Saturday, February 25, 2012

Seattle DUI Attorney philosophy on plea deals

One of my philosophies on defending a DUI out here in Seattle, WA is when to take a plea deal and when not do.  Often times during negotiation on a DUI case, the Prosecution isnt willing to offer any kind of plea deal.  When this happens the client has only two options.  Either plead guilty as charged on the DUI, or continue to fight the case and have a jury trial.

Here in Washington State every DUI charge carries a mandatory penalty.  For example on a first offense under .15 breath test the mandatory penalty is 1 day in jail, $866 fine, 90 day license suspension, and a 1 year ignition interlock requirement.  As I stated above often times the Prosecution is not willing to offer any sort of deal and they want the client to just take the DUI charge.

Well my philosophy when it comes to this is very simple.  Im of the opinion that in order for a person to plead guilty there needs to be some sort of incentive to do so.  Whether that is a reduction in charges, no jail, no license suspension, whatever the incentive is there needs to be one.  The interesting thing about being charged with a DUI in Washington State is if you go to trial on a DUI case, and you get convicted there is probably a very good chance that the Judge will impose the mandatory sentence.  The very same sentence the Prosecutor wanted.  So why not roll the dice and see what happens.

Now I can appreciate it when a client cant take the time of work, or they feel going to trial would end in the same result, or Ive even had clients say they felt there were guilty of the DUI and just wanted to move on.  My response to them is look you have this constitutional right.  You owe it to yourself to try and see what happens.  Often times I have clients that dont have any criminal history and this is their first brush with the law.  A DUI conviction can screw up a lot of things, and if you dont have any interesting in doing whatever is possible to try and avoid this then why hire a Seattle DUI Attorney.

This is just my opinion on this.  Obviously going to trial on a DUI case is not something to be taken lightly.  It takes a lot of commitment, a lot more court time, and you run the risk of getting more jail.  But with that being said I've represented thousands of people charged with a DUI, and I've litigated almost 125 jury trials.  Not once has a client ever been worse off for going to trial.  Take that for what its worth.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Advice from Roadhouse the movie that will help with your DUI case

The other night I watched the movie "Roadhouse," with Patrick Swayze.  This is a great movie from the 80's.  Ive seen it probably a dozen or so times.  It usually comes on late at night on TBS or TNT.  If you havent seen it, I highly recommend you watch it.

If you follow this blog you know this is a Seattle DUI Attorney blog that discusses all DUI related info, and news.  Its a hodgepodge of anything and everything I think about DUI related.  So why am I talking about "Roadhouse."  Well its very simple there are some great quotes in there that I think are applicable to DUI cases.

If you google DUI blog, or DUI news, or anything informative thats DUI related.  You will get a lot of information on how to beat a DUI charge.  Typically those involve not answering questions.  Not doing the field sobriety tests.  Asking to speak with a DUI Attorney.  But what you dont typically see is how to not lose a DUI case.  And this is where "Roadhouse," comes in.

There is this scene in "Roadhouse," where Patrick Swayze, aka Dalton is about ready to start his first night at the Double Duece.  He is the worlds greats "cooler," or lead bouncer for those who have never seen it.  So he is sitting there about ready to start his night, and he is talking with the other bouncers.  Telling them how they should act, what he expects, how he anticipates the night to go.  During this time he discloses his three rules to being a good bouncer.  The last rule is whats pertinent to this blog.  Here is the dialogue:


Dalton: Don't worry about it; all you have to do is follow 3 simple rules: One, never underestimate your opponent..expect the unexpected; Two, take it outside, never start anything inside the bar unless it's absolutely necessary; and Three...be nice.
Hank[Incredulously] Come on!!
Dalton: If somebody gets in your face and calls you a cocksucker I want you to be nice
Hank[With resignation] Ok
Dalton: Ask him to walk, be nice, if he won't walk, walk him, but be nice, If you can't walk him, one of the others will help you and you will both be nice...I want you to remember, that it's the job, it's nothing personal.
Steve: Being called a cocksucker isn't personal?
Dalton: No, it's two nouns combined to elicit a prescribed response
Steve: What if somebody calls my Mama a whore?
Dalton: Is she?


Remember if you have been arrested for a Seattle DUI.  Follow this one simple rule.  Be Nice.  The quickest way for you to lose your DUI case, or hurt your chances at getting a positive outcome is to be rude to the arresting officer.  Hey I know you're pissed.  You're angry.  But do your best to keep your emotions under control, and Im telling you it will help not only chances of beating the charge, but will also help your DUI Attorney. 

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Recent 3.6 hearing on a Seattle DUI case

Last week I had a 3.6 hearing on a DUI case in Seattle Municipal Court.  For those of you that dont know what this is.  A 3.6 hearing is a hearing where a motion is argued to suppress or exclude pieces of evidence in a DUI case.  This can range anywhere from a basis for the stop, to the field sobriety tests, to the breath test.

Now Im not the kind of attorney that has to blog about every time Im in trial, or every time I litigate a motion.  To me this is just part of my every day practice, and I think that attorneys that do that just suffer from a lack of self esteem, and they need constant affirmation they are doing a good job.  In my opinion if you need constant affirmation you're doing a good job then you're doing this for the wrong reasons.  But this is another topic for another blog.

What I wanted to discuss is a case called State v. Mackey.  This is a Washington State Court of Appeals case which was argued in Division 3.  The facts of this case are: Mackey observed changing lanes without signaling.  He was observed drifting across the left yellow line, and drifting across the right lane divider.  After the Trooper activated his lights to initiate a stop, Mackey continued to drive an unusually long distance before coming to a stop.  Upon approaching the vehicle the Trooper observed furitive movements within the vehicle.  Upon contact the Trooper noted a strong odor of alcohol, there was admission to drinking, Mackey's eyes were bloodshot and watery, and he had difficulty locating his license, and then he had difficulty extracting it from his wallet.  In the opinion the Court of Appeals held "indications of intoxication can include coordination problems, an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, flushed face, and disarrayed clothing."

Now this case is often cited by the Prosecution as what constitutes a basis to ask a driver to exit a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion the driver is impaired by alcohol to make a Seattle DUI arrest.  But what is often overlooked is the number of signs that exist in this case.  The driving, the odor, admission to drinking, bloodshot watery eyes, difficulty finding license, difficulty removing from wallet.  To me that seems like a lot of signs of impairment to give an officer a reasonable suspicion the driver might be impaired.

But what happens when none of those signs exist in a case other than odor and an admission to drinking very little alcohol.  I mean after all it is not illegal to consume alcohol and drive.  Long story short a Judge disagreed with me on this issue.  What do you think?

Remember if you have been contacted by law enforcement, ask to speak with a Seattle DUI lawyer immediately after arrest.

Recent 3.6 hearing on a Seattle DUI case

Last week I had a 3.6 hearing on a DUI case in Seattle Municipal Court.  For those of you that dont know what this is.  A 3.6 hearing is a hearing where a motion is argued to suppress or exclude pieces of evidence in a DUI case.  This can range anywhere from a basis for the stop, to the field sobriety tests, to the breath test.

Now Im not the kind of attorney that has to blog about every time Im in trial, or every time I litigate a motion.  To me this is just part of my every day practice, and I think that attorneys that do that just suffer from a lack of self esteem, and they need constant affirmation they are doing a good job.  In my opinion if you need constant affirmation you're doing a good job then you're doing this for the wrong reasons.  But this is another topic for another blog.

What I wanted to discuss is a case called State v. Mackey.  This is a Washington State Court of Appeals case which was argued in Division 3.  The facts of this case are: Mackey observed changing lanes without signaling.  He was observed drifting across the left yellow line, and drifting across the right lane divider.  After the Trooper activated his lights to initiate a stop, Mackey continued to drive an unusually long distance before coming to a stop.  Upon approaching the vehicle the Trooper observed furitive movements within the vehicle.  Upon contact the Trooper noted a strong odor of alcohol, there was admission to drinking, Mackey's eyes were bloodshot and watery, and he had difficulty locating his license, and then he had difficulty extracting it from his wallet.  In the opinion the Court of Appeals held "indications of intoxication can include coordination problems, an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, flushed face, and disarrayed clothing."

Now this case is often cited by the Prosecution as what constitutions a basis to ask a driver to exit a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion the driver is impaired by alcohol.  But what is often overlooked is the number of signs that exist in this case.  The driving, the odor, admission to drinking, bloodshot watery eyes, difficulty finding license, difficulty removing from wallet.  To me that seems like a lot of signs of impairment to give an officer a reasonable suspicion the driver might be impaired.

But what happens when none of those signs exist in a case other than odor and an admission to drinking very little alcohol.  I mean after all it is not illegal to consume alcohol and drive.  Long story short a Judge disagreed with me on this issue.  What do you think?

Remember if you have been contacted by law enforcement, ask to speak with a Seattle DUI Attorney immediately after arrest.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

New 9th Circuit case applicable to Seattle DUI cases

As part of my DUI practice I have to stay on top of the ever changing landscape of DUI related case law.  Whether its at the local DUI district court level, RALJ appeals, State Supreme Court, or even the National DUI news, the experienced DUI Lawyer must stay on top of it.

Recently I became aware of a case that came out of the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals.  It not from Washington and it doesn't involve a DUI, but the reasoning can still be applied and argued here in Washington State when it comes to a DUI charge.  Below is a background of the case.

The defendant was stopped at about 1:43 am for allegedly having tinted windows.  The Officer who initiated the stop made contact and ran the drivers license.  Another officer arrived and ordered the driver to exit the vehicle.  As he exited the vehicle the primary officer pulled him aside and handcuffed him and told him to sit against the front bumper of the car.  For the next 25-30 minutes the Officers yelled at the defendant, harassed them, and threatened them.  All the while not conducting any sort of investigation.

The Ninth Circuit stated that a prolonged seizure without a valid investigatory purpose was unreasonable in violation of the fourth amendment.  The critical inquiry is whether the officers diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions.  In determining the reasonableness of the length of detention the Court looked at whether the Officers were acting swiftly to conduct an investigation or whether they used threats of force, or other unnecessary tactics.

Ultimately the Ninth Circuit held that an objectively reasonable officer responding to the scene of this detention would have known its duration of 45 minutes without probable cause, during which the Officers did nothing to diligently investigate was an unlawful detention and in violation of the 4th amendment.

So how does this related to Washington State DUI cases.  Well often times in my practice I have cases that involved the Seattle Police departments DUI squad.  This is a squad of officers that for the most part investigate Seattle DUI cases.  Often times the initial contact is made by a non-DUI squad officer and they call for back up.  The problem is when the non-DUI squad officer doesnt conduct any sort of investigation.  They dont ask the driver of the vehicle any follow up questions regarding alcohol consumption, or their driving.  They dont ask for the field sobriety tests, or the portable breath test.  They basically just detain the driver until a DUI squad officer arrives.

I believe this detention is unlawful unless the non-DUI squad officer conducts some kind of investigation.  I believe this is a violation of the 4th amendment based on the unreasonable length of detention and the lack of any sort of meaningful investigation into the DUI.

Remember if you have been contacted by a officer who suspects you of a DUI, its important to ask to speak with a DUI Attorney, not agree to any field sobriety tests or the portable breath test.  Exercise your right to remain silent and most of all be polite.