Washington State DUI bill clear Senate hurdle

Unless you have been living under a rock the past few months and you don't read this great blog.  Then you probably know that Governor Inslee and the Washington State Legislature are seeking to implement tougher DUI Laws in our fair State.  They didn't have enough time during the regular legislative session, so a special session was set to work on this bill as well as some other issues in our State.  

Well the first hurdle has been cleared in paving a path to Washington State having the Toughest DUI laws in the Nation.  The bipartisan bill proposing the changes passed the Senate last week and is on it's way to the chambers budget panel to deal with some of the fiscal issues it will cause. 

Among some of the provisions of SB 5912 there would be a 10 day increase to all minimum DUI jail sentences.  A fourth DUI conviction would now be considered a felony.  And ignition interlock devices will now be required on all repeat offenders when they are initially released from jail following their DUI arrest.  Additionally the bill would also prohibit deferred sentencing on DUI cases.  Something as a Seattle DUI Attorney I do not agree with.  

Assuming this bill passes it would make Washington State the Toughest State in the Nation when it comes to punishing DUI offenders.  And as tough as things may get they may get tougher next year.  Recently the National Traffic Safety Board recommended lowering the DUI blood alcohol limit to 0.05 from what it is currently at 0.08.  Now they have no legal authority to do this, essentially they are just a group who conducted a study and published their opinion.

However there are two key players in Washington State who are in favor of this and who have hinted they may push for this next year.  Governor Inslee is one and Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes is the other.  Inslee has already shown a propensity to not be afraid of making making major changes to existing laws.  And don't forget his initial proposal for the new bill to DUI laws was a lot tougher.  I mean it was ridiculous.  Things like everybody who gets a DUI arrest gets booked into custody and then in order to get released an ignition interlock device must be placed on a car. Things like that.

But first let's wait and see what the final bill looks like before we start worrying about lower DUI blood alcohol limits on DUI cases.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Attorney.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other related offenses.  He is currently rated as one of the Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo, and listed as a Rising Star in DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine and the Seattle Met Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. 

 

Ignition Interlock Device v. SCRAM bracelet. Which would you rather have?

If you recently have been arrested for a DUI in King County then you face the possibility of either an ignition interlock device or a SCRAM bracelet being imposed at your DUI arraignment.  Lately with the negative publicity DUI cases have been getting, along with the recent tragedies involving repeat drunk drivers more and more Judges are setting stricter conditions of release after a DUI arrest.  Sometimes involving both a SCRAM device and or an ignition interlock device. 

Obviously if you're at a DUI arraignment in King County and the Prosecutor is asking the Judge to impose either one of the above conditions an objection should be made under criminal rule 3.2.  However if it appears the Judge is going to grant the Prosecutors request.  Which condition is better to have?

In case you don't know an ignition interlock device is a contraption that is installed in your vehicle through your dashboard.  Before the driver starts their vehicle they have to blow into the interlock device and it tests for alcohol.  If the driver tests positive for alcohol and the level is higher than the programed level the vehicle will not start. Typically this level is a 0.02 or 0.04.  

A SCRAM bracelet is a device used to detect alcohol.  It stands for Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring.  It attaches to an individuals ankle and detects alcohol through sweat.  The bracelet will test every so often, usually every hour.  If alcohol is detected then the SCRAM bracelet reports the positive test to a regional monitoring center who then informs the Court.  

So back to my original question.  Which is better?  Well in my opinion as both a Seattle DUI Attorney and citizen concerned with the recent tragedies an ignition interlock device is the better of the two.  Why?

First an ignition interlock device is much less expensive.  A typical ignition interlock device costs about $75 a month.  The cost of a SCRAM bracelet costs around $12-$15 a day.  That equals about $360 a month.  

Secondly in my opinion an ignition interlock device is a much more effective tool to prevent drunk driving.  Why?  Well in order to start the vehicle a driver needs to be sober or the car will not start.  Most people I know only have 1 car.  They are not going to get drunk and go through the trouble of trying to find another car to drive.  Secondly a SCRAM bracelet in no ways deters drunk driving.  An individual can still drink, get drunk, get behind the wheel of their vehicle and drive.  It's not like if the bracelet detects alcohol the police are going to immediately find the individual and arrest them.  By the time the Court finds out it could be too late.

So why would a Court impose a SCRAM bracelet and not an ignition interlock device.  I don't know.  Perhaps it is a punitive measure.  Perhaps it is to drain an individual financially in an effort to teach them a lesson.  Clearly in my opinion it is in violation of Criminal Rule 3.2 which states the least restrictive means possible must be imposed.  And an IID is the least restrictive means possible other than a simple abstain condition. 

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other related offenses.  He is currently ranked as one of the Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo, and listed as a Rising Star in Seattle DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. 

Should State's lower the blood alcohol level in DUI cases to 0.05?

Recently the National Traffic Safety Board conducted a study and recently recommended that all State's reduce the blood alcohol level in DUI cases to 0.05.  Currently the level in all 50 states is 0.08.  Citing the need to reduce traffic fatalities, and drunk driving cases the NTSB looked at other countries that have this reduced blood alcohol level.  Specifically European countries, and Australia.  

In my opinion and this is not just because I'm a DUI Attorney in Seattle.  I believe reducing the current alcohol level to 0.05 would really not accomplish much.  First of all you still get charged with a DUI if your blood alcohol level is below a 0.08.  Secondly such a proposal would meet stiff opposition from many agencies.  Not such DUI Attorneys but the restaurant and tourism industry, beverage industry.  Heck even MADD has not endorsed such a proposal if though the NTSB recommendations have been out there for quite some time. 

So what is the point with this recommendation.  Well I really don't think there is one.  How much would lowering the legal limit really do.  I mean if you want to reduce traffic fatalities then there should be a zero tolerance level.  That is the only way to say traffic fatalities would be reduced.  

The difference between a .05 and a .08 is maybe 1 drink.  Will that 1 drink really affect someones ability to drive?  Probably not.  I'm not sure of any studies but I bet most traffic fatalities involving DUI cases the defendants probably have blood alcohol levels two or maybe three times the legal limit.  They are not below the current legal limit, and if they are then the defendant has to be under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

Now the thing to keep in mind is the NTSB has no legal authority regarding this change.  They are simply an agency that has made a recommendation.  It will not happen at least in my lifetime.  If it did I would be extremely surprised, and I probably would no longer be a practicing Seattle DUI Attorney.  So it wouldn't really bother me none because I wouldnt have any clients getting screwed over by it.  

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Attorney.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses.  He is currently rated as one of the Best Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo, and listed as a Rising Star in DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.