Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, addresses the DUI client who says, "I saw on the internet...."

I’ve done my research, so I just want to hire you to get my case dismissed, it will be easy because the cop lied and it should be dismissed!

Okay, now I’m not doubting that you may have some issues in your case.  Sometimes there are issues which may possibly result in a dismissal of your DUI or at the very minimum suppression of evidence.  That being said, the vast majority of DUI cases are not dismissed, it is probably less than 5% that are dismissed (and I don’t mean by way of a Deferred Prosecution).  What I mean is a dismissal due to some evidentiary issue (very likely the stop was invalid or there was no probable cause for arrest).  The great majority of DUIs are reduced to lesser offenses than what was originally charged. 

When you talk about the research you have done, be very leery about websites spewing stories about a person’s friend’s uncle’s cousin’s case where the judge threw out the case.  Many times those sites and stories are simply hyperbole and, sadly, many times they are just complete fabrications. I’ve had numerous people come in to meet me at a consultation and will say things such as, “I looked it up and if the cop didn’t have a reason to stop me, the case has to be dismissed.”  I typically say, yes that is true, but I would highly doubt the cop will admit he just pulled you over because he saw you leave a bar, there will be more to his story. 

(I did not produce the video below and don't conduct myself like this with clients but just put it on here as an example of the reality of DUI defense - sometimes we don't always remember the facts correctly) 

 

 

People wisely are utilizing the internet to research defenses to their DUI charge, but nothing, I repeat, nothing will take the place of an experienced DUI attorney.  The truly skilled DUI lawyer will prepare your case, find out what applicable strategies and defenses there are and be able to effectively utilize those either in negotiations or in court. 

My point is that no amount of research is going to take the place of a seasoned DUI attorney analyzing and applying argument in front of a court regarding your issues.  Sometimes the court will agree and sometimes (most of the time) the court will not.  The reality is, a lot of judges are hesitant to dump a DUI even if, legally, it is the right thing to do.  I personally believe in those situations some judges want to make the defendant have to appeal the case and spend the time, money and effort to get what is rightful.  That is an awful thing to conclude, but alas it is a reality.  Of course, contrarily there are many respectful judges who have the integrity to do what is right.  This is also a reason why you need a DUI attorney familiar with the judges in each court, no amount of research will help you there.  Without that knowledge you may be speaking to a brick wall. 

So, in summary, even though you may have done your research, effectively applying your theory of the case and defense to your issue(s) requires skilled DUI representation. 

If you need truly trial experienced call us today!  We have the results to back up what we say, period! (425) 398-4323 or (844) DUI-GONE

 

 

Yet another DUI dismissal! Not only DUI, but Hit and Run, and Reckless Driving!

Today I have a very happy client.  He was alleged to have driven his truck into an electrical box, some bushes, then back up and run over a stop sign while 8 people witnessed the incident.  One of the witnesses called 911 and when police arrived, that witness rode with them to the area the truck was last seen.  The officers found the truck with debris from the bushes and matched the tire tread to the marks left at the scene.  Additionally, the truck's hood was warm to the touch, indicating to them that it had recently been driven.

 

The officers were able to ascertain who the registered owner of the vehilce was by running the plate through dispatch.  They then confronted my client at his home and although he admitted to driving earlier, he was never asked about the incident.  The officers just assumed he had to have been the driver.  The witness was unable to identify who the driver was at the time because it was very dark.  My client was arrested and charged with DUI, Hit and Run of Property, and Reckless Driving.  He was also alleged to have blown a .211 and .217 after his arrest at the station.

 

We had an evidentiary hearing last week to address the issue of corpus delicti (proof of driving) and many other issues (probable cause, admissibility of the BAC, etc.).  Prior to the hearing I attempted to negotiate the case with the prosecutor who flat out laughed at me stating there was no problems with their case.  

 

After a two hour heairng and testimony from two officers the judge (at the King County District Court) advised the matter would be taken under consideration and a written order issued subsequently.  Yesterday I arrived at my office and found that order.  The judge concluded that since no one witnessed my client drive, that his admission to driving was insufficient to place him behind the wheel at the time of driving and dismissed the matter.  

 

This goes to show you that you never know what will happen once you get in there and litigate.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________

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

Somedays you are the windshield and sometimes (a lot of times) you are the bug in DUI Defense, but today it went our way!!!

A cliché but some days you are the windshield and sometimes you are the bug.  Today my client was the windshield as her DUI charge was dismissed with prejudice after an evidentiary hearing. 

Last Monday I argued to a judge in King County District Court that my client's right to have a private conversation was denied and that, additionally, due to the police department's policy of "purging" (i.e., destroying) video after 60 days it was impossible for her to have a fair trial because it would be her word about that denial of a private conversation with her attorney prior to submitting to a breath test against that of a Washington State Patrol trooper of 24 years.  After hearing testimony from my client after the Trooper, the judge took the argument under advisement, then issued a written ruling declaring, among other things, that my client's testimony lent credence to her account the trooper could overhear her conversation and that she was unable to ask the attorney the questions she needed to in order to make an informed decision.

I will tell you from experience, dismissals of DUIs don't often occur but this was the correct call by the judge.  Regardless of how someone might feel about the result, justice was served because the court essentially put the onus on the State to show the defendant wasn't prejudiced after she testified.  This is precisely why I fight the fight folks!  I have a very satisfied client today.   

___________________________________________________________________

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

Overzealous prosecutors v. ethical prosecutors...

As a defense attorney I frequently encounter eager, ready to prove themselves and sometimes arrogant (without any substance or experience to back it up) prosecutors who will do anything to get a conviction.  Today I wanted to comment about a case I had in Seattle Municipal Court and a prosecutor I respect who did the right thing.

It was about a case involving a client who had made the decision not to drive and to sleep off his overindulgence of several beers after a day of finals at a local university.  Suffice it to say, when the security found him slumped over his vehicle's steering wheel, passed out drunk, they were a bit concerned and called the police.  The police showed up, found my client (at this time outside his vehicle) in an extremely intoxicated state.  He was arrested for what is called Physical Control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated (basically drunk behind the wheel but no witness to driving).  He was not very cooperative because of his intoxicated state and ultimately blew very high on the Datamaster (well over the .08 per se level).

Once I interviewed my client I was a bit vexed as to why the case was filed because as any seasoned DUI attorney will tell you, an affirmative defense to Physical Control is that if you have driven your vehicle safely off the roadway prior to being pursued by law enforcement, you cannot be found guilty of the offense.  Well, in my opinion, you cannot better meet this defense than the position in which my client found himself.  I genuinely believe he had no intent of driving and was just "sleeping it off" until he was able to get a sober driver to pick him up.

The City filed the charge nevertheless based upon the security officer's observations coupled with the officer and some alleged statements my client made to the arresting officer.  Once I got the case I knew I had some work to do.  I contacted the originally assigned prosecutor who then turned it over to his supervisor, a gentlemen I truly respect (I also respect the original prosecutor highly as well).  I informed him of the situation, the case law and our position of the legislature's intent regarding the affirmative defense.  At first I met with some resistance, understandably because of the higher breath sample, but after some negotiations my client's case was dismissed due to his proactive measures (that is, because he never intended to drive).

Now the moral of the story is that an experienced prosecuting attorney evaluated the case and deemed the defense to be an accurate representation of the legislature's intent.  Conversely, as I previously blogged about, a younger less-experienced prosecuting attorney pushed a case to trial (on which I ultimately garnered a not guilty verdict for my client) which should also have been dismissed on the merits.  This is the difference between an unethical, immoral, unseasoned, unreasonable prosecuting supervisor and an ethical, respectful one.  It really comes down to the merits of the case and the government's responsibility to do what is right, not seek a conviction at all costs.  I love my job when I can deal with prosecutors such as the one I dealt with at the City of Seattle.  It was the right call and we appreciate it and now my client doesn't have an unwarranted criminal history.

If you have been arrested for a DUI in Seattle or anywhere in Washington State, give me a call (425) 398-4323.  This is what I do and can help you!

 ___________________________________________________________________

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.

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.

Client's DUI Dismissed today...

due to the inability of a prosecutor to view the case for what it was, Actual Physical Control.  The Court dismissed my client's DUI charge when I argued there were insufficient facts (at an evidentiary hearing) to establish my client was driving the vehicle in question.  I don't understand why the prosecutor's office insists on filing charges they cannot prove, but oh well, it worked out for my client to have an experienced Seattle DUI Attorney on his side!  Call today if you want to talk about your DUI charge (425) 398-4323.  This case was in King County District Court and my client was alleged to have blown over. 15. 

By Nathan Webb