Client fires one DUI firm and with me was able to garner a DUI dismissal...

My client was charged with DUI with breath tests of .088 and .088.  We entered a plea to a reduced charge that will be dismissed in one year so long as the client abides by certain conditions (pays a fine and stays out of trouble).  A dismissal is still a dismissal however you can get it and my client was very pleased, even her traffic citation was dismissed.

This was just another example of the excellent results you can obtain if you hire the Webb Law Firm, Seattle's Premier DUI Defense firm!

Prior to hiring Seattle DUI Lawyer, Nate Webb, the client had fired another so-called DUI firm (one that sends out letters to everyone across the state charged with any number of crimes and resorts to scare tactics and cut-rate fees to garner clients).  At that firm, the client was shuffled around to several different attorneys (never had the same attorney handling her case), never had anyone go over her case in detail or view the videos with her, never received specialized attention and was basically, according to the client, treated poorly.  The "head attorney" of the firm told her, when she called to change attorneys, "I'm looking at the video right now of your booking and you are putting your fingers in your mouth, I can get that breath test thrown out."  The client and I went over the videos later that week and what the attorney claimed never happened!  It was a sales pitch, a desperate attempt to keep a client by fabricating what was on the video. Beware of those cut-rate firms who send out form letters, this is how they treat clients, who are then, not surprisingly, unhappy with the lack of attention and poor manner of handling their cases.

Don't settle for cut-rate, inexperienced, unprofessional representation, call Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, (425) 398-4323 for help with your DUI arrest.

City v. A.D.  - Case No.: 3Z0662305 KIR

All cases aren't dismissed but a plea bargain can still be a great result!

Although I strive for a dismissal on every case, the vast majority of cases are resolved by negotiating a plea bargain.

Today my client received a Reckless Driving reduction on a second offense DUI wherein the alleged BAC was .173 and .170.  This is a great result!  The agreement held no jail and that the client must complete an alcohol evaluation and DUI victim's panel.  Considering this was a two car collision (my client was allegedly at fault), it was the best result for which we could have hoped.  My client was ecstatic and the judge felt it was appropriate so the plea bargain was happily accepted.  State v. W.L. Case No. 3ZC002494 (Pierce county district court).

Refusal to take Field Sobriety Tests not admissible at trial!

In every DUI case there is usually litigation concerning Refusal evidence.  The government's proposition is that it constitutes a "consciousness of guilt" and is, therefore, relevant to the trier of fact (jury or judge).  Most judges, previously, agreed and would allow the government to utilize that tactic at trial.  Of course, no one is ever told that "hey let's do some field sobriety tests but if you refuse, the prosecutor will say it proves you were drunk!", thereby creating an unfair, unfounded proposition which then requires testimony from a defendant when they would normally be able to remain silent without repercussion.  Unfortunately, in that scenario, a defendant is forced to call BS.

Things, however, are trending in favor of defendants.  I recently argued this exact situation to an esteemed King County District Court judge and she held that given the recent decision in Missouri v. McNeely and State v. Gauthier, the refusal to participate in field sobriety tests would no longer be admissible for the purpose of establishing a consciousness of guilt.  Thankfully, this judge read the cases and articulated an extremely reasonable ruling.  I mean how fair is it that the government can say, hey since the defendant didn't take our ridiculously subjective feats of balance exam, he is guilty!  That is a load of horse manure.

I would suggest you watch the movie "The Man With Two Brains" with Steve Martin and skip to the field sobriety test portion, it is very humorous. See the clip here: Drunk Tests are Hard! Perhaps that clip is a bit of an exaggeration concerning field sobriety tests but given the fact these "Standardized" Field Sobriety Tests are administered in the same fashion to any individual (whether they are young, old, overweight, have already existing balance issues, have ADD, any other learning disorder, etc.) declining them is no evidence whatsoever of a consciousness of guilt.  Allowing them in to show an alleged consciousness of guilt then pits a defendant's explanation for why they wouldn't take such a test against that of an officer who is trained to testify that these tests are so simple a 5 year old could perform them.  Why should someone have to face off against an officer to prove these tests have no relevancy if not performed?  It is a ridiculous notion.

Hopefully this ruling will continue given the recent Supreme Court decisions and judges will start to literally apply the law.

Seattle DUI Attorney

Nate Webb

(425) 398-4323

New Washington State DUI Laws went into effect on September 28th...

In an effort to further scrutinize the offense of DUI and to make it equivalent to a more heinous offense (felony) than it is (I'm not talking about Vehicular Homicide or Vehicular Assault), the legislature has once again instituted further penalties for offenders. 

Some of the highlights include:
(1) holding second time offenders in jail until they are able to appear in front of a judge for the setting of conditions of release,
(2) requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device for repeat offenders within five days of arrest (even if they are subsequently acquitted or the case dismissed),
(3) while still allowing persons to apply for an ignition interlock device so that they may drive for employment purposes if their license is lost administratively, those individuals who qualified for an employer-waiver exemption (that is, the employee didn't have to install a device on their employer owned vehicle driven during employment for employment purposes only) are now required to wait for a period of time (30 days for a first offender and one year for second and above offenses) before the waiver can be utilized, thus requiring their dismissal from that position and loss their job, security, inability to pay their mortgage, etc.  Does any other charge require these restrictive means?  The answer is a resounding no! 

No one condones DUI, but when the legislature takes it upon themselves to strike down all due process and constitutional defenses for those accused, something is amiss.  A person charged with assaulting their spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend on numerous occasions and causing severe injury will face less scrutiny than a first time DUI offender! 

If you have been charged with a DUI, call Nate at the Webb Law Firm (425) 398-4323.