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.

Ex-Cub/Diamondback Mark Grace DUI sentence...

I loved watching this guy play ball. He had a pretty funny quote about Harry Caray, "there were so many nights I loved Harry, and so many mornings I hated him..."  Looks like he took Harry's lifestyle too seriously ...

Former Arizona Diamondbacks television analyst Mark Grace has been sentenced to four months in jail under a work-release program.

FALLS FROM GRACE

Plenty of athletes have committed epic career blunders. Check out the top sports star screwups.

The 48-year-old former first baseman with the Diamondbacks and the Chicago Cubs pleaded guilty Thursday to felony endangerment and misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol.

Grace was arrested last August in Scottsdale, his second drunken driving arrest in 15 months, and could have faced more than three years in prison. He had pleaded not guilty in October to four felony counts of aggravated DUI and was scheduled to go on trial March 19.

The Diamondbacks fired him as their analyst after the August arrest but later invited him to participate in a fantasy camp.

A Maricopa County Superior Court spokesman says the jail sentence begins Feb. 10. Grace must also serve two years of probation.

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

New Marijuana DUI Law explained..

New Marijuana Law (I-502) - Seattle Cannabis DUI

Washington State Marijuana DUI

DUI defense is always affected by admissibility of tests to determine alcohol, but now the State has enacted a new portion of the DUI statute to crack down on Marijuana use. Drivers suspected of marijuana use have always come under scrutiny and previously, when charged the State could only speculate as to the "impairment" level of the driver. But now, there is a new legal standard for impaired drivers who have been driving while using marijuana, it is 5 ng/mL. How did the State come up with this standard? Who knows! There are no agreed treatises or studies of any sort which conclude that absolutely every driver is impaired at 5 ng/mL, but the State is using this "level" nonetheless. It is a per se level, so that means, even if you are a regular user of Marijuana in Washington State and are arrested for a Marijuana DUI, the prosecution only has to show that your blood results were 5 ng/mL and they get a conviction. There is no speculating as to whether that particular individual isn't impaired, they are presumed impaired even though there is no documentation (treatise, scientific studies, etc.) to establish this finding. I find this highly suspect and very concerning. My advice to anyone suspected of a Seattle Marijuana DUI is, don't drive at all after smoking marijuana.

Problems with Marijuana DUI Evidence

Numerous defense challenges to the results in Marijuana DUI cases are certain to arise, especially given the fact that there is no way to estimate how many tokes or puffs get someone to the "per se" level of 5 ng/mL. In breath test cases concerning alcohol there is a guideline (albeit from the 1930s) wherein you can estimate a BAC level (Widmark's formula). However, there is no such guideline for cannabis. In fact, numerous studies indicate that estimating marijuana impairment via plasma (i.e., a blood draw) is problematic and inconclusive. Nevertheless, the legislature will enact the 5 ng/mL standard level and you will be presumed guilty. Think also how this affects Medical Marijuana users. They are authorized to consume marijuana, but given there is no way to estimate what level they may reach after just a couple of puffs, this new DUI Marijuana law is essentially "no tolerance." It precludes the use because drivers are risking a criminal conviction even if they are using under the law!

Marijuana DUI - Cannabis DUI Advice

Seeing as how 5 ng/mL is such a low standard, with no apparent scientific standard for estimation or determination of impairment, it is best to just not drive at all after using marijuana. Also, considering the government put no effort into determining how different varieties of marijuana may affect individuals, it is advisable to find other transportation. This new statute and enactment by the government, in my humble opinion, is foolish, and without any true scientific conclusions it is draconian . I'm prepared to fight for you if you have been charged with a Seattle Marijuana DUI, Seattle Cannabis DUI or Washington State Marijuana DUI. In fact, my first "Not Guilty" DUI verdict was a case involving and allegedly impaired driver who was smoking marijuana! Contact us today to discuss your case!
 

Current Statue (RCW 46.61.502) 
 

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

     (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, 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 driving, 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, marijuana, or any drug; or

     (d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, 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 shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

     (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 driving 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 driving. 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 driving 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 driving. 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 driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, 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 driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, 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 46.61.504(6). 

THEREFORE, even if you are legally consuming, smoking marijuana, you are subjected to arrest for driving a motor vehicle afterward. If you have been arrested for a Washington State Marijuana DUI, call today!

 

by Nathan Webb