DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog

Even If You Do Everything Right, You'll Probably Be Arrested

2010-05-20T12:44:00.000-07:00

If you read this blog or speak to any DUI attorney, you will quickly learn there are a couple of things you should be doing if you are ever stopped and investigated for DUI. First, you shouldn't admit to drinking, but you shouldn't deny it. Second, you should refuse to take the field sobriety tests. Third, you should refuse to take the portable breath test (the test you take out on the road, not at the police station).

If you do this, you are going to do two things. First, you are going to make the cop extremely frustrated and build a great case for yourself. I like this. Second, you are probably going to get arrested and need a DUI defense attorney to help you out. This part I don't like so much.

Why are you going to get arrested? The fact of the matter is, if you smell like alcohol, even a little bit, you are probably going to get rung up for DUI. Only the most honest cops will let you go if they smell alcohol on you. It's impossible for them to get that smell out of their mind, and they start seeing a bunch of other stuff based on that smell.

And for cops, their main goal is to get drunk people off the road. And if they have to arrest a few people that aren't DUI, then that's okay. That's why you want to follow the above recommendations. If you are charged with DUI, you need to set your case up so your criminal lawyer can come in and take care of business for you.

Bottom line, if you get pulled over after drinking, there is a high likelihood that you are going to get arrested. All you can do is cover your ass the best you can and call your DUI attorney as soon as possible.

DUI Attorney | Never Talk to the Cops

2010-05-04T20:12:00.000-07:00

Listen. I know I talk about this all the time. I know I tell you "I'm a DUI attorney, trust me when I say this." And I know that very few people, if any really listen to what I say.

But I can't help from talking about this again. Do not talk to the cops. Ever. They are not your friend. They are not trying to help you. They are trying to put you in jail. And they should be treated like someone that can and will hurt you as soon as they feel like they have reason to do so.

For example, cops are trained to, when they have a "hunch" and know that they can't legally go and investigate, to make contact with the person in a "casual encounter." What is a casual encounter? It's when the cops come up and just start chatting you up. Ask any DUI attorney and they'll tell you this is where the cops start building their case against you.

So, how can you fight this? How can you keep the cops from sending you to jail? How can you keep the cops from forcing you to hire a DUI lawyer to help you out of this jam? Easy. Don't give them any reason to arrest you. And, contrary to popular belief, not answering a cop's question does not provide they reason the cops need to arrest you.

Next time the cops come up to you and start asking you questions, just tell them, politely, that you don't want to talk. If they persist, tell, them, again, nicely, that you want nothing to do with them and if they have questions they can talk to your criminal lawyer. That's the safe way to stay out of trouble.

Seattle DUI Attorney | Bench Trial or Jury Trial?

2010-03-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

So you've been charged with a misdemeanor. Possibly a DUI, perhaps an beating, perhaps a larceny. And the state isn't offering you anything you feel contented taking as a plea bargain. Your Seattle DUI attorney informs you the solitary alternative, if you don't desire the proposal, is a trial.

You're okay with that, but are slightly tentative about the minutiae. In particular, you are not certain if you should ask for a jury trial or ask for a bench trial. Your Seattle criminal attorney is promoting a jury trial, but you just don't know if you can have faith in a group of individuals you don't know to make the right conclusion.

Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the judgment of your guilt or innocence) can at times be difficult for any DUI lawyer. Let's look at a pair of scenarios that might need you to go one way or another.

To begin with, the jury trial. You like jury trials since jurors typcially are not as jaded as judges (they've heard a large number of excuses over the years and start to stop attempting to ascertain the disparity). They endeavor fiercely to do the fair thing and will frequently furnish you at least a fighting chance. However they can be unpredictable as well.

You commonly desire a jury trial when the case is fairly unstable, when you have various inconsistencies in the evidence that just don't add up, and when you require the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt (most DUI cases fall into this category). Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's slightly more complicated.

Next, the bench trial. You habitually like to have these when you possess a exceedingly technical defense, the particulars of the case are truly atrocious (the jury will almost be certain to be hostile to you from the start), or you are going to establish your argument on a legal issue that you imagine the judge will appreciate better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, while not unpredictable, tend to tilt in the direction of the prosecution.

In the end, the pronouncement to go jury trial or bench trial ought to maybe be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the familiarity to appreciate which one to make use of, and they recognize the intricacy of the decision. No matter which you pick, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill war. Good luck!

Deciding Whether Or Not to Endure a Breathalyzer Test Just Got a Lot Harder

2010-01-04T10:58:00.000-08:00

Deciding whether or not to take a breath analysis if you were detained for DUI used to be a considerable choice. If you were requested to endure a blood alcohol assessment and refused, you were subjecting yourself to increased penalties for refusing, but had the benefit moving ahead of not having to contest blood alcohol examination results (as any good Seattle DUI attorney would advise).

Well, nowadays it appears more and more probable that the situation may surface where you might say no a blood alcohol assessment, handle the more stringent consequences for the refusal, and still be subject to giving blood alcohol results (and trust me when I say this is not a law firm marketing effort).

Most, if not all states, have fashioned DUI laws that involve implied consent laws. In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the road in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath analysis if the police have probable cause to believe you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, though, is the capability to say no the blood alcohol analysis if you so opt. The downside to denial, though, is the imposition of harsher consequences if convicted of DUI (and a longer license revocation - for illustration, in Seattle, WA a refusal subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).

However, things have changed a little recently. The cops have started going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals reject blood alcohol examinations. And more than a few courts have upheld this tradition (the way the judges perceive it, the denial has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by indicating probable cause to a judge and getting a search warrant.

One thing is certain. If you have the capability to have a word with an DUI attorney in Seattle ahead of deciding whether or not to endure a blood alcohol test, you must do so. The issues revolving around breath analysis refusal are getting more and more complicated each day, and the only way you can be sure you are doing what is most excellent for you is by speaking with experienced Seattle DUI attorneys and learning all of your options.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Getting Guns Back

Seattle DUI Attorney | Cops in Court

Seattle DUI Attorney Describes the Idea of Corpus Delicti

2009-12-28T10:32:00.000-08:00

Nobody wants to be on familiar terms with or speak to a criminal attorney until they are in concern. There is a certain plague or hex that individuals seem to think follow folks seeking out criminal defense advice before they need it. Nevertheless, as soon as you are charged with a crime, you speedily grasp how vital a superior Seattle DUI attorney is.

And some of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the requirement to decode all of the legal gibberish that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of expressions you might hear throughout your criminal process, some you may be acquainted with, some you possibly will not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.

Well, I'm here at the moment to help you comprehend what one of persons legal terms means - corpus delicti. This is a word you may perhaps not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an imperative term for your defense attorney to be acquainted with, specifically if you have confessed to a wrong and he or she wants to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better understand the word, I've broken it down for you below.

As I said above, corpus delicti arises most regularly in the circumstance of confessions, and specifically in the context of confessions where not a lot of other data exists against the defendant. glimpse, judges and courts, although more than willing to let in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, specifically if they are the solitary thing the prosecutor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be acquainted with false confessions are given from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in enormously high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are hesitant to allow confessions in unless there is some other impartial facts of the criminal act.

And that extra impartial proof of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or additional unconnected proof of a wrong, the court will not agree to in a confession for the reason that there is the chance (whether realistic or otherwise) that the confession was erroneously given. Still a little bit perplexed as to what it means? How about an example.

Let's say there is a man. He is standing out in a parking lot with some extra individuals around some vehicles. Let's say the people in the van and the individuals out of the auto get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the dudes in the sedan choose to abscond. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a clatter on his vehicle and turns around. He doesn't notice anyone touching his sedan or necessarily by his van, but there is lone one person in the locale. The man in the automobile doesn't check his vehicle out until later, when he glimpses a dent in the side of his van. He surmises it was the gentleman he saw around his vehicle earlier.

The cops go and pick up the gentleman they suspect of hurting the vehicle and take him down to the cops station. After some talking and interrogating, they get the male to admit to kicking the van. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.

In this instance, do you believe the rule of corpus delicti exists here? With no the declaration of guilt, all the police have for evidence is the gentleman hearing something happen to his auto, turn around, and glimpse the male near the van. What is absent is any data that the guy hit the automobile, and that he did it with an plan to damage the sedan. It is doable (in theory, if no declaration of guilt had been given) that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a situation like that a corpus delicti argument might be a way to get the confession suppressed.

Corpus delicti, like most other Latin legal expressions, are not difficult to comprehend once they are clarified. But getting that explanation can be a very difficult process at times. That's why the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog is here. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction for the reason that you don't have the legal schooling of the prosecutors? The minute you are placed under arrest or feel like you can't go away is the second you should demand to chat with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not singly help you through the labyrinth of legal hogwash, but help you to keep your lips shut and the cops off your back.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | The DUI Stop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Watch out for DUI Patrols

Seattle DUI Attorney | Attorney-Client Relationship

2009-12-22T11:31:00.000-08:00

Whether a Seattle DUI attorney, a civil attorney, or only a ordinary self on the road, practically everybody has heard of and has a vague picture regarding what the lawyer-client benefit is. If we haven't dealt with it candidly in our individual lives then we've virtually certainly had the chance to see it in action on television or in the movies.

But what is the attorney-client benefit really? Does it represent that when you tell a lawyer something that they can't reveal to anybody no matter what? And when does it initiate? Do you have to employ the criminal defense lawyer? And when does it finish? Will a criminal lawyer in reality take your secrets to their burial place? Read on to have these questions answered.

Let's start with what the benefit indicates. And, because I am a Seattle criminal attorney, we'll use it in the perspective of criminal law, although it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The attorney-client benefit is the impression that everything you reveal to your lawyer, in private (when just the two of you are present) is secret. This stands for the lawyer cannot disclose to anyone what you have spoken regarding. They can't inform their wife, they can't tell their pals, they can't tell the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only occasion they can reveal is if the data you've told them is to perpetrate the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of someone. It is a very robust privilege.

And the best thing is, the privilege starts right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have retained the lawyer for the privilege to attach. It happens involuntarily, and even if you don't hire that lawyer, they nonetheless have to keep your secrets secure. Let me present you an illustration to show you how commanding it can be. Let's say you are looking for a divorce and you go talk to a attorney about it.

You disclose to him all about your circumstances and what has been going on, he quotes you a fee, and you reveal to him it's too pricey and go get someone else. A week afterward your companion comes in and wants to speak to a lawyer about a divorce. The attorney not only can't take the case since he's already spoken to you and representing the wife would create a conflict, but he can't reveal to the husband why he can't represent her! The wife would simply be sent away. That's how powerful the privilege is.

And the privilege outlasts even your life. Your secrets die with the attorney. In the criminal law situation there are examples of people who have confessed to murdering people (it isn't the commission of a future crime so it is classified) to their attorney, another individual is tried and convicted of the murder, and the attorney never told anyone about the confession (it obviously afterward came out, but not in any way that affected the client). So, essentially, your secrets are safe.

There is good reason behind this privilege - your Seattle DUI attorney must know as much regarding your case as possible to furnish you the most excellent defense possible. Without your information and candid conversation, that is nearly impossible. So, the next point you are with your lawyer, don't be afraid to speak up. Your secrets are safe.

Related Posts"

Seattle DUI Attorney | Make Friends with a DUI Lawyer

Seattle DUI Attorney | The Hole in Your License

Ever Ponder What Probable Cause is? Understand at the Present From a Seattle DUI Attorney.

2009-12-16T22:35:00.000-08:00

Inside the world of DUI law, probable cause is everything. It is required for a legitimate apprehension, and everything police officers do, especially when it comes to DUI charges, is carried out to assemble adequate substantiation to substantiate probable cause. But what is probable cause? It is a bit of an amorphous thing, never having a clear line authoritative state of being. As one recognized Supreme Court Justice put "I appreciate it when I see it." Now hear it explained from a Seattle DUI attorney.

Before I commence my portrayal of probable cause, in particular as it relates to Seattle DUI accusations, I want to point out that this editorial is for educational purposes. If you are charged with a Seattle DUI or facing a Seattle criminal, please call a Seattle DUI attorney for consultation on your particular case. Do not rely on this as legal counsel, as each case is so factually special specific advice is mandatory.

Probable cause is by and large viewed as a mixed problem of law and fact. It requires extensive evidence and a legal determination of probable cause. Considerable proof requires "a satisfactory amount of substantiation in the record to influence a fair-minded, normal individual of the accuracy of the determination." It is the who, what, when, and where of the study.

For instance, let's suppose we have a man driving around in Seattle subsequent to having consumed several beers. He is stopped by a police officer for speeding - 37 in a 25. He is otherwise driving ordinarily, including pulling off to the side of the street in a responsible way. At this instant there likely is no probable cause for criminal, though there is probable cause for speeding. But what if when the officer approaches the driver he notices a robust odor of alcohol and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. This might climb to the quantity of considerable support of DUI.

The subsequent element of probable cause is whether the evidence substantiate a legal determination of probable cause. Essentially, do the details as acknowledged confirm a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. In this set of circumstances, maybe so, perhaps not. Individuals are permitted to drink and then drive (just not when impaired by booze), and the watery eyes may be described away by something else.

So, what if the police officer then asks the driver to complete field sobriety tests (which you are able to and must always decline to do in the State of Washington) and he does, failing to tap his finger to his nose, failing to balance on one leg, and failing to touch heel to toe in a walk and turn check? Is that an adequate amount of for an police officer to obtain a logical conclusion that the driver was driving under the influence of liquor? Likely. It is positively a stronger situation for the officer (although not definitive - injuries and weather conditions may have been a factor, for example).

Now, why is this critical for you, the typical Seattle voter? Because it is vital to realize that whenever a officer stops you and begins to question you he is not fretful with your wellbeing (except in those clear conditions) and is frequently trying to collect sufficient data from you to confirm probable cause. And it is even more critical to appreciate it is within your Constitutional rights to refuse to give him data he will in the end exploit against you (despite the fact that you must present your license, registration, and act courteously to the police officer).

If you do find yourself probably to be captured for DUI, talk to the cops as little as possible by declining respectfully ("I'd respectfully decline to answer that problem") and if things continue to heat up request to have a minute to speak to your Seattle criminal attorney. Even if they get you to say things your Seattle criminal lawyer will have a good chance of getting it thrown out (you ought to never waive our rights, for your information).

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney and Search Incident to Arrest

Seattle DUI and Field Sobriety Tests

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

2009-12-07T10:33:00.000-08:00

The most horrible situation state of affairs has occurred. You went to that birthday event last weekend in downtown Seattle that you knew was going to end up being wild (complimentary beers will do that to you). You considered securing transport to and from the event, nevertheless in the end ruled it was extremely undesirable to pay for a cab. On the road home to Seattle, it happened. A Seattle cop pulled you over and ultimately detained you for Seattle DUI. You've retained a Seattle DUI attorney nevertheless are fearful with reference to how everything is going to end up.

If you've been viewing Law and Order, Boston Legal, Murphy Brown, or some of the other legal shows on TV, or if you've conversed to anyone that has had legal dilemma beforehand, then you appreciate a little bit with reference to how the course works. To start with, your Seattle DUI attorney is going to (or should) take an in-depth look at your occurrence, including the police reports, some film that exists, and questioning several witnesses that may exist. Next, they are going to have you get an alcohol evaluation, which, depending on what it says, will have an consequence on the path of the plea talks. After that, they'll call up the prosecutor and see what they can work out.

But what are the options? What is likely? It's a good thing you are at the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog to find out. From the very start it is crucial to grasp that Washington DUI laws (and DUI laws throughout the country) are several of the most rigorous when it comes to plea bargaining. No congressperson desires to be in charge for releasing a drunk driver who goes out and drives drunk again and causes damage (even though individuals can drive without a license). This makes it pretty tricky to plea bargain with the prosecutor, specifically to get a DUI charge lower to something lesser. But there are several options. earlier I get going, it is key to keep in mind that the judge doesn't have to take a plea bargain. The court can always impose their own punishment.

At the outset, it may be doable to convince the prosecutor to prosecute your driving under the influence as a firstly DUI even though you have a prior infraction in the preceding 7 years. This allows your Seattle driving under the influence lawyer to get a reduced sentence, reduced fines, and reduced driver's license suspension (though this will often not affect the administrative license suspension as they work independently of the prosecutor's office).

Second, it may be doable to get several of the accompanying accusations dismissed. If you were pulled over for a broken tail light, this may not seem like much. But if your driving under the influence accusation is accompanied with leaving the scene of an crash, fleeing and alluding, or something related, getting those dismissed can be a suitable result.

Third, in several cases, when the prosecutor's state of affairs is rather fragile, you might be able to plead down the drunk driving to reckless driving. This is beneficial because it reduces the driving suspension, there is no mandatory jail time, and there is no ignition interlock requirement. It will require the high risk insurance, but if your license has already been revoked administratively, you need to have that anyway. If you can get negligent driving 1st degree, you do not even have to have the high risk insurance, and many insurers treat it as a couple of speeding tickets, if they observe it at all.

In several event, if you desire to get the greatest deal, you've got to find a driving under the influence attorney in Seattle that is trustworthy, frank, and has a good reputation at the prosecutor's office (for being a straight shooter, not necessarily someone the prosecutor likes). If your driving under the influence lawyer boasts concerning pulling one over on the prosecutor's office, you can expect that either the prosecutor is going to see through it, or the criminal attorney in Seattle has done it beforehand, and you are not going to be assisted because of it. Lawyering is an art and a science, but if you don't possess reliability, you won't get that much desired benefit of the doubt. It could result in a much harsher sentence than was initially feasible.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | How to Question a Cop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Do Field Sobriety Tests

Seattle DUI Attorney | Handling the DUI Stop

2009-11-30T11:00:00.000-08:00

One of the worst feelings you can ever have is on that lengthy drive home late at night following a few of drinks at the tavern. You feel okay, but recognize deep down that feeling okay isn't what truly matters. And afterward you observe them, flashing lights in your rear view mirror. You know you need a Seattle DUI attorney now.

A driving under the influence detention is one of the most terrifying experiences there are, if, for no additional grounds, there are so many unknowns. Will the cop judge you are impaired? Will you lose your driver's license? Will you need to go to lockup? Could you potentially now have squandered thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines down the drain? All of these inquiries in all probability race through your head, and with justifiable cause.

This article, with a bit of luck, will make you a bit less anxious. Though you shouldn't drink and drive, if you stumble on yourself in that situation, at least in Washington State (Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Tacoma, Federal Way, Kent, etc.) this post is going to ensure you control the best shot of making it back home secure. But remember, this information is not legal advice. Ahead of making any choices that could conclude your legal rights or fate, please consult a Seattle criminal attorney. Every case is special, and you want a DUI attorney in Seattle to assess your exact occurrence to recognize exactly what to do.

There are several key things you must be aware of about your standard DUI detention in Seattle. Firstly, the majority of the time you are not being detained on suspicion of criminal (according to the police officer). Even though it is 1:00 a.m. and he's out pulling you over for failing to make use of a turn indication, a criminal is not the true reason he's pulling you over (okay, so it possibly is, but it is irrelevant here - if they've got a grounds to pull you over, they can). Presuming you weren't swerving all over the place or doing something in addition to make the cop believe you were hammered, getting the encounter over as fast as doable is the goal.

Getting it over denotes three things: (1) act respectfully; (2) say as little as doable; and (3) once it seems as though the original detention is concluded, inquire if you may go so you can get back home. When the cop pulls you over, he is looking for signs that you are under the influence. We all are aware of what those are: glassy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech; the smell of alcohol. Try not to offer out those clues to the officer if possible (don't speak too much). The objective is to thwart the police officer from establishing probable cause that you are DUI. Devoid of that he is going to have a hard time arresting you.

Next, if he asks you to move out of the automobile, you can do so. But, if he asks if you'd mind taking a few field sobriety tests, here is where you should take a route special than that of a good number Seattle drivers. Politely refuse. You don't even need to offer an excuse. In Washington State, you have the right to remain silent, to refrain from providing incriminating evidence against yourself, including field sobriety tests. It prevents a lot of support from being obtained that can be utilized in opposition to you later, and it is the accurate thing to do. However, be prepared, for the reason that it may get you ushered to the station for a breath test (if they take you, nevertheless, you were going anyhow).

Now, here is the critical part. The minute they say you are going to take a breath test, let the officers understand you desire to have a word with a Seattle DUI lawyer. When you do this, several things take place. First, the cops cannot question you any further. And next, you get to chat to a DUI lawyer in Seattle to figure out what you ought to do after that. And, no matter what time of day, an attorney is available (many Seattle criminal lawyers make themselves available for specifically such phone calls).

And any Seattle DUI defense attorney ought to be able to point you to someone who will answer the telephone. And if you don't know who to call, a public defender is generally on call, so even at three in the morning you'll have a person to chat to.

From there on, you ought to certainly do what your Seattle criminal defense attorney says, as your particular state of affairs, counting any prior offenses, your occupation, how much you've had to drink, and additional things, can shape what you desire to do going forward.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | 10 DUIs Equals 7 Years

Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti

Seattle DUI Attorney | Search Incident to Arrest

2009-11-23T12:19:00.000-08:00

Here we go again, an additional run down of the criminal defense jurisprudence cases determined in the preceding week in Washington State at the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog. As with preceding week, the number of decisions released is small - perhaps it has a little to do with the holidays or something, so this article may not be that extensive (though I doubt it).

And keep in mind, as usual, that though I am a Seattle DUI attorney, I would not advise you take my summary of these cases and my scrutiny of these cases as gospel as you stroll into court to speak to the judge. If you truly require the benefit of one of these cases to assist you, do the smart thing and read the case. That way you can be rest confident that what you are uttering is accurate - or better yet, call a criminal defense attorney in Seattle to facilitate - you’ll be pleased you did.

The first criminal case on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of evidence, namely 404(b). Here we go.

State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the category of case a Seattle DUI attorney cherishes because the verification was thin. It is not the sort of situation a criminal attorney cherishes since the prosecutor employed some fresh theories of using the rules of verification that seemed to be doubtful upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to say.

Facts - The victim was awakened in his dwelling by gunshots. He peered outside and viewed someone shooting out of a red sedan. The van was moving as the firing was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one individual. A unconnected victim heard the equivalent thing, and afterward found bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were pulled from the bed. later the police searched the dwelling of Hartzell’s buddy, who admitted to shooting a pistol at a different time. According to ballistics, the revolver was that used during the firing described above.

The cops were then later on called to a reported crime where Hartzell was. The cops showed up, spotted a bullet hole in a automobile, and brought a search dog to attempt to unearth the gun that was used. The dog smelled inside the sports car, then went out and located the firearm a few hundred yards away from the automobile. This handgun also matched the bullets shot at the first described place.

Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his truck as inappropriate and that previous incidents were incorrectly admitted to show that the defendants had a inclination to perpetrate pistol crimes.

Scrutiny - First, regarding the search topic. The Washington State constitution protects people from needless searches of their person and their private things. This provision is not violated if no search occurs. A search occurs when the state interferes with a individual’s private affairs. Usually, a search does not arise if an officer is able to reveal something using one of his senses from a non-invasive point of view.

With regard to dog sniffs, a search occurs depending on the situation. Previous decisions have held that a search does not transpire if the sniff occurs in a place the individual would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the sniff was not invasive. Here, the canine sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the automobile when the sniff happened and the canine didn’t get into the sports car. The search was realistic.

Second, on the subject of the 404(b) evidence topic. ER 404(b) provides:

facts of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a individual in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

The experiment for admitting proof under this rule is well recognized. The trial court must: (1) come across by a preponderance of the evidence that a crime happened; (2) identify the point for which the evidence is sought to be introduced; (3) determine whether the facts is related to determine the element of a offense charged; and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

In this occurrence, there was a reasonable inference that the pistol discovered 100 yards from Hartzell’s van was possessed by him, particularly because the canine discovered the revolver after sniffing Hartzell’s automobile. Ammunition from the gun was also discovered on Hartzell and in the van driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that proof not to illustrate that the crimes created an identity that could illustrate the first crime and the offense alleged were the similar, but that it was likely the defendants committed the crimes because they were found in control of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these specifics, the court located that evidence to be relevant. And finally, the trial court’s scrutiny of the admission of the proof was sound since it reasoned the lack of information about the incident would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.

Seattle DUI attorney’s examination - This isn’t the finest state of affairs I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their boundaries to attempt to get this in. Do I feel the fact that these guys are located with the guns afterward have any bearing on what occurred under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one saw anything it is impossible to distinguish who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon inference to achieve their preferred conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes.

What I didn’t notice in any of this breakdown (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any proof that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can absolutely see why this case was brought to trial - the evidence just isn’t there.

Next we have State v. Bliss, a state of affairs on the subject of possession of methamphetamine, search and seizure, and truck stops.

State v. Bliss is a state of affairs about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the automobile and the unearthing of methamphetamine. It brings up a hot issue these days, the search incident to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s study on and see what happens.

Facts - Bliss was driving around one night when a cop got behind her and checked the registration on her van. The cop found that Bliss had unresolved misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, confirmed Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the van, locating a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of methamphetamine. The police officer completed a property record before having the van towed.

Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense lawyer moved to suppress the proof on two grounds: (1) the officer didn’t have good reason to stop the motor vehicle; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the motor vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court found the cop was correct in the stop and the search was legal.

Immediately before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress founded on the theory that the search was not event to the arrest. The court located the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.

Issues - Was the search legal?

Scrutiny - Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at issue here, is when an police officer stops a person briefly to investigate a practical suspicion that driving under the influence activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. The realistic suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific individual stopped such that the stop and investigation is practical under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.

In this case when the police officer stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the individual driving the sports car at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.

As for the Gant breakdown, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the truck. This question is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.

Driving under the influence lawyer in Seattle examination - This was probably the right thing to do here. If the issue wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court could have the information it needs to conclude if the search was legal. One thing I did locate interesting in this opinion was the fact that afterward the vehicle was impounded, which suggests the sedan would have been searched to inventory the truck. Whether that includes a search of the inside of the bag remains to be seen.

Gant has actually given a tool for criminal defense defense lawyer’s to use on a regular basis, particularly since police don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search occasion to arrest. I guess we’ll see…

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Drink if Patrols are Out

Seattle DUI Attorney | DUI Stop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Speak with the Police

2009-11-19T12:08:00.000-08:00

I retain a lot of criminal defense patrons in Seattle (I am, after all, a Seattle DUI attorney). The majority are people just like you and me. Average citizens. The solitary difference is they typically have committed just one imperfect gaffe that they are now facing punishment for. For nearly everyone it is a Seattle drunk driving accusation or marijuana possession accusation.

Nevertheless since my consumers have usually never been in trouble beforehand outside the arbitrary speeding infraction here and there, they retain no inkling how to intermingle along with the cops once they arrive and are investigating you for a dui. This is for two key reasons: first, because of the media (including advertising by the cops) we inherently accept as true the cops are out there to facilitate us; and second, the cops recognize this and play to this, and make use of their clout as regularly as doable to get you to do things you don't desire to do.

If my customers would have just paid attention in social studies class in high school and government seminar in high school, or in truth scrutinize those police officer programs that are all over television, they would understand that as soon as the police show up and are investigating a drunk driving charge they are not your pal. They are nearby for one motivation only - to gather evidence against you.

And the finest system the get a hold that information is you - that's precise, repeatedly you create your own bed when it comes to the Seattle DUI accusations you face.

Like I said, I'm a Seattle DUI attorney. As a Seattle criminal defense lawyer there is not anything I like to glimpse less than a law enforcement statement that includes a lot of my client's statements. They never benefit - they constantly harm. And they are time and again the key core for the charges my client is facing.

So, what should you do if you are investigated for a crime? First, close your mouth. And don't open it unless you would like to articulate the expression "get me a attorney." Or else you are simply hurting yourself. Second, as soon as you speak those words, undertake to close yourself down as best you can. The cops aren't going to be fond of this and they are going to try everything they can to get you talking. This includes using your worries, your principles, and the possessions you care about, against you. Simply remain calm until you have a driving under the influence attorney in Seattle in attendance to aid you. It will generate a huge modification.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Celebrity DUIs

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle DUI Attorney | Getting Your Guns Back

2009-11-09T18:06:00.000-08:00

A different week, a new post reviewing the key DUI law case decisions from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Even though last week there was an important determination that affects a lot of Tacoma DUI prosecutions, this week, the actual effect of the cases on the practice of law for your average Seattle DUI attorney is minor.

To give you a short preview, we have two decisions, one out of Division II of the Court of Appeals and one out of Division III of the Court of Appeals. It was a slow week for the Supreme Court - they didn’t announce any new cases of import.

The Division II case concerns something DUI attorneys Seattle will run into from time to time, or at least face inquiries on - the restoration of weapon rights after a DUI defense guilty verdict. The Division III case concerns the fundamentals of residential burglary and whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate misdeed essential for a conviction of residential burglary. Let’s get going!

Restoring Fire Arms Rights - State v. Mihali

Facts - State v. Mihali is a case about restoring fire arms rights to an individual found guilty of a transgression. Mihali, in 2000, was found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (i.e. drugs - in all probability methamphetamine). In 2004 Mihali received a certification from the Department of Corrections that she had finished the terms of her judgment, was discharged from DOC supervision, and had all of her civil rights restored (right to vote, etc.) not including the right to own and/or possess a weapon.

In 2008 she filed with the court a motion to restore her firearms, alleging that she had met all of the requirements to have her right to firearms restored. The state opposed this motion, disagreeing that the mandatory 10 years had not elapsed since her conviction was concluded, which is a necessity because she was convicted of a class B felony. The court settled with Mihali and restored her firearms rights - the State appealed.

Issue - Was Mihali eligible to have her right to possess a weapon restored?

Analysis - gun restoration rights are governed by RCW 9.41.040(4). It states that a person without a conviction for a sex offense or a Class A felony may plead the court to have their right to possess a weapon if:

(b)(i) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the human being has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a gun counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525

The state's argument that two circumstances must be met before firearms will be restored is a sensible one: (1) five or more years in the area without being convicted or currently charged with a transgression; and (2) no former felony convictions in her dui defense history that would be incorporated in her offender score calculation that ban possessing a gun. The subject in scrutiny here is the date from which the second prong of the scrutiny is calculated from. The state contends the ten year look back phase goes from the date of the petition for restoration of weapon rights. Mihali argues the ten year look back period should be from the date of the last conviction. If the state’s view is adopted, Mihali is not eligible. If Mihali’s view is adopted, she is.

This issue has been raised and answered in prior case decisions. There we determined that the Legislature planned the look back period to be from the date of the petition for gun restoration. Although the decisions in these cases were not completely on point because they weren’t discussing this law specifically, the scrutiny is similar. Furthermore, this is reflected in the Legislative history of the law.

Holding - The trial court’s determination reinstating Mahili’s gun rights is reversed. Mahili must delay ten years from the date of her last conviction before the court can consider weapon right restoration.

Everett driving under the influence attorney’s Analysis - In cases such as these, whether or not the law appears to be reasonable, it is the law. I think the court decided the way that it should have, even though it forces Mihali to wait five more years to have her gun rights restored. It was probably worth a shot from Mihali’s criminal defense attorney because the subject hadn’t been litigated, but it was a long shot to be upheld by the Court of Appeals. The fact is, at the time of her petition for weapon right restoration, Mihali had a felony guilty verdict that would have counted as part of her offender score.

Elements of Residential Burglary - State v. Devitt

Facts - State v. Devitt is a case about the elements of residential burglary, namely whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate misdeed obligatory for a guilty verdict of residential burglary. The case begins with the cops believing Devitt stole a car and was caught up in a hit and run. The cops spotted him near to the accident and Devitt took off and ran from them. He ended up hiding in an apartment complex, in the end finding himself in the apartment of a woman. While there Devitt conversed to the woman, had a goblet of iced tea, made a cell phone call (with her consent), and just hung out waiting for the officers to leave. The woman said she wasn’t in anxiety for her wellbeing. After a bit she went outside to take out the trash and let the officers know Devitt was in her residence.

Devitt was charged with residential burglary (first degree dui defense trespass as an alternative), obstructing a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. At the close of the state’s case, Devitt moved to dismiss the burglary charge for failing to prove all of the fundamentals, namely that Devitt intended to commit a offense against the person or possessions inside the dwelling. The court said obstructing a law enforcement official was enough, and let the case go to the jury. Devitt was found guilty of all the charges.

Issue - Is obstructing a police officer adequate to meet the underlying misdeed prerequisite of residential burglary?

Analysis - Residential burglary is defined in RCW 9A.52.025(1) as: entering or remaining unlawfully in a house other than a car with intention to commit a misdeed against a individual or belongings therein. To prove his stance that obstructing a law enforcement officer should not be important as the underlying misdeed, Devitt pointed the court to the prosecutor’s standards for charging crimes. Obstructing a law enforcement officer is not characterized anywhere as a misdeed against a individual, much less anyone other than the cop.

The language of the residential burglary law requires a explicit offense (against a being or possessions) in a specific place (inside a dwelling) and with a precise intent (to go into the dwelling to commit the offense). Because of this, more than just the intent to commit a misdeed generally is necessary.

The requirement that the transgression intended to be committed be done “therein” or within the house, is also notable. In this case there was no law enforcement officer in the dwelling, making it hard for Devitt to have entered the dwelling to commit that exact offense.

Holding - the state failed to show the elements of the residential burglary statute. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Everett criminal Lawyer’s Analysis - Really? Are you freaking kidding me? Why would the prosecutor even charge this transgression, much less see it through to a jury trial and then contend their completely unreasonable stance to the court of appeals? And why would the trial court judge not read the law and realize the elements of the offense had not been met? I am a Kirkland driving under the influence lawyer, so I am a little biased. But I am not the type of driving under the influence defense attorney that is an apologist for my clients. I see the facts and I see the crimes charged and I work from there. Why can’t prosecutors do the same thing?

This is a great example of some of the things we are forced to deal with all the time that gum up the driving under the influence justice system, make everyone grumpy, and make defense lawyers think prosecutors are unreasonable and gunning for victories at all times. If this prosecutor would have amended the charges to first degree trespass there would have been no trial, there would have been no appeal, and all of this time would not have been wasted. A first year law student should be able to make the analysis obligatory to get this conclusion right.

That’s my two sense for today. Stay tuned next week for another installment of the latest drunk driving decisions from Washington State. Hopefully there will be more exciting news.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle DUI Attorney | News

Seattle DUI Attorney | Case Law Review

2009-10-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

Another week, one more assessment of criminal cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals at the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog. As a Seattle DUI defense attorney, it is important to stay on top of this data so you can be fully ready to contend your client’s cause.

This week we have two cases of significance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the search of a car incident to an seizure; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are fascinating and worth noting, so I’ll recap, and as usual, present a petite morsel of my own Seattle criminal lawyer analysis.

Search Incident to detention - State v. Patton

This is one of the foremost in a what will be a lengthy line of cases dealing with searching automobiles after somebody has been seized (also known as search incident to capture). It is one of the exceptions to police needing a warrant for seizure, and of late the United States Supreme Court clarified what we dui defense attorneys had known for a long period - the police were abusing this regulation by searching vehicles incident to the capture of someone when the arrest formed no reason for the search.

Here is the classic illustration: someone is arrested for driving while their license is revoked. The person is apprehended and positioned into the cop van. After that the cops search the car, “incident to the apprehension.” Quandary is, there is no support to find for driving while license revoked. The evidence is already in the custody of the cops (the driver’s license records).

Facts of State v. Patton - Patton had an unsettled felony warrant. The cops knew where he was at and where waiting for him to come out so they could capture him on the warrant. It was nighttime, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the van and someone matching the description of Patton out rummaging around in the van. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his skull out of the van and ran into the motorhome. After backup arrived, they went into the motorhome and seized Patton.

After arresting him, the cops searched Patton’s van, finding methamphetamine and money. Patton was charged with control of meth. At trial, Patton moved to exclude the proof for being illicitly detained. The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the court sided with the prosecution, who argued that because when Patton was approached he was beside automobile that it was eligible to be searched incident to his arrest.

Analysis - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unjust. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search must fall into one of a number of enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are restricted to the conditions that brought them into being.

They shouldn’t be used to weaken the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant requirement is the auto search incident to seizure. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an automobile is permissible when the officer’s security is at issue or there is the opportunity that evidence correlated to the wrong which predicated the arrest will be misplaced or ruined.

In this case, Patton’s contention is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not arrested in his vehicle, but in his home, that he was never in his truck during the disagreement, and that he was arrested for an remaining warrant, for which no verification of the “crime” would exist in the truck.

The Court essential looked to decide when it was that Patton was under apprehension. The court noted that:

an seizure takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an intention to take a individual into supervision and in fact seizes or detains the individual. The existence of apprehension depends in each case upon an unprejudiced assessment of all the surrounding circumstances.

Here, the cop had arrested Patton for all intents and purposes when he pulled up behind him in the driveway with his lights activated and told him he was under arrest and not to move. It makes sense for more than a few reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from police to change the place of apprehension and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that seizure. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under arrest when he was at his van for purposes of the extra study.

The next subject is whether or not the search incident to the seizure Patton was reasonable. foremost, a search incident to seizure is not valid just because the seizure happened closely to the vehicle. A more detailed analysis is required. Case law has prescribed:

[a] warrantless search [incident to detention] is permissible only to remove any weaponry the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist seizure or effect an escape and to elude obliteration of proof by the arrestee of the misdeed for which he or she is seized…

This regulation has been newly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to arrest in a automobile happens “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the period of search.”

Investigation of these details under the set of laws establishes that this search was unwarranted and beyond of the search incident to detention exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the car when he was arrested. There was no association between his apprehension, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the automobile.

Also, there were no safety concerns for the cops related to anything in the car - Patton was never in the vehicle, he was detained outside of the truck, and when the truck was searched Patton was no where near the vehicle (officer security in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the auto and use it to damage the officers).

Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s evaluation is upheld, the evidence is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.

DUI attorney's perception - Obviously I believe they got this one right. The officers inappropriately searched the auto, found some drugs, and then tried to get the confirmation admitted by trying to generate a state of affairs that allowed their unlawful search. As a Seattle drunk driving attorney these are the types of situations I see all the while that I am happy are now being handled correctly. And, I must also add that I am pleased to see that somebody has actually acted appropriately when dealing with the police and did not consent to a search of his vehicle, which while and while again gets people in trouble.

It was also thrilling to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact cancel out a lot of case law that had for years been dogging criminal defense lawyers and making it tremendously arduous to get substantiation obtained illegally from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, the Washington courts had no choice but to wipe out much of their case law, probably much to their annoyance. This case, like Gant, is vital for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what cops can and can’t do when apprehending you.

Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker

As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legislative method set up by the government to allow, in specified circumstances, citizens that have committed a misdeed to take care of the felony by paying costs to the injured party. If the payment is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received payment and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice.

For criminal defense attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with burglary, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad decision to take care of it without having a blotch on their background. In this case, the State challenged whether or not a compromise of misdemeanor could be executed for a hit and run attended (a hit and run case where someone was in the car when it was hit, as opposed to a parked automobile).

Facts - Stalker was charged with DUI and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the driving under the influence but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court evidence that the victim was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the charge pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor statute.

Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have permission to command compensation because it is not a direct product of the charge (fleeing the location after an accident has occurred)?

Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal system is founded on precedent (using previous decisions of law to influence analysis of existing legal questions) and precedent is not set aside lightly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise. This judgment, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was created to: “offer reimbursement to crime victims and to elude prosecution of insignificant offenders.”

Because court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor law have determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise of misdemeanor, the government has had many opportunities to specifically keep out hit and run attended from eligibility. While the legislature has disqualified assorted crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to keep out hit and run attended. This shows the court that they do not feel like hit and run attended should be outside the compromise of misdemeanor law.

Holding - the trial court’s conclusion to grant the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.

driving under the influence attorney's Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The conclusion is pretty apparent. One thing I find interesting about this, and something I stumble upon from while to time out there in the world of dui defense, are prosecutors that are opposed to a compromise of misdemeanor, like they have a say in whether or not one created or one is granted. These things were established to diminish the work load of prosecutors and give people the opportunity to move past a unintelligent decision without having to pay for it for a long while. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an arrangement has been reached between defendant and injured party?

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | License Punched Now What?

Seattle DUI Attorney | Watch Out for DUI Patrols

Seattle DUI Attorney | You Must Know a Good Lawyer

2009-10-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

This might sound a tiny bit self-serving, because I myself am a Seattle DUI attorney, but hear me out ahead of you write me off. As a DUI attorney I have a exceptional standpoint on this topic, and the viewpoint is pretty severe.

I see time and time again people come into my law firm (and hear about them on the news, and read about them here), and these are normal people like you and me, who, because they didn't have someone to speak to earlier than or during their drunk driving incident, have dug themselves into a hole that will take a lot of struggle to get out of. So, if you are a ordinary person, previous to you write this commentary off, take a look at it, and then make your own decisions.

Knowing a Seattle DUI attorney and being able to converse to them from time to time to get information from them is important. Although not any of us ever expect to be involved in any DUI activity, it can happen upon us from time to time.

For example, in Seattle every year is this huge hydroplane competition called Seafair. Every year these hydroplane racers come to town to event their boats and everybody takes out their own boats to survey and revel. And partying often includes booze. The police know this, and they are out on the water en mass to give out as many boating under the influence citations as feasible.

Now, this usually isn't a big deal, unless the police are on your ship checking you out. In that position don't you wish you had a Seattle BWI attorney to help you direct the waters, to know what you have to notify the law enforcement and what you don't, and what tests you have to execute and those you don't? Hell yes you do.

And finding a criminal defense attorney to chatter to isn't that arduous. All you have to do is request around and somebody will at one time or another have dealt with one. And once you acquire someone that was content with their service, just give a buzz that guy or girl up and notify them you have some questions for them. Pledge them you will dispense out five of their cards to your acquaintances if you will answer some inquiries for you and you promise to use them for your services if you ever get in trouble. Then fire away.

And when you are finished, put that attorney's card in your wallet and get it out if you ever get in trouble. Count on me when I say there is nothing drunk driving lawyers like more than informing their clients to inform the cops they aren't speaking a word and watching the police squirm.

To sum it all up, you need to be familiar with a good DUI defense lawyer for one reason - it could assist save your butt one day when you are in disorder. So don't put off to pick up the telephone. acquire someone today you can believe, get them in your rolodex, and go on with life knowing if you ever get in a sticky situation you'll have someone to telephone.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | The Traffic Stop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Arraignment Explained

2009-09-05T12:24:00.000-07:00

Your worst nightmare finally came true. You were heading home the other night after hanging out with the guys, maybe blowing off some steam after a long week or work, traveling home after that fantasy football night, or maybe heading home after the Mariners or Seahawks game. For whatever reason, you were driving after drinking, and you got pulled over by the cops, and you were arrested for Seattle DUI.

You did everything right, just like we talk about at the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog. You didn't tell the cops you were drinking, you said no to Seattle field sobriety tests, and you asked to speak to a DUI attorney the moment the cops asked you to take a breathalyzer test. But you were still arrested, and you still have to work through the process to get your DUI in Seattle taken care of.

In the mail the other day you received a notice of arraignment a couple of weeks away. You've never been in any trouble with the law, so you have no idea what an arraignment is, except you know you have to go to court. And you are pretty nervous about that, about being up in front of the judge, being asked questions you may not know how to answer, and having to face the fact that you have been charged with a Seattle DUI.

You have hired a Seattle DUI lawyer, who has promised to be at the arraignment with you, and he kind of explained the process, but you still aren't sure.

Hopefully this post can help you out so you can understand what a Seattle DUI arraignment is like, and what you can expect. As you will soon see, the arraignment is, for the most part, a procedural matter set up to make sure your Constitutional rights are protected.

Basically, the arraignment is the stage of the criminal process where the prosecutor has to let you know specifically what you've been charged with, and where you get to enter your plea to those charges. Arraignment must occur within fifteen days of your arrest if you are in custody. If you are not in custody, the arraignment must occur within fifteen days of your first court appearance (though your first court appearance is often the arraignment). In almost every Seattle DUI case you will not be in custody, and your arraignment will happen several weeks to several months after your arrest.

When you go to your arraignment, if possible, you should already have hired your Seattle DUI attorney. If you have already hired your Seattle DUI lawyer, then you really won't have to do much of anything at your arraignment - your attorney can do everything for you. But if you don't, you don't have to worry. You'll get the chance to hire a lawyer later, and the court will ask you basic questions and schedule your next court appearance (usually the pretrial hearing).

When your name is called for arraignment and you go up in front of the judge, a few things will happen to ensure that all procedures are followed. First, the judge will ask you if your name is as it appears on the complaint. The judge may also ask you for your address. After that, if you don't have an attorney, the prosecutor will usually give you a copy of the complaint and read a little bit of it so you know what your charges are (if you've hired a Seattle DUI attorney they can waive the reading for you).

After they read the complaint, they'll ask you if you have an attorney, if you are going to get one, or if you need a public defender. After that they'll ask you how you want to plead (by the way, no matter what, you always want to plead not guilty, particularly if you are up for Seattle DUI), you say not guilty, and they'll assign you your next court date.

One other thing that will occur, and why you might want to have a Seattle DUI lawyer with you at arraignment, is the setting of your conditions of release. Conditions of release are supposed to be set to ensure that you will return to court on your court date, and to ensure that the public remains safe. If you have a high BAC or a history of DUI, the prosecutor may ask for more stringent levels of conditions of release. If this happens, it is critical that you have someone there that can speak on your behalf and advocate for less stringent conditions of release.

In the end, most of the time arraignment is the first step in the criminal process. It usually takes about 3 minutes when you finally get up in front of the judge, and for all intent and purpose is a procedural matter. With that being said, it is nice to have a Seattle criminal lawyer there with you just in case.

Up next, the pretrial hearing.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Field Sobriety Tests

Seattle DUI Attorney | Search Incident to Arrest

Seattle DUI Attorney | DUI Patrols? Don't Drink and Drive!

2009-08-21T13:09:00.000-07:00

This may be the most important DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog post of the year for you to read, even though it is filled with the most common sense and least legal advice I might ever give. What does it have to do with? Those Seattle DUI saturation patrols that go on every once in a while. This time, it is even bigger than Seattle, and nearly encompasses the whole state.

How did I learn about these patrols? I read the newspaper. And I don't even read the newspaper, I scan it. The headlines tell you everything you need to know. Like this story, with the headline, "Police Step up DUI Patrols."

Now, I am no genius, but this might be something you want to check out, even if you are not planning on driving drunk over the weekend. And why would you want to check it out? Because it gives you information like this:

Extra DUI patrols will be on the roads through Labor Day as part of the "Drive Hammered, Get Nailed" enforcement campaign.

In King County, Seattle police and the State Patrol are participating, along with police in Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Newcastle, Normandy Park, Pacific, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Shoreline and Snoqualmie.

Statewide, police officers from 130 agencies will participate. The extra patrols, which started Friday, are supported through $200,000 in grants from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

With this year's drunken driving crackdown, police now have a network of more than 200 specially-trained police Drug Recognition Experts around the state. These officers are trained to evaluate drivers who may be under the influence of illegal or prescription drugs, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

The Traffic Safety Commission shares this anecdote:

"DRE Deputy Alan Tag from the King County Sheriff's Office stopped a driver who was licking his cell phone and who later tested positive for cocaine. One indicator Tag looks for in an impaired driver is the inability to multi-task. People typically talk while doing multiple tasks with no problem, so he becomes suspicious if a driver can't answer a question while looking for their registration and insurance."

So, what does this mean for you? If you are going out and drinking, particularly over Labor Day Weekend (which is only two weeks away), make sure you mind your p's and q's when you are driving around. The Seattle cops are going to be out trying to pop you for DUI.

And honestly, while I am a Seattle criminal lawyer and make my living fighting Seattle DUIs, I don't want you to get popped for DUI. When you do and need my help I'm here, but in a perfect world you'd follow my instructions, the cops wouldn't be able to arrest you on suspicion of Seattle DUI because they wouldn't have enough evidence, and if they did, I'd be able to (most likely) get you out of it.

Now, before you go running off and being extra careful while driving after drinking (which is not illegal), let me give you my five Seattle DUI attorney tips for the road, so if you are pulled over for a Seattle DUI you know your rights. These rules pretty much apply across the board (meaning they essentially always work), and will greatly help you should you end up being charged with Seattle DUI:

1. Give the officer your license and registration and be quiet - say "my attorney told me not to answer that question."

2. Don't fall for the officer's tricks - remain silent and respectful.

3. Don't do field sobriety tests or a portable breath test - ever.

4. If arrested say these words - "I want to remain silent and talk with an attorney" - and nothing else.

5. Never consent to a search of anything - just say no.

Like I said, following these rules won't necessarily keep you from getting arrested for Seattle DUI - people get arrested wrongly all the time. What it will do is make your case easier to win and easier to handle for your Seattle DUI attorney when you hire one (and, if you come to my office having done these things, I'd even lower my Seattle DUI fee because of it).

In the end the message of the day is this - don't drive drunk or drive stupid when you know there are DUI emphasis patrols all around. Or, if you do, don't be surprised when you Google DUI lawyer Seattle looking for someone to help you out.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Celebrity DUIs

Seattle DUI Attorney | Crossing the Cop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Cross-Examining the Cop

2009-07-27T22:42:00.000-07:00

Whenever you have a DUI case that goes to trial, there is a lot on the line. The client has his reputation, time, money, and livelihood at stake. The cop has his reputation at stake. The prosecutor has his record at stake. And I, as a Seattle DUI attorney have my client's interests in mind along with our competitive drive to win the case. So you want to make sure the trial goes right. And a big part of that is cross-examining the arresting police officer.

Before you begin, however, you need to take the right attitude into it. I've found, like you might expect, that whether or not people trust the police out on the street, that in a courtroom they inherently trust them, and because of that give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've also found that most police officers, if you give them a chance, are real softies. They are so prepared to play hardball in a courtroom that if you kill them with kindness they'll cough up a lot of great information. So, instead of treating them like the enemy, treat them like someone that just made a simple mistake. As you point out the mistakes they will either admit them or hold their ground - it doesn't matter which, because you lose credibility either way.

Here we go. Crossing the police officer. Let's start with a few broad categories: the police report; the experienced witness; and the prosecutor's witness. There are more, but this will do for now.

Seattle DUI Trial - The Police Report

One of the great things about police officers that really helps me as a Seattle DUI attorney is that cops make a lot of arrests. They can't help it, it's their job. And by the time the officer gets to court, the arrest may be 6 months old and 100 traffic stops ago. Unless your client did something stupid, chances are he is going to only have a vague recollection of the stop and your client, if any.

The key, then is to tie the officer to his report. Ask him about the purposes of reports, which is to remember later. Make him state over and over how his report is a true recollection of the events as he remembers them. Plus, when he is done you can point out all of the things that he didn't point out on his report that show your client's sobriety.

The Seattle DUI Trial - Cop as Experienced Witness

Cops testify all the time. They are trained how to testify. It is our job to point that out for the jury so they can begin to get a picture that this guy is really a hired gun for the prosecution, not an unbiased "just the facts ma'am" witness. Ask how many times an officer has testified that a defendant was not under the influence of alcohol.

Ask how many times in his report he didn't say that he saw bloodshot eyes and smelled alcohol on the breath. But remember, do it nicely. You are just trying to find the truth.

Seattle DUI Trial - Cop as Prosecutor's Lackey

Cops are out there to find drunk drivers. He is out there looking for drunk drivers. Does he drink? Does he drive after drinking? Does he believe you can drive after drinking without being guilty of DUI? All of these questions are questions a good Seattle DUI attorney should be asking.

If you are defending a Seattle DUI case, remember that you need to point out the frame of mind that the prosecution's witness are coming from. They want the jury to believe they are out for the truth, but in reality they are just looking for a conviction.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | License Hole Punched Now What?

2009-07-17T13:41:00.000-07:00

Being charged with a Seattle DUI can be one of the scariest events of your life. Everything is moving quickly, the police are asking you how much you had to drink (don't answer), if you will do field sobriety tests (no, you won't), if you will take a portable breath test (no, you won't), and if you will take a Breathalyzer (after I talk to a Seattle DUI attorney). And when it's all done, if you're breath alcohol level is over .08, they take your driver's license and punch a hole in it, making it virtually useless.

And a quick aside on this. The punching of the hole in your license for being charged with DUI, while demeaning, may also be unconstitutional.

By punching a hole in your driver's license, they are basically making it useless in the State of Washington, even though in reality your license may not be suspended at all (if you successfully appeal to the DOL - which you should do immediately, with your Seattle DUI attorney. You can't rent a car. You can't do anything that takes a driver's license, because it won't be recognized as valid with a hole in it.

In reality, the hole in your license doesn't mean it is automatically suspended, and though in reality it means your driver's license is useless, according to the law it is just the way the DOL has decided to mark your license as they are empowered to do by statute. RCW 46.20.308(6)(c) authorizes the police to "mark the person’s Washington state driver’s license or permit to drive, if any, in a manner authorized by the department." They have decided to use a hole punch instead of something else that would continue to use the license while it was valid.

If you are pulled over or arrested for DUI, don't wait to speak with a criminal attorney. Call us today. We will fight to help you keep your license, keep your reputation, and keep your livelihood. Read the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog, and don't wait until it is too late.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Celebrity DUIs

Seattle DUI Attorney | Watch Out for Extra Patrols

Seattle DUI Attorney | Celebrity DUIs

2009-07-10T10:36:00.000-07:00

Although I'm sure it wasn't just Donte Stallworth's DUI attorney that got him this pretty sweetheart deal in his DUI manslaughter case, he probably had a little bit to do with it. If you remember, about a month ago Stallworth pled guilty to DUI manslaughter and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

While this may seem like a light sentence (and maybe it is), these are the facts: Stallworth was driving home late at night; the victim crossed the street in front of Stallworth and was not in a crosswalk; admitted to drinking that night (which he should not have done); and Stallworth took a Breathalyzer test that registered .126, over the legal limit in Florida.

The article relates that the semi-lenient sentence was probably also the result of Stallworth reaching a monetary settlement with the family of the victim prior to his sentencing. It also helps that he decided to hire a good criminal defense attorney (though he didn't need a Seattle DUI attorney, so he didn't hire me).

I think that went a long way with prosecutors in showing he was serious about taking responsibility for his actions and getting this matter behind him. And I think Stallworth agreed to the sentence, and to plea, so he'd be out of jail and have the matter behind him before this NFL season started (if Roger Goodell will let him).

This just goes to show you that DUI's can turn out pretty hairy, and often it may not even be your fault. I'm not going to opine as to whether or not the victim walked out in front of Stallworth before he could react even if he was sober, but that kind of a scenario can happen (think about someone running a red light and hitting you when you were DUI in Seattle - even though you weren't at fault for the accident, chances are you still are going to get popped for Seattle DUI). So be careful if you drink and drive and understand that you are taking your chances.

Thanks again for reading the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog. Come back soon!

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle DUI Attorney | Getting Your Guns Back

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Take Field Sobriety Tests

2009-06-12T12:48:00.000-07:00

As a Seattle DUI attorney, I see people every day that, if they just understood or had been told the basic rules behind traffic stops, they would be in a lot better position to defend their DUI arrests. The problem is, no one (or hardly anyone) takes the time or even thinks to learn about what the police can and cannot do when they are pulled over and investigated for DUI.

In case you stumble upon this site, I'm going to give you a quick crash course in what you should do if stopped by Seattle cops and investigated for DUI. It is not all encompassing, and you should contact a Seattle criminal lawyer as soon as possible (even during the investigation if you can) to make sure you are making the correct decisions. This information should give you a little bit of background and knowledge should you ever be stopped for DUI.

Field sobriety tests, like the preliminary breath test, walk and turn test, one leg stand test, alphabet test, and all the others you've tried to do when a little drunk at college parties are not very good at telling if someone is drunk. In fact, they are plain bad at it.

Unless you are in perfect conditions and the instructions are given to you perfectly, the tests are essentially useless. And, in the State of Washington, they are viewed as a statement against your interest. This means you can, and should, refuse to take them, every time. Drunk or sober, don't take them. It cannot be used against you and will never help your case.

When you initially refuse, the officer is going to try to guilt you into taking them, or challenge you into taking them. "If you don't think you've had to much alcohol to drive, these tests should be no problem." Don't fall for it. He wants you to take those tests for one reason - he wants to build his DUI case against you.

After refusing, ask the officer if you are free to leave. If he says no, let him know, nicely, that you would like to speak with your DUI attorney Seattle. Either you will get to talk with an attorney or you won't. Either way only good things will come of it.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Atttorney | Arraignment

Seattle DUI Attorney | Celebrity DUIs

Seattle DUI Attorney | 10 DUIs Gets You 7 Years

2009-04-21T16:04:00.000-07:00

I got this story through my Google alerts today and thought I'd mention it because it shows the true destruction that an addiction to alcohol and drugs can create for someone. This story was printed on Oct. 30, 2008 and is about a Lynnwood man that was convicted of his 7th DUI charge in the last ten years and sentenced to 7 years in prison.

The story, found here, goes on to point out that in the last 10 years (DUI conviction can be used if they occurred within the last 7 years as prior DUIs for sentencing purposes) the Lynnwood man had been convicted of 3 more, totaling 10 Lynnwood DUIs for this guy. The sad thing is, his last occurrence resulted in hitting another vehicle and leaving the scene of an accident, although thankfully it doesn't appear that anyone was injured.

As to the decision to give 7 years of prison time instead of probation and rehabilitation, the state argued that it was clear that those efforts were not working. As this man's Seattle DUI attorney, it would be a tough argument to avoid a lengthy jail sentence. Although the man was remorseful and admitted to having a serious problem.

This is just another example of how abusing alcohol can wreck your life. Please be responsible - you don't want to end up in a DUI mess like this guy did.

For more information like this, stay tuned to the DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog! Thanks for reading.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Handling the DUI Stop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Celebrity DUIs

Welcome to DUI Attorney in Seattle Blog

2009-04-14T15:30:00.000-07:00

If you are in need of a Seattle DUI attorney, 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 RCW 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 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, 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 Lynnwood, 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 Seattle 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. Thanks for coming to the DUI attorney in Seattle blog. Come back and see us again.