Funding shortage causes WA low income drivers to lose IIDs

If you get convicted of a DUI in Washington State you will be required to have an ignition interlock device on any vehicle you drive.  The time frame varies depending on the number of prior times a driver has been required to have an IID.  But it can range from 1 year to 10 years.  The Washington State legislature created a program to allow low income drivers to get reduced rates on IIDs that are subsidized from other drivers paying for the ignition interlock license.  Unfortunately this may be coming to an end.

The funding has dried up unexpectedly due to the money for the program somehow getting funneled into another program for prison inmate treatment.  How it worked was if a driver was convicted of a first time DUI then they would be required to get an ignition interlock device.  They would have to apply for what is called an ignition interlock license in order to drive during that one year.  The license itself costs $20 a month to maintain.  That $20 went into a pot that was reserved for those drivers who could not afford the IID due to their financial situation.  

Because of the loss of these monies it is being reported that over 2000 drivers are going to lose their ability to maintain the ignition interlock license because they will not be able to afford the ignition interlock device.  At that time they will be faced with two options.  Either not drive or choose to drive in violation of the mandatory sentence.

Unfortunately this seems to be nothing more than politics.  It is a little surprising since DUI cases have been such a hot button issue for the past few years.  With many law makers crying about increasing the penalties and keeping drivers off the road following a DUI arrest.  Well these very law makers are the ones who screwed over the very people they are trying to protect by losing this money set aside for this program.  I guess it just shows you votes are more important to them than the actual issues they are "crying" about.

Here is the link to the news article where I saw this if you're interesting in reading.    

_
About the author:  Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those charged with DUI and other related offenses.  He has been name one of Seattle's Best DUI Lawyers Rising Star multiple times by the Seattle Met Magazine.  He is also rated a 10/10 by Avvo.com.  If you need a DUI Lawyer in Seattle call Leyba Defense PLLC.

Prepaid "liquor stickers" hope to decrease Seattle DUI arrests

Wow what a brilliant idea by the Seattle Nightlife Initiative and the Road Safety Action plan.  Why am I just hearing about this now?  Liquor stickers have been placed on every meter in Seattle, essentially allowing an individual to prepay for 2 hours of parking the next morning.  Why what you want to do that you ask?  Well what is the most common reason people have when they decide to drive home after a night of drinking and risk a Seattle DUI arrest.  I don't want to leave my car downtown and have it get towed in the morning because Im not going to wake up at 7 am to go get it.  

This idea essentially eliminates that reasoning, and under the initiative will hopefully decrease the number of Seattle DUI arrests, because people will decide to take a cab home, and come back in the morning to retrieve their vehicle

Now I'm a Seattle DUI lawyer, and I have never heard of this program before.  And it has been put in place for the past 2 years, and only used 45,000 times.  What does that tell you?  There is not a lot of talk about it, I'm even willing to bet a good majority of people think it is some kind of a scam.

I recently found this article on Kiro 7 discussing one of the major problems with this initiative.  And that is nobody knows what it is.  The gist of the article is nobody knows what these stickers are, and they are hard to find if you do.  The news reports makes an excellent point.  Anybody who has ever lived in Seattle, or used a parking meter knows there is a bunch of crap all of these meters.  From graffiti, to other stickers, to posters, etc.  The reporter points out that nearly at the bottom of the meter is the liquor sticker idea saying what to do.  Problem is it just looks like any of the other garbage on the meter, and not necessarily official.  

So what does the City plan to do about it?  According to the article, absolutely nothing.  Because 45,000 people have decided to use it, that is somehow indicative this initiative is working.  Call me a pessimist but I don't think 45,000 over the course of 2 years is that great.  Plus how do we know these 45,000 people are in fact using the liquor sticker for what it is intended.  I bet a good majority of these people park their car regularly on City of Seattle streets, and are just using it so they don't have to wake up first thing in the morning to move their car on the weekend.

But kudos for the City of Seattle thinking of this idea.  I honestly can't say I have ever seen or noticed one of these stickers.  And I park regularly downtown and use meters when I go to Court, or picking something up at the downtown mall area.  But I will definitely check it out next time I'm at a meter, and I suggest you do as well.     put in place by the Seattle Nightlife Initiative and the Road Safety Action plan.  Why am I just hearing about this now?  

So what is it?  Liquor stickers have been placed on every meter in Seattle, essentially allowing them to prepay for 2 hours of parking the next morning.  Why?  Well what is the most common reason people have when they decide to drive home after a night of drinking.  I don't want to leave my car downtown and have it get towed in the morning because Im not going to wake up a 7 am to go get it.  

This is idea essentially eliminates that reasoning, and under the initiative will hopefully decrease the number of Seattle DUI arrests, because people will decide to take a cab home, and come back in the morning to retrieve their vehicle

As you know I'm a Seattle DUI lawyer, and I have never heard of this program before.  And it has been put in place for the past 2 years, and only used 45,000 times.  What does that tell you?  There is not a lot of talk about it, I'm even willing to bet a good majority of people think it is some kind of a scam.

I recently found this article on Kiro 7 discussing one of the major problems with this initiative.  And that is nobody knows what it is.  The gist of the article is nobody knows what these stickers are, and they are hard to find if you do.  The news reports makes an excellent point.  Anybody who has ever lived in Seattle, or used a parking meter knows there is a bunch of crap all of these meters.  From graffiti, to other stickers, to posters, etc.  The reporter points out that nearly at the bottom of the meter is the liquor sticker idea saying what to do.  Problem is it just looks like any of the other garbage on the meter, and not necessarily official.  

So what does the City plan to do about it?  According to the article, absolutely nothing.  Because 45,000 people have decided to use it, that is somehow indicative this initiative is working.  Call me a pessimist but I don't think 45,000 over the course of 2 years is that great.  Plus how do we know these 45,000 people are in fact using the liquor sticker for what it is intended.  I bet a good majority of these people park their car regularly on City of Seattle streets, and are just using it so they don't have to wake up first thing in the morning to move their car on the weekend.

But kudos for the City of Seattle thinking of this idea.  I honestly can't say I have ever seen or noticed one of these stickers.  And I park regularly downtown and use meters when I go to Court, or picking something up at the downtown mall area.  But I will definitely check it out next time I'm at a meter, and I suggest you do as well.    

_

About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other alcohol related offenses.  He is currently rated by Avvo as a Top DUI Attorney in Seattle, and was recently named a 2013 Rising Star in the field of DUI Defense by Superlawyers Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys in Washington State receive.

UW All American arrested for DUI....It can happen to anyone

University of Washington All American Tight End Austin Seferian-Jenkins was arrested for a DUI over this weekend in Seattle, WA.  Normally I don't like to just post links to articles on my blog, but rather write some substance and relevant content for the readers.  

The reason I'm doing this today is to show that if a UW All American can have a Seattle DUI arrest, anybody can.  Here is a guy that has everything going for him.  I have watched him terrorize my Utes time and time again.  Heck he is so good that last year he was playing defensive end in the Utah game and just dominating our offensive line.  But despite all this, he is not immune to a DUI arrest, and neither are you.  

Most people out there think that if they have a couple drinks, and they eat something then they are okay to drive.  Well I'm here to tell you the game has changed, and that no longer is the case.  In fact it is my professional and personal opinion that the legal limit of .08 doesn't matter to law enforcement.  Remember when I posted an article about a Washington State Trooper saying he doesn't care what the legal limit is of the people he arrests for DUI.  That it is his job to take people off the street that he feels are impaired, regardless of what their blood alcohol content is.

Now I don't know what happened in this case.  But I find it hard to believe that Seferian-Jenkins would risk everything he has worked for if he didn't think he was okay to drive.  Could he have made a mistake and had a few too many drinks?  Perhaps.  Did he think that a few drinks would not affect his ability to drive, and did he buy into the hype that is put out there that a drink an hour some how makes you immune from a DUI arrest.  Perhaps.  

The point I want to make is just don't drink and then drive.  Regardless of what you eat.  Regardless of how many glasses of water you have.  Regardless if you limit yourself to a drink an hour.  Now a days you will get arrested regardless of what you alcohol level was.  I once represented a client who had a .03 blood alcohol content.  Let me repeat that a 0.03.  That is probably the equivalent of a half a glass of wine.  In the end I was able to get her DUI dismissed.  But she still had to go through the court process.  She still had to hire an attorney.  And she still had to go through the shame of being arrested for a DUI.  

The other point I want to make is if for some reason you find yourself in the position of being investigated for a DUI by the Seattle Police, Washington State Patrol, or any other police agency in Washington State.  For love of god please don't do the field sobriety tests.  These tests are completely voluntarily, and you have the right to not do them.  

I can't tell you how many times I have represented people who have a very low blood alcohol level, but yet somehow they managed to fail these tests.  Now whether they actually didn't perform well, or the arresting Officer was a bit overzealous and perhaps embellished portions of the performance.  It doesn't matter.  At every stage of the criminal process your performance on those tests will be used against you.  And guess what no matter how you think you did, the arresting Officer will always say you failed.  That is just the name of the game unfortunately.  

So bottom line.  Don't drink and drive.  Don't risk everything you have worked for.  But if you do find yourself in Mr. Seferian-Jenkins position then do the only thing you can control and hire the best Seattle DUI lawyer you can find to help navigate you through the process, and try to minimize the consequences and risks you face.

_

Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer who represents clients accused of DUI and other related offenses.  He is currently rated by Avvo as a 10/10, listed as a Top DUI Attorney in his field, and was recently named a 2013 Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine in the field of DUI defense.  A honor less than 2.5% of Attorneys receive.    

Why I charge a trial fee

As everyone should know by now I'm a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA.  A big part of practice is litigating jury trials.  In fact in my career I have litigated over 100 jury trials to verdict which is a fair amount for someone my age.  There are two reasons why I have done so many.  First in a DUI case if the Prosecutor is not willing to offer a deal and they just want a client to plead guilty as charged.  Well we know what will already happen if the client is found guilty, so they have nothing to lose if they go to trial because 99% of the time they will get the exact sentence the Prosecutor wanted in the first place.  The second reason is because I actually enjoy trial work.  A big part of my job is driving to different courts, sitting in court for hours waiting for a case to be called, negotiating with Prosecutors, and doing DOL hearings.  In all honestly that is pretty mind numbing work, so litigating a jury trial is a welcome break, and it is kind of fun.  

So when I first opened my practice I used to charge a flat fee on a DUI case because I didn't want to discourage my clients from going to trial.  In other words my fee covered every step of the legal process except for appeals.  I'm not an appellate attorney, and that style of law does not appeal to me (no pun intended).  So my fee would cover the arraignment, pretrial hearings, negotiating with the Prosecutor, motion hearings, and the jury or bench trial.

After two years I stopped charging a flat fee for everything, and I started to charge a fee for everything up to the point of a jury trial.  Then if the case were to go that far I would charge an additional "trial fee" for the litigation of the jury trial.

The reason I bring this up is because lately I have read a few blogs by some other DUI Lawyers that imply this particular fee structure is a bad thing.  And the Seattle DUI Lawyers that do this do not want to litigate a jury trial and by charging an extra fee that are effectively holding their client hostage, and if the client cannot pay then they would be forced to plead guilty.  These blogs then go on to say that a flat fee is the way to go because the client will not be forced to decide whether to pay more for exercising a constitutional right they have.

To be honest I used to feel that way.  When I first opening my practice I didn't want my clients thinking this exact same way.  I didn't want them to feel like they had to choose between paying me more or pleading guilty.  But like I said after two years I stopped doing this.  Why do you ask?

Well it is pretty simple.  I found that I was constantly refunding my clients money.  There were times where I would charge a flat fee, but then I would only go to court 2-3 times.  I would be able to negotiate a deal with the Prosecutor that my client was happy with and I didn't spend a lot of time on the case.  In those situations I didn't feel comfortable taking all the money the client paid me, so I would refund them a few thousand dollars.  I didn't think it was fair to charge them the same amount as a client that I spent 80 hours, litigated a trial through verdict, and went to court two dozen times on their behalf.

You can imagine not only the confusion but the issues this created.  Constantly trying to figure out what would be fair and then cut my client a check based on that.  So I decided that I would charge less in those cases that didn't go to trial, and charge a little more if they went.

I'm sure there are many DUI Attorneys out there that probably tell potential clients that myself and other attorneys that do this are ripping them off, afraid to go to trial, or just want the client to plead guilty and then move on.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  In fact I would venture to say that any attorney that says that probably doesn't have the trial experience I do, so it is kind of ironic they would say such a thing when my entire practice is devoted 100% to litigation and I think my track record of jury trials speak for itself.

In addition to that my fee has not risen from what I originally charged.  I simply took the original flat fee and subtracted the trial fee.  Now when I enter into a fee agreement there are two fees.  The first is the flat fee for representation on the criminal matter up to the point of a jury trial.  The second is the trial fee that is only collected if a jury trial is litigated.  If say for example the case is set for trial, and then the Prosecutor offers a plea deal at the last minute then no trial fee will be collected.

All of my fees are always completely spelled out in the fee agreement.  I would never try and deceive a client or nickel and dime them for money.  Every potential client that I speak with about proposed fees I tell them about the trial fee and the reasons for it.  And I'm willing to bet my fee including a trial fee is the same as those DUI Attorneys that are putting down the use of a trial fee.

So my question is why should a client who only has to go to court 2 or 3 times before getting offered a plea deal they are happy with be charged the same as a client that goes to court 2 dozen times and has to sit through a 3 day DUI jury trial.  If you have any thoughts feel free to leave a comment.  Remember I'm not bagging on this type of fee structure, I used to structure my contracts like that.  But I found for my practice the additional trial fee works best, and I have never had a client say otherwise or express any issues with it.

_
Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other serious traffic offenses.  If you have been arrested for a DUI in the Seattle area, or Western WA contact our offices for a free 60 minute consultation.  

New DUI laws in Washington State effective 8/1/12

Once again Washington State DUI laws will be changing.  Some good, some bad.  Below are a few of the highlights, or lowlights depending on how you view this.  On 3/29/12 Governor Gregoire signed the following into law under SHB 2443, and they will become effective 8/1/12.  So without further adieu here you go.

Increased penalties for DUI's where a child is in the vehicle: Under this new law if a child is in the vehicle during a DUI or Physical control then it must be documents by the arresting agency, and Child Protective Services must be notified.  Additionally the definition of a child increased to 16 years old.  Penalties also increased with more fines, and additional 6 months of an ignition interlock device.  So bottom line, if you have a few drinks on a Saturday night dinner with your family, and you get stopped for a Washington State DUI and you have kids in the car.  Be prepared for increased penalties, and a more zealous prosecution.

Eligibility to remove a DUI conviction from your record: If you're convicted of a felony DUI, or Physical Control conviction then you can never have that vacated off your record.  Also if you get a DUI reduced to a lesser offense (i.e., Reckless Endangerment, Reckless Driving, Negligent Driving 1) and it counts as a prior offense then it cannot be vacated if the person has a subsequent alcohol and/or drug violation within 10 years.  It used to be a long shot to get these vacated after 5 years, but now it appears people have to wait 10 years.

Increased cost of Ignition Interlock License: The cost to have this type of license will increase an extra $20 a month to help pay for indigent people

Reckless Driving suspension credit: It used to be that if your license was suspended administratively by the DOL, and then you got the criminal DUI case reduced to a reckless driving there would be an additional 30 day suspension on top of whatever the DOL administrative suspension was.  Now you can get a credit for the 30 days from the administrative suspension.  In this Seattle DUI Attorneys opinion this is a good change of the law.

Electronic home detention conversion: This area of the law used to always be kind of murky, and varied depending on the Judge.  Previously if a person was convicted of a DUI and they faced a mandatory home detention sentence, there was no explicit law that would convert that EHM time to jail, if the person wanted to just serve their sentence in custody.  Now there is.  So if you get a 60 day home detention, then this can be converted on a 15:1 ration.  You now would do an extra 4 days in jail.  This is a good change in the law.

Eligibility for out of state IIL license: It used to be that in order to be eligible for the ignition interlock license you needed a valid Washington State drivers license at the time of suspension.  Now a driver who is otherwise eligible for an ILL, but does not have a Washington state license can now be eligible for the IIL.

Remember if you have been arrested for a DUI, its important to contact a Seattle DUI lawyer immediately to ensure your constitutional rights are protected.  Visit our Seattle DUI Law Firm website to learn more.

Leyba Defense PLLC firm update

For those that follow the blog, I apologize for not making any posts the past couple of months.  Its been very busy, which is good for business, but the downside is I don't have much time for blogging.  It seems like every week, Ive been in court every day.  Or on days when I don't have court I've had jury trials scheduled that I need to prep, so I use that time for putting together my trial notebooks and things like that.

So here are some of the highlights of the past 2 months.  And again this is not meant to toot my own horn.  If you have read this blog before you know that I think Attorneys that have to write up their latest victories are just looking for some ego stroking, and thats not why my firm is about.  But I do think its important to note that every now and then the justice system works, and innocent people are not convicted.

DUI Dismissed: In May the firm litigated a motion in a local Municipal Court.  The issue was whether there was a sufficient basis to pull over the client.  In the end the Judge found the Officer did not observe a traffic infraction and therefore did not have a sufficient basis to pull the client over.  This effectively suppressed all the evidence after the stop including the field sobriety tests, the portable breath test, and the breath test at the station.  And in the end the case was dismissed.  Now regardless of how you feel about DUIs, everybody in this country is protected the Constitution.  And if law enforcement does not follow those protections they need to be called out on it.  

DUI Dismissed: In June I had an interesting case.  It was a relatively low breath test in one of the local District Courts.  The client came to me not wanting anything on her record.  Which is difficult to obtain on any type of case.  Let alone a DUI charge.  But the one thing the client had going for her was my familiarity with the particular Judge and Court her case was in.  A few months prior I had a similar case.  A low breath test in front of a particular Judge. In that case the Judge agreed to a deferred sentence and then dismissed the case right on the spot at the time of sentencing.  So I knew if we could get in front of the same Judge and make the same arguments we had a good chance of him dismissing the case.  Well low and behold after a few court dates we got in front of this Judge.  I made the same arguments as before, and the Judge did the same thing and dismissed the charge.  The client was happy with the outcome, and now she can lawfully say she has never been convicted of a crime.

DOL hearings dismissed: Also in May and June I had a couple DOL hearings get dismissed.  Which is always great news to the client because their license will not get suspended.  But its also great satisfaction personally because the success rate at these DOL hearings is so law due to the nature of them and the legal standard that needs to be met.  In one case the Officer forgot to check a box, which resulted in the suspension being dismissed on a technicality.  In the other case the Officer didn't properly observe the client for 15 minutes prior to taking the breath test, which resulted in the license suspension being dismissed due to an inadmissible breath test (thank goodness for the video in the BAC room, because the Officer denied doing that during testimony).  And we also won a license suspension hearing when the Officer failed to appear.  Now I didn't really do anything in that case, but when the Officers are properly sent a subpoena, they need to appear like everyone else.

And lastly I had a tough verdict in June on a DUI jury trial.  As a Seattle DUI Attorney theses types of cases are always tough when the Prosecution was not offering any kind of plea deal, and my policy in those types of cases is to hold the Prosecution to their burden of proof and make them do their job.  In the end my client received the exact same sentence from the Judge he would have received if he just plead guilty.  But he also has an interesting appeal issue should he choose to move forward with it.

Upcoming I have some interesting cases set for jury trial.  I think they are good cases, and a verdict can go either way.  Which is all you can ask for in a criminal case.  Especially a DUI charge where usually the evidence is stacked in favor of the Prosecution.  So I will keep you posted on how those turn out.  

Remember with the summer in Seattle finally arriving, its important to not drink and drive.  But if you find yourself in the position of being investigated for a Seattle DUI.  Follow these simples rules and you will ensure your constitutional rights are protected.

1. Decline to answer any questions
2. Decline to do any field sobriety tests
3. Decline to do the portable breath test at the scene
4. Ask to speak with a Seattle DUI Attorney prior to submitting to the breath test at the station.

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.

When can a stop for an infraction move into an investigation for a DUI

Generally most people that get arrested for a DUI initially get pulled over for a minor traffic infraction.  In order for a police officer to have a sufficient basis to ask the driver to exit the vehicle and begin an investigation for DUI they have to have a reason for doing so.  And no, simply admitting to consuming alcohol, and having an odor is not enough.

A warrantless search of constitutionally protected areas is presumed unreasonable absent proof that one of the few well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement applies State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d at 349. These exceptions fall into several categories, including consent, exigent circumstances, and searches incident to valid arrest, inventory searches, plain view, and Terry investigative stops. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d at 349. The State bears the burden of proving a warrantless search falls within one of the exceptions when a traffic stop becomes a DUI investigation.

In the absence of probable cause to arrest, police may conduct a brief investigative stop known as a Terry stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). To satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington constitution, a Terry stop must be based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 223 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In evaluating investigative stops, the courts must determine: (1) was the initial interference with the suspect’s freedom of movement justified at its inception? (2) Was it reasonably related in scope to the circumstances, which justified the interference in the first place? Terry, at 392 U.S. at 19-20.

Without sufficient justification, police officers may not use routine traffic stops as a basis for generalized, investigative detentions or searches. State v. Henry, 80 Wn. App. 544, 553, 910 P.2d 1290 (1995). The reasonableness of an investigative detention is judged by the purpose of the investigative detention, the amount of physical intrusion, and the length of the investigative detention. State v. Williams, 102 Wn.2d 733, 739-40, 689 P.2d 1065 (1984). If a seizure is unlawful, the result of a consequent search is inadmissible. State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 4, 726 P.2d 445 (1986). When a police officer uses his/her patrol vehicle’s emergency lights to detain a motor vehicle, a seizure has occurred. State v. DeArman, 54 Wn. App. 621, 624, 774 P.2d 1247 (1989).

Investigatory stop must not exceed duration and intensity necessary to confirm or dispel officer's suspicions; if the stop exceeds these limitations, it can be justified only by showing of probable cause. State v. Mitchell, 80 Wn. App. 143, 906 P.2d 1013 (1995). Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction. State v. Lemus, 103 Wn. App. 94 (2000).

A stop for a traffic infraction can be extended only when an officer has articulable facts from which the officer could reasonably suspect criminal activity and the continued detention must be limited to the length of time needed to investigate the increasingly suspicious circumstances. Wa. Const, art. 1, § 7.; State v. Lemus, 103 Wn. App. 94 (2000) (Emphasis added). And the continued detention must be limited to the length of time needed to investigate the increasingly suspicious circumstances. State v. Gonzales, 46 Wn. App. 388, 394, 731 P.2d 1101 (1986). Articulable suspicion is a substantial possibility that criminal conduct has occurred or is about to occur. State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1 (1986).

For example, in State v. Tijerina, the Court of Appeals in Division 3 held that the officer did not have any “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity sufficient to support his continued detention of the motorist after he had decided not to issue a citation. 61 Wash.App. 626 (1991). In Tijerina, the defendant and passenger were pulled over after an officer observed their vehicle cross over the fog line. Id. When the defendant opened the glove box to obtain his registration, the officer noticed several small bars of soap of the kind commonly provided at motels. Id. After checking the defendant’s driver’s license and registration, the officer decided not to issue a citation. Id. The officer then asked the defendant if he had any drugs and asked to search the trunk of the car. Id. The officer opened the trunk and discovered cocaine wrapped in a newspaper next to a case of empty beer bottles. Id.

Generally when its comes to DUI arrests, Seattle police officers need to make several observations of the driver in order to begin a DUI investigation. In my opinion the officer needs to notice a slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, difficulty answering or understanding questions, and finger dexterity issues or coordination problems. If any of those observations are absent then an officer shouldn't be able to ask a driver to exit the vehicle to conduct an investigation for DUI.

If you have been contacted by a police officer and you don't believe the officer had a sufficient basis to ask you to exit your vehicle and conduct a DUI investigation, contact my office immediately to set up a free 60 minute consultation.  

Leyba Defense PLLC

Rubber stamped Seattle DUI arrests prompt legal challenge

"Seattle Police have found that DUI arrests were routinely rubber stamped or falsely certified without approval by a Seattle DUI supervisor, prompting one defendant to ask a Judge to dismiss his case or suppress the arresting officer's DUI testimony.

The Department launched an internal investigation in March after an audit revealed the mishandling of dozens of DUI cases.  A sergeant who allegedly permitted the improper DUI screenings remains under investigation."

To continue reading the article by the Seattle Times regarding this issue.  Click here.

Leyba Defense PLLC | Seattle DUI Firm

Website shows DUI patrols in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties

The Washington Traffic Safety Commission has rolled out a website that allows residents of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties to see when and where law enforcement will be conducting DUI patrols in their communities.

Only three counties are activated so far in a special two-year project to reduce DUI deaths, but the commission hopes that information for every county in the state will eventually be posted on the website

To continue reading the article, click here

Leyba Defense PLLC | Seattle DUI Defense

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

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

Breathing patterns can affect breath test results

A recent scientific article from Forensic Science International confirms something that Seattle DUI lawyers already know, that breathing patterns can affect the result of a breath test in a big way. In "Influence from breathing pattern on alcohol and tracer gas expirograms—Implications for alcolock use", the Swedish authors conclude from their studies that the measurement of a breath alcohol result is greatly influenced by the timing of the test and the breathing pattern of the person taking the test. Specifically, shallow breathing or hyperventilation can lead to a lower breath test result. Conversely, deep breathing and holding the breath before blowing can lead to an increased breath test result.

There are a couple of points to be made here. First, the machine is supposed to be giving us an accurate measurement of what a person's actual breath alcohol content is. It should not be too high or too low based on how the person is breathing, especially since everyone breathes differently, and people who have been arrested are often crying, in shock, angry, etc, and not breathing in their normal breathing pattern. This is more proof that the number that the machine spits out is just a “guesstimation,” at best.

Second, police officers that know this information can use it to manipulate test results (just as a subject could). I am able to obtain and watch a video recording of the breath test in almost every Seattle DUI case, which I handle. It is very common to see police officers demonstrate to the subject to how to take a deep breath and hold it, before blowing in the machine. Whether the officer realizes that this can influence the test result, I don't know. But, it is very, very common. If nothing else, taking a deep breath and holding it tends to heat up the breath to be expired. The machine is calibrated to assume that the expired breath is 34 degrees Celsius +/- .2c. 34 degrees Celsius is 93 degrees Fahrenheit. The human body is, on average, at a temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 37 degrees Celsius. Expired breath is expected to cool as it leaves the human body, thus the assumption of the lower temperature by the breath test machine. However, if the breath is warmer than 34 degrees Celsius, the test result will be skewed higher. Holding the breath will make it closer to the 37 degrees Celsius of the human body when it is expired.

The bottom line is that there are dozens of variables that can affect what the breath test result is at any given moment. These variables include breathing patterns, body temperature, partition ratio between the breath and blood, inherent margins of error in the machine, the inherent margin of error in the gas or solution used to calibrate the machine, burping, crying, hyperventilating, interfering chemical compounds, voltage fluctuations in the power supply to the machine, radio frequency interference from police radios, cell phones, etc. Every person's biology is different, but the machine treats everyone as if they were the same. Every person's breathing pattern is different, but the machine assumes that everyone is breathing the same. Alcohol in the blood is what makes people intoxicated, not alcohol in the breath. The machine has to make assumptions about the breath, and calculations and conversions based on those assumptions to estimate what the blood alcohol content is. The assumptions and estimates these outdated machines make leave too much reasonable doubt in my opinion as to what a persons actual blood alcohol level is and whether they are actually guilty of a Seattle DUI.  

Seattle DUI Attorney

Leyba Defense PLLC quoted in the Wall Street Journal

This past Friday, Leyba Defense PLLC was quoted in the Wall Street Journal.  A couple of weeks ago I blogged about a new bill that was being proposed in the Washington State Legislature that would require those convicted of DUI's to have a special letter in their license plate.  Well I was contacted last week by a journalist from the Wall Street Journal who wanted to write a story about this new bill, and some other states that have already enacted this kind of legislation.  Read the article here.

Matthew A. Leyba | DUI Attorney

Leyba Defense PLLC

New DUI case result

Below is my most recent DUI success.  At first glance this was a very difficult DUI case to take on.  But this result shows how hard work, extensive research, and a little luck can result in any case being dismissed.  In my opinion 99% of DUI lawyers out there would have just pled the client guilty.  Leyba Defense PLLC prides itself on pushing legal issues, and fighting until the end on behalf of our clients.  


February 2011 - .219/.217 DUI Dismissed for no PC to arrest
King County District Court: Matthew's client was arrested for DUI on I-5. Client was involved in a one car collision. Trooper noted slow and labored movements, watery bloodshot eyes, flushed face, odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. Client declined the field sobriety tests and blew a .219 and .217 alcohol level. Judge dismissed after DUI Lawyer Matthew Leyba filed a motion to dismiss for lack probable cause to arrest.


To see the results of our most recent success click here.  Remember lots of DUI Attorneys out there promise results, at Leyba Defense PLLC we get results.  There is a big difference.  


Matthew A. Leyba | Attorney
Seattle DUI Defense

DUI and Entrance to Canada

Since Washington State borders Canada I bet a lot of you travel there fairly often.  I know my wife and I love to go to Vancouver, BC as much as we can.  We go there for the shopping, the nightlife, and the food.  Especially the dim sum and other great restaurants we have found.  Yum!

But what a lot of people may not know is a DUI can prevent you from entering Canada.  Even having a DUI amended down to a reckless driving or negligent driving can still prevent entrance to Canada.  In this blog I would like to explain the three ways to gain admittance after being convicted of a DUI.

1.  If the completion of your DUI sentence is less than 5 years old, you can apply for a temporary resident permit.  Last time I checked the cost is around $200.  However this process can take months.

2.  If your completed DUI sentence is more than 5 years ago, you can apply for approval of rehabilitation.  The nonrefundable fee is $200 or $1000 (depending on the severity of the crime).  You will need to provide a "police certificate" of criminal history, if any, from every state which you have lived more than six months since age 18.  Also, you will have to provide dates, home and work addresses for each state you lived in since age 18.  Processing time can take a year or more.

3.  If you had one DUI completed over 10 years ago, you can apply for approval of of rehabilitation actually right at the border.  You arrive at the border with application completed in hand.  If approved, the past DUI will no longer be an issue, and you can come and go as you please.

This is a tricky area of the law especially with DUI charges, DUI reductions, and Washington State being so close to canada.  Below are some links for additional information.  Remember if you have any questions feel free to call my office to speak with an experienced DUI Attorney.

Canada International FAQs

You can also call the immigration section of the Canadian Consulate at 206-443-1372.

Matthew A. Leyba
Seattle DUI Attorney

Proposed legislation to require drivers convicted of DUI to be labeled with a "scarlet z"

Above is a link to a proposed bill requiring those convicted of DUI to have a letter z on their license plate.  Talk about a stupid idea.  This is just like the Scarlet Letter A, except its for people who were convicted of a DUI.  This state legislator is up in the night.  Come on.

Seattle DUI Defense

Super Bowl Sunday DUI Emphasis Patrols

Remember to be safe this Super Bowl weekend.  Extra DUI emphasis patrols are going to be out in both Seattle, and throughout Western Washington.  Click the article above to read the specific areas that are being targeted.  

Leyba Defense PLLC
Seattle DUI Defense

Pleasant interaction with Washington DOL today

Today I had a Washington Department of Licensing Administrative Hearing today.  For those of you that don't know what this is.  When a person gets arrested for a DUI or a Physical Control charge in Washington State they are usually asked to submit to a breath or blood test.  Based on the results of that test, the police officer will send in the results to DOL.  DOL will then automatically suspend that persons drivers license 60 days from the date of arrest, unless that suspension is challenged.  As a DUI Attorney my representation includes this DOL hearing, so as you can imagine I deal with DOL quite often.

Anyway I had a DOL hearing today for a client who was arrested in Seattle for a DUI charge.  This was clients first offense, and I had already negotiated a reduction to Negligent Driving First Degree.  This would ensure that my client would not face a license suspension from the Courts, however he was still facing one from DOL.  As part of my investigation I conduct a thorough review of the police report that DOL sends me.  I have created a 4 page checklist that I go through, so I don't miss any issues in the report that could argue to DOL.  Sometimes police officers forgot to check certain boxes, or they accidentally omit information, or they provide incorrect information.  These are just some of the many  technicalities that can result in a person winning their DOL hearing.

So on this particular case, I had noticed that the Officer had provided his breath test permit card.  This card shows that a police officer is qualified to administer the breath test.  However they expire every 3 years, and the police officer needs to renew it.  In this case the police officers permit card was expired on the day he arrested my client and administered the breath test.  The problem was that he checked a box in the police report that said he was qualified to administer the test and he had a current breath test permit card.  In addition to that at the beginning of the police report he had written some boiler plate language that Im sure he includes in every report, but it said he was qualified to administer the breath test.

Now even though the permit card was expired, I thought the DOL would find there were sufficient facts to show he was qualified based on the report that he submitted.  I had prepared a lengthy argument against this, including some contract law principles.  I was prepared to argue as much as I could to dismiss this license suspension.

Here is the pleasant part.  When the hearing officer called me, before he started the recording.  He told me that he noticed the police officer had an expired permit card, and I should make a motion when he starts the recording.  I was shocked to say the least.  Here I thought I was going to have to duke it out with this hearing officer over this DUI permit card, but the hearing officer recognized a legal technicality and rather than try to make up a reason not to honor it, he did the right thing.  Some hearing officers would not have done that, and probably would have suspended my clients drivers license.  But on this case, the hearing officer did what was not only right, but what was legal.

I made the motion to dismiss because there was insufficient foundation to introduce the breath test.  The hearing officer agreed, and dismissed the proposed license suspension.  BAM.  Thats what a little leg work, and preparation will do.

Remember if you have been accused of a DUI and you're facing a proposed license suspension from DOL make sure you challenge that suspension.  It can mean the difference between no license consequences at all versus a license suspension, mandatory ignition interlock, and SR-22 insurance.

Matthew A. Leyba | Attorney
Leyba Defense PLLC | Seattle DUI Defense

DUI Ignition Interlock requirements in Seattle

If you have been charged with a DUI or physical control offense in either Seattle or Washington State chances are you may be facing the possibility of having an ignition interlock device installed in your vehicle.


In case you're not familiar with what this is.  An ignition interlock device or breath alcohol ignition interlock device (IID and BIID) is a mechanism, like a breathalyzer, installed to a motor vehicle's dashboard. Before the vehicle's motor can be started, the driver first must exhale into the device, if the resultant breath-alcohol concentration analyzed result is greater than the programmed blood alcohol concentration—usually 0.02% or 0.04%, the device prevents the engine from being started.


At random times after the engine has been started, the IID will require another breath sample. The purpose of this is to prevent a friend from breathing into the device, enabling the intoxicated person to get behind the wheel and drive away. If the breath sample isn't provided, or the sample exceeds the ignition interlock's preset blood alcohol level, the device will log the event, warn the driver and then start up an alarm (e.g., lights flashing, horn honking, etc.) until the ignition is turned off, or a clean breath sample has been provided. A common misconception is that interlock devices will simply turn off the engine if alcohol is detected; this would, however, create an unsafe driving situation and expose interlock manufacturers to considerable liability. An interlock device cannot turn off a running vehicle, all that an Interlock device can do is interrupt the starter circuit and prevent the engine from starting.


Now as I said before you have been charged with a DUI or physical control offense in Seattle or Washington State there are potentially 3 times you could face possibility of being required to have this device installed:


First, would be at your DUI arraignment in Seattle or Washington State.  From previous blog postings you should be familiar with this process.  If not click here, or visit my website.  At your arraignment the Judge will determine whether or not to impose conditions of your release while the DUI or Physical Control case is pending.  Typically these conditions include abstaining from alcohol, no driving unless valid license and insurance, and appear for all court dates.  However in certain circumstances the Judge can imposed enhanced conditions of your release.  These can include bail, electronic home monitoring, or installing an ignition interlock device.  These circumstances on determined on a case by case basis, and can occur if a person has been convicted of a DUI before, or if they were involved in an accident, or if they had a high breath test.  Unfortunately many DUI attorneys don't know the law for when these enhanced conditions can be imposed.  Usually if your case is filed in Seattle Municipal Court, chances are an ignition interlock device will be imposed at your arraignment.   At Leyba Defense PLLC we strenuously object to these conditions as a violation of a persons DUI process as well as a violation of the Criminal Rule 3.2 (release of the accused).  If you have had an ignition interlock device imposed at your arraignment, contact my firm immediately to determine the best course of action to get this thing removed.  As of the last 4 cases to have an IID imposed we have taken, my firm was able to get that condition released by the next court hearing.


Second, would be for any conviction of a DUI or Physical Control charge.  Based on a conviction the Department of License can require a person to install an ignition interlock device for either 1, 5, or 10 years depending on the number of prior requirements, and the persons criminal history.


Third, would be if you applied for an ignition interlock license.  In Washington State the Legislature passed a bill a couple of years ago which no longer required a person to sit out their license suspension.  Now if a person get their license suspended either administratively or from a conviction, they can apply for an ignition interlock license.  There are three requirements: 1. Install an ignition interlock device in car, 2. Apply and get SR-22 insurance, 3. Fill out the application and send in the fee to DOL.  Once DOL receives proof of these three requirements, it usually takes 3-5 business days to issue the ignition interlock license.


If you have been ordered to install an ignition interlock device from your DUI or Physical Control in Seattle or Washington State, you should contact my firm immediately to understand the requirements exactly.  If a person has been ordered to have an ignition interlock device in their vehicle, and they get caught driving without it, there can be severe sanctions imposed.  Bail and your personal recognizance can be revoked, you could be charged with a new criminal offense, and you can face other potential collateral consequences.


Matthew A. Leyba | DUI Attorney

Leyba Defense PLLC