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.

New definition of what constitutes a "prior offense" for DUI sentencing purposes in WA

Last month a major DUI law was changed in Washington State when it comes to DUI sentencing.  The bill responsible SB 6413 drastically alters what can be considered a "prior offense" when it comes to DUI sentencing.  Prior to this change the law was pretty clear.  Now not so much in opinion despite what the bill set out to accomplish.

As I stated prior to this law if you were arrested for a DUI then your sentence for the most part was determined based on the number of "prior offenses" you had.  For example lets say you were arrested for a DUI in Seattle in 2008.  That DUI charged was reduced to Negligent Driving 1.  You then were arrested for a DUI in 2010.  The DUI in 2010 would be considered a second offense DUI because the first case originally was a DUI then it got reduced. 

Essentially if you got arrested for a DUI and that charged was reduced to another criminal offense then it was considered a prior offense.  Pretty straight forward, right.  Well SB 6413 changes all of this.  Now a prior offense can include any of the following: driving a commercial vehicle while under the influence, a BUI, operating an aircraft while under the influence, operating an off road vehicle while under the influence, and my favorite operating a snowmobile while under the influence.  

As a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, I have to say I do not understand what this accomplishes.  All of these offenses do not carry any of the consequences a DUI does other than being a criminal charge.  So why are they treated the same as a DUI when it comes to sentencing.  Why not stop there?  Why not include any alcohol related offense?  A minor in possession of alcohol, or an open container?  Obviously I am being factious, but you get my point. 

Unfortunately the DUI laws just happened to get a lot tougher in Washington State and this new law only shows how difficult things are becoming.  

_
About the author:  Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA.  He is the firm owner of Leyba Defense PLLC a DUI law firm located in the heart of downtown Seattle.  He practice focuses on representing those charged with DUI and DUI related offenses.    

Over celebration following Seahawks awesome win

The Seattle Seahawks are headed to the Superbowl.  Let me repeat that.  The Superbowl.  How awesome is that.  Unfortunately lost in the awesomeness that was the dramatic win.  King County Troopers were hard at work doing their best to stop possible DUI drivers in the Seattle area.  Were they successful?  Well the numbers are in and I would say yes there were successful.

After the Seahawks game King County Troopers arrested 16 DUIs.  Keep in mind this is just King County and mostly in the Seattle area.  I couldn't find the numbers for Snohomish and Pierce county DUI arrests.  Before you say that doesn't seem like a lot.  To put things in perspective.  The previous two Sundays had 7 DUI arrests in King County total.  

Clearly the game played a major factor in the increase of DUI arrests.  In fact I was watching the news and one local Seattle bar, who I won't name closed early due to the patrons having "too much."  Both the Seattle Police and the Washington State Patrol advertised there would be an increase in DUI patrols.  In fact they post it on twitter, facebook, and the overhead signs in both Hwy 99 and I-5.  So it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone they were out in full force.  

If you have found yourself in the unfortunate position of being one of these unlucky 16 keep in mind things could have been much worse.  No vehicular homicide or vehicular assaults were reported.  

If you were arrested in King County for a DUI the first thing you need to do is find a DUI lawyer who can help you during this time.  Even speaking with one a good one will help put your mind at ease and explain some of the process to you.  This is especially important if you have never been in trouble before.  A DUI arrest in King County can be a daunting process but if handled correctly there can be relatively little blow back in the end.  

_
About the author:  Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle.  He has been voted as a Rising Star in DUI defense by his peers according to the Seattle Met Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.  Additionally he is rated as a 10/10 and "Superb" by Avvo.com when it comes to Seattle DUI lawyers.    

Husky football player & Top Seattle DUI cop speak at Ballard HS in Seattle

A local Seattle high school put on quite a memorable assembly last week about the dangers of drinking and driving.  Ballard High School, which is a few miles from my home, put on a great assembly to over 500 students with some interesting speakers.  The topic and message from the speakers was to not drink and drive, and their experience with DUI arrests in the Seattle area.  

The first speaker was a Mother who lost her son in a drunk driving incident.  She wanted students to hear the important message “from the heart of a mom."  She discussed the accident with her son, provided very graphic images of the accident scene and the response of family and friends to the tragic deaths.  She was quoted as saying “you have the obligation to yourself and to your family and friends to drive and ride responsibly."

Next the students heard from the Top Seattle DUI cop in the land.  Seattle Police Officer Michl talked about what his job is about, why he does it, and how he feels when he takes a suspected DUI driver off of the streets of Seattle.  He was quoted as saying, "every time I make a DUI arrest before a collision it is a win," and “jail time will not fix your conscience or repair the damage you create when getting behind the wheel under the influence.”

Lastly the students heard from Austin Sefarian Jenkins.  He was the All-American University of Washington football player who got a DUI arrest in Seattle last year.  He pleaded guilty to his charge and he talked about what happened, how it has impacted his life, and what he learned.  

Overall it sounds like this was a well put together assembly for the students of Ballard High School in Seattle, WA.  I can tell you as a DUI lawyer who practices in Seattle I have represented several high school students on DUI cases in my day.  And unfortunately a few of them have been extremely intoxicated.  I think it is due to being unfamiliar with how alcohol affects a person, but mostly they are not aware of the consequences and dangers of drinking and driving.  

When I was in high school there was always parties after football games, or summer barbeques where alcohol was always present.  People were always drinking and I don't ever remember hearing about a designated driver, or "so and so" was not drinking because they had to drive.  Had we had an assembly like this maybe some of my former high school classmates would have made different decisions.  

I think the Ballard High School students who were present for this.  Obviously are more familiar with DUI arrests and drinking and driving in Seattle.  And hopefully they will make better decisions this Holiday Season and next year during all the graduation parties.  Remember if you're under 21 there is a zero tolerance for alcohol consumption and driving.  Meaning even if you are well below the legal limit of 0.08.  If you're under 21 you will still face a DUI arrest in Seattle if you get caught drinking and driving.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in the Seattle, Bellevue area of Western Washington.  He has been nominated as a Rising Star among Seattle DUI lawyers by the Seattle Met Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.  Additionally he is rated as a 10/10 by Avvo.com and listed as a Superb DUI lawyer in Seattle. 

The Mullan Seattle vehicular homicide criminal case is finally over

Seattle's most hated and despised man Mark Mullan was sentenced today to the Seattle vehicular homicide charges he pleaded guilty to last month.  18 years in prison, plus an additional 4 months for failing to have an ignition interlock device in his vehicle.  Thus bringing to an end one of the most tragic stories to hit Washington State in recent memory. 

To Mr. Mullan's credit it sounds like he took responsibility for his actions and pleaded guilty as charged.  He didn't put the family of the people he killed, and injured through a long and sad jury trial.  Obviously everyone in Seattle would rather he trade places with those he killed, or the baby he injured who is now going to be physically handicapped for the rest of his life.  But he did all he could in the legal sense to be accountable.

Far too often people don't understand how the legal system works.  If you read some of the Seattle Times comments people feel this guy should get the death penalty, or life in prison.  And I'm sure the family of those he injured and killed are upset he is only getting 18 years.  Heck I would be upset to if I was in their position and someone who killed members of my family only got an 18 year sentence which would get cut by a 1/3 with good time.  

But unfortunately for those that are not in the legal system.  This is how it works.  There is a sentencing range based on several factors that has been created by the State legislature.  And don't forget the Prosecution could have asked the Judge to impose additional time, but didn't based on his DUI history and the recent DUI arrest he got in Seattle.  

So in the end I know nothing will bring back the members of that family that were killed by this senseless act.  But hopefully they can take some sort of solace that he pleaded guilty as charged and didn't put up any kind of fight at sentencing and appeared to be somewhat contrite over his actions.

_
About the author:  Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle.  His practice focuses on representing those charged with DUI and other traffic offenses.   

Nearly 300 drivers arrested for DUI in King County during 3 week strech

I read an article this afternoon from the Seattle Times discussing the success of the "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over" campaign.  Slowly but surely it sounds like it is working, although not at a rate law enforcement or the general public might want.  The excerpt is below but in the same time frame last year there were more than 80 DUI arrests made.  So that is 80 less DUI arrests in King County due to this enforcement.  I for one think that is progress, but you can decide.  Here is the article

A total of 292 drivers were arrested on suspicion of impaired driving in King County during a DUI enforcement campaign that ran from Aug. 16 through Sept. 2.
Last year, during the same time period, officers on routine and extra patrols arrested 374 people for DUI in the county, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.
Statewide, the recent “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” enforcement campaign resulted in 1,420 arrests.

Participating law enforcement agencies in King County included police departments in Auburn, Bellevue, Black Diamond, Burien, Clyde Hill, Covington, Des Moines, Duvall, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland, Maple Valley, Mercer Island, Newcastle, North Bend, Port of Seattle, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, SeaTac, Seattle, Snoqualmie, Tukwila and Woodinville. The Washington State Patrol also participated.

One of the things to keep in mind about this campaign and the Target Zero Task Force which consists of law enforcement officers targeting drunk driving in King County is that it's all federally funded.  Meaning if there isn't a progress shown then that funding probably will be cut off.  

Personally as a Seattle Criminal DUI lawyer I have been seeing more and more drivers arrested and charged with DUI who were well under the legal limit.  I suspect it is due to funding as well as the State Patrol saying they are getting tough on DUIs and showing an "x" amount of DUI drivers arrested and therefore saying its a success.

Remember the phrase "Driver sober or get pulled over" is not just a campaign.  It's the truth there is absolutely no such think as a "legal limit" anymore.  If you have a drop of alcohol in your system then you're fair game to get arrested.  Believe me I have seen it.  Clients with literally a blood alcohol level barely above 0.00 getting arrested and charged for DUI.   

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic related offenses.  If you have been arrested for a DUI call for a free 60 minute consultation to discuss your rights and how to protect them.

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.

IID required for ORL in Washington State? DOL says yes

As many of you know one of the consequences of getting arrested for a DUI in Seattle is the possibility of having an ignition interlock device required in any vehicle you drive.  Thus giving you one more reason to hire an experienced DUI lawyer to try and prevent this from happening.

One of the ways of doing this is to try and get the DUI charged reduced to a lesser offense.  Like a reckless driving or a negligent driving for example.  However recently due to how DOL is interpreting one of the applicable statutes dealing with DUI offenses, a reduction in charges is not as beneficial as it once was.

If you get arrested for a DUI in Seattle, and it gets reduced to reckless driving by a plea deal than previously this was a pretty good deal.  From previous blog posts you should know that a reckless driving does not carry the mandatory jail, the mandatory fines, the mandatory ignition interlock requirement (if it's a first offense), and the 5 years of probation.  The one downside of a reckless driving conviction is it does carry a 30 day drivers license suspension, and require SR22 insurance.  But compared to the possibility of a lengthier suspension and IID requirement on a DUI, it is still an excellent idea.

Additionally if an individual wanted to drive during the 30 day suspension they could apply for an occupational restricted license.  This place restrictions on time, length, and places an individual could drive.  But it would still allow them to get to and from work, which is very important to most people.  Previously this type of restricted license did not carry an IID requirement.

But in the last few months DOL has taken it upon itself to impose an IID requirement for an occupational restricted license.  Why they started this I have no idea?  Probably just a way for them to somehow make more money off people, while at the same time adding to their infinite power they seem to have.  I believe this is an incorrect reading of the statute, and here is why?

RCW 46.20.391 codifies the temporary restricted occupational license.  States the following:

"An applicant for an occupational or temporary restricted driver's license who qualifies under subsection (1) or (2) of this section is eligible to receive such license only if: (a) Within seven years immediately preceding the date of the offense that gave rise to the present conviction or incident, the applicant has not committed vehicular homicide under RCW 46.61.520 or vehicular assault under RCW 46.61.522; and (b) The applicant demonstrates that it is necessary for him or her to operate a motor vehicle because he or she: . . .  (c) The applicant files satisfactory proof of financial responsibility under chapter 46.29 RCW; and (d) Upon receipt of evidence that a holder of an occupational driver's license granted under this subsection is no longer enrolled in an apprenticeship or on-the-job training program, the director shall give written notice by first-class mail to the driver that the occupational driver's license shall be canceled."

RCW 46.20.391 (emphasis added)

So if you read the highlighted parts closely there are essentially four requirements:

• No prior conviction for vehicular assault or vehicular homicide
• Show they are employed, etc
• Files SR22 insurance
• Not enrolled in training program

In fact I pulled this off the WA DOL website

You’re not eligible if:

• You’ve been convicted of vehicular assault or vehicular homicide within the last 7 years prior to your current incident.
• Your driver license is suspended for:
  • Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI).
  • Physical control (drug or alcohol-related).
  • Minor in possession.
  • Vehicular assault or vehicular homicide.
  • Intermediate (teen) license violations.
  • Too many rules of the road violations while you have an intermediate license.
  • Failure to pay child support.
  • Fraud.
  • Medical or vision reasons.
  • Violation of court-ordered probation.
  • Habitual traffic offender status.
  • Failure to:
    • Qualify on a medical or visual examination.
    • Qualify on a driver skills examination.
    • Undergo required alcohol/chemical dependency treatment.
  • Violation of ORL restrictions.
  • Canceled SR-22 insurance (proof of financial responsibility).

Note there is no mention you're ineligible if you have a reckless driving conviction.  So how does DOL think they can to do this you ask?  Well effectively they are requiring people convicted of reckless driving to apply for an ignition interlock license.  But if you check out RCW 46.20.385 which codifies those requirements there is no mention of a reckless driving.

"(1)(a) Beginning January 1, 2009, any person licensed under this chapter who is convicted of a violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local or out-of-state statute or ordinance, or a violation of RCW 46.61.520(1)(a) or46.61.522 (1)(b), or who has had or will have his or her license suspended, revoked, or denied under RCW 46.20.3101, or who is otherwise permitted under subsection (8) of this section, may submit to the department an application for an ignition interlock driver's license. The department, upon receipt of the prescribed fee and upon determining that the petitioner is eligible to receive the license, may issue an ignition interlock driver's license."

RCW 46.20.385

In case you don't want to look up those statutes mentioned in there take my word reckless driving is not one of them.  But check out what magically appears on the DOL website

You may be issued an ORL/IIL, if your license is suspended for both of the following:

• An alcohol-related offense eligible for an IIL.
• Another offense which is eligible for an ORL.

This license allows you to drive while your license is suspended, but restricts the hours, days, and locations where you may drive.

But the problem is this magical super secret combined license is no where in any statute I can find.  Essentially it is on a website that is owned by the Washington Department of Licensing.  So I guess that is that. 

It just bothers me that for years and years this was never the case.  One of the biggest benefits of a reduction to reckless driving was no requirement of an ignition interlock device.  If a person didn't want to sit out the 30 day suspension they could apply for the occupational license which did not require an IID device.  That is no longer the case.  It appears you must apply for both the ignition interlock license and occupational license.  Pay DOL those additional fees, install the IID, and show proof of the SR22.

Bureaucracy at its best I guess!

_

About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Attorney.  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 receive.

Unpublished WA Court of Appeals opinion says Judge has discretion to impose IID condition

A new unpublished opinion by the Washington State Court of Appeals Division I came down yesterday.  It is an unpublished opinion so it is not controlling authority.  But it is an interesting decision, and one that goes against DUI Attorneys.  

Essentially the question was whether a Judge had the authority to exercise their discretion and impose an ignition interlock requirement on a DUI sentence when there is no evidence to suggest it involved alcohol?  The Court of Appeals held, "the court has the discretion to impose the installation of an ignition interlock device even though there is no evidence that a DUI conviction was alcohol related."

In other words if an individual gets arrested and convicted of a DUI that is not alcohol.  So it is a Drug DUI, or Marijuana DUI then the Judge can impose an ignition interlock device even though there is no nexus between what the device will prevent and the crime charged.  Meaning an ignition interlock device cannot detect drugs, only alcohol.  So if a person wasn't convicted of an alcohol DUI why should a condition that is alcohol related be imposed.  

The Court of Appeals reasoned that sentencing Courts have "great discretion in imposing sentences within the statutory limits for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors."  Additionally they state, "A court may impose probationary conditions that bear a reasonable relation ... that tend to prevent the future commission of crimes."  

Let me just say that I don't agree with this ruling.  However I think the appellant made the wrong argument, and based on how they argued the Court of Appeals is right.  Yes, essentially a Judge has the discretion to impose whatever sentence the Judge wants and is related to the commission of the crime.  So if you consider a DUI case, what can prevent someone from committing this crime in the future.  Well there are two things I guess.  You can suspend their drivers license, or you can require them to have an ignition interlock device in their vehicle.

But my question is how in the heck is an ignition interlock device going to prevent someone from committing a DUI if they use drugs, or marijuana.  It doesn't make sense to me and I think there are other reasonable alternatives that have more of a nexus to drug or marijuana DUI cases.  I think with the recent passage of Marijuana legalization there is going to be more clarity with this particular issue.  Whether the imposition of drug treatment, random UAs, or some other form of substance detection is going to happen, we will just have to wait and see.  

If you want to check out the unpublished opinion here is the docket info 67664-4, filed 03/11/13.  It can be viewed on the Court of Appeals website.  

_

Matthew A. Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other related offenses.  He is currently rated as a Top DUI Attorney by Avvo, and was named a 2013 Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine, and Seattle Met Magazine in the area of DUI defense.  Less than 2.5% of all Attorneys in Washington State receive this honor.  

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.    

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.  

One of the benefits of a deferred sentence on a DUI possibly ending?

If you read this DUI blog with any regularly then you know there are two types of sentences imposed when a person pleads guilty.  

There is a suspended sentence and there is a deferred sentence.  A suspended sentence means the charge imposes a sentence at the time of the sentencing, but suspends all or a portion of the jail and fines and hangs over the defendants head for the period of jurisdiction.  At the end of that period the case is closed, but the conviction still exists on the defendants criminal history.  

A deferred sentence on the other hand is a much better deal.  Essentially the a defendant will still plead guilty but a Judge will not impose a sentence at the time of sentencing, and instead will defer it for a period of time.  Then at the end of that period if the defendant has complied with whatever terms the Judge set at the time of the sentencing, the defendant can take back the guilty plea and the charge will be dismissed.  

Currently this is one of the best deals out there if arrested for a DUI and the charge gets reduced to the lesser offense of Negligent Driving 1.  Most Judges, and Courts do not offer such a deal, but there are some occasions when it can be obtained.  In fact in 2012 I had 10 clients who received such a deal where the original charge of DUI was reduced to Negligent Driving 1, and the Judge imposed a deferred sentence.  

Now in addition to the benefit of having the charge dismissed.  Receiving a deferred sentence on a Negligent Driving 1 does not count as a prior offense.  Well it is debatable I guess.  Prosecutors will argue it does.  Defense Attorneys argue it doesn't.  The RCW spelling out what is a prior offense does not include the language "deferred sentence."  So based on a plain reading of the statute it doesn't count as a prior offense.  Meaning if a defendant successfully completed a deferred sentence on a Neg 1, and then within 7 years received another DUI.  That subsequent DUI would be considered a first offense.  

However there is currently a bill in the House of the Washington State Legislature proposing a change to this little loophole.  HB 1482 proposes amending the language of a prior offense under RCW 46.61 to include deferred sentences.  This is an interesting development.  I tend to not agree with such a change.  

First a deferred sentence is pretty rare.  It generally is only granted when it is a first offense, no prior criminal history, low breath test, and the defendant has completed all the assessments, and classes.  Secondly even if a Judge grants a deferred sentence, and the defendant completes it, but then gets another DUI.  The Judge of the subsequent DUI still has the discretion to treat the subsequent DUI has a second offense, in fact they could impose whatever sentence they want.  And if I had a client who was in that boat, I would probably tell them there is a strong possibility the Judge would do that, considering they were already given a break the first time around.  

In my opinion the only reason for proposing such a change is purely punitive.  Not surprisingly the sponsors of this amendment seem to be very "Prosecutorial friendly" if you know what I mean.  Hopefully this bill does not go any further, but I guess we will see at the end of this legislative session.  

_

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

Seismic shift in negotiating policies of major Prosecutor office in Washington state on DUI cases

Over the past 6 months a major change has been in occurring with one of the largest Prosecutor offices in Washington state when it comes to DUI cases.  Due to what the higher ups in the office feel is an inadequate conviction rate on DUI cases compared to other Prosecutor offices in the same jurisdiction.  A new policy has been put in place gradually over the past year and half.  No longer will cases be reduced based on mitigating circumstances or even if the breath or blood test is barely over the legal limit.  If a DUI case has no legal issues resulting in possible dismissal, or suppression of key evidence a reduction will no longer be offered, and the recommended plea will be to plead guilty as charged.

So what does this mean in lay mans terms.  Basically prior to this policy if an individual was charged with a DUI, it was a first offense, there was no car accident involved, and the breath or blood test was below .12.  Then the opening offer from the Prosecution would most likely be a reduction in charges.  This was due to the long standing tradition of this particular Prosecutors office making the best offer up front.  Unlike other Prosecutor offices where often times the initial plea deal offered is to plead guilty as charged to the DUI, and then through extensive negotiations the charge could possibly be reduced.

The reasoning behind this charge is from what I understand the higher ups in the office are not pleased with the DUI conviction rates compared to another Prosecutors office in the same jurisdiction.  The difference is pretty substantial when you look at the numbers.  So because of this no longer will reductions be offered in most cases unless there are severe legal issues.

As a Seattle DUI lawyer, I must say that I do not agree with this policy change.  Not because of the thinking to increase the DUI conviction rate.  Even though I don't agree with that, DUI cases have a lot of negative publicity.  An election is coming up.  From a political standpoint it makes sense.  But what I don't agree with is two things.  First the thinking that because another Prosecutors office has a higher conviction rate, somehow this is a competition and one office needs to out do another office.  The second issue I have is the lack of any sort of discretion to offer a plea deal on cases they may not have severe legal issues, but have mitigating circumstances.

I have blogged about this before.  But if a Prosecutor I would take the following stance on DUI cases when it comes to negotiating.  If the case was a first offense.  There was no accident involved.  The alcohol level is not extremely high.  The individual was cooperative with the arresting officer and polite.  The individual has completed their alcohol and drug evaluation, along with the ADIS and VIP classes.  And if the individual was willing to do a significant amount of community service then I would offer a reduced charge.

My thinking behind this is two fold.  First if its a first offense, and there were no injuries then nothing bad has happened.  Secondly if the individual was cooperative with the officer, proactive with all their classes, and willing to pay for this mistake through volunteer work that would benefit the community then clearly they are showing a remorse and a certain accountability through their actions.  Which in my opinion speak louder than words.

But I guess that is why I'm a Seattle DUI lawyer, and not a Prosecutor.  So how will this new policy shift affect new DUI cases that fall under this Prosecutors jurisdiction?  Well gone are the days where a supposed DUI Attorney with know experience can walk into court not knowing a thing about DUIs, and get a reduced charge because the breath test is not very high and its a first offense.  Now a days it is even more important to hire an experienced DUI lawyer that knows the law, understands the subtle nuisances of DUI defense, and has the necessary trial skills should the case get that far.   

_

Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other serious traffic offenses.  He has a high success rate in defending DUIs, and has litigated over 100 jury trials.  If you have been arrested for DUI contact our offices immediately to set up a free consultation and ensure your constitutional rights are protected.  

New Washington State Supreme Court case on DUI

Part of my job as a DUI defense attorney in Seattle is to stay up to date on any changes in the law.  This can occur one of three ways.  First I like to keep an eye on rulings from the district court trial level.  What Judge granted what motion, what Judge denied what motion.  How is a specific court handling other issues involving DUI's.  This is fairly simply to do since I am in court almost every day all over the state.  Im also a member of some email list serves that often update defense attorneys on the happening in court.  The second way I stay up to date is follow the Washington State Legislation.  Changes in legislation can have a big impact in my practice.  Specifically this last legislation session there were some big changes made, that I have previously blogged about.  The last way I keep up to date on issues is by following the Appellate level, and rulings from the Washington State Supreme Court.  Recently a ruling that I don't agree with came down from the State Supreme Court.  I feel it is worth blogging about so here is the gist of it.

State of Washington v. Gilberto Chacon Arreola.  The facts of the DUI case are the following.  Mr. Chacon was driving Mattawa, WA.  Earlier a 911 caller called the Mattawa PD to report a possible DUI driver.  Officer Validivia responded to the car and located Mr. Chacon.  Officer Validivia followed Mr. Chacon for almost a mile and did not observe any signs of possible impairment.  There was no weaving within the lane, no swerving or crossing into the other lanes of traffic, no other erratic driving to suggest the driver a DUI.  However Officer Validivia continued to follow the vehicle and observed the muffler had been modified.  Based on this he decided to stop the vehicle because in his words, he is a member of the community and does not appreciate the sound an altered muffler makes.  

So long story short, he stops the vehicle.  Observes signs of impairment and Mr. Chacon is arrested for DUI.  The heart of the issue is whether this sounds like a pretextual stop.  If you remember from a previous blog I wrote.  A pretextual stop occurs when a police officer contacts an individual with the intention of investigating an unrelated crime, and justifies the stop by saying some minor infraction occurred.  These issues are pretty difficult to prevail on just because deference is usually given to the Officer and if they are smart they can word their report in a way to make it sound like they are just conducing routine traffic patrol, and happen to stop a vehicle that turns into a criminal investigation.  

So what did the Supreme Court say.  They said this is fine.  In fact the holding was, "a mixed-motive traffic stop is not pretextual so as long as the desire to address a suspected traffic infraction for which an officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion is an actual, conscious, and independent cause of the traffic stop."  So in this case because Officer Validivia testified that he routinely stops vehicles for altered mufflers, and that is all he was doing in this case, the stop is justified.  

I wish the defense would have looked into how many stops Officer Validivia has actually made for altered mufflers.  Because I would venture to guess probably not many, if he has even made one before.  So using the altered muffler as an excuse to stop someone is BS in my opinion.  But I guess it worked, since it is now okay to do so.  

_

Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI lawyer in Washington state.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other serious traffic offenses.  He has a high success rate in defending DUI's that routinely result in reduced charges and/or dismissed offenses.  If you have been arrested for a DUI in Seattle contact our office immediately for a free 60 minute consultation.  

DUI limit really more of a guideline for state troopers in Washington State

I came across this article earlier this week from MyNorthwest news.  The author follows a State Trooper who is a member of the target zero task force on a ride along.  The Trooper arrests an individual in Ballard, Seattle for DUI.  It talks about what happened, what the law is, blah, blah, blah.  Pretty standard article dealing with this subject matter.  But as I was reading this article I was struck by this statement the Trooper made regarding his philosophy on arresting individuals for DUI in Seattle.

Trooper Brock, the arresting officer states, "I [couldn't] care less about what they blow; if they're below the legal limit, at the legal limit or five times the legal limit," said Trooper Brock, who is member of the Washington State Patrol's Target Zero Team. Their goal is to reduce deaths on the roadway.  I don't worry about what's going to happen six months or a year down the road in court," he said. "I know when I go home every single shift that if I took someone off the road, I'm 100 percent positive they were not supposed to be driving a car."

So there it is.  If you smell like alcohol, you will get arrested.  Regardless if you consumed 20 shots of tequila (which would be very impressive) or whether you had half a glass of wine.  Troopers around this State don't care what your legal limit is.  This is something that I have written before on my blog, but it's worth noting again.  If you have had 1 drink you will get arrested.  The police do not care about the legal limit and whether you're over it.

I can't tell you how many people I have met with that simply just don't understand how they can be arrested for a DUI when their breath or blood test is below the legal limit.  Heck I have represented a client before on a Seattle DUI arrest with a .03 breath test.  Based on this particular Trooper's statement law enforcement simply do not care what your alcohol level is.   

Now why is this important to note.  How many times do I meet with people who say, "well I only had 1 drink, I thought I was ok to drive.  I thought I would pass all the field sobriety tests."  What this article reveals is you can pass all the field sobriety tests.  You can honestly tell the arresting officer you only had 1 drink.  But you will still get arrested.  You will still get taken to the police statement.  You might be booked into custody and spend the night in jail.  You will still have to shell out at least $5K for an attorney.  You will have to go to court and be subject to the humiliation and embarrassment of being a defendant in a criminal case.  And the kicker is even if your DUI were to get dismissed, you still go through all this.  

Anyway.  Here is a link to the article if you're interested.

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=1146480

_

Matthew A. Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA.  He is the owner of Leyba Defense PLLC, a boutique Criminal DUI Defense Firm in downtown Seattle.  If you have been arrested for a DUI in Washington State contact our office for a free consultation.   

Seattle DUI arrest after Packers football game

Last night was a big day for the City of Seattle.  The "Clink" hosted the Monday night football game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Greenbay Packers.  Every time there is a big event like this.  Whether it is a big football game involving either the Huskies or the Seahawks there will be increased DUI Patrols in downtown Seattle as well as the main freeways including I-90, I-5, and SR520.

If you were arrested last night it is important to contact a Seattle DUI Lawyer ASAP to first ensure your constitutional rights are protected, but to also discuss your options and what may likely happen to you.  Like all professions there are bad ones and good ones out there.  Here are a couple of things to look for when deciding who to NOT contact.  Any attorney who sends you a solicitation in the mail is probably not the right fit for you.  Any attorney who doesn't practice exclusively in the area of Seattle DUI Defense is probably not going to help you much.  And lastly any attorney who hasn't litigated more than 25 DUI trials in the career tells you all the do is plead people guilty and not fight on behalf of their clients.

The best bet to look for his a referral from family, friends, or other attorneys.  Usually an attorney that is recommended from someone else shows that attorney did good work, and was able to get the kind of result where someone would say "hey hire this guy he got my Seattle DUI Dismissed."  Likewise if an attorney recommends another attorney, that is a good sign of quality work.

If you were arrested for a DUI last night in Seattle after the Packers game you might have an arraignment in the next day or so.  Try not to stress out about this, and call a DUI lawyer.  They will be able to help calm your fears, but more importantly discuss all your options and likely outcomes in your case.

_
Matthew A. Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice focuses exclusively on DUI defense in Western WA.

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.

WSP gets clever to nab speeders and aggressive drivers

The Washington State Patrol launched a pilot program today to crack down on speeders and aggressive drivers using new and improved strategies.  This is modeled after the Target Zero DUI task force which also employs the Washington State Patrol in an effort to crack down on DUI offenses in Washington State.

This new task force for speeders in going to be focused on certain areas that have been known to have increased speeding infractions and other known problems.  This will be based on prior offenses that is kept in a database.

In my opinion this will be yet another way to get around pre textual stops for DUI related investigations.  WSP is not stupid, and they know the best way to arrest those accused of DUI is for minor traffic infractions.  The problem with that is it can be unlawful to stop someone for a minor infraction with the intent to conduct a criminal investigation without any reasonable and articulable facts of criminal activity.

Often times in a DUI cases that happens when somebody gets pulled over for allegedly committing an infraction.  The officer smells an odor of alcohol, and immediately asks the driver to exit the vehicle.

To read the article click here.  Remember if you have been arrested for DUI and you feel you were unlawfully targeted, then it is of the utmost importance to contact an experienced DUI Attorney to ensure your constitutional rights are protected.  

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.