I've been meaning to write about this article since it came out a couple of weeks ago. In case you haven't read it, Washington State Liquor Board, including City Police Departments and the Washington State Patrol have a database of where people had their last drink prior to a DUI arrest. The purpose of this list I guess is to target these bars, because they are known to allegedly over serve intoxicated patrons and allow them to drive home.
From a public policy standpoint I can understand keeping tabs on bars that over serve patrons, and then allow the patron to drive home. Even though Im a Seattle DUI Attorney, I still don't want to see people injured, or even killed as a result of a DUI crash. After all Im still a compassionate human being with feels and emotions, despite what all the jokes say about Attorneys.
But what I don't agree with is if certain police agencies are just sitting outside targeting people who leave these bars. First of all if police officers are wasting their time sitting outside a bar, just because 20 people who were arrested for a DUI last year said the last drink they had was there, then this is just a waste of time. As a citizen of this State, I want my police department actively seeking out crime and doing something to stop it. Sitting outside a bar for an entire night, just keeps them from doing their job. To be honest it sounds like lazy police work, but thats just me. The other issue I have is this is completely pretextual and unconstitutional. A pretextual stop is where a police officer will randomly target someone, follow them until they commit a minor traffic infraction. Then use that traffic infraction for the basis of an unconstitutional search and seizure.
I recently got a DUI case dismissed for this exact reason. Basically what happened was a police officer was dispatched to a location of a wedding because it was serving alcohol. No crimes were being reported, no DUI calls were made. The officer got behind the first person exiting the wedding. Followed them until he observed a minor traffic infraction (my client didn't use his blinker when merging onto I90). The officer then stopped my client, didn't talk with him about the infractions, but immediately asked if he had been drinking. The officer didn't observe any other signs of possible impairment. Things like slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, finger dexterity issues, or even bloodshot watery eyes. My client admitted to having a few drinks, the officer then pulled him out of the car, administered the field sobriety tests, and placed him under arrest.
It sounds like lots of people can be facing similar situations based on the worst bar offender database. Remember if you have been stopped for a DUI and you have been drinking, there is probably a very good chance you will get arrested. Even if you believe you're not under the influence. Ask to speak with an attorney immediately. Seriously give me a call, I will always answer my phone.
Leyba Defense PLLC
Friday, May 20, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Different types of plea deals in a Washington State DUI case
Lately I have found it helpful to inform potential clients of the different options they may have in their DUI case. Usually its helpful when meeting with a DUI Attorney to have an understanding and what may happen. This kind of gives them an idea of the potential consequences they face, as well as the different types of plea deals that can be attained through negotiation. The order goes from worst to best.
DUI charge (first offense)
1 or 2 days in jail depending on breath/blood test or 15-30 days of home detention
$866 to $1121 fine depending on test
90 day to 2 year license suspension
5 years probation
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
1 year Ignition Interlock requirement
Reckless Driving
Usually 0 days jail
Usually $250 fine
30 day license suspension
No ignition interlock requirement
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
2 years stay out of trouble
Reckless Endangerment
Usually 0 days in jail
Usually $250 fine
No license suspension
No Ignition Interlock Requirement
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
2 years stay out of trouble
Negligent Driving 1
Usually 0 days in jail
Usually $250 fine
No license suspension
No Ignition Interlock requirement
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
2 years stay out of trouble
Negligent Driving 2
This is a traffic infraction
Usually $250 fine
There are a couple of things to keep in mind. Unless the DUI charge gets reduced to the traffic ticket or dismissed then it will always count as a prior DUI if you ever get charged with another one. This would increase the penalties for the new DUI charge.
Remember if you have been charged with a DUI the goal should always be to try and get the charge dismissed. However if that cannot happen then there is no reason the original charge cannot be reduced. Sometimes it takes a lot of hard work, research, and lots of investigation, but in the end there is always a legal issue to raise with the Prosecution when negotiation the case.
Leyba Defense PLLC
DUI charge (first offense)
1 or 2 days in jail depending on breath/blood test or 15-30 days of home detention
$866 to $1121 fine depending on test
90 day to 2 year license suspension
5 years probation
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
1 year Ignition Interlock requirement
Reckless Driving
Usually 0 days jail
Usually $250 fine
30 day license suspension
No ignition interlock requirement
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
2 years stay out of trouble
Reckless Endangerment
Usually 0 days in jail
Usually $250 fine
No license suspension
No Ignition Interlock Requirement
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
2 years stay out of trouble
Negligent Driving 1
Usually 0 days in jail
Usually $250 fine
No license suspension
No Ignition Interlock requirement
Alcohol/Drug evaluation
ADIS class
VIP class
2 years stay out of trouble
Negligent Driving 2
This is a traffic infraction
Usually $250 fine
There are a couple of things to keep in mind. Unless the DUI charge gets reduced to the traffic ticket or dismissed then it will always count as a prior DUI if you ever get charged with another one. This would increase the penalties for the new DUI charge.
Remember if you have been charged with a DUI the goal should always be to try and get the charge dismissed. However if that cannot happen then there is no reason the original charge cannot be reduced. Sometimes it takes a lot of hard work, research, and lots of investigation, but in the end there is always a legal issue to raise with the Prosecution when negotiation the case.
Leyba Defense PLLC
Washington Supreme Court Case - Harris v. Charles
I've been following this case for quite some time. When the case first happened in Seattle Municipal Court I was actually present and witnessed former Seattle Municipal Court Judge Charles's actions. Since then this particular case has had a long journey and a ruling was finally issued from the State Supreme Court last week. Unfortunately I think its a bad ruling in (2) ways. First it sets an unfair precedent that individuals who are in custody are treated differently if its a misdemeanor versus a felony; Secondly, its going to place an undue financial burden on the tax payers of this state.
Here is a little background on the case. Basically this guy Harris was charged with a couple of crimes in Seattle Municipal Court. At the time of his arraignment the Court set bail and imposed a condition of home detention (don't get me started on this, in my opinion its a clear violation of CrRLJ 3.2). Harris posted the bail and got the home detention set up. He ended up serving like 5 months on home detention at his own cost and then plead guilty. Unfortunately for him former Judge Charles did not give him credit for any of the pre-trial confinement he was on, and sentenced him to additional jail.
His Attorney then filed a writ in King County Superior Court and argued this was violation of his equal protection because felons on pretrial conditions of EHM receive credit towards their sentence. The Superior Court agreed, and sent the order back to SMC. The City of Seattle then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals which reversed the order, afterwards the Supreme Court granted review of this case. And long story short they agreed with Court of Appeals.
The interesting thing about this opinion is the Supreme Court finds that people accused of misdemeanors are not similarly situated with people accused of felonies (who can receive jail credit for pretrial home detention). The Court talks about how giving a misdemeanor Court pretrial EHM can affect a Judge discretion at sentencing and tie their hands since misdemeanor maximum sentences are not very long. They go on to cite other reasons, but thats the gist of it. And in my opinion is complete B.S. If you're interested in reading the entire opinion here is it. Harris v. Charles
The other issue I have with this decision is what happens now. Are more Court going to require people to do EHM prior to trial in lieu of less restrictive options, just because they know the person will essentially be punished twice. An article recently came out in the Seattle Times, stating that the Seattle Municipal Court is going to push for more defendants to be on pretrial EHM in lieu of jail. Now this seems like a fine idea, I mean anyone would rather be out of custody than in custody. But the cost of EHM is so ridiculously high that a person is going to pay a substantial amount of money for this option. In addition to that, what if they get found guilty and they are coming off of a 1 year stint on EHM. Is a Judge going to sentence them to an additional 1 year in custody, and us taxpayers are going to have to pay for them to stay in jail. Last time I checked the cost of housing a person in the King County Jail was around $125 a day. Guess who gets stuck with that cost, we as taxpayers do.
Remember if you have an upcoming Seattle DUI arraignment, please contact my office immediately. Now more than ever its important you have an attorney present to argue against these unconstitutional and overly restrictive conditions.
Leyba Defense PLLC | Seattle DUI Attorney
Here is a little background on the case. Basically this guy Harris was charged with a couple of crimes in Seattle Municipal Court. At the time of his arraignment the Court set bail and imposed a condition of home detention (don't get me started on this, in my opinion its a clear violation of CrRLJ 3.2). Harris posted the bail and got the home detention set up. He ended up serving like 5 months on home detention at his own cost and then plead guilty. Unfortunately for him former Judge Charles did not give him credit for any of the pre-trial confinement he was on, and sentenced him to additional jail.
His Attorney then filed a writ in King County Superior Court and argued this was violation of his equal protection because felons on pretrial conditions of EHM receive credit towards their sentence. The Superior Court agreed, and sent the order back to SMC. The City of Seattle then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals which reversed the order, afterwards the Supreme Court granted review of this case. And long story short they agreed with Court of Appeals.
The interesting thing about this opinion is the Supreme Court finds that people accused of misdemeanors are not similarly situated with people accused of felonies (who can receive jail credit for pretrial home detention). The Court talks about how giving a misdemeanor Court pretrial EHM can affect a Judge discretion at sentencing and tie their hands since misdemeanor maximum sentences are not very long. They go on to cite other reasons, but thats the gist of it. And in my opinion is complete B.S. If you're interested in reading the entire opinion here is it. Harris v. Charles
The other issue I have with this decision is what happens now. Are more Court going to require people to do EHM prior to trial in lieu of less restrictive options, just because they know the person will essentially be punished twice. An article recently came out in the Seattle Times, stating that the Seattle Municipal Court is going to push for more defendants to be on pretrial EHM in lieu of jail. Now this seems like a fine idea, I mean anyone would rather be out of custody than in custody. But the cost of EHM is so ridiculously high that a person is going to pay a substantial amount of money for this option. In addition to that, what if they get found guilty and they are coming off of a 1 year stint on EHM. Is a Judge going to sentence them to an additional 1 year in custody, and us taxpayers are going to have to pay for them to stay in jail. Last time I checked the cost of housing a person in the King County Jail was around $125 a day. Guess who gets stuck with that cost, we as taxpayers do.
Remember if you have an upcoming Seattle DUI arraignment, please contact my office immediately. Now more than ever its important you have an attorney present to argue against these unconstitutional and overly restrictive conditions.
Leyba Defense PLLC | Seattle DUI Attorney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)