Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, discloses how everyone's alleged breath test result is elevated by 6.5% automatically!

For the last 15-20 years or so the Washington State Patrol has utilized a machine to test, via breath samples, for an estimate of ethanol in a subject's system named the BAC DataMaster and BAC DataMaster CDM.  Why do I say it is an "estimate" of a person's ethanol level? Because the principles utilized are just that, an estimate.  For example, as stated in the title of my post, every single person who submits to a sample of their breath, who has consumed any alcohol at all, will have an increased ethanol estimate of 6.5%. 

The reason is that the Washington State Patrol utilizes an old theory of internal checks via what is called a simulator solution to check that the machine is reading a .08 mixture (prepared by the Washington State Toxicology Lab).  The Tox Lab prepares this mixture and it is heated up to 34 degrees Celsius to simulate the mouth temperature of all persons on earth.  The problem with this assumption is that the figure 34 degrees Celsius is based upon a small sample study conducted in the 1940s wherein it was concluded that the mean temperature of persons (only in that sample group) mouth was 34 degrees Celsius.  A more recent study with a much larger sample size concluded that the average temperature is actually 35 degrees Celsius. 

This means that every single person who submits to a sample of their breath on the DataMaster who has consumed any alcohol recently will automatically have an increased estimate of their breath based upon this outdated theory the government still utilizes to this day!  Seem unfair?  Of course it is but they don't care.  It is only when I cross examine the State's "expert" in breath testing (really only a glorified button pusher) that this revelation is made to the jury. 

We at the Webb Law Firm make it a priority to keep up with the most recent studies and treatises on breath testing, especially how it relates to physiology and biology, in defense of those accused of a DUI.  Call today to find out more about how the government's machine is being used in a false manner each and every time. 

Call us today! (425) 398-4323 to speak with Seattle's Premier DUI Defense Attorney.

About the author: In his 10 plus years of practice, Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, has been repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star by Washington Law and Politics Magazine and a Top Attorney for DUI Defense by Seattle Metropolitan Magazine and has numerous Not Guilty DUI verdicts and dismissals under his belt.

Seattle DUI attorney, Nate Webb, answers the question: "If I wasn't Driving how can I be charged with a DUI?"

How can I be charged with a DUI when I was just sitting in my car? There is a specific statute that allows for the charging of a DUI case wherein there is no proof the officer actually say you driving.  It is called Physical Control of a Vehicle Under the Influence (RCW 46.61.504).  The applicable statute says this:

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.

What is Actual Physical Control (non-driving DUI)?  There is no jury instruction on what actual physical control is, the only instruction given from the court instructs the jurors as to the following:

A person commits the crime of being in actual physical control when he or she has actual physical control of a motor vehicle while he or she is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or while he or she has sufficient alcohol in her body to have an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher within two hours after being in actual physical control shown by an accurate and reliable test of the person's breath. WPIC 92.01

So how can I be convicted?  The prosecutor is going to somehow have to convince the jury you had control over the vehicle and the defense will have to convince the jury you did not.  Either way, it is always and interesting argument.

Safely Off the Roadway - An Affirmative Defense

If you have been charged with Physical Control of a Motor Vehilce While Under the Influence of Alcohol or any Drug (RCW 46.61.504) there is one well-known defense to the charge.  It is an affirmative defense known as "safely off the roadway." Even the cops know this defense, so they always, I repeat always claim you weren't safely off the roadway, but guess what, that is up to the jury to decide. 

As a seasoned Seattle DUI Attorney, I have utilized this defense numerous times for persons charged with a Washington State DUI.  What the statute says about the defense is this:

"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."

RCW 46.61.504 (2).

Now the law enforcement office undoubtedly knows about the defense to the charge so I have seen reports written which say something like "I observed the vehicle pulled to the shoulder of the road but the exterior side mirror was protruding into the lane of travel and cause a significant risk to passing motorists."  What does that mean, even though you pulled your car over and stopped driving as the legislature intended, if you had been drinking the cops want to bust you, they don't care there is an applicable defense.  I've literally had a prosecutor tell a jury (after my client was found not guilty) that "I don't believe in safely off the roadway."  Yes this is a from a person who took an oath to seek justice under the law.

Seattle DUI Pros owner, Nate Webb knows how to apply this defense effectively. I have had numerous cases dismissed when applying this defense and not guilty verdicts when presented to a jury.

If you weren't driving and were still arrested for DUI (Physical Control), call today to discuss your case (425) 398-4323 or (844) DUI-GONE.

Seattle DUI attorney, Nate Webb, discusses the question "If I was arrested aren't I guilty?"

Just reading and watching the news today about Michael Phelps DUI arrest (click here to read about it) I was wondering how many people out there who could be potential jurors might conclude that just because he was arrested he might also be guilty before having his day in court.

I hear it all the time from prospective jurors when they are asked by a prosecutor during voir dire, does anyone think Mr. or Mrs. so and so is automatically guilty and they all say, "oh no of course not" then I follow up with a question like, "let's pretend we just walked in here off the street and sit in the back and see the accused sitting in his chair here, don't you think we might nudge each other and say to ourselves 'I wonder what he did'".  Someone in the jury pool always says "well of course because he is here" and I say "well would you want someone to say that about you if you had entered a plea of not guilty?"  Usually the response is "oh I see what you are saying."

In closing argument (summation) it is essential that your Seattle DUI attorney points out the defendant simply being charged is evidence of nothing, him being arrested is not evidence of guilt and that he doesn't have to show you anything to disprove the government's allegations.
I always remind jurors that beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden that exists in our judicial system and thate it is the same for all defendants, whether they are charged with rape, murder, or driving without a licnese or DUI.

So, in a nutshell, an arrest is certainly not evidence of guilt and in fact, many judges will dismiss a case if the arresting office failed to have probable cause in the first place.  So it is absolutely necessary your Seattle DUI Lawyer points this out to jurors!

July 4th Emphasis Patrols are out! Don't get stopped!

Every July 4th (and every holiday for that matter) the Washington State Patrol and other police agencies conduct DUI Emphasis Patrols in anticipation of an increased number of DUI drivers.  Don't be one of those persons stopped for DUI.

Take a cab, call a friend or find some other form of public transportation to get you safely home if you have been drinking.  Remember, as I always say, it isn't against the law to drink and then drive, but with these DUI patrols the law enforcement person who may contact you will arrest you if they smell any alcohol.

What do you do if stopped and you have had something to drink?  Read my advice on whether to take field tests or not at http://www.webbattorney.com/field-sobriety-tests.  Also, always contact an attorney at the station before you submit to any breath test, even if it is a public defender, they can provide the proper advice in these circumstances and can then be a useful witness if your case is filed.

Also, if you are out on a boat and are stopped for a "wake violation" and charged with Operating a Vessel While Under the Influence or BUI as we commonly refer to it, give us a call to discuss your options (or visit - http://www.webbattorney.com/bui-boating-dui.php).

Remember the best way to avoid a DUI is to not drink and drive, but if you or a loved one, or an acquaintance is stopped and arrested for DUI, have them contact our attorneys for immediate assistance at (425) 398-4323.

_______________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice of 10 years emphasizes DUI defense.  He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He has been repeatedly recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, and Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and is Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

Supreme Court of the United States allows for scorn ex-lovers, jealous neighbors, problem co-workers to call police anonymously and have you stopped for drunk driving!!!! SERIOUSLY!!!!

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) ruled in Naverette v. California that an uncorroborated 911 call alleging a "drunk driver" was sufficient in and of itself to allow law enforcement to stop the suspected driver.  

This ruling effectively strips away the Fourth Amendment rights of every US citizen. Can you imagine a scorn lover, an envious neighbor or some other person who has some sort of beef with another being able to simply call 911 alleging drunk driving and have law enforcement then stop someone. The Court in Navarette v. California held that the tip alone was sufficient to allow a stop for suspected drunk driving.  The court reasoned the anonymous caller's description was essentially credible because a 911 tipster would not have done so with ill-will, that no one would falsely call 911!  Are they freaking serious???  Without getting into a Fourth Amendment diatribe the Court here has given law enforcement carte blanche to stop anyone based upon BS 911 calls.  Just think of all the hypotheticals you could come up with!

In Washington state however, it will be interesting how this case will be implemented as under Article I Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution citizens are afforded more protection than what is provided under the Fourth Amendment.  One such case I can reference is Campbell v. DOL wherein a similar fact pattern was argued and the court held the anonymous tipster's description of a driver (without some law enforcement corroboration of bad driving) was not sufficient to stop someone for alleged drunk driving. 

We will see how all of this plays out, but it is a really really bad decision by SCOTUS and I believe anyone with a brain would agree.


_______________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice of 10 years 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 is Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

A first time murderer is afforded a better opportunity for a plea bargain than a DUI suspect in King County!

Recently a defendant charged with First Degree Murder pled guilty to Second Degree Murder in King County. See story here: Former JBLM soldier pleads guilty to second degree murder.

Now you might think that for an awful crime the defendant doesn't deserve any break whatsoever but the King County Prosecuting Attorney thinks this plea was justified.

Now this was a murder charge, so you would think that a first time offender charged with a misdemeanor DUI might have a similar opportunity, nope, think again!  These first time DUI offenders are worse in the eyes of the King County Prosecutor's Office.  The King County Prosecutor's Office has a no negotiation policy on first time DUIs, first time murder yes, but not on first time DUIs!

Over the 10 years I have been practicing in King County I have handled hundreds upon hundreds of DUIs. The majority of these first time offenders found themselves in the position simply because they misjudged their ability to drive after consuming alcohol.  The vast majority were not involved in an accident and no one was injured.  No one is condoning driving while drunk but when a prosecutor's office takes it upon itself to treat first time DUI offenders worse than first time murderers and rapists, there is certainly something rotten in Denmark.

People charged with DUI are not all bad people; consider this - a former Washington State Supreme Court Justice was charged with DUI, numerous State Representatives and Congressmen, judges, police officers, firefighters, professional athletes, Microsoft Employees, NBA executives, Professional singers, etc. have found themselves charged with DUI when they made a judgment to drive when they honestly believed they were capable.

The King County Prosecutor's Office has taken it upon itself to penalize all DUI offenders and not negotiate any first time cases even though the legislature intended for negotiations to take place.  This is why RCW 46.61.5055 specifically outlines "prior offenses."  The legislature intended that reduced charges such as Reckless Driving and Negligent Driving in the First Degree, reduced from an original DUI would be "prior offenses" for sentencing purposes (meaning on a second offense the penalties start at 30 days in jail and go up for third and fourth offenses) if an individual were charged and convicted of a new DUI within 7 years from the date of the original arrest for DUI.  Why did the legislature articulate prior offenses this way, it is because the overwhelming number of persons charged with a  DUI don't re-offend and it doesn't necessarily believe that someone charged with a DUI has to be convicted and have a permanent offense on their record (a DUI can NEVER be removed from your record in Washington State if convicted or a plea of guilty is entered).

Now it is the King County Prosecutor's prerogative to do so but is it really the role of a prosecutor to only get convictions or is it to get justice?  Think about it, if a first time felon is afforded the opportunity to plea to some lesser offense or to an amount of jail less than what is typical (I'm talking murderers, drug dealers, rapists, sex offenders, etc.) then why do misdemeanor offenders for DUI get treated worse?  For example, a Reckless Driving offense has a mandatory minimum penalty of 30 days of license suspension, 3 years of high risk (SR-22) insurance, and it will have conditions similar to those of a DUI conviction (everything except the day in jail and permanent conviction that cannot be expunged). 

There is no logic behind the position and I believe each attorney who adheres to this policy is a hypocrite.  Why would I use such a harsh word? Because every single one of the prosecutor's abiding by this policy personally know someone who has either been charged with a DUI, who should have been charged with a DUI or has committed the offense of DUI themselves (whether they were caught or not).  Would they honestly say to their grandmother who was arrested and blew a .081, tough s#@t grandma, you gotta plead guilty!

The major issue now has become that this "policy" is a huge burden on the taxpaying citizens of the State of Washington.  How you say?  Why shouldn't we prosecute everyone charged with a crime?  There is a difference between prosecution and persecution.  To give someone the opportunity to admit guilt by way of a lesser plea is not letting the individual off the hook.  How taxpayers are being effected is this way: troopers are being paid an increasingly inordinate amount of overtime to appear to court for evidentiary hearings and then sent home when there is simply not enough time on the calendar to hear the case.  This happens every single Friday in King County District Court!  That is not even taking into consideration the "close call" cases that arguably could be won by either side.  When the State takes the position of a no negotiation policy it effectively is telling everyone charged, "just try me!"  Now when those defendants do and win, then the State has just wasted taxpayer money when it could have offered a reduced plea and had the individual on probation for a couple of years making money, but due to the bull-headed nature of this "philosophy" many, many cases are going to trial and some juries are reaching not guilty verdicts.

Also, courtrooms are so overloaded with trials that independent and expert witnesses are sitting around all day then getting bumped to the next day or week.  State toxicology lab workers testifying on these cases are actually spending more time in the courtroom than in the lab performing work to try and catch murderers and rapists because apparently DUIs are of greater concern to the prosecutor's office. Who do you think pays the salaries of those persons.

To sum up, again it is the prerogative of the King County Prosecutor's office to prosecute cases as it sees fit, but when the stance taken is that DUI convictions are more important that murder convictions or rape convictions, the political nature of the policy is evident.  When a potential candidate gets on tv or radio and espouses what a great DUI conviction rate they have, the question should be asked, well how many felony suspects were given reduced pleas?  Politics should not dictate negotiations.

 

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice of 10 years 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 is Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

Do I have to install an Ignition Interlock Device on my car if I enter into a Mental Health Deferred Prosecution?

Now many of the attorneys practicing law in Washington state may shout out, NO! Absolutely not!  However, the short answer is yes, according to DOL.

Now all Seattle DUI attorneys know that in any alcohol dependency case the petitioner is required under the applicable statute (RCW 10.05.140) to drive only a motor vehicle with a functioning ignition interlock device (IID) for a minimum period of a year.  Many of my colleagues and I believe the imposition of a IID is not required on a Mental Health or Drug problem petition for a Deferred Prosecution.

The applicable statute is as follows:

RCW 10.05.140

As a condition of granting a deferred prosecution petition, the court shall order that the petitioner shall not operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways without a valid operator's license and proof of liability insurance. The amount of liability insurance shall be established by the court at not less than that established by RCW 46.29.490. As a condition of granting a deferred prosecution petitionon any alcohol-dependency based case, the court shall also order the installation of an ignition interlock under RCW 46.20.720. The required periods of use of the interlock shall be not less than the periods provided for in RCW 46.20.720(3). As a condition of granting a deferred prosecution petition, the court may order the petitioner to make restitution and to pay costs as defined in RCW 10.01.160. To help ensure continued sobriety and reduce the likelihood of reoffense, the court may order reasonable conditions during the period of the deferred prosecution including, but not limited to, attendance at self-help recovery support groups for alcoholism or drugs, complete abstinence from alcohol and all nonprescribed mind-altering drugs, periodic urinalysis or breath analysis, and maintaining law-abiding behavior. The court may terminate the deferred prosecution program upon violation of the deferred prosecution order.

Recently, the Department of Licensing has implemented its' own "policy" to require the imposition of an IID on ANY deferred prosecution case, even if it is solely based upon Mental Health issues or Drug problems if it was originally charged as a DUI (RCW 46.61.502) or Physical Control (RCW 46.61.504).

Here is the policy:


Policy

 

Effective immediately ( January 29, 2013) all Deferred Prosecutions: Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health will require the appropriate 1, 5, or 10 year IID requirement as established under RCW 46.20.720.

RCW 46.20.720 holds:

(1)  The court may order that after a period of suspension, revocation, or denial of driving privileges, and for up to as long as the court has jurisdiction, any person convicted of any offense involving the use, consumption, or possession of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle may drive only a motor vehicle equipped with a functioning ignition interlock. The court shall establish a specific calibration setting at which the interlock will prevent the vehicle from being started. The court shall also establish the period of time for which interlock use will be required.  (2) Under RCW 46.61.5055 and subject to the exceptions listed in that statute, the court shall order any person convicted of a violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local ordinance to comply with the rules and requirements of the department regarding the installation and use of a functioning ignition interlock device installed on all motor vehicles operated by the person. The court shall order any person participating in a deferred prosecution program under RCW 10.05.020 for a violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local ordinance to have a functioning ignition interlock device installed on all motor vehicles operated by the person.

Now the statement that the court "shall order" an ignition interlock infers the court must impose the ignition interlock for any person participating in a deferred prosecution.

Now here is where it gets tricky, RCW 46.61.5055 5(a) holds:

The court shall require any person convicted of a violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local ordinance to comply with the rules and requirements of the department regarding the installation and use of a functioning ignition interlock device installed on all motor vehicles operated by the person.

In the particular case I was referencing with the DOL, the court actually did order the imposition for a IID but only for 3 months, not one year as is required for any alcohol dependency based DP under RCW 46.20.720 (3) and RCW 10.05.140.  However, the DOL's reliance upon RCW 46.20.720 I believe is misplaced RCW 10.05.060 indicates that when a person is granted a Deferred Prosecution, the entry is not a conviction under RCW 46.61.5055.

RCW 10.05.060 Procedure Upon Approval of Plan

If the report recommends treatment, the court shall examine the treatment plan. If it approves the plan and the petitioner agrees to comply with its terms and conditions and agrees to pay the cost thereof, if able to do so, or arrange for the treatment, an entry shall be made upon the person's court docket showing that the person has been accepted for deferred prosecution. A copy of the treatment plan shall be filed with the court. If the charge be one that an abstract of the docket showing the charge, the date of the violation for which the charge was made, and the date of petitioner's acceptance is required to be sent to the department of licensing, an abstract shall be sent, and the department of licensing shall make an entry of the charge and of the petitioner's acceptance for deferred prosecution on the department's driving record of the petitioner. The entry is not a conviction for purposes of Title 46 RCW. Upon receipt of the abstract of the docket, the department shall issue the petitioner a probationary license in accordance with RCW 46.20.355, and the petitioner's driver's license shall be on probationary status for five years from the date of the violation that gave rise to the charge. The department shall maintain the record for ten years from date of entry of the order granting deferred prosecution.

Well, where does this leave us?  The only way to address this issue is to take the Department of Licensing up on a Writ to Superior Court.  Be aware when considering a Mental Health or Drug Deferred Prosecution petition, because accordingly the DOL will require an IID for one year.

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice of 10 years 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 is Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com

 

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

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.

Two Seattle Police Officers arrested for DUI and Hit and Run...

SEATTLE (AP) - The Seattle police department says two of its officers have been arrested for suspicion of a hit-and-run and driving under the influence.

Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb says a local resident noticed a collision just after midnight Monday, saying that a woman driving a Nissan Altima had front-end damage. The witness said the woman stopped the car and switched seats with a male passenger and they drove off.

Whitcomb says officers did an area check and found the Altima a few blocks away, parked two to three feet away from the curb with the engine still running. Officers recognized the pair in the car as off-duty police officers.

A duty captain responded to the scene and the pair was arrested.

Investigators aren't sure yet what the pair struck while driving.

We will wait and see the outcome of this matter but it seems like switching places in a seat is bad enough.

by Nathan Webb