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.

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

 

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.

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.