I am a Seattle traffic attorney, which means I spend a lot of my time fighting Seattle traffic tickets, Seattle speeding tickets, Seattle red light tickets, and many other types of traffic infractions. And one thing I see from time to time is a traffic citation issued to someone by a police officer even though they weren't present and have no physical evidence to go on but the statements of the two drivers. What often happens is someone is cited with a traffic infraction with no foundational basis whatsoever that anything occurred.
For example, I just had someone hire me who was involved in a traffic accident and received a citation for it. Although the officer wasn't there at the time, had no evidence whatsoever that my client did anything wrong, and had some evidence from independent third parties that the other driver was at fault, the officer wrote my client a Seattle traffic citation. We haven't had the hearing yet, but I'm hoping the judge will see the impropriety of issuing a traffic citation when no evidence exists that any wrong doing occurred by my client.
Here's what happened, in a nutshell. My client, we'll call him HC (hypothetical client) was pulling out of his driveway in Seattle on day this summer. The driveway sits on a sharp curve, and there was a car parked in the street in the area that is needed to view oncoming traffic and to see approaching vehicles (though I think HC's view was unobstructed because of the vehicle type, while the other vehicle may have been shielded from seeing HC). Additionally, this curve is notorious for people driving around it above the speed limit, despite the fact that it is a blind turn. Well, HC begins to pull out of the drive way, looking for oncoming traffic, when all of a sudden he hears a horn and a crash. A driver coming around the curve at a high rate of speed ran into HC's car.
When the cop got there he surveyed the situation, talked to a couple of people, and despite information that the car had been speeding, that HC had been careful to look both ways, and the fact that the officer was not there to witness what happened, the cop issued HC a traffic infraction for "Limitations on Backing," or RCW 46.61.605. This is the statute, in a nutshell; "(1) The driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic."
Now, I don't know about you, but this Seattle traffic statute seems pretty vague, and anyone at any time backing out of a driveway may be violating this statute if any traffic is coming or going on the street at the time the car is backing out. Also, under this scenario, HC may never be able to get out of his house since it may never be safe enough to back out without interfering at least a little bit with oncoming traffic.
That is probably where RCW 46.61.445 comes into play as well, which states: "Compliance with speed requirements of this chapter under the circumstances hereinabove set forth shall not relieve the operator of any vehicle from the further exercise of due care and caution as further circumstances shall require."
All in all, HC should not have been cited with a traffic infraction for the events surrounding this accident. Not only was she acting appropriately and with a high duty of care, the other driver was not following the rules of the road with respect to due care.
Because HC felt he was wronged, he did the right thing in hiring a Seattle speeding ticket attorney. At least this way he can be assured that he is presenting the best case possible and getting the best chance to keep this ticket off of his record. If you get a speeding ticket or limitations on backing ticket, you can fight it yourself, or you can hire a Seattle traffic lawyer to provide a top notch defense. Sometimes it can mean the difference between winning and losing.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
City of Seattle Traffic Ordinance Struck Down by Court of Appeals
Every once in a while the Washington Court of Appeals gets something right (let's be honest, they get it right most of the time, but what kind of an opening line does that make, right?). And in this case, it has finally put to rest a tragic set of circumstances that resulted in an accident that took a person's life. And, as usual, the City of Seattle took a position that makes no sense, attempting to criminalize a true accident.
Here are the facts. On the morning of September 27, 2006, a man was driving in downtown Seattle minding his own business. The sun was out, and the shadows were long across the street. The guy was traveling southbound, waiting for traffic to clear that was coming at him so he could make a left turn. As the last car crossed in front of him, he began making his turn. The problem, however, was that a lady on a bicycle was still traveling down the northbound lane, toward the guy. And for whatever reason, he didn't see her until she was almost right on top of his van.
The bicycle rider struck the man's van and was thrown to the ground. She was wearing a helmet, but that did not provide enough protection. The bicycle rider suffered head injuries, and died later that day. The man was tested for alcohol and drugs and showed no signs of impairment. This was truly simply a horrific accident. And King County prosecutors saw it that way too.
Whether a King County prosecutor or a Seattle traffic attorney, the law is the law. In this case, King County only had one option to pursue with the driver of the van. Filing no charges. The man failed to yield to oncoming traffic, a traffic infraction, and nothing more. The only possible criminal violation out there was vehicular homicide, and that requires impairment by drugs or alcohol. So, King County did nothing.
But not the City of Seattle. They, contrary to State law, had recently enacted a law criminalizing traffic infraction if they lead to serious bodily injury. And, despite the fact that the driver reached a settlement with the family of the bicycle rider and appeared to be truly remorseful, the City of Seattle charged him with a violation of the city's criminal code for causing serious injury.
Now, you wouldn't necessarily know this because you aren't a Seattle traffic attorney but traffic infractions, by their very nature, are not criminal acts. The legislature specifically decriminalized traffic infractions in order to speed up the process and eliminate the requirement for legal representation. And this is clearly a traffic infraction that has been turned into a criminal act. So, the driver's traffic attorney moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the statute was illegal. To no one's surprise, the Seattle municipal judge who heard the case upheld the statute and found the driver guilty.
When the man appealed the ruling to the King County District Court, a neutral body without a dog in the fight, they struck down the ordinance, reversed the conviction, and declared the statute invalid because of the legislatures specific decriminalization of traffic infractions (except those specifically to remain criminal law violations). And the City, unhappy with the result, asked the Washington State Court of Appeals to step in and put in their two cents.
And, as you might expect, the court of appeals upheld the District Court's ruling that the statute was invalid. Here's a little more in depth analysis on the statute and the requirements of criminalized traffic infractions:
You can read the entire opinion here.
What does this mean for the guy driving the van? He can now move on with his life, he is not a criminal, and he can try his best to put this whole episode behind him.
What happens next for the statute? That is an interesting question. As a Seattle traffic attorney I found it interesting (although not uncommon) that the Court of Appeals through pointing out the errors of the language of the statute inadvertently provided some powerful information on what might be done to create a valid statute. We'll just have to wait and see if their suggestions are incorporated into a new law (though in the end the City of Seattle will never be able to do what they truly want - take a simple traffic infraction like failing to yield, when there is no evidence of recklessness or other criminal propensity, and criminalize it just because a serious injury occurred).
Here are the facts. On the morning of September 27, 2006, a man was driving in downtown Seattle minding his own business. The sun was out, and the shadows were long across the street. The guy was traveling southbound, waiting for traffic to clear that was coming at him so he could make a left turn. As the last car crossed in front of him, he began making his turn. The problem, however, was that a lady on a bicycle was still traveling down the northbound lane, toward the guy. And for whatever reason, he didn't see her until she was almost right on top of his van.
The bicycle rider struck the man's van and was thrown to the ground. She was wearing a helmet, but that did not provide enough protection. The bicycle rider suffered head injuries, and died later that day. The man was tested for alcohol and drugs and showed no signs of impairment. This was truly simply a horrific accident. And King County prosecutors saw it that way too.
Whether a King County prosecutor or a Seattle traffic attorney, the law is the law. In this case, King County only had one option to pursue with the driver of the van. Filing no charges. The man failed to yield to oncoming traffic, a traffic infraction, and nothing more. The only possible criminal violation out there was vehicular homicide, and that requires impairment by drugs or alcohol. So, King County did nothing.
But not the City of Seattle. They, contrary to State law, had recently enacted a law criminalizing traffic infraction if they lead to serious bodily injury. And, despite the fact that the driver reached a settlement with the family of the bicycle rider and appeared to be truly remorseful, the City of Seattle charged him with a violation of the city's criminal code for causing serious injury.
Now, you wouldn't necessarily know this because you aren't a Seattle traffic attorney but traffic infractions, by their very nature, are not criminal acts. The legislature specifically decriminalized traffic infractions in order to speed up the process and eliminate the requirement for legal representation. And this is clearly a traffic infraction that has been turned into a criminal act. So, the driver's traffic attorney moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the statute was illegal. To no one's surprise, the Seattle municipal judge who heard the case upheld the statute and found the driver guilty.
When the man appealed the ruling to the King County District Court, a neutral body without a dog in the fight, they struck down the ordinance, reversed the conviction, and declared the statute invalid because of the legislatures specific decriminalization of traffic infractions (except those specifically to remain criminal law violations). And the City, unhappy with the result, asked the Washington State Court of Appeals to step in and put in their two cents.
And, as you might expect, the court of appeals upheld the District Court's ruling that the statute was invalid. Here's a little more in depth analysis on the statute and the requirements of criminalized traffic infractions:
The legislature decriminalized much of the traffic code in response to State v. Hehman, 90 Wn.2d 45, 578 P.2d 527 (1978). With enumerated exceptions for certain statutes codified in Title 46 of the Revised Code of Washington, or equivalent regulations or local laws, "any act" that constitutes a traffic violation may not be classified as a criminal offense.
Failure to perform any act required or the performance of
any act prohibited by this title or an equivalent administrative
regulation or local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution relating
to traffic including parking, standing, stopping, and pedestrian
offenses, is designated as a traffic infraction and may not be
classified as a criminal offense, except for an offense contained in
the following provisions of this title or a violation of an equivalent
administrative regulation or local law, ordinance, regulation, or
resolution. RCW 46.63.020.
There are at present some 60 enumerated exceptions to RCW 46.63.020 within Title 46. Two are the crimes of vehicular assault and vehicular homicide. See RCW 46.63.020 (40) and (41). Also included among the exceptions are statutes that forbid driving various types of vehicles while intoxicated, driving without a valid operator's license, driving with a suspended license, circumventing an ignition interlock device, transporting dangerous articles, reckless endangerment of roadway workers, racing vehicles on the highway, and many others.
There is no exception for the traffic code violation of failing to yield the right of way when turning left. This act is prohibited by RCW 46.61.185: "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard." See also SMC 11.55.080 equivalent Seattle ordinance). Because RCW 46.61.185 is not among the enumerated exceptions to RCW 46.63.020, the superior court determined that the new Seattle assault ordinance, SMC 12A.06.010 (B), is in conflict with RCW 46.63.020:
SMC 12A.06.010(B) incorporates the entire chapter of RCW
46.61 violations and holds that a violation of one with a bad result
(serious bodily injury or death) is a new type of traffic crime. Since
SMC 12A.06.010(B) is a new traffic crime and it is not listed in or
exempted by RCW 46.63.020, it violates the command of that
statute and is therefore, invalid.
The city argues that an "act" that violates the Seattle assault ordinance is more than just a traffic infraction; it is a traffic infraction plus the result of death or substantial bodily harm. The city's argument refers to the term "act" as it is used in the statute: "Failure to perform any act required or the performance of any act prohibited by this title ... may not be classified as a criminal offense."
Plainly, a city may not criminalize the "act" by which a person violates a provision of Title 46 if the violation is not listed among the 60 exceptions to RCW 46.63.020. But according to the city, the statute does not forbid an ordinance that criminalizes the act when the act results in a specified harm. The city reasons that Wilson's "act" was failing to yield the right of way and thereby causing a death, and that such an "act" is not prohibited by Title 46.
Serious scholarly attention has been devoted to studying whether the term "act", when used in the definition of crimes, should include not only a person's voluntary movement but also the consequences of that movement. The city touches the surface of this discussion by offering a brief quotation from 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.1(a), at 422 (2nd Ed. 2003): "The view has also been taken that an act includes three constituent parts: (1) its origin, such as bodily activity; (2) certain surrounding circumstances; and (3) certain consequences." (Emphasis added.) The city contends this broadly inclusive definition of "act" should be adopted in interpreting RCW 46.63.020. But the city's reliance on the quotation is misplaced. In context, it is clear that LaFave states the broad definition of "act" only to disapprove of it. According to LaFave, modern criminal theory favors a narrow definition of "act" as a voluntary bodily movement. To define "act" in a way that encompasses circumstances and consequences "presents a serious problem in determining the termination point of one's acts". LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.1(a), at 423.
Yielding the right of way is an act required by Title 46; or stated alternatively, turning left in front of a bicycle or other type of vehicle is an act prohibited by Title 46. However stated, Wilson's act -- whatever its consequence -- is only a traffic infraction under state law unless accompanied by the additional elements that would make it vehicular assault or vehicular homicide or driving while intoxicated or one of the other criminal offenses recognized in the exceptions under RCW 46.63.020. Seattle cannot classify failure to yield the right of way as a criminal offense merely by defining the "act"in a way that encompasses a particular result of the act.
You can read the entire opinion here.
What does this mean for the guy driving the van? He can now move on with his life, he is not a criminal, and he can try his best to put this whole episode behind him.
What happens next for the statute? That is an interesting question. As a Seattle traffic attorney I found it interesting (although not uncommon) that the Court of Appeals through pointing out the errors of the language of the statute inadvertently provided some powerful information on what might be done to create a valid statute. We'll just have to wait and see if their suggestions are incorporated into a new law (though in the end the City of Seattle will never be able to do what they truly want - take a simple traffic infraction like failing to yield, when there is no evidence of recklessness or other criminal propensity, and criminalize it just because a serious injury occurred).
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Do Seattle DUI Charges Prevent Seattle DUIs?
As a Seattle traffic lawyer, I see a lot of people come into my office charged with a lot of things: DUI primarily, but also speeding, reckless driving, running red lights, running stop lights, and failures to yield. But, no matter how many people keep coming in, the amount of people that needs my services never seems to go down. But isn't that the point of many criminal law statutes, particularly DUI and Seattle traffic tickets?
For example, I was out in Seattle last night, having a couple of drinks. Because I am a traffic attorney, I tend to keep my actions pretty under control, particularly if I know I'm driving (there is nothing worse than a Seattle DUI attorney who has a DUI conviction, know what I mean?). But there were people there who were really tying one one. And you know what? A lot of those people drove home. And you know what? Probably less than 1% were stopped and issued DUI tickets. So, does the law really do what it is meant to do, and if it doesn't, what is the solution? Harsher penalties? Just let it go?
I don't know the answer to that question necessarily, but I will tell you that DUI punishments are already about as harsh as any penalty out there, considering what is actually going on with the facts. What I mean is, if people are texting while driving, playing with the radio, eating, talking on the phone, or driving with unruly children, their ability to drive is impaired in much the same way. But no one loses their license and faces jail time for talking on a phone while driving or eating while driving. It is the DUI special interest groups that have managed to lobby for extremely harsh DUI penalties.
If you are pulled over for Seattle DUI, the best thing you can do is know your rights: (1) don't talk to the police; (2) don't take field sobriety tests' (3) don't take a portable breath test; and (4) exercise your right to talk to a Seattle traffic attorney before you decide whether or not to take a breath test. Doing these four things can dramatically increase your bargaining power if you are charged with DUI and give you a real chance to beat your DUI.
For example, I was out in Seattle last night, having a couple of drinks. Because I am a traffic attorney, I tend to keep my actions pretty under control, particularly if I know I'm driving (there is nothing worse than a Seattle DUI attorney who has a DUI conviction, know what I mean?). But there were people there who were really tying one one. And you know what? A lot of those people drove home. And you know what? Probably less than 1% were stopped and issued DUI tickets. So, does the law really do what it is meant to do, and if it doesn't, what is the solution? Harsher penalties? Just let it go?
I don't know the answer to that question necessarily, but I will tell you that DUI punishments are already about as harsh as any penalty out there, considering what is actually going on with the facts. What I mean is, if people are texting while driving, playing with the radio, eating, talking on the phone, or driving with unruly children, their ability to drive is impaired in much the same way. But no one loses their license and faces jail time for talking on a phone while driving or eating while driving. It is the DUI special interest groups that have managed to lobby for extremely harsh DUI penalties.
If you are pulled over for Seattle DUI, the best thing you can do is know your rights: (1) don't talk to the police; (2) don't take field sobriety tests' (3) don't take a portable breath test; and (4) exercise your right to talk to a Seattle traffic attorney before you decide whether or not to take a breath test. Doing these four things can dramatically increase your bargaining power if you are charged with DUI and give you a real chance to beat your DUI.
PR: 
LD: 
I: 
Rank: 
C: 
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Another Law Enforcement Officer Gets Out of a Seattle DUI
In yet another example of a law enforcement officer, this time a park ranger, getting out of what is a clear DUI, comes this story out of Tampa Florida. It appears a few months ago a Fish and Wildlife officer in Florida was out driving around (not on duty, I don't think) when he crashed into another driver. After the crash, the officer came and left twice, and stumbled around like a crazy person.
When the police finally got there, all but one said the officer smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and was walking around in a very wobbly manner. The other, who talked to him for five minutes, said he thought the officer was sober. But, and here is the important part, the officer refused to take field sobriety or breath tests. Because of that fact, and the fact that there was conflicting testimony, the State Attorney General's Office reduced the charge to negligent driving, citing a lack of evidence:
The victims in the case are outraged, and I can understand that. From all accounts in the story, it appears the guy was drunk and the State Attorney General's Office is just doing what all law enforcement agencies do - take care of their own. But, the next time you are confronted with a Lynnwood DUI, for instance, do as they do. Give your Lynnwood DUI attorney what they need to fight your case the best they can - no evidence for the prosecutor to use.
When the police finally got there, all but one said the officer smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and was walking around in a very wobbly manner. The other, who talked to him for five minutes, said he thought the officer was sober. But, and here is the important part, the officer refused to take field sobriety or breath tests. Because of that fact, and the fact that there was conflicting testimony, the State Attorney General's Office reduced the charge to negligent driving, citing a lack of evidence:
Part of the problem for prosecutors is that Salcido refused to take field sobriety and breath tests, and there is no video showing the symptoms of drunkenness the four deputies reported, Ripplinger said. All they have is a black-and-white video of Salcido sitting in a patrol car answering questions without slurring his words.Why is this important? As your Seattle traffic attorney I can not say this enough, when you are in trouble do as those that know how to stay out of trouble do. What I mean is, when this park ranger came under the gun he did what he knew would help him out the best - he refused to take field sobriety tests and refused to take a breath test (though you should speak to your Seattle traffic lawyer before deciding whether or not to take a breathalyzer test at the station). Without evidence to prove you were guilty of a Seattle traffic infraction, they would not be able to convict you of an Seattle DUI.
The victims in the case are outraged, and I can understand that. From all accounts in the story, it appears the guy was drunk and the State Attorney General's Office is just doing what all law enforcement agencies do - take care of their own. But, the next time you are confronted with a Lynnwood DUI, for instance, do as they do. Give your Lynnwood DUI attorney what they need to fight your case the best they can - no evidence for the prosecutor to use.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Would You Be Interested in Knowing Your Rights Before Stopped by Seattle Cops?
If you couldn't tell by the title of this blog, I am an Seattle traffic attorney. In other words, helping people like you beat criminal charges, such as DUI, theft, criminal mischief, possession of marijuana, possession of drugs, felonies, misdemeanors, and even Seattle traffic tickets, is my job. But, in doing my job, a lot of things get in the way. Sometimes the evidence gets in the way, sometimes the circumstances get in the way, but a lot of the time my clients get in their own way, and they do it before I even meet them.
Let me give you an example. Let's say there is a guy named Bob. Bob is a nice guy. Works for Microsoft or Boeing, has a wife and two kids, and is a pretty normal guy. Bob decides to join some friends for happy hour one day in Redmond after a hard day of work. He has two or three beers and decides its time to go home and play with the kids. On the way home Bob speeds and is pulled over by a Redmond police officer. The officer smells alcohol on Bob's breath and asks him if he's had anything to drink.
Hold it right here. At this point, Bob has some serious decisions to make that could really affect where this encounter goes. First, he could lie to the officer and tell him he hasn't had anything to drink. Not a good idea. The officer asked you if you'd had anything to drink, so he already thinks you have, he's just trying to make it easy on you. Second, he could tell the truth, that he's had three beers at happy hour. But by doing so he basically gives the cop enough information to do a full scale DUI investigation. Or third, he could politely decline to answer the officer's questions. That's right, just tell the officer you'd rather not answer. He's not going to be happy, but he can't do anything about it, because you have a Constitutional right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. And telling the officer how much alcohol you've had to drink is certainly incriminating.
But what does Bob do? He says he's had a couple. And at that point he might as well get his Seattle traffic attorney on the line, because he's probably going to end up with a DUI charge. And, you might be wondering, would he have wound up with a DUI charge by following my advice? Possibly, but if he followed my advice (and my further advice as the investigation progressed) it would be a lot easier to defend and there would be a much greater chance of dismissal or reduction in charges.
So, my question to all of you is, would you be interested in learning this information? I'm thinking about putting together a presentation and offering it to employers, chamber of commerce meetings, and anywhere else people might find the information helpful. Would you find this information helpful?
Let me give you an example. Let's say there is a guy named Bob. Bob is a nice guy. Works for Microsoft or Boeing, has a wife and two kids, and is a pretty normal guy. Bob decides to join some friends for happy hour one day in Redmond after a hard day of work. He has two or three beers and decides its time to go home and play with the kids. On the way home Bob speeds and is pulled over by a Redmond police officer. The officer smells alcohol on Bob's breath and asks him if he's had anything to drink.
Hold it right here. At this point, Bob has some serious decisions to make that could really affect where this encounter goes. First, he could lie to the officer and tell him he hasn't had anything to drink. Not a good idea. The officer asked you if you'd had anything to drink, so he already thinks you have, he's just trying to make it easy on you. Second, he could tell the truth, that he's had three beers at happy hour. But by doing so he basically gives the cop enough information to do a full scale DUI investigation. Or third, he could politely decline to answer the officer's questions. That's right, just tell the officer you'd rather not answer. He's not going to be happy, but he can't do anything about it, because you have a Constitutional right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. And telling the officer how much alcohol you've had to drink is certainly incriminating.
But what does Bob do? He says he's had a couple. And at that point he might as well get his Seattle traffic attorney on the line, because he's probably going to end up with a DUI charge. And, you might be wondering, would he have wound up with a DUI charge by following my advice? Possibly, but if he followed my advice (and my further advice as the investigation progressed) it would be a lot easier to defend and there would be a much greater chance of dismissal or reduction in charges.
So, my question to all of you is, would you be interested in learning this information? I'm thinking about putting together a presentation and offering it to employers, chamber of commerce meetings, and anywhere else people might find the information helpful. Would you find this information helpful?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Seattle Cop Shoots Man in Corvette
In one of the more interesting and disheartening stories of the day was this story out of Everett, Washington, where an officer shot and killed a man they say was drunk and trying to leave the scene. The full story, which you can read here, describes a wild scene in which several people called 911 to report the guy was going to leave the restaurant, the man trying to leave in a white corvette, and the eventual tasing and shooting of the man, resulting in his death.
As a Seattle traffic lawyer, it is disheartening to hear a story like this, and you have to wonder if the officer really needed to shoot the guy to get him to stop. It sounds as if the car was stopped for some time, the officers tried to get him out of the car (this is when they tased him), and he drove off. He hit a fence, supposedly knocking a woman over, and then he was shot dead.
Although this is a sad and trying story, there is a lesson to be learned here - don't try to run away from the police, particularly if you are going to put other people in danger. Nothing good will come of it (you will not get away, and will only get yourself in more trouble), and if the situation is just right (or wrong) you could end up shot dead. Like this story, a night out on the town can turn into an Everett DUI investigation and a shooting death in an instant.
As a Seattle traffic lawyer, it is disheartening to hear a story like this, and you have to wonder if the officer really needed to shoot the guy to get him to stop. It sounds as if the car was stopped for some time, the officers tried to get him out of the car (this is when they tased him), and he drove off. He hit a fence, supposedly knocking a woman over, and then he was shot dead.
Although this is a sad and trying story, there is a lesson to be learned here - don't try to run away from the police, particularly if you are going to put other people in danger. Nothing good will come of it (you will not get away, and will only get yourself in more trouble), and if the situation is just right (or wrong) you could end up shot dead. Like this story, a night out on the town can turn into an Everett DUI investigation and a shooting death in an instant.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Overview of Seattle DUI Law
If you are in need of an Everett DUI Lawyer or a Everett criminal defense lawyer, you are probably suspected of having committed a violation of at least one law. I figured that since you are accused of something, you might as well know what the law is. Today I'm going to discuss Driving Under the Influence as defined in the Revised Code of Washington section 46.61.502.
In layman's terms, driving under the influence, or DUI, occurs when consumes so much alcohol or uses so much drugs that it impairs their ability to properly operate a vehicle. As I'm sure you know, the amount of alcohol in your system is often measured by a breathalyzer test, and a measurement of .08 or greater presumes (accepts without question) that you are over the limit of alcohol consumption a safe driver can have. But, the statutes have even more than that.
There are actually three ways a person may be guilty of driving under the influence in Everett according to RCW 46.61.502: if a person while driving a vehicle in the State of Washington: (1) has, within two hours of driving, a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher as shown by an analysis of the person's blood or breath made under RCW 46.61.506 (this statute discusses all the rules of breathalyzer tests, blood tests, and refusing breathalyzer and blood tests - we'll talk all about this another time); (2) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (3) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.
What does this paragraph mean? Well, a couple of things. The first thing it means is that the police don't necessarily need a breathalyzer to tell if you are driving under the influence. If, for example, a Seattle, Bellevue, or Kirkland cop pulls you over and after speaking with you and running tests believes you are driving under the influence he can arrest you and then charge you even if your breath test comes back under .08. The police can use their "training and experience" to form an opinion as to your sobriety (those are the kinds of cases DUI lawyers love to defend). The second thing is that DUI is not limited to just alcohol. You can be arrested for drugs too (even prescription drugs, by the way).
Which brings us to section 2 of RCW 46.61.502: 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. This means that just because you were prescribed Valium doesn't mean you can use that as a defense if you were driving after just having taken some. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
On to section 3: 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. Wow, that's a mouthful.
What they are saying in this case is that if, for example, you are driving in Everett, commit some driving violation, and the police are looking for you, and while they are looking for you (at your home in Kirkland, for example), you get drunk, you can use that as a defense to drunk driving if you are charged with it. There are only two rules to this defense, though. First, you, the defendant, must prove that it was more likely than not that your drinking after driving is what caused you to blow above .08, and second, that you have to notify the court and the prosecutor of this before they have the omnibus hearing (a hearing where evidence is presented and motions are argued at the beginning stages of criminal proceedings). The law just recognizes that sometimes people drink after they are done driving.
Section 4 was put in there as a last resort in case the police mess up with your original breathalyzer test. It states that breath or blood samples collected after the 2 hour time limit to take the tests has passed may be used to show you were drunk within the two hour time frame after the incident, or that at least you had been drinking for the non-breathalyzer portions of the Everett DUI laws. Does it sound a little shady, that the state or city prosecutor could use stale evidence to prove you committed a crime? That's because it is.
Section 5 says that a Washington state DUI is a gross misdemeanor unless section 6 applies. Section 6 says a DUI is a class C felony if: (1) you have four or more prior DUIs in the last 10 years; (2) the person has been previously convicted of: (a) vehicular homicide while DUI; (b) vehicular assault while DUI; or (c) and out of state offense compared to (a) or (b).
That is it for your basic DUI law. If only it were that simple. Stay tuned for more Everett DUI information.
In layman's terms, driving under the influence, or DUI, occurs when consumes so much alcohol or uses so much drugs that it impairs their ability to properly operate a vehicle. As I'm sure you know, the amount of alcohol in your system is often measured by a breathalyzer test, and a measurement of .08 or greater presumes (accepts without question) that you are over the limit of alcohol consumption a safe driver can have. But, the statutes have even more than that.
There are actually three ways a person may be guilty of driving under the influence in Everett according to RCW 46.61.502: if a person while driving a vehicle in the State of Washington: (1) has, within two hours of driving, a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher as shown by an analysis of the person's blood or breath made under RCW 46.61.506 (this statute discusses all the rules of breathalyzer tests, blood tests, and refusing breathalyzer and blood tests - we'll talk all about this another time); (2) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (3) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.
What does this paragraph mean? Well, a couple of things. The first thing it means is that the police don't necessarily need a breathalyzer to tell if you are driving under the influence. If, for example, a Seattle, Bellevue, or Kirkland cop pulls you over and after speaking with you and running tests believes you are driving under the influence he can arrest you and then charge you even if your breath test comes back under .08. The police can use their "training and experience" to form an opinion as to your sobriety (those are the kinds of cases DUI lawyers love to defend). The second thing is that DUI is not limited to just alcohol. You can be arrested for drugs too (even prescription drugs, by the way).
Which brings us to section 2 of RCW 46.61.502: 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. This means that just because you were prescribed Valium doesn't mean you can use that as a defense if you were driving after just having taken some. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
On to section 3: 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. Wow, that's a mouthful.
What they are saying in this case is that if, for example, you are driving in Everett, commit some driving violation, and the police are looking for you, and while they are looking for you (at your home in Kirkland, for example), you get drunk, you can use that as a defense to drunk driving if you are charged with it. There are only two rules to this defense, though. First, you, the defendant, must prove that it was more likely than not that your drinking after driving is what caused you to blow above .08, and second, that you have to notify the court and the prosecutor of this before they have the omnibus hearing (a hearing where evidence is presented and motions are argued at the beginning stages of criminal proceedings). The law just recognizes that sometimes people drink after they are done driving.
Section 4 was put in there as a last resort in case the police mess up with your original breathalyzer test. It states that breath or blood samples collected after the 2 hour time limit to take the tests has passed may be used to show you were drunk within the two hour time frame after the incident, or that at least you had been drinking for the non-breathalyzer portions of the Everett DUI laws. Does it sound a little shady, that the state or city prosecutor could use stale evidence to prove you committed a crime? That's because it is.
Section 5 says that a Washington state DUI is a gross misdemeanor unless section 6 applies. Section 6 says a DUI is a class C felony if: (1) you have four or more prior DUIs in the last 10 years; (2) the person has been previously convicted of: (a) vehicular homicide while DUI; (b) vehicular assault while DUI; or (c) and out of state offense compared to (a) or (b).
That is it for your basic DUI law. If only it were that simple. Stay tuned for more Everett DUI information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
