Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, discusses the common question: "How can I beat the breath test?"

Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, answers the question: "How can I beat the breath test?"

Quite frequently when I am at a dinner party or some other function and disclose that I am a DUI attorney, I'm inevitably asked the question, "what do I do if I get stopped" which then turns into "how can I beat the breath test?"  Well, the smart alec answer is "don't drink and drive" and of course that is true, but what about the person who has consumed alcoholic beverages responsibly and is now faced with a breath test?

Well, that person knows in their mind they don't feel affected or impaired but have no idea how this machine measures breath.  There are known variances which automatically raise your level which I've previously blogged about but here is another tip for those concerned with being near the per se ("legal limit") threshold of .08 and blowing over after drinking.

TIP: When you are taking a breath test, the machine (DataMaster) will record a proper sample at approximately 5 seconds and most assuredly at 8 seconds so your best bet is to blow only for that period.  The officer or trooper will coach you and demand you blow much longer, but that minimum is all that is necessary for the machine to record a result.  The reason this is important is because there is much research which indicates that the longer you blow the higher your result will be.  Troopers regularly testify that when you blow longer it just records a "more accurate" sample but the truth is the longer you blow the "higher" your result, not more accurate.  Law enforcement is trained on this concept and typically demand a 20 second or longer blow from a subject thereby increasing the sample.  Meeting this minimum level will be recorded in the online database and probably won't make the officer happy due to their training to get you to blow longer, but the fact is if you submitted a proper blow and it was recorded, you complied with the request.  Also, the result will be much lower than if you actually blow 20 seconds or more.  

Some people will say that you should suck on a penny or some other object to skew the results, but I have not ever found that to be an accurate or advisable method.

A seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer will know how to challenge the results provided and present the known variances and presumptions in breath testing when a jury trial occurs, but this is just one tip.

Also, if you did submit to a breath test, always, I repeat, always ask for an independent blood draw.  You cannot be denied that opportunity.  If it was denied because you were booked into jail then the breath test results should be suppressed by the court.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for DUI, call today for immediate assistance from one of the "Top Attorneys" in Washington State for DUI Defense and Super Lawyer Rising Star and Superb rated DUI attorney (Avvo.com).  Hundreds upon hundreds of satisfied DUI clients.

Call today (425) 398-4323 or visit our site: www.webbattorney.com

Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, Marijuana DUI Lawyer discusses: Is one puff too many, two puffs, three puffs?

Recently I had an individual come and see me about a possible Marijuana DUI charge.  Hypothetically if an individual admitted to use, which is legal in the State of Washington, but was adamant they were not impaired by their "one" puff prior to driving and that the use was for therapeutic reasons can they still be convicted?.  Typcially I would assure an individual that one puff wouldn't get them close to the per se limit of 5 ng/mL of whole blood.  But it does beg the question, how many puffs are too much given the 5 ng/mL standard?

When the legislature enacted the per se limit of 5 ng/mL of whole blood as a per se "impaired" limit it essentially relied upon other state's per se limits.  There is no definitive research out there which establishes that ever person who had a whole blood concentration of 5 ng/mL is impaired to the degree that they cannot operate a motor vehicle.

So when someone is a regular user, much like a regular consumer of alcohol, how does that individual know how much is too much?  There is simply no way to tell given the quality of the herb, the potency of the particular varietal they smoked or consumed.  It is a very slippery slope that people are not encountering.  When in doubt, don't smoke and drive but if you are therapeutic user for example you would be well-advised to have your blood checked a few times after you normal use to determine where you are on the spectrum of ng/mL measurements.

Personally I believe it isn't fair for the therapeutic users to be subjected to arrest simply because some overzealous trooper or officer smells marijuana and automatically thinks they have someone impaired when they typically have very limited ability to determine impairment using roadside test which were implemented to gauge impairment of drivers who consumed alcohol.  This area is ripe for litigation given law enforcements limited ability to tell if someone is impaired or under the influence of marijuana.

Just look at NHTSA's own description of use of marijuana, it is so vague I wonder if the Washington State Legislature really did any research at all.  Also, see this resource which says that marijuana use doesn't significantly impact driving abilities as well as a University of Washington study which says it still needs more research to definitively say whether there is any impact on driving.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for a DUI, including a Marijuana DUI, call today to speak with a highly experienced DUI attorney, Seattle Marijuana DUI Lawyer, Nate Webb at (425) 398-4323.  

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 Lawyer, Nate Webb, acquires another Not Guilty Verdict for a DUI client!

Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, represented a client in Upper Kittitas County District Court (Cle Elum) and acquired a Not Guilty verdict from a jury on November 13, 2014. State of Washington versus C.H. 

Facts: The trooper alleged my client was speeding well in excess of the posted limit, had bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, the odor of alcohol, continually swayed throughout their contact, had continually unsteady balance, failed to follow simple directions, he also alleged the client failed three field sobriety tests, took a portable breath test and was deceptive while doing it, and refused a breath test after arrest at the station. Further, the trooper testified that there were at least three open containers in the vehicle.

The State presented two witnesses, one was the trooper who made the above allegations and the second was a toxicologist from the Washington State Patrol Toxicology Lab.  Mr. Webb was able to succesfully impeach the trooper's testimony via the State's own witness, the toxicologist.  The trooper, an apparent 16 year veteran of the Washington State Patrol, testified as to the proper administration of the field sobriety tests pursuant to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards and protocols only to be contradicted by the toxicologist after Mr. Webb challenged the trooper's conclusions.  

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

State v. C.H. (Cle Elum - Upper Kittitas County District Court - November 2014).

Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, discusses the implementation of supposedly "new" breath test machines by the Washington State Patrol.

The Washington State Patrol implements "new" breath test machines across the state, problem is they aren't "new!"

Today an article was published by a local news agency which discussed the implementation of the new breath test machine in Washington state for sampling of breath when persons have been arrested for DUI.  It is called the Draeger Alcotest 9510 and is set to replace the DataMaster and DataMaster CDM.

The news article did seem to omit a very interesting fact however; this "new" machine has actually been sitting at the Washington State Patrol's impaired driving unit section (Roanoke Station) for approximately 4 years.

Interestingly, I recently cross-examined one of the Washington State Patrol breath test technicians during a jury trial and we openly discussed the fact the Washington State Patrol had 86 Draeger Alcotest 9510s just sitting around, in fact, she admitted they had been sitting around for approximately 4 years and that it, the WSP, was waiting until it acquired a total of 200 machines before implementing them statewide. That conversation was less than one week ago, on the record, under oath in King County District Court (West Division), then lo' and behold we have an article published which informs the public 83 of the 86 machines are being implemented.

Either this breath test technician lied under penalty of perjury or she was poorly uninformed about the breath test section's plans for implementation of the Draeger.  

Regardless, the fact of the matter remains that these "new" machines are not new by any stretch of the imagination and since they have been literally sitting around not being used on a daily basis, I personally am curious to know how long the intricate interior workings of the machine have been maintained and whether there has been deterioration.

Only time will tell how these "new" machines hold up, but rest assured, your Seattle DUI attorneys at the Webb Law Firm will always challenge the government's evidence because it continues to use old methods of testing based upon outdated testing principles.

If you or someone you know has been arrested/charged with a Washington State DUI, contact us today for immediate DUI help (425) 398-4323 or 1-844-DUI-GONE.

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 addresses those defendants who say, "I have a public pretender...I want a real attorney!"

I want a real attorney, not a public pretender!

On too many occasions to note I have heard the expression, "I have a public pretender..." along with some sort of complaint about how they aren't doing anything and that the defendant wants a "real attorney."  I will preface this blog with this note, I was never a public defender nor a prosecutor but I can tell you public defenders work extremely hard for some extremely difficult clients, many of whom believe they are entitled to one attorney working solely on their case even though they aren't paying anything for that representation. 

To answer the reference of wanting a "real attorney," I've got news for those defendants, your public defender is very much a real attorney, they are extremely experienced in all facets of criminal law and have very likely done more jury trials than most private attorneys.  I have too often seen brand new attorneys with no experience (especially those with no trial experience) attempt to represent their clients in very complex DUI cases and who are clearly inept get treated with more respect than seasoned public defenders and that is simply a shame.

Public defenders work tirelessly for their clients with little or no gratitude in return.  I stand up for their work because every time I'm in court I see how difficult their jobs are and the scenarios they have to endure. 

Many private attorneys don't have near the experience in DUIs as the so called "public pretenders" because many private attorneys don't go to jury trial.  If your private attorney has not done at least 20  jury trials, they simply can't compete with a public defender. Many public defenders do dozens upon dozens of trials each year, some more than that!

The main difference between a private attorney and a public defender, at least in the DUI context, is that a private attorney gets to choose his or her case and also maintain a manageable caseload.  A public defender is given anything that is thrown their way and must handle hundreds of cases at once. 

The next time a defendant is overheard saying "I want a real attorney" when referencing a public defender, keep in mind the person spouting off is probably a repeat offender who has no regard for anyone but themselves.  Keep it up public defenders, you are doing great work!

My friend said I could just get a Deferred Sentence on my DUI, so let's just go ahead and do that! Um, your friend is wrong.

Deferred Prosecution versus a Deferred Sentence

A Deferred Prosecution is a treatment option for individuals charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense in Washington State.  Click to view the applicable statute RCW 10.05.

This is different from a Deferred Sentence under RCW 3.66.067.  When a deferred sentence is imposed by the court, that is when an individual is either found guilty or enters a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor (other than DUI or Physical Control) and the judge defers the sentence, meaning there is a conviction for a period of no more than 2 years then it will be dismissed after the period of probation has run; however, you are subject to the conditions of the guilty finding in the interim (i.e., jail, fines, fees, probation, alcohol classes, etc.).

What a Deferred Prosecution involves is that the individual petitions the court to attend and complete a prescribed treatment program (2 year program for a Washington State DUI involving alcohol dependency) in lieu of challenging the allegation in a trial.
The individual waives his or her right to challenge the evidence and instead opts to complete treatment for one of the following:

(1) alcoholism (2 year program),

(2) mental health (length of program depends upon treatment provider) or

(3) drug addiction (length of program depends upon treatment provider).

 

It is possible to combine treatment under two of the reasons above (i.e., the individual can elect to pursue a mental health deferred prosecution with some alcohol treatment if mental health is the underlying factor and reason for the offense).

If you were charged with an alcohol DUI you can utilize this treatment option in lieu of going to jail.  The same applies for other offenses as well.
In the case of an alcohol dependent deferred prosecution for a DUI charge, if the individual successfully completes the two year program, then after three additional years (a total of 5 years from the date of entry by the court) of continued law abiding behavior, the charge will be dismissed.

There are numerous requirements and conditions to follow for those who elect to enter into a deferred prosecution.  For example, if you were arrested for DUI, you will be required to install an ignition interlock on any vehicle you drive for a minimum period of one year.  This requirements applies to all Deferred Prosecutions wherein the individual was arrested for DUI or Physical Control, regardless of the presence of alcohol (this is imposed by the DOL).

Additionally, in alcohol dependent cases, you will be required to pay probation costs, abstain completely from alcohol for the 5 year probationary period, attend two self-help meetings for the first two years (at a minimum), strictly comply with the treatment providers program and maintain law abiding behavior.

Now on the surface it may seem like a great opportunity to avoid any DUI conviction; however, this option is not recommended for everyone.  First, you must admit you have a problem with alcohol, drugs or have a mental health issue (i.e., you are an alcoholic, drug addict or suffer from mental illness) and that without treatment you are likely to re-offend. Second, (at least in the case of an alcohol dependency program) the treatment program is an intensive outpatient program that lasts for two years.  Lastly, you will still have to be monitored by probation for 5 years and subject to random urinalysis tests. Additionally, you can only petition the court for a Deferred Prosecution once in your lifetime.

For drug cases and mental health cases, the treatment provider must outline a program and it must be accepted by the court.  Again, no matter which you choose, if you were arrested for a DUI or Physical Control charge you will be required to install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle you drive. See RCW 46.20.720.

Typically a Deferred Prosecution should only be considered when the subject truly has either an alcohol dependency problem, drug addiction problem or mental health issues which if not treated would lead to a likely re-offense AND the individual is facing significant jail time on this offense.  This means it is not normal to enter into a Deferred Prosecution on a first offense DUI charge.

Contact the Seattle DUI Pros today if you have been charged with a Washington State DUI and are considering a Deferred Prosecution. (425) 398-4323 or (844) DUI-GONE.

A Travesty of Justice is Happening in the King County District Court of Seattle!

In the past several years I have seen an increasing number of DUI cases proceed to jury trial, even on a first offense.  Prosecuting attorneys across the state are becoming more stringent with negotiating DUI cases, even more so than serious felony offenses such as rape, assault, sex crimes, etc.  Essentially the government has taken the position that DUI defendants in Washington are nearly equivalent to defendants having been charged with a serious sex crime!  Does that seem like an exaggeration, well it isn’t.  For example, the King County District Courts in Seattle are so backed up with DUI cases that have not been resolved, that the judges are implementing a little know provision under the speedy trial rule that other judges in the state have never even heard of, it is called the cure period.  The time for trial is regulated by CrRLJ 3.3 and the very first provision of that rule states:

(a) General Provisions.

(1) Responsibility of Court. It shall be the responsibility

of the court to ensure a trial in accordance with this rule to

each person charged with a crime.

CrRLJ 3.3 (a)(1).

Now when a defendant cannot be brought to trial under the normal provisions of 3.3 then the court may, notice I did not say shall, but may, in its discretion add up to an extra 28 days of time.  Here is what the time for trial cure period provision says:

(g) Cure Period.  The court may continue the case beyond the

limits specified in section (b) on motion of the court or a party

made within five days after the time for trial has expired.  Such

a continuance may be granted only once in the case upon a finding

on the record or in writing that the defendant will not be

substantially prejudiced in the presentation of his or her

defense.  The period of delay shall be for no more than 14 days

for a defendant detained in jail, or 28 days for a defendant not

detained in jail, from the date that the continuance is granted.

The court may direct the parties to remain in attendance or be on-

call for trial assignment during the cure period.

CrRLJ 3.3 (g).

Now does the court adding time a defendant’s time for trial happen often, the answer is a resounding yes!  It happens every single day in King County District Court Seattle.  This addition of time is now the norm, it is not really even utilized as a discretionary ruling at this point it is being utilized by the court to accommodate the fact the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has purposefully backlogged their caseload to the point of overwhelming congestion.  Defendants and their attorneys on a DUI will normally appear about a dozen times even if they are simply trying to get out to trial.  The court is implementing this portion of the time for trial rule in an abuse of discretion in my opinion.  CrRLJ 3.3 (g) clearly states that the court “may” continue the case beyond the time periods for up to 28 days.  The rule states further that the continuance shall not be for more than 28 days (for those out of custody). 

The court in Seattle is now imposing an automatic 28 day period, it is not implementing the rule correctly, that is, to place a case on standby and see if a courtroom opens up.  The reason the rule is being implemented is due to the backlog of cases, directly related to the prosecuting attorney’s office’s policy of now not negotiating even the most minimal of DUI cases.  For example a person charged with a DUI and with a BAC of below .08 is now being forced to jury trial in an effort to resolve their case.  There are no more first bites of the apple for a DUI defendant.

I’m a defense attorney and some might assume I condone drunk driving, I clearly do not.  But I also understand that not every single DUI defendant deserves to have to go through a jury trial when the legislature quite clearly created an avenue for the resolution of cases under RCW 46.61.5055.  For example, a DUI case can be amended to Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving in the First Degree.  In both of those instances, there are restrictions on a person’s liberty and they are under the jurisdiction of the court for up to 24 months.  The defendant must also pay fines and fees to the court, obtain an alcohol/drug evaluation, at a minimum attend an alcohol class or further treatment and a DUI victim’s panel.  A person convicted of a Reckless Driving is also subject to a 30 day license suspension and requirement for SR-22 (high-risk) insurance for three years.  In both cases, the State typically asks the defendant to complete at least one day of jail which is either converted to a day of work crew or community service.  So, the DUI defendant is not getting away scot-free.  The reductions are also considered prior offenses, meaning that if the individual is again charged with a DUI in the next 7 years (from date of violation) and are convicted they face increased penalties (at least 30 days in jail and 60 days of electronic home detention). 

The policy of the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office doesn’t really make sense because clearly every DUI case cannot be taken to trial, and believe it or not, some defendant’s cases result in not guilty verdicts.  The KCPA is basically taking the position that if the jury finds the defendant not guilty then it is on the jury and the office essentially washes it hands of any “responsibility” for the end result.  Is that really the case, no it isn’t.  With a Not Guilty, the jury concludes that the KCPA had such a weak case that it should never have been brought in the first place.  Remember all six jurors must agree unanimously.  When six people unanimously agree that a DUI didn’t occur, then quite clearly that case should have been dealt or never even filed in the first place. 

The point of this article is that the Court, in collusion with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, is improperly extending the time for trial of DUI Defendants due to the backlog of cases created by the KCPA’s policy of not dealing any DUIs.  The legislative history of the “cure period” portion of the time for trial rule did not envision this particular use.  I believe the Washington State Supreme Court will be appalled at the court’s activities of extending speedy trial under these conditions once it is finally addressed.  The rule was meant to be implemented when some extraordinary circumstance caused a case to extend beyond speedy trial.  It was not meant to be applied “just because” there are no courtrooms to hear a case on the day speedy trial expires.  When speedy trial expires, if there is no good reason for that happening (more so that just court congestion due to an uncompromising prosecuting attorneys’ office), the case must be dismissed under the rule.  It is a shame when judges cave to the demands of the KCPA.  No one condones DUIs, but in reality many criminal cases of all sorts are amended to reach a resolution, that is reality. 

I’ll leave you with this fact, a defendant in Kirkland, WA was charged with First Degree Murder for sneaking into a neighbor’s home and stabbing her to death.  The KCPA charged that individual with First Degree Murder but then amended it to Second Degree murder.  The murder suspect got a deal, plain and simple, but anyone charged with DUI (a misdemeanor by the way) will get no reduction.  Isn’t that a bit out of touch with reality?

Doesn't a high search engine result mean that firm is a great DUI firm?

Nope.  Know this, anyone can be "number 1" on or on the first page of a search engine result for "DUI attorney" if they are willing to pay enough; however, it does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, they are an experienced DUI attorney/firm, all it means is they are willing to shell out thousands of dollars a month for advertising or SEO (search engine optimization).  Keep in mind running a law firm requires great marketing and the ability to generate revenue through obtaining new clients but that does not a great attorney make.

Obviously, I am running a firm and must garner new clients for my practice to be successful, but keep this in mind, your attorney must first be successful in the courtroom to build a client base.  Just "turning and burning" clients is not my method of operation, I want every client to be completely satisfied with my representation of their DUI charge and I strive for that daily.

Also take note that if you have been personally referred to an attorney who primarily defends those accused of a Seattle DUI, that may be a highly significant factor in assessing the skill, experience, and reputation of the particular attorney or firm and is something you should take into consideration when deciding who to retain as your Washington State DUI Lawyer.  I know this is an "old-school" approach, but personal recommendations are better than throwing a dart at a computer screen or looking for the best looking ad in the old-school telephone books!  

Seattle DUI charges are serious and you need true trial tested DUI experience, not Internet savvy, on your side!


_______________________________________________________________________

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

With this Valentine's day and three-day President's Day weekend come DUI arrests...how can you avoid one?

While President's Day isn't considered an especially important holiday to most, it does create a three-day weekend and this year it is coupled with a Friday Valentine's Day to kick it off.  Undoubtedly, the prompting of cupid's arrow and with love in their eyes couples will likely go out to a restaurant to dine and those couples will probably consume a glass or two of wine or champagne.  This leads to the decision as to whether or not the driver should make that decision to operate a motor vehicle after those couple of glasses of their favorite libation.

I know most persons will make an intelligent decision and not drive if they feel impaired but this scenario presents a precarious proposition.  Alliteration aside (ha ha) many will face a situation in which they feel that after a couple of glasses of wine it is fine to drive, and guess what, the legislature of every state in the nation agrees with you!  This is precisely why you see .08 plastered on signs all around our communities because it is legal to drink and drive.  Yes I said it, it is legal to drink and drive.  In Washington State, it is illegal to have an alcohol concentration above .08 within two hours of driving or to be under the influence of or affected by what you have consumed.  That second phrase is where decisions to drive become more tricky. 

What DUI attorneys commonly refer to as the "affected by" prong of the DUI statute (RCW 46.61.502) creates a very subjective situation for officers.  Picture this, if you have had those two glasses of wine, beer, whatever and are stopped and actually admit to drinking you will, in all likelihood, be asked to participate in field sobriety testing and if you decline will most certainly be arrested.  Then think further, you are arrested are anxious, nervous and upset and now the officer wants you to take a breath test!  Oh my good Lord, what do I do, I mean I don't feel impaired or over the .08 threshold but don't know what to do.  Let's say you are advised to refuse, now you are in a situation wherein the officer is going to elaborate in his or her report regarding the observations they made with respect to their contact with you and those observations will certainly include bloodshot, watery eyes, a flushed face, dexterity problems, maybe some balance issues and for sure slurred speech.  What, slurred speech!  But I only had two drinks!  I know, I know, but the officer will testify at a subsequent trial, "they all say two but in my opinion she/he was impaired by alcohol"!!! This scenario presents itself time and again and people are genuinely shocked that the police report alleges observations not consistent with reality.  Why, because the officer knows you had at least two (hell you admitted as much) and that they don't have any other objective evidence to support their decision to arrest, so they must elaborate.  Now I'm not saying every officer is going to just make up outright lies, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be "observations" they made which you, the now defendant, dispute.  Why?  Because no matter what the legislature says law enforcement agencies have an unwritten rule that drinking and driving is a no-tolerance offense. 

Well, crap, what should I do you say?  The easiest and best decision in this day and age is to take a cab or don't drive after drinking anything.  I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with drinking a beer and driving home and neither does the state legislature, but if an officer doesn't get what they want on the side of the road when they ask, despite all of it being voluntary, you are going to find yourself charged with a DUI!  So again, just take a cab or don't drink at dinner, just wait to have some champagne at home, trust me you will be in no mood for Valentine's activities with your partner if you just bailed out! 

___________________________________________________________________

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.

Are Field Sobriety Tests a search? Yes!

No court in the state of Washington has concluded Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) are a search, conversely no court has held they are not a search.  Confusing?  You betcha and this issue is argued all the time across courts in Washington.  

Here is my take:  FSTs are a search of an individual subject to an exception of the warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Why?

1.     Courts have held that a person does not have any requirement to submit to these requests to participate in FSTs.  Looking at that conclusion from a common sense perspective leads me to believe (as I often argue) that FSTs are in fact a search which would be subject to a warrant, absent consent of the individual or another exception (not exigent circumstances however as I believe Missouri v. McNeely and the Gauthier decision have clearly knocked that argument on its face).  

2.     In Washington State, Article I Section 7 of our State Constitution affords individuals greater protection to be free from unreasonable searches than that of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.  Now, since courts have upheld that a person has a right to refuse these tests (City of Seattle v. Personeus and City of Seattle v. Stalsbroten for example) then that infers the officer/trooper/deputy does not have any right, as they might under what is called a Terry stop (see, Terry v. Ohio), to stop and frisk and individual based upon the officer's belief that weapons or contraband might be present.  However, that Terry stop doesn't afford the officer the opportunity to further search them absent an exception to the warrant requirement.  

I recently had a prosecutor argue to the court that the exigency exception (immediate disposal, destruction or dissipation of evidence) allows for the refusal of FSTs to be presented as evidence of a guilty conscious.  That argument is laughable.  In that scenario what the prosecutor is telling the court is this, "judge, since officers can't get someone to consent to a search via FSTs, they should be allowed to just make them do it under this exception!"  Can you imagine an officer forcibly pushing you up and down a line to do a walk and turn test or holding out your leg to do the one leg stand or worse, forcing your eyes to move on a horizontal plane for the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  It is comical to think prosecutors really present this argument to judges, but I have seen it time and again and it is just dead wrong!  No court has ever held officers have a right to force someone to participate in FSTs.  Therefore, viola! FSTs are a search requiring consent.  Now I have already blogged about whether a Refusal to participate in these FSTs can be used against you and in that instance a judge at the King County District Court held, correctly, they could not.  Why all judges can't see this common sense approach is beyond me, but I will continue to argue it.

The plain and simple truth is, if you have had anything to drink, in my opinion, you are better off not participating in FSTs!  

 ___________________________________________________________________

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.

Mistrial after empanelled jury results in reduced charge for my client...

Earilier this month I advised a client to take his case to trial after his Seattle DUI Arrest.

Initially, my client was reluctant to proceed because the client didn't see any issues on which we could prevail at trial.  As I always do in this situation, i.e., wherein the State is not willing to offer any type of resolution for my client, I recommend trial because you never know what will happen during the course of a jury trial.  Well, after we empanelled a jury of six good citizens, did our opening statements and began direct examination of the arresting officer, a mistrial was declared.  A mistrial means that the current jury trial is stopped, but that the State may still try the case again, no double jeaopardy issues arise in this scenario.

However, as a result of the mistrial, the State offered my client a fair resolution and he accepted.  The point of this story being that if you have an attorney unwillng to push for you, you will never have the opportunity for a better resolution of your case.  My client had no criminal history whatsover so this was a win in our minds.

If you have a Seattle DUI Arrest, don't hesitate to call one of Seattle's Best DUI Attorneys, Nate Webb!

 ___________________________________________________________________

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.