Not Guilty verdict despite deceitful, spiteful, overzealous prosecutor!! Victory and justice!

Yesterday a King County Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty (acquittal) for my client who was charged with Hit and Run Attended Vehicle after a two day trial.

 

Not to toot my own horn, but I was fairly confident the jurors would see the travesty of justice being presented to them by a very spiteful, bitter, prideful supervising prosecutor.  Both investigating troopers concluded no crime had occurred and that my client had no knowledge of the alleged collision because it was ever so slight contact.  The prosecutor's office initially offered my client an offer to plea to a lesser offense, however, that offer was still a criminal offense.  My client felt he had no culpability and I agreed.  Just before the trial began, both troopers reiterated to me their displeasure at being called as witnesses on a case they basically called ridiculous.  I told the prosecutor responsible for the trial (nice new attorney only doing her job at the direction of her supervisor) she needed to speak with her supervisor about the troopers' position and to her credit she did.  Unfortunately, that supervisor has such an ego, such a terrible disposition, such contempt for defense attorneys she ignored the facts, the opinions of the troopers and essentially, in my opinion. violated the rules of professional conduct (by knowingly proceeding with the prosecution of a case wherein the merits did not warrant a conviction).  

 

After we disclosed the troopers' opinions to the prosecutor, instead of taking appropriate actions and dismissing, she filed several motions to try and prevent the troopers from testifying about their opinions!  Yes, the prosecutor did not want the troopers to be able to present the truth to the jury!  Why?  What was the purpose of proceeding?  It was complete spite, immaturity and blatant disregard for justice!  I am wholly satisfied with the outcome, it was justice!  My client was facing a criminal conviction, a criminal record for something the state's own witnesses (troopers) believed was not a crime.  This was the act of an overzealous prosecutor and the state got what they deserved, a NOT GUILTY!  

 

This case is exactly why I do what I do, when a prosecutor takes it upon themselves to pursue cases without merit, you need someone to stand up for you and I am always ready!  I would try this case again in a heartbeat. 

 

BTW: We had also attempted to compromise this case with the alleged victim who at first seemed reasonable but then sought "pain and suffering" and additional repairs to his vehicle which were not caused by the collision. Essentially these two vehicles barely scraped each other and, despite the alleged victim's testimony he was sideswiped, the investigating trooper (who was specially trained in accident reconstruction) testified that was absolutely not true, that the evidence showed the alleged victim sped up in an attempt to cut my client's vehicle out merging into a lane.

 

Furthermore, she informed the alleged victim she was only going to issue a civil infraction.  Upon hearing that the alleged victim voiced his displeasure, called her supervisor and threatened to file a complaint with the state representative.  The supervising trooper reluctantly relented wholeheartedly expecting the charges would be declined by the prosecutors office. Again, both troopers told the prosecutor they would not support this charge at trial and they proceeded anyway, it was the most ridiculous, unnecessary trial ever.  In my career I have never encountered a more bitter, unreasonable, spiteful, vindictive, unpleasant prosecutor (not the prosecutor who was forced to take the case to trial, but the immediate supervisor) and I'm glad the jury saw the BS. 

 

This prosecutor's tactic is to speak with an attorney about a case in an effort to, supposedly reach a resolution, when in reality her ulterior motive is to use all information you disclose (that is, weaknesses in the state's case) against your client.  It is a disingenuous approach to seeking "justice."  In my opinion this prosecutor does not possess the disposition, maturity, or temperament to hold the position in which she is employed.  She is seconds away from a bar complaint and violation of the rules of professional conduct.  Yes, overzealous, unscrupulous prosecutors are out there and this one is a prime example.  Shame on the State!  When people ask me, "why do you defend guilty people!" I point out cases as this!  Without people like me and my colleagues our government would be able to steamroll defendants and that is not going to happen on my watch.

It is not the government's position to win at all costs, despite the evidence, that is not justice! Pursuing cases despite the evidence in an attempt to garner a conviction is not justice, it is the act of an overzealous prosecutor and that approach always comes back to bite them in the (rear) end!

 

State v. J.T. - Case no: 513009093 (King County District Court)

 ___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

 

Negligent driving conviction with a prior means 6 more months of IID (no matter if the 2nd was originally a DUI)!

Recently the legislature enacted changes to many DUI laws in our state and I wanted to note one in particular in which there is much confusion, Negligent Driving in the First Degree.  This statute holds that, among other things, anyone who is convicted of Negligent Driving in the First Degree with a "prior" must install an ignition interlock on their vehicle for an additional 6 months (see subsection (4) below):

  (1)(a) A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or marijuana or any drug or exhibits the effects of having inhaled or ingested any chemical, whether or not a legal substance, for its intoxicating or hallucinatory effects.

     (b) It is an affirmative defense to negligent driving in the first degree by means of exhibiting the effects of having consumed any drug that must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the driver has a valid prescription for the drug consumed, and has been consuming it according to the prescription directions and warnings.

     (c) Negligent driving in the first degree is a misdemeanor.

     (2) For the purposes of this section:

     (a) "Negligent" means the failure to exercise ordinary care, and is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under the same or similar circumstances.

     (b) "Exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor, marijuana, or any drug" means that a person has the odor of liquor, marijuana, or any drug on his or her breath, or that by speech, manner, appearance, behavior, lack of coordination, or otherwise exhibits that he or she has consumed liquor, marijuana, or any drug, and either:

     (i) Is in possession of or in close proximity to a container that has or recently had liquor, marijuana, or any drug in it; or

     (ii) Is shown by other evidence to have recently consumed liquor, marijuana, or any drug.

     (c) "Exhibiting the effects of having inhaled or ingested any chemical, whether or not a legal substance, for its intoxicating or hallucinatory effects" means that a person by speech, manner, appearance, behavior, or lack of coordination or otherwise exhibits that he or she has inhaled or ingested a chemical and either:

     (i) Is in possession of the canister or container from which the chemical came; or

     (ii) Is shown by other evidence to have recently inhaled or ingested a chemical for its intoxicating or hallucinatory effects.

     (3) Any act prohibited by this section that also constitutes a crime under any other law of this state may be the basis of prosecution under such other law notwithstanding that it may also be the basis for prosecution under this section.

     (4) A person convicted of negligent driving in the first degree who has one or more prior offenses as defined in RCW 46.61.5055(14) within seven years shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person.

This subsection (4) now requires drivers who are convicted of a new Negligent Driving in the First Degree to install an ignition interlock device (for 6 months).  What many DUI attorneys have been mistakenly informing their clients is that only if the second/subsequent DUI is reduced to Neg 1 will they be required to install an IID.  Well, unfortunately, that is false information.  The Department of Licensing (DOL) will require anyone who has a prior offense as outlined in RCW 46.61.5055 who is convicted of a new Neg 1, whether it was originally charged as a DUI or Physical Control, to install the IID.  That means if someone is arrested for Neg 1 for say a .03 BAC, has a prior offense and pleads guilty, they will require an IID for 6 additional months.  This is the DOL's position!

Now, if a person has a prior, then picks up a new DUI which is reduced to Reckless Driving, they will have to have an IID for 6 additional months, but not if they were only charged with Reckless Driving (i.e., not amended down from DUI or Physical Control).  The lesson is, if you have a new Neg 1, even if it is not amended down, you are facing an additional 6 months of IID, regardless of any breath test! 

If you have been arrested for a DUI, Physical Control, Negligent Driving in the First Degree, Reckless Driving or other offense, call me, Nate Webb, your Seattle DUI attorney for a free consultation. (425) 398-4323

  ___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

Washington Legislature ready to enact nations strictest DUI laws...

King5.com reported today:

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Drunk driving laws are changing in Washington state after two high-profile, deadly crashes involving suspected drunk drivers in King County.

Governor Jay Inslee, D-Washington, announced a new package of driving under the influence laws has bipartisan support in Olympia.
“Every accident and every death we see involving a DUI could have been prevented,” Inslee said in a release. “People who choose to get behind the wheel must know that we are done giving them a free pass.”

The proposed legislation would result in several penalty changes.

Police would have to arrest and take the driver into custody after a first DUI offense, according to the Governor’s office. After a second offense, drivers would have to choose between treatment or a mandatory six months in jail.

Drivers convicted of a third DUI would get at least a one-year prison sentence. In addition, a three-time offender will be issues a new driver's license that would prevent them from buying alcohol for 10 years.

Frank Blair, whose daughter was killed by a DUI driver in 2010, said he was pleased with the proposed laws.
"It sends a message, we have to stop this, it's not ok," said Blair.

Judy and Dennis Schulte were run over March 25 by a suspected drunk driver, Mark Mullan, in Northeast Seattle. Mullan is also accused of seriously injuring the Schulte’s daughter and infant granddaughter. He had several prior DUI convictions.

Morgan Williams was killed April 4 by an alleged drunk driver going the wrong way on Highway 520. The driver in that crash, Michael Robertson, was awaiting trial on another DUI charge.

Nate Webb says: These would be the strictest DUI laws in the nation! No one condones drunk driving, but six months in jail or treatment (that is a change from 30 or 45 days to 180 days)! Also, booking everyone arrested for a first offense DUI is ridiculous. I have many clients who are charged yet their cases are never filed, or believe it or not, they are subsequently found not guilty or have their cases dismissed, this is draconian. What the legislature is saying is that even though there is .08 threshold, and it is actually not illegal to have a couple of drinks and drive, if some cop wants to book you regardless of your breath test you are SOL. My colleagues can attest to having clients charged with DUI even when their breath tests are below the legal limit! So even though you were found not guilty or had the case dismissed, you were placed in jail for no good reason. Is that due process, I think not.  This is simply guilty until proven innocent.  Remember, judges, cops, legislators, Supreme Court Justices have all been arrested for DUI in this state and not all were convicted, so is this proposal really justified! 

Ignition Interlock Devices

Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, explains Ignition Interlock Devices

Ignition Interlock Device - those sound like a pretty bad group of words and most of us want to avoid the restriction when possible.  IIDs, as we refer to them, are commonplace in the area of Washington DUI Defense and are typically imposed by judges at arraignment as a condition of release.  Basically it is a "blow and go" device which requires a breath sample to start your vehicle and periodically (yes while driving) require a sample during operation of the motor vehicle (is this a liability? I think so - apparently the legislature doesn't think it is safe for persons to talk on a cellphone while driving but require persons to submit to a sample of their breath while driving, yes this is true!).  All of these devices now require a camera to ensure the person required to submit a sample is not having someone else do the sampling.

These IIDs are required for drivers convicted of a DUI or Physical Control (1 year on a first offense and up as convictions increase). Also, if an individual wishes to drive during any period of suspension based upon a DUI arrest, they must install a functioning IID on any vehicle they drive.

This Restricted Driver's License requires both the IID and SR-22 Insurance. In addition to mandatory impositions of IIDs upon DUI convictions, if you are charged with a subsequent DUI and/or Physical Control offense and it is reduced/amended to Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving in the First Degree, you will be required to operate a motor vehicle only with a functioning ignition interlock device for an additional 6 months.  A person convicted of DUI or Physical Control must also have an IID for an additional 6 months if they had a passenger under the age of 16 with them.

See the following statutes and codes for further information regarding IIDs.

RCW 46.04.215 Ignition interlock device.
RCW 46.20.720 Drivers convicted of alcohol offenses.
RCW 46.20.740 Notation on driving record — Verification of interlock — Penalty.
RCW 46.20.745 Ignition interlock device revolving account program — Pilot program.
RCW 46.20.750 Circumventing ignition interlock — Penalty.
RCW 46.20.385 Ignition interlock driver's license — Application — Eligibility — Cancellation — Costs — Rules.
RCW 43.43.395 Ignition interlock devices — Standards — Compliance.
WAC 204-50-110 Mandatory requirements for an ignition interlock device.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding an Ignition Interlock Device, please call Nate Webb at (425) 398-4323.

 ___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

DUI - Physical Control - Can you be arrested even if the officer didn't see you drive?

Did you know you can be arrested for DUI even if the officer failed to witness you driving.  Under the lesser included offense of Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs (including marijuana).  This statute is the Physical Control Law -  view it here.

Essentially an officer might witness a person passed out behind the wheel or maybe they ran off the road and they are contacted while still seated in the driver's seat.  If you were readily able to control the motor vehicle you can be charged.  There is, thankfully, an affirmative defense, which I have asserted on behalf of many of my clients.  It is called the safely off the roadway defense.  Basically it is up to the trier of fact (jury or judge) to determine whether your vehicle, at the time of contact with the officer was "safely off the roadway."  The legislature wanted to enable persons who began to drive only to realize they were actually impaired an option.  Either they could continue driving or pull safely off the roadway and sleep it off, call a cab, walk, etc.  Therefore, if you were contacted while seated inside the vehicle and the officer did not witness you driving, you have a built in defense. 

RCW 46.61.504 - Physical Control of a Vehicle Under the Influence

(1) A person is guilty of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person has actual physical control of a vehicle within this state:

     (a) And the person has, within two hours after being in actual physical control of the vehicle, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

     (b) The person has, within two hours after being in actual physical control of a vehicle, a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

     (c) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

     (d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

     (2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state does not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this section. No person may be convicted under this section if, prior to being pursued by a law enforcement officer, the person has moved the vehicle safely off the roadway.

     (3)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of being in actual physical control of the vehicle and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after being in such control. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.

     (b) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of marijuana after the time of being in actual physical control of the vehicle and before the administration of an analysis of the person's blood to cause the defendant's THC concentration to be 5.00 or more within two hours after being in control of the vehicle. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.

     (4)(a) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged being in actual physical control of a vehicle may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged being in such control, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(c) or (d) of this section.

     (b) Analyses of blood samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged being in actual physical control of a vehicle may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged being in control of the vehicle, a person had a THC concentration of 5.00 or more in violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows a THC concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by marijuana in violation of subsection (1)(c) or (d) of this section.

     (5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

     (6) It is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if:

     (a) The person has four or more prior offenses within ten years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or

     (b) The person has ever previously been convicted of:

     (i) Vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a);

     (ii) Vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b);

     (iii) An out-of-state offense comparable to the offense specified in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection; or

     (iv) A violation of this subsection (6) or RCW 46.61.502(6).

 ___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com. 

DUI Checkpoint in West Virginia - man groped!

I recently blogged on one Washington legislator's attempt to re-address DUI Checkpoints in Washington State.  The Supreme Court of Washington had already addressed this proposition in State v. Messiani, wherein the court held such DUI Checkpoints were too invasive given our extensive securities and right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment and Washington State Constitution's Article I Section 7 (where there is more privacy afforded individuals in Washington).

I always find it interesting that other state allow such checkpoints when all they do is give reason to cops to unlawfully search you and your vehicle, whether you have been drinking or not.  Take for example what happened to a West Virginia resident.  He was stopped with his wife at a "DUI Checkpoint" and asked to exit the vehicle.  The officer never even asked him if he had been drinking, according to the lawsuit filed by the gentlemen.  He alleges the officer searched him for weapons after he informed the officer he was legally carrying a firearm, permit and all.  He says the officer groped his personal region (aka testicles) after the gun had been retrieved.  Now, why if this man had not been asked if he had been drinking was he subject to exiting his vehicle and a search?  There is no reason other than intrusive governmental authority.  See the details here: Lawsuit claims man groped at DUI checkpoint. 

You can also search the vast videos on youtube of persons legally exercising their rights at these DUI checkpoints only to face governmental abuse.  In a word DUI checkpoints are a "bad" idea!  Yes, you may find a drunk or two, but you will far exceed the benefits of these checkpoints by offending and invading the privacy of countless citizens who have done nothing wrong.

 ___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com. 

New Marijuana DUI Laws explained.

Washington State's NEW Marijuana DUI Standards

Do you think it is illegal to smoke marijuana and then drive?  Well, it is not!  Seriously? Yes.  Just like alcohol (it is not illegal to consume alcohol and drive in Washington, or any state for that matter) driving after marijuana use is not illegal so long as the driver is not under the influence or affected by the marijuana or over the per-se (commonly referred to as the "legal limit") of 5 ng/mL of blood.

Every Washington State DUI case is affected by admissibility of tests to determine alcohol, but now the State of Washington's legislature has enacted a new portion of the DUI statute to crack down on Marijuana use while driving. Drivers suspected of marijuana use have always come under scrutiny and previously, when charged, the State could only speculate as to the "impairment" level of the driver. But now, there is a new legal standard for impaired drivers who have been driving while using marijuana, it is 5 ng/mL. How did the State come up with this standard? Who knows! There are no agreed treatises or studies of any sort which conclude that absolutely every driver is impaired at 5 ng/mL, but the State is using this "level" nonetheless. It is a per se level, so that means, even if you are a regular user of Marijuana in Washington State and are arrested for a Marijuana DUI, the prosecution only has to show that your blood results were 5 ng/mL and they get a conviction. There is no speculating as to whether that particular individual isn't impaired, they are presumed impaired even though there is no documentation (treatise, scientific studies, etc.) to establish this finding. I find this highly suspect and very concerning. My advice to anyone suspected of a Seattle Marijuana DUI is, don't drive at all after smoking marijuana.

 

Problems with Marijuana DUI Evidence

Numerous defense challenges to the results in Marijuana DUI cases are available, especially given the fact that there is no way to estimate how many tokes or puffs get someone to the "per se" level of 5 ng/mL. In breath test cases concerning alcohol there is a guideline (albeit from the 1930s) wherein you can estimate a BAC level (Widmark's formula). However, there is no such guideline for cannabis. In fact, numerous studies indicate that estimating marijuana impairment via plasma (i.e., a blood draw) is problematic and inconclusive. Nevertheless, the legislature will enact the 5 ng/mL standard level and you will be presumed guilty. Think also how this affects Medical Marijuana users. They are authorized to consume marijuana, but given there is no way to estimate what level they may reach after just a couple of puffs, this new DUI Marijuana (THC) law is essentially "no tolerance." It precludes the use because drivers are risking a criminal conviction even if they are using under the law!

 

Marijuana DUI - Cannabis DUI Advice

Seeing as how 5 ng/mL is such a low standard, with no apparent scientific standard for estimation or determination of impairment, it is best to just not drive at all after using marijuana. Also, considering the government put no effort into determining how different varieties of marijuana may affect individuals, it is advisable to find other transportation. This new statute and enactment by the government, in my humble opinion, is foolish, and without any true scientific conclusions it is draconian . I'm prepared to fight for you if you have been charged with a Seattle Marijuana DUI, Seattle Cannabis DUI or Washington State Marijuana DUI. In fact, my first "Not Guilty" DUI verdict was a case involving an allegedly impaired driver who was smoking marijuana! Contact us today to discuss your case!

 

Current Statue (RCW) on DUI - Drugs

RCW 46.61.502 Driving under the influence. (1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) The person has, within two hours after driving, a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (c) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug; or (d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, and any drug. (2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

 

THEREFORE, even if you are legally consuming, smoking marijuana, you are subjected to arrest for driving a motor vehicle afterward.

 

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.

Boating Under The Influence Laws changed this past year!

Boat operators, watch out!  The legislature enacted stiffer penalties for Operating a Vessel Under the Influence, what is commonly referred to as a BUI (Boating Under the Influence).  The new changes became effective July 28, 2013, in an obvious attempt to start enforcing the statute during SeaFair coming up this weekend.  Be very careful having anything to drink while standing anywhere near the wheel of a boat, these law enforcement officers are vigilant and will stop boats for the slightest infraction or just board to ensure the proper number of life jackets are on board.

One noteworthy change is that previously no one who operated a vessel was deemed to have given consent to participate in a breath or blood test if arrested on suspicion of BUI, but the legislature has now changed that presumption.  Now, if a boater arrested for BUI refuses a breath or blood test, he or she is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000.  Unlike a DUI, a refusal cannot be used against you in a criminal trial, but the individual is subjected to the civil penalty.

Your best bet is to refrain from drinking and operating the boat, but if you or someone you know is in that situation, it is best to refuse all field sobriety tests and, if arrested, consult with an attorney prior to the administration of a breath or blood test.

Contact Nate Webb (425) 398-4323 if you have any questions about a BUI arrest.

 

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.

Field Tests are Hard!

Ever imagine yourself having to perform a field sobriety test after being pulled over?  Imagine you have had one beer, truly one beer and the officer says to you, "I smell alcohol, you've admitted to drinking a beer and you have bloodshot eyes.  Would you like to perform some field sobriety tests?"  Okay, you really have two choices here, (1) try and pass these feats of balance and concentration or (2) get arrested (they will arrest you if you refuse, guaranteed!) Not to worry though, as I have recently posted the "refusal" to participate in these tests cannot be used against you to show a "consciousness of guilt." 

Notice how I used quotations around the word refusal in that last paragraph.  That's because those tests are voluntary, yes you are under no legal obligation to perform them, no matter how the officer phrases it, don't do them.  Anyway, the officer will undoubtedly testify that you "REFUSED!!!!" the voluntary tests, in an obvious attempt to imply you were uncooperative when in reality all you really did was exercise your right to not participate in evidence gathering, much as you would not participate in questioning at a police station without the presence of an attorney.  I like to point out to juries all the time, how can someone refuse something that is essentially free.  For example, if my friend offers me a piece of candy and I say no, did I REFUSE or did I simply decline their offer.  If I had a free choice to make and didn't want to eat it because I'm allergic, I'm on a diet, etc. all I really did is politely say no.  But in the DUI context the government and officers (trooper, sheriff's deputies, etc.) will imply that you somehow did not want to willingly participate is these "simple" little tests.  Ha, these tests are hard.  Just check out the two videos as reference (obviously they are exaggerations but you get the point).  Field Tests are Hard! Field Test Passed but still arrested because he was drunk!

Bottom line is, if you have had anything to drink, politely say to the officer, "I'm not intoxicated and know I would pass your tests, but I have been advised not to take them."  Especially don't take them if there is no video present.  Nevertheless, I advise against them altogether. 

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com
 

DUI Checkpoints in Washington? Supreme Court has always said no, but push to change that!

Legislator calls for DUI checkpoints.  Even though the Washington Supreme Court finds such checkpoints too invasive upon citizens, this particular legislator wants to overlook that and put it to a vote.  Essentially every time a legislator wants to make a name for his or herself, they promote a hot topic issue which has already been decided.  It is the squeaky wheel gets the oil mentality.  Basically they say to their constituents, "I will carry on about an issue until I get my way despite the constitutional precedent."
Here is an excerpt from King5.com reporting on the issue:

Last week, a Port Orchard man was arrested for drunk driving for the 13th time. It's a shocking case for many of us, but not for state Representative Roger Goodman. While he says this case is an example of the extreme, he believes the state needs to do a much better job tracking repeat drunk drivers and pushing for tougher drunk driving laws. The Democrat from Kirkland pushed hard last session to increase penalties and toughen the state's drunk driving laws. Goodman plans to continue that when the Legislature gets together in January. One of the proposals he will be introducing is the creation of sobriety checkpoints. They would require every driver to stop and be checked for alcohol, "To set up a system in known corridors, mostly on Friday and Saturday nights, we would have law enforcement pulling people over." Right now, these checkpoints aren't allowed under the Washington Constitution. "Our courts in Washington have prohibited these sobriety checkpoints where law enforcement would pull over law abiding people as well drunk drivers," said Goodman. "That's considered too much of an invasion of privacy."

Now all you have to do is a search engine inquiry for "Washington DUI checkpoints" to see that legislators always promote something like this in an attempt to further their career (DUI Checkpoint - Typical Cop Reaction!).  The Washington Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and bringing it up over and again is not how you "get your way," it is a juvenile tactic.  Don't get me wrong, I don't condone impaired driving, but DUI checkpoints invade an individual's privacy and there is no study which relates DUI checkpoints to reduction of DUIs.
___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.

DUI Checkpoints - How Cops Take Advantage!

Is a Trooper's credibility relevant in a DUI hearing/trial?

I was in King County District Court (Seattle) the other morning representing a client on a DUI charge and while awaiting our case presentation witnessed another attorney cross-examining a Trooper.  This particular trooper had been arrested for a DUI in 2009 in Pullman, WA.  The issue was the character and reliability of the witness.  The State (prosecutor) vehemently objected to that line of questioning as irrelevant!  Hmm, let's think about that for a second, your main witness is a Washington State Trooper responsible for arresting persons for DUI, he had been arrested himself for DUI and had been, let's say less than truthful with the officer during his DUI arrest, then he arrested this attorney's client for DUI and the Trooper's character wasn't at issue?

Let's look at the background regarding this Trooper's DUI arrest.  He was stopped in Pullman after he had been admittedly drinking.  Ultimately he submitted to a breath test at the station which produced results of .11 on the BAC Datamaster (Washington's Breath Test machine).  Problem for him is he told the arresting officer he had only consumed about 24 ounces of beer 8 hours earlier.  Okay, let's look at this logically for a second, he had consumed 24 ounces of beer, supposedly, 8 hours earlier.  Even using the most simple of alcohol eliminating formulas, after 8 hours, his breath test should have been negligible, if not .00.  So, did he lie?  Would that evidence be relevant to the trier of fact (judge in this particular hearing)?  He presumably was going to attest to what the defendant did, and most importantly said, during his investigation of the DUI arrest.  He was going to tell the court he observed bloodshot watery eyes, speech, odor of alcohol, what the defendant told him in response to questioning, etc.

That last piece of information is the most troublesome.  Having a trooper testify what a defendant said to him during a DUI arrest is integral to probable cause in most cases.  If the individual tells the trooper what they consumed, where they had been going, etc. it assists the trooper in making a decision to arrest.  Now think about the context in which this Trooper was asked the same types of questions and his response.  Is it likely the officer who arrested this Trooper for DUI did not believe him?  Given that, is this Trooper's testimony remotely valuable?  Isn't he just going to say what he needs to in order to convince the judge to uphold the DUI arrest.

The government should be more interested in a fair hearing with a witness who is not tarnished rather than steadfastly defending a person who has been arrested for DUI. who then testifies regarding a DUI defendant's actions and truthfulness under oath.  I think attacking the credibility of the Trooper in this instance is fair game, he should expect to answer for his alleged untruthfulness, especially in the context of a DUI arrest, when he is called to testify.  I believe the government brings this witness at its peril. 

Just a thought: Maybe this trooper should be relegated to calling for someone else to process a potential DUI suspect to avoid any impropriety.  I would feel much more comfortable as a prosecutor attempting to present evidence of a DUI via a witness who is believable.

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.

Sam Donaldson's DUI Arrest dismissed!

Sam Donaldson's DUI arrest back in December of 2012 has now been dismissed due to a lack of probable cause!  Many times DUI arrest's are based upon the observations of the arresting officer and typical "impairment" signs (bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, admission to drinking) are anything but signs of impairment.  I mean, c'mon how are admission to drinking (which is legal) or the odor of alcohol (which would be present even if someone had consumed only a negligible amount of alcohol) signs of "impairment" in a DUI arrest.  Many times the officer is simply investigating the potential for an impaired driver and when that driver rightfully exercises his or her right to participate in field tests they are arrested regardless of the "evidence" gathered from the observations.  Why?  Because the officer wants to flex their muscle, they don't like being told no.  Just search the vast videos on the web of people exercising their rights at DUI checkpoints and the like and you will see the very familiar (all too common) response by officers.  "Oh you want to exercise your constitutional rights huh?  Well, pull over and let's hassle you because of it!"  Then watch them search your car based upon a drug canine "hit." 

Luckily Mr. Donaldson had competent counsel (DUI attorney) who was able to properly present to court the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. Donaldson for DUI.  When you are faced with a DUI arrest, and believe me if you have had anything to drink (even though it is legal) and you exercise your right to not participate in field sobriety tests, you WILL be arrested for DUI.  Be polite, don't answer questions about drinking, don't participate in any field sobriety tests, don't take a portable breath test.  Tell the officer, "I'm not intoxicated and am going to exercise my constitutional rights."  That way, the government (prosecutor) cannot imply you declined to participate in completely voluntary test because "you knew you would fail."   You cannot pass these tests if an officer doesn't want you to!  It happens all the time. 

When pulled over after drinking, unfortunately it is going to be difficult to avoid an arrest, regardless of your breath test at the station.  Just do what Mr. Donaldson did, hire a competent DUI attorney and take it to court. 

_______________________________________________________________
About the author: Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.