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

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

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

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

About the author:

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

DUI Checkpoints - How Cops Take Advantage!

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________

About the author:

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

Sam Donaldson's DUI Arrest dismissed!

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

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

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

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

Client fires one DUI firm and with me was able to garner a DUI dismissal...

My client was charged with DUI with breath tests of .088 and .088.  We entered a plea to a reduced charge that will be dismissed in one year so long as the client abides by certain conditions (pays a fine and stays out of trouble).  A dismissal is still a dismissal however you can get it and my client was very pleased, even her traffic citation was dismissed.

This was just another example of the excellent results you can obtain if you hire the Webb Law Firm, Seattle's Premier DUI Defense firm!

Prior to hiring Seattle DUI Lawyer, Nate Webb, the client had fired another so-called DUI firm (one that sends out letters to everyone across the state charged with any number of crimes and resorts to scare tactics and cut-rate fees to garner clients).  At that firm, the client was shuffled around to several different attorneys (never had the same attorney handling her case), never had anyone go over her case in detail or view the videos with her, never received specialized attention and was basically, according to the client, treated poorly.  The "head attorney" of the firm told her, when she called to change attorneys, "I'm looking at the video right now of your booking and you are putting your fingers in your mouth, I can get that breath test thrown out."  The client and I went over the videos later that week and what the attorney claimed never happened!  It was a sales pitch, a desperate attempt to keep a client by fabricating what was on the video. Beware of those cut-rate firms who send out form letters, this is how they treat clients, who are then, not surprisingly, unhappy with the lack of attention and poor manner of handling their cases.

Don't settle for cut-rate, inexperienced, unprofessional representation, call Seattle DUI Attorney, Nate Webb, (425) 398-4323 for help with your DUI arrest.

City v. A.D.  - Case No.: 3Z0662305 KIR

All cases aren't dismissed but a plea bargain can still be a great result!

Although I strive for a dismissal on every case, the vast majority of cases are resolved by negotiating a plea bargain.

Today my client received a Reckless Driving reduction on a second offense DUI wherein the alleged BAC was .173 and .170.  This is a great result!  The agreement held no jail and that the client must complete an alcohol evaluation and DUI victim's panel.  Considering this was a two car collision (my client was allegedly at fault), it was the best result for which we could have hoped.  My client was ecstatic and the judge felt it was appropriate so the plea bargain was happily accepted.  State v. W.L. Case No. 3ZC002494 (Pierce county district court).

Refusal to take Field Sobriety Tests not admissible at trial!

In every DUI case there is usually litigation concerning Refusal evidence.  The government's proposition is that it constitutes a "consciousness of guilt" and is, therefore, relevant to the trier of fact (jury or judge).  Most judges, previously, agreed and would allow the government to utilize that tactic at trial.  Of course, no one is ever told that "hey let's do some field sobriety tests but if you refuse, the prosecutor will say it proves you were drunk!", thereby creating an unfair, unfounded proposition which then requires testimony from a defendant when they would normally be able to remain silent without repercussion.  Unfortunately, in that scenario, a defendant is forced to call BS.

Things, however, are trending in favor of defendants.  I recently argued this exact situation to an esteemed King County District Court judge and she held that given the recent decision in Missouri v. McNeely and State v. Gauthier, the refusal to participate in field sobriety tests would no longer be admissible for the purpose of establishing a consciousness of guilt.  Thankfully, this judge read the cases and articulated an extremely reasonable ruling.  I mean how fair is it that the government can say, hey since the defendant didn't take our ridiculously subjective feats of balance exam, he is guilty!  That is a load of horse manure.

I would suggest you watch the movie "The Man With Two Brains" with Steve Martin and skip to the field sobriety test portion, it is very humorous. See the clip here: Drunk Tests are Hard! Perhaps that clip is a bit of an exaggeration concerning field sobriety tests but given the fact these "Standardized" Field Sobriety Tests are administered in the same fashion to any individual (whether they are young, old, overweight, have already existing balance issues, have ADD, any other learning disorder, etc.) declining them is no evidence whatsoever of a consciousness of guilt.  Allowing them in to show an alleged consciousness of guilt then pits a defendant's explanation for why they wouldn't take such a test against that of an officer who is trained to testify that these tests are so simple a 5 year old could perform them.  Why should someone have to face off against an officer to prove these tests have no relevancy if not performed?  It is a ridiculous notion.

Hopefully this ruling will continue given the recent Supreme Court decisions and judges will start to literally apply the law.

Seattle DUI Attorney

Nate Webb

(425) 398-4323

New Washington State DUI Laws went into effect on September 28th...

In an effort to further scrutinize the offense of DUI and to make it equivalent to a more heinous offense (felony) than it is (I'm not talking about Vehicular Homicide or Vehicular Assault), the legislature has once again instituted further penalties for offenders. 

Some of the highlights include:
(1) holding second time offenders in jail until they are able to appear in front of a judge for the setting of conditions of release,
(2) requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device for repeat offenders within five days of arrest (even if they are subsequently acquitted or the case dismissed),
(3) while still allowing persons to apply for an ignition interlock device so that they may drive for employment purposes if their license is lost administratively, those individuals who qualified for an employer-waiver exemption (that is, the employee didn't have to install a device on their employer owned vehicle driven during employment for employment purposes only) are now required to wait for a period of time (30 days for a first offender and one year for second and above offenses) before the waiver can be utilized, thus requiring their dismissal from that position and loss their job, security, inability to pay their mortgage, etc.  Does any other charge require these restrictive means?  The answer is a resounding no! 

No one condones DUI, but when the legislature takes it upon themselves to strike down all due process and constitutional defenses for those accused, something is amiss.  A person charged with assaulting their spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend on numerous occasions and causing severe injury will face less scrutiny than a first time DUI offender! 

If you have been charged with a DUI, call Nate at the Webb Law Firm (425) 398-4323.