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.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
