from Mountain View.
BROOKS: I was following the person in front of me.
OFFICER: I was following multiple different cars. I didn’t get back up to you until Mountain… until Doubletree.
When Brooks asked why he was being pulled over, the officer stumbled – initially saying he “failed to stop,” then correcting himself to “failed to maintain his lane.” He claimed this occurred up to six separate times traveling north on Scottsdale Road. That number matters legally: it is the stated basis for the entire stop.
More revealing is what the officer then admitted: he lost sight of Brooks’ vehicle for a period of time during the pursuit. When Brooks asked whether the officer had been following him since Camelback, the officer’s answer was evasive – acknowledging he was following multiple vehicles during that stretch. This is unusual for a traffic stop premised on one specific driver’s behavior.
LEGAL OBSERVATION
A traffic stop must be supported by reasonable articulable suspicion of a traffic violation. An officer who admits to losing sight of the vehicle and following multiple cars during the alleged violations creates a significant credibility issue that a skilled DUI defense attorney will challenge.
SECTION 02
Arizona Marijuana DUI Law Explained
Before analyzing what happens next in the footage, it is essential to understand the legal landscape that governs marijuana DUI in Arizona – because it is more complicated, and more consequential, than most people realize.
Arizona Marijuana DUI: What the Law Actually Says
– Consuming marijuana is legal in Arizona for adults 21 and over.
– Driving while impaired by marijuana is illegal – just as driving while impaired by alcohol is illegal.
– There is no nanogram threshold in Arizona. Unlike some states that set a 5 ng/mL THC limit, Arizona has no defined level at which marijuana is presumed to cause impairment.
– Any active THC in your bloodstream can form the basis of a DUI charge in Arizona under current law.
– Impairment for alcohol has a legal presumption at 0.08 BAC – but you can still be charged below that threshold if the officer believes you are impaired “to the slightest degree.”
"We make marijuana legal, but we don't have any type of threshold limit to consume marijuana and drive. There's no nanogram level like there is in other states. Here in Arizona, if you have any active THC in your system, the state can charge you with a DUI."
- Jefferson Simmons, Partner & DUI Trial Attorney, Long & Simmons Law
This legal gap creates a deeply problematic situation. THC can remain detectable in blood for hours or even days after consumption, long after any impairing effects have passed. A person who legally consumed marijuana the evening before, slept, and drove to work the next morning could theoretically be charged with DUI if they have any remaining active THC – even though they are not impaired in any meaningful sense.
Attorney Simmons notes that even states with nanogram limits have imperfect thresholds – because impairment from cannabis is highly individualized, depending on body weight, consumption history, and tolerance. But the absence of any threshold in Arizona leaves citizens entirely at the discretion of an officer’s perception.
SECTION 03
The Smell of Marijuana: Not a DUI
BODY CAMERA - MARIJUANA DISCUSSION
OFFICER: When was the last time you smoked marijuana?
BROOKS: It’s been a while.
OFFICER: It smells quite heavily of the presence of marijuana – that’s why I’m asking.
OFFICER: So why are you lying about how much marijuana you’ve consumed in the last six months? You’ve definitely consumed marijuana tonight.
The officer’s assertion that a heavy smell of marijuana means consumption “tonight” is a significant logical leap – and a legally problematic one. The odor of marijuana inside a vehicle can result from many sources: prior occupants, clothing, residual from earlier days, or even proximity to others who consumed it. An odor of marijuana, just like an odor of alcohol, is not against the law.
More troublingly, the officer’s declaration that Brooks “definitely consumed marijuana tonight” – stated before any field sobriety testing, before any DRE evaluation, and before any blood draw – reveals an investigative approach working backwards from a conclusion rather than following the evidence forward. This is a hallmark of a flawed DUI investigation.
CRITICAL LEGAL ISSUE
An officer stating a suspect “definitely” consumed a substance before completing any objective testing is evidence of confirmation bias – the tendency to seek information that confirms a pre-existing belief rather than objectively evaluate the evidence. This type of backward reasoning is legally challengeable and can undermine the entire basis for arrest.
SECTION 04
What the Body Cam Actually Shows: No Observable Signs of Impairment
One of the most significant facts revealed by the body camera footage is what it does not show: Dillon Brooks displaying any observable indicators of drug impairment throughout the entire encounter.
When a person is impaired by drugs or alcohol, there is a recognized clinical progression that law enforcement is trained to identify:
INDICATOR 1
Cognitive Impairment (First to Appear)
Difficulty understanding questions, delayed responses, confusion, inability to follow instructions. Brooks answered every question directly, responsively, and coherently throughout the stop.
INDICATOR 2
Fine Motor Impairment
Difficulty retrieving a driver’s license, fumbling with documents, inability to perform small precise movements. No such signs are visible in the footage.
INDICATOR 3
Gross Motor Impairment (Last to Appear)
Difficulty exiting the vehicle, balance problems, inability to walk a straight line or perform roadside field sobriety tests. The body camera shows no such indicators.
"Consistently throughout this body camera, there's very little to no evidence of physical impairment or cognitive impairment as to Mr. Brooks. He is answering questions as they are asked, doesn't appear to be slurring any words, is responsive, and doesn't show any cognitive or outward physical signs of impairment."
- Jefferson Simmons, Partner & DUI Trial Attorney, Long & Simmons Law
Brooks blew a 0.00 BAC on the preliminary breath test – confirmed on camera. The officer acknowledges this directly, stating he “anticipated” the zero result, yet proceeds with the arrest anyway. This is a critical moment in the footage. A zero BAC removes alcohol from the equation entirely. What remains is an arrest premised solely on an officer’s perception of a marijuana smell and alleged lane violations – without a completed DRE evaluation, without observed impairment indicators, and without any objective chemical evidence at the scene.
SECTION 05
The Arrest: "Totality of Circumstances" Under the Microscope
BODY CAMERA - ARREST
OFFICER: Stand just like you are, place your hands behind your back. You’re gonna be placed under arrest tonight for the suspicion of driving under the influence.
OFFICER: I’ve deemed you to not have the ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, and that’s based on the totality of the circumstances – from me observing your driving, and from me talking to you.
BROOKS: You blew zeros. What is warranting you to be going to jail? Your driving behavior, your performance on the steering field?
“Totality of the circumstances” is a legal standard that law enforcement frequently invokes – but it is not a blank check. It requires that the collective facts, viewed objectively, give rise to probable cause. In this case, the circumstances the officer points to are: alleged lane violations that he partially lost sight of, a smell of marijuana he attributed to Brooks without verification, and a conversation in which Brooks answered every question clearly and denied recent marijuana use.
Brooks blew a 0.00 on the breathalyzer. He showed no cognitive impairment. He showed no fine or gross motor impairment. The officer did not conduct a complete Drug Recognition Expert evaluation. The “totality” in this case is, at minimum, deeply contested.
WHAT "TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES" REQUIRES
For a lawful DUI arrest, the totality of circumstances must give a reasonable officer probable cause to believe the suspect was operating a vehicle while impaired. Probable cause is a higher bar than reasonable suspicion – it requires more than a hunch or a smell. The facts must be sufficient that a neutral magistrate would agree impairment was likely.
SECTION 06
Blood Test, Implied Consent & the Search Warrant
BODY CAMERA - BLOOD DRAW DISCUSSION
OFFICER: I will be asking for two samples of blood.
BROOKS: Can I call somebody please?
OFFICER: Yeah. Once we arrive at the jail.
BROOKS: That’s not a thing. I’m not doing a test.
OFFICER: He’s gonna read you the paperwork. We can’t convince you one way or another. You have the opportunity to say no, essentially.
This exchange touches on one of the most consequential aspects of any DUI arrest in Arizona: the implied consent law. Every driver in Arizona who operates a vehicle on a public road has, by doing so, implicitly consented to submit to a chemical test (blood, breath, or urine) upon a lawful DUI arrest. The consequences of refusal are significant and automatic.
Arizona Implied Consent Law - A.R.S. ss 28-1321
Under Arizona’s implied consent statute, a driver who refuses to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test after a lawful DUI arrest faces:
– Automatic one-year license suspension – even if never convicted of DUI
– The refusal can be used against you in court as evidence of consciousness of guilt
– A search warrant can be obtained by law enforcement to compel the blood draw over your objection
In the Brooks case, the officer went and obtained a search warrant to compel the blood draw – before Brooks was given time to make his requested phone call to an attorney. This sequence raises additional constitutional questions about the right to counsel during a DUI investigation.
The blood results in Arizona drug cases typically take four to six months to be returned from the laboratory. A full toxicology panel is required to determine whether any active THC is present in the system. Until those results are returned, the case rests almost entirely on the officer’s observations and testimony.
SECTION 07
The DRE Evaluation That Never Happened
Throughout the footage, the arresting officer references being a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) – or makes reference to the DRE protocol – as part of his justification for the arrest. This claim deserves careful scrutiny.
A Drug Recognition Expert evaluation is a structured, multi-step process designed to identify drug impairment when alcohol is not the primary intoxicant. It involves twelve distinct steps including pulse rate checks, eye examinations (HGN and other gaze tests), divided attention tests, muscle tone assessment, and a systematic examination for injection sites. It must be performed by a certified DRE officer.
KEY FINDING
Attorney Simmons notes that the officer in this case did not perform a complete DRE evaluation. He did not ask Brooks for consent to undergo one, and did not complete the protocol steps required to make a formal DRE-based determination of impairment. Invoking the title of “DRE” without completing the evaluation is not a substitute for the evaluation itself.
"Officers receive some training on drug recognition, but are far from any type of expert in determining drug impairment. In this case, the officer does not even do a full DRE evaluation, does not ask Mr. Brooks if he would consent to one, and does not perform the aspects of drug recognition required to make a determination on impairment."
- Jefferson Simmons, Partner & DUI Trial Attorney, Long & Simmons Law
SECTION 08
No Dashcam: Officer Testimony as the Only Evidence of Driving Behavior
BODY CAMERA - VIDEO EVIDENCE DISCUSSION
BROOKS: Is there gonna be footage of me moving in and out of the lane six times?
OFFICER: I don’t know if the camera – there’s no cameras on this car.
BROOKS: So it’s based off of what he said.
OFFICER: He said, and then there’s street cameras too.
Brooks immediately identified the evidentiary gap: there is no dashcam footage of the alleged lane violations. The officer confirms the patrol vehicle is not equipped with a dashcam. The entire basis for the traffic stop – six claimed lane violations over a significant distance – exists only in the officer’s testimony.
This is a significant and common misunderstanding among Arizona residents: the majority of Scottsdale Police patrol vehicles do not have dashcams. Body cameras are more widely deployed but capture events at the scene – not the driving behavior that preceded the stop. The reference to “street cameras” is speculative; no such footage has been identified or confirmed.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOUR CASE
In any Arizona traffic stop premised on driving behavior, always ask: was the driving captured on video? If the only evidence of the violation is the officer’s own testimony, that creates meaningful grounds for a defense attorney to challenge the lawfulness of the stop itself – which can result in suppression of all evidence gathered thereafter.
In a remarkable moment on the body camera, Brooks points out to the officer – on the drive back to the facility – that the officer himself appears to be committing the same lane violations he cited as the basis for the stop. The officer does not deny this. Brooks then asks pointedly: and you’re not impaired, are you? The point lands: the same driving behavior that triggered this arrest is apparently routine, not indicative of impairment.
SECTION 09
What Happens If the Blood Comes Back Clean
The outcome of this case will hinge significantly on the blood test results. If the laboratory finds no active THC in Brooks’ bloodstream, the consequences for the Scottsdale Police Department will be substantial – and the implications for marijuana DUI enforcement in Arizona will be hard to ignore.
FOR THE SCOTTSDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT
A clean blood result would confirm that the arrest lacked probable cause. It would indicate that the department’s marijuana DUI training is inadequate and that officers are making arrests without sufficient evidentiary basis – exposing the department to civil liability.
FOR ARIZONA MARIJUANA DUI LAW
This case spotlights the absence of any objective standard for marijuana impairment in Arizona. Without a nanogram threshold, officers are empowered to arrest based solely on smell and subjective perception – a standard that is ripe for abuse and inconsistent application.
FOR EVERY ARIZONA DRIVER
Whether you are an NBA player or an average citizen, this case is a reminder that a marijuana DUI arrest in Arizona requires no objective proof of impairment under current law. If you are stopped and the officer smells marijuana, you are at significant legal risk – regardless of your actual condition.
"Arresting citizens without proof of impairment, based off flawed roadside field sobriety tests, is not where we should be. That is not the DUI enforcement we should have in Arizona."
- Jefferson Simmons, Partner & DUI Trial Attorney, Long & Simmons Law
SECTION 10
Frequently Asked Questions
Is smoking marijuana and driving legal in Arizona?
Consuming marijuana is legal in Arizona, but driving while impaired by it is not. The critical issue is that Arizona has no nanogram threshold – any detectable active THC in your blood can support a DUI charge, regardless of whether you are actually impaired at the time of driving.
Can a police officer arrest you for DUI based only on the smell of marijuana?
The smell of marijuana alone is insufficient to establish probable cause for a DUI arrest. An officer must observe actual indicators of impairment – cognitive, fine motor, or gross motor – to justify an arrest. Using smell as the sole basis, without a complete DRE evaluation or observed impairment, is legally challengeable.
What is Arizona's implied consent law and what happens if I refuse a blood test?
Arizona’s implied consent law (A.R.S. ss 28-1321) means that by driving on Arizona roads, you have consented to submit to chemical testing upon a lawful DUI arrest. Refusing results in an automatic one-year license suspension – even if you are never convicted. Law enforcement can also obtain a search warrant to compel the blood draw over your objection.
Do Scottsdale Police patrol vehicles have dashcams?
Many do not. This means that driving behavior cited as the basis for a traffic stop may not be captured on video, leaving officer testimony as the primary evidence. This is an important fact for anyone challenging the lawfulness of a traffic stop in Arizona.
What is a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and is their opinion reliable?
A DRE is a law enforcement officer trained in a structured protocol to identify drug impairment. However, DRE certification does not equal medical expertise, and the evaluation must be fully completed to be meaningful. An incomplete DRE – or simply invoking the DRE title without performing the evaluation – is not a reliable basis for a DUI arrest.
How long do marijuana DUI blood results take in Arizona?
A full toxicology panel for marijuana typically takes four to six months to be returned from the Arizona Department of Public Safety laboratory. Until results are received, the criminal case largely rests on the arresting officer’s observations and testimony – making early legal representation critical.
What should I do if I am stopped for a suspected marijuana DUI in Arizona?
Provide your license, registration, and proof of insurance. You are not required to answer questions about marijuana consumption, when you last consumed it, or whether you have it in the vehicle. Politely invoke your right to remain silent and request an attorney. Do not submit to voluntary field sobriety tests. Contact a DUI defense attorney immediately.
FREE CASE EVALUATION - NO OBLIGATION
Facing a DUI Charge in Arizona? We Fight Back.
Whether it’s a marijuana DUI, a prescription drug DUI, or an alcohol-related charge, Long & Simmons Law has the advanced DUI trial experience to challenge the evidence and protect your rights.
JS
JEFFERSON SIMMONS
Partner & Advanced DUI Trial Attorney - Long & Simmons Law | Phoenix, Arizona
Jefferson Simmons is a partner at Long & Simmons Law and one of Arizona’s premier DUI defense attorneys. He has handled hundreds of DUI trials including complex marijuana DUI, drug DUI, and felony DUI cases across the Phoenix metro area. Jefferson holds advanced DUI trial certifications and has extensive experience challenging impaired driving investigations – from the lawfulness of the initial stop through the integrity of blood and breath test results.
LONG & SIMMONS LAW - ARIZONA'S DUI DEFENSE EXPERTS
One Case. One Person. Our Full Commitment.
At Long & Simmons Law, we bring decades of DUI trial experience and criminal defense expertise to every case. Whether you’re facing a marijuana DUI, drug DUI, felony DUI, or any other criminal charge in Arizona – facts matter, truth matters, and every person deserves a full and fair defense. Contact us today for a free, confidential case evaluation.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis contained herein reflects the professional observations of Jefferson Simmons based on publicly available body camera footage and does not represent a complete legal assessment of the Dillon Brooks case or any other matter. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Long & Simmons Law or any of its attorneys. If you have been arrested for DUI in Arizona, consult a qualified DUI defense attorney before taking any action. Long & Simmons Law is licensed to practice in the State of Arizona.
