Interesting article from American Bar Assoc Journal on DUI cases and McNeely

The American Bar Association recently posted an article in the April edition discussing the future of DUI laws in light of the McNeely ruling.  It's not too often that the ABA journal takes up issues in DUI defense and/or prosecution, so as a Seattle DUI Lawyer I had to check it out.  Additionally it has been making its way around the Prosecutors office as well, so that was another reason I wanted to read it.  

In case you're not familiar with the McNeely ruling by the US Supreme Court.  The Court held police officers may not take blood samples from drivers who refuse to provide them voluntarily, unless they have a warrant or some kind of "exigent circumstance" exists.  The Court also went on to state that the dissipation of alcohol from the drivers blood is not an exigent circumstance, although it is a factor to consider.  

The ABA journal discussing some interesting insight into the future of DUI cases and how the McNeely ruling may affect DUI laws going forward.  The article started off discussing a DUI case in King County, WA (where I happen to practice).  Basically the Prosecutors in that case decided not to offer the defendants blood test in their case and chief due to the McNeely ruling and reached a plea deal to a misdemeanor down from a felony. 

The article then went on to discuss possible ramifications with States that have implied consent laws and whether or not they would be valid still.  Since some DUI Attorneys believe States won't be able to make waiving that right a condition of driving privileges.  And if that is the case then Prosecutors won't be able to use a drivers refusal as a consciousness of guilty and argue to a jury the reason they refused the test was because they knew they were over the legal limit.  

The article then went on to discuss issues like the time it takes to get a warrant.  Whether some jurisdictions have the resources to actually get the warrants, what happens if they do and done.  Some of the hurdles these jurisdictions will have to overcome, etc.  

Overall I thought it was an interesting article.  Another interesting topic it raised was Marijuana DUI cases and how the warrant requirement would affect those cases.  The Prosecutors interviewed from the article discussed how Marijuana exists an individuals blood stream relatively quickly assuming they are not a regular user.  Additionally the Prosecutors said most people don't immediately use marijuana and then get into their car, but wait several hours.  

I think the Marijuana portion of the article was kind of BS.  But you can read it yourself.  Here is a link to the article and if you get the ABA journal it will be in their April edition.

_
About the author:  Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle.  Rated as one of the best Seattle DUI Lawyers by Avvo.com and repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star in DUI Defense by the Seattle Met Magazine, an honor only 2.5% of all Lawyers in Washington State receive.  You can check out his bio here.   

Group in Utah pushing to lower legal limit in DUI cases

In case you don't know I'm originally from Salt Lake City, Utah.  I have lived Washington State for the past 10 years, but I still follow the news and events in my hometown.  Especially when it comes to DUI news.  I recently saw an article discussing a recent proposal by a group in Utah when it comes to changing their DUI laws.

Utah, like Washington State, and the rest of the Country for that matter all employ a legal limit of 0.08% in DUI cases.  However a recent push has started to gain traction in Utah when it comes to that level.  A conservative think tank and advocate group for harsher liquor laws in Utah is pushing to lower the legal limit for a driver’s blood alcohol level.  

The Salt Lake City-based group named Sutherland Institute wants to lower the limit in Utah to 0.05%. Now this idea is nothing new.  In fact I previously blogged about this idea earlier this summer when the National Transportation Safety Board issued a similar recommendation for all the 50 states. What is interesting though is if there is any State in the Country that would seriously consider this idea and support legislation it would be Utah.

You see Utah is one of the most conservative States in the Country when it comes to liquor laws.  It's ironic for me personally moving from a complete conservative State like Utah to one of the most liberal in Washington State.  But I firmly believe this may gain some serious traction.  Most of the State Legislators belong to the predominant faith in Utah which is the LDS church.  In other words there are a lot of powerful people in that State Government that do no believe in the consumption of alcohol and make it their life's mission to some in cases force that belief on those that do.  

As a DUI Lawyer in Seattle I find this idea quite perplexing.  First I don't believe lowering the legal limit would do anything to decrease DUIs.  In fact it would probably increase them.  Think how many drinks a person has to have in order to get to a 0.05.  Not very many.  Probably 1 to 2 drinks.  How many people have wine at dinner or a single beer at a football game.  Now those people would be subject to a DUI arrest.  Secondly lowering the legal limit would effectively put the death grip on the restaurant and bar industry not to mention tourism.  It would be non-existent and that is a big part of where Government receives their funding.  

Should be interesting to see how serious this becomes in the future.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Bellevue DUI Lawyer.  His practice focuses on representing those charged with DUI and other serious traffic offenses throughout Western Washington.  He has been named a Top Seattle DUI Lawyer by Avvo.com as well as a Rising Star by Seattle Met Magazine in the area of DUI defense, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. 

Another DUI Prosecutor arrested on a DUI case

Another DUI Prosecutor has been arrested for a DUI in Washington State.  Last week I blogged about a Prosecutor who pleaded guilty in their own DUI case.  Not to embarrass that particular Prosecutor due to the arrest, but to show what someone experienced and knowledgeable in DUI law would do when it comes to the field sobriety tests and the breath test.  Decline them.  

The purpose of this post regarding this recent DUI Prosecutor facing a DUI charge is not to embarrass, or even show what they did regarding the tests, but to show you a DUI arrest can happen to anyone.

I'm a DUI Attorney in Seattle for a couple of reasons.  First DUI Defense is an area of the law I thoroughly enjoy.  It has the criminal aspect which usually invokes constitutional issues that I dig, but it also has a scientific component that I find challenging.  Secondly I enjoy trial work.  You don't litigage over 100 jury trials unless you love going to trial, and DUI defense affords me that opportunity.  Lastly a DUI arrest can happen to anyone.  Unlike other criminal cases, most people charged with a first DUI are generally very good people who happen to make a mistake, not a hardened criminal.   

Which brings me to my point.  This DUI Prosecutor made a mistake.  Obviously they are more familiar with the DUI laws than the general public.  So maybe they should have known better and known there is no such thing as a legal limit when it comes to drinking and driving.  But nevertheless they made a mistake and now they are facing a DUI charge.  They are now in the position of the very people they Prosecute that has to be tough situation to be in.  Again my point is if a DUI Prosecutor can get arrested for a DUI, than anyone can.  It doesn't mean they are a bad person, they just simply made a mistake.

And by mistake I don't mean anything egregious by that.  Sometimes people just have a glass or two of wine at dinner, a beer watching a football game and they don't realize they are at the legal limit or even below it and they get arrested for a DUI.  Heck sometimes people are seated inside their vehicle waiting for a cab and they don't realize this is potentially illegal and they get arrested for a Physical Control.  People make mistakes sometimes not even realizing what they are doing is illegal.     

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Bellevue.  His practice focuses on representing those charged with DUI and other traffic offenses.  He has been rated as a Top DUI Attorney in Seattle by Avvo, and is named a Rising Star in DUI Defense by Seattle Met Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. 

DUIs and Golf Carts

I literally posted a blog about DUIs and golf carts here in Washington State less than a week ago on my website blog.  Then somehow this gem of an article pops up in my twitter feed.  It is about a small town in Georgia where 15% of all DUI arrests involved golf carts.  Yes you heard that right.  Golf carts.  I was being pretty factious when I blogged about this on my website.  But I guess it really happens.  

As both a Seattle DUI lawyer and a golfer this really surprises me.  Arresting someone who is driving a golf cart on a cart path is just odd to me.  I mean how much damage can a person do in a golf cart on a cart path.  Growing up playing golf, and working at golf courses I can't tell you how many people I have seen driving a golf cart impaired.  It is just kind of what happens when you mix beautiful summer weather, some beers, and people that don't play that often.  But not once did I ever think someone would get arrested for that.

Now this article discusses this town a little bit.  And I guess there are over 100 miles of cart paths.  So its not like the police are out arresting golfers on the course.  And it sounds like the cart paths are shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.  So I can see how a golf cart can cause injuries and/or damage.  But for it to be 15% of all DUI arrests is just alarming to me.  In my opinion perhaps these law enforcement officials should be spending some more time trying to solve other crimes, or enforcing the traffic code where violations are actually occurring on the street with actual vehicles.

Anyway if you want to read the article here it is.  It is titled, "Peachtree City cracking down on drunken golf cart drivers." 

_

About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  He is currently rated as  Top DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA by Avvo website and is also named a Rising Star in the field of DUI defense by Superlawyers Magazine.  This is an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys in Washington State receive.  

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.

DUI Cop and Defense Attorney work together to get suspect's dog adopted

Earlier this week I wrote a blog about the embattled Utah DUI Trooper who has been fired and is facing several lawsuits for bogus DUI arrests.  As a DUI Defense Attorney I find her actions and behavior completely appalling.  However this type of Cop is on one side of the spectrum, there are plenty other officers who I respect and admire on the other end.  Here is a story about a Seattle Police Officer I know and respect going beyond his "official duties."

You can check out the article here.  But basically the DUI Officer here in Seattle arrested man accused of DUI earlier in the week.  The suspect had a German shepherd dog in his vehicle.  Normally this wouldn't be an issue I suspect.  I have represented several people who have been arrested with animals in their vehicle.  In those cases the arresting Officers allowed my clients to make arrangements to have their animals picked up.  Or in one case the arresting Officer took the dog with my client to the precinct.  Processed my client for DUI, and then released her and her dog afterwards.  

But in this particular case the suspect was getting booked into custody not only because of the DUI but also because of a warrant for his arrest out of California.  Unfortunately for his dog he not only was getting booked into custody, but it also appears he going to be extradited back to California to address this warrant.  So there was nowhere for this dog to go.  I guess the guy didnt have any family or friends here in Seattle, and nobody could be contacted in California.  I'm not sure if there is a policy in the Seattle Police Department on what to do in this type of situation.  But imagine there are some Officers who would just drop the dog off at the animal shelter and be done with it, and who can really blame them.  I mean it is probably not in their official duties to babysit animals of people they arrest. 

But not his particular Officer.  As the article describes he went way beyond his duties in this particular case.  After the suspect was arrested he allowed the dog to sit in the backseat with her owner.  After the suspect was arrested he took the dog to the Animal Shelter.  But he didn't stop there.  He posted a message on his own personal Facebook about the dog, and asked if anyone knew of any families wishing to adopt. Additionally he got in touch with the suspect's defense attorney to check in and try to find a new home for this lovely animal.

As both a dog lover, and a DUI defense Attorney this story really tugs at my heart strings.  I have a dog who my family loves dearly.  If anything were to happen to me or my family I would hope someone would have the heart to look after my dog, and try to find a new home for him.  The fact that this particular Officer did this after an arrest when he could have just went home and never thought twice about it shows the type of character and compassion he has. 

My law firm has had several cases with this particular Officer and I have always found his work to be very thorough and well prepared.  But what has always impressed me his the integrity he seems to have when dealing with these type of cases and with me.  Additionally of all the Officers I deal with on a regular basis he is one of the few who treats my clients with respect, and seems to understand that many of the people he arrests simply made a mistake and he doesn't crucify them or he isn't a jerk to them afterwards.  In my opinion he is a stand up guy and this story just reaffirms what I have always thought of him. 

You see not all stories I blog about are negative when he comes to law enforcement :)

_

Matthew A. Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other alcohol related offenses.  If you have been arrested contact my office immediately to speak with an experienced attorney to discuss your rights and options.  

Utah Trooper faces lawsuit for making bogus DUI arrests

In case you don't follow my other blog dealing with National DUI news and Information, I want to post my thoughts here on Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Steed and some issues that are occurring back in the great State of Utah.  

If you don't know I'm originally from Salt Lake City, Utah (Go Utes!).  So I follow news from Utah pretty regularly.  As I noted above, I have posted updates about Trooper Steed on my other DUI blog, but want to discuss it here today.

In case you don't know Trooper Steed is a Trooper with the Utah Highway Patrol.  During her 10 years with that Department she built the reputation as the best DUI cop in Utah.  As of today she is out of work and facing a lawsuit.  So what happened to her?  Someone who was seen as a rising star in the law enforcement.  Someone who her supervisors described as having an "uncanny ability to detect drunk drivers."  Someone who in 2009 as a member of the DUI squad shattered the record for most DUI arrests in Utah, more than double the number made by another other Utah Highway Patrol member in the history of the department.  

One word: Accountability, or I guess the lack thereof.  Lets be honest being a police officer has to be one heck of job.  Long hours.  In some cases low pay.  The general public has a certain disdain or distrust for you.  Defense Attorneys are always criticizing and challenging your work.  If you mess up it's on the front page of the news.  I know several officers here in Seattle, and although I'm a Defense Attorney I certainly can respect the work they do.  It seems to me to be like a thankless job for the most part.  

But I think the reason law enforcement has such a bad rap is because of what the general public views as a lack of accountability.  Think about it.  If a cop pulls someone over, makes an arrest, documents certain statements or observations of the suspect.  Who is to say this really happened?  I know cops sign an arrest report under penalty of perjury, and blah blah blah.  But many law enforcement agencies still do not have audio or video capabilities.  Even if the agency does have that capability, not all the officers use it.  Or the cameras are out of position.  Or the mic is not working, or in some cases left off.  Or some other excuse is made.

I can't tell you how many times I have represented someone who adamantly denies something the arresting officer is saying happened.  And how do you challenge that?  You can question the officer.  But if they made something up, or fabricated something, or even embellished it a little they are for the most part not going to deviate from that.  You can have the client testify, but in the end who is a Judge, or Jury going to find more reliable most times.  The cop.  So it is always a difficult position to address when it is one persons word against another.  And the other person happens to be a cop.

But every now and then a cop is caught in a lie, or an inconsistency and everything changes.  Such is the case with Trooper Steed.  As I wrote above she was a rising star with the DUI squad in the Utah Highway Patrol.  Shattering records for arrests, winning awards, etc.  But in the end what derailed her career is the lack of accountability that exists with such officers.  And probably her greed to become known as the Best DUI cop in Utah.  

And it all started with a routine motion to suppress evidence where she admitted on the stand that she left her mic off while on a DUI arrest.  To her credit she admitted to this.  I have had cases in the past where certain officers will swear up and down the mic was malfunctioning or the video was lost in magic land.  I never ceases to amaze me the elaborate tails these cops will weave just to avoid answering a simple question.  But when Steed did this her credibility instantly came under question.

You see there was a long standing rumor in Utah that Steed was fabricating observations she made on her DUI arrests.  Ridiculous things like flat out saying a person was impaired when a breath or blood test would show .000.  Making a DUI arrest when there was absolutely no evidence, and then just flat out making things up in the arrest report.  And nobody was ever the wiser, because there was no way to document what really happened, when it was just her word against the suspect.  

However like all things eventually the truth comes out and many of her DUI arrests were flat out dismissed or not filed due to her penchant for "stretching the truth."  In fact in 2010 a Prosecutor flat out told every Defense Attorney in Utah, and every news outlet that he would not prosecutor any cases where Steed was the primary officer, and the only evidence that existed were her observations.  But think about all the people she falsely arrested prior to this slip up in 2010.  

I can't fathom going through that.  Having the stigma of a DUI driver.  Hiring an attorney.  Going to court endless and stating your innocence and not having the Prosecutor, the Judge, or the very law enforcement agency who is supposed to protect you, believe your story.  That is why I do what I do.  So I can help people in these situations.  Thankfully to those attorneys in Utah, her truth stretching was uncovered and justice is being done.    

In case your interested here is the Steed article.  Read up.  

_

Matthew A. Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other alcohol related offenses.         

Argument heard by the US Supreme Court on the DUI Case Missouri v. McNeely

Every once in a while a case that affects DUIs comes along that makes it all the way to the US Supreme Court.  Welcome to the case of Missouri v. McNeely where oral arguments were heard dealing with this particular issue.  So what is this case about you ask

Issue: Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a non consensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th amendment requirement of a warrant based on the natural dissipation of alcohol from the human body. 

In other words.  Can a cop force someone to give a blood sample without a warrant because alcohol exits a human body.  Keep in mind this is different that what is currently going on in Seattle DUI arrest cases where an officer can obtain a warrant to do a blood draw and force someone to provide a blood sample.  

Argument recap: Most of the hour long argument was spent discussing all the possibilities of exigent circumstances.  From a review of the transcripts of the argument it appears the Justices view the use of a needle to take a blood sample as quite an intrusive gesture by the government, and the 4th amendment shouldn't be discarded because alcohol is always going to be disappearing from the human bloodstream.  

To no surprise the lawyers for the state mainly argued there would never be enough time to get a warrant before alcohol dissipates.  Therefore the need to bypass the warrant requirement, and allow officers to force a blood draw on their own.  However what was pointed out by Justice Kennedy that half of the states do not allow the taking of a DUI blood sample without a warrant, and they have streamlined procedures for issuing warrants.  Steven Shapiro from the ACLU pointed out an interesting point.  He argued that getting a warrant was not a complex task, given the technology of lap tops, and cell phones that exist today.  

Overall from what I have read, and others opinions who were there it doesnt appear that the US Supreme Court will allow law enforcement officers to force blood draws without a warrant requirement.  Although you never know what is going to happen.  

_
Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other serious traffic offenses.  He has offices in downtown Seattle, in Bellevue, and in Bothell.

Vigilantes and following suspected DUI drivers in Seattle

Interesting article in todays Seattle times about an ex-state patrol cadet (not an actual Washington State Patrol Trooper) mind you who followed a vehicle he suspected was a DUI while in 911.  This type of is actually pretty common here in Seattle.  I have had several cases over the course of my career where a vigilante citizen followed one of my clients suspecting they were a DUI driver, called 911, and actually made a Seattle DUI arrest.

Personally I think this behavior is a little questionable, but I realize there are people out there who have no problem calling 911 to report something they believe is illegal.  Personally I wouldn't do anything unless the suspected DUI driver was driving so recklessly or erratic it was a danger to myself, my family, and other innocent bystanders.

But often times these vigilantes go the extra step and actually try to make a citizens arrest.  Im not sure what happened in the DUI case that was in the Seattle Times about the ex-cadet stopping a council member.  But in every case that I have ever had this is what happened.  The vigilante sees what they suspect is a DUI, follow the vehicle and either call 911 or just go ahead and actually stop and detain the vehicle.  Going this extra step is what I have the problem with.

Obviously in this case that was an ex-cadet who probably didn't make the State Patrol but still wants to do that work.  Saw this as an opportunity and regardless of how unlawful it is decided to make a stop.  Now I don't know all the facts only what was in the article.  But in this Seattle DUI lawyers opinion this is unlawful behavior.

The actual case law in Washington State is pretty murky when it comes to citizen arrests.  In order for such a stop to be made the citizen needs to observe what is called a breach of the peace and it must be committed in their presence.  While Washington State has no actual law regarding DUI cases and citizen arrests it can be very ambiguous what constitutes a breach of the peace.  Is committing a traffic infraction enough of a breach of the peace for a citizen to call 911 on an individual?  The difficult thing in these cases is unless you can prove the citizen was acting as a state agency or in some capacity the 4th amendment would not apply regarding an unlawful seizure.

In case you're interested in the article here is the link.    

-
Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer focusing his practice in DUI defense, and other serious traffic offenses.  If you have been arrested for a DUI feel free to call 206-357-8454 to set up a free consultation.

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.

Huntington Beach won't put DUI arrests on Facebook

I posted the first article regarding this topic earlier in the week.  It now looks like this idea is being shot down by the Huntington Beach, CA city council.  This new article discusses some of the public backlash this idea was receiving, as well as some of the problems I discussed.  Mainly a person's right to be presumed innocent, and privacy laws to mention a few.

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

DUI arrest may lead to Facebook shaming in California

Attached is a link to an article I read this morning titled "Drunk Driving May Lead to Facebook Shaming"  The gist of the article talks about how a city councilman in Huntington Beach, CA wants to post a mug shot on Facebook of any individual with more than 2 DUI arrests.  In the article council member is quoted as saying, "If it takes shaming people to save lives, Im willing to do it," "Im hoping it prevents others from getting behind the wheel and getting inebriated."

As a Seattle DUI Attorney, I found this article very disturbing.  Am I in support of people drinking and driving, no Im not.  However if someone chooses to make that decision, then they are entitled to all of the same constitutional rights that everyone else is afforded in our country.  Mistakes happen, and sometime good people make bad decisions.  However everyone has been there, everyone has made a mistake at least once in their lives and most people feel horrible about it afterwards.  I have been a DUI Lawyer for quite some time and I have not once had a client who told me they didn't feel bad for the decision they made, and they didn't regret it.  So its not like people don't recognize the mistake they made.

But the real disturbing part of this proposed idea, aside from the privacy issues this would raise, how about the presumption of innocence.  I found it interesting this article didn't talk about prior DUI convictions, but only DUI arrests.  So basically if a person is falsely accused of a DUI, then they can face the humiliation and embarrassment that this would cause simply because they were arrested.  Un-freaking-believable!

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