Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti

No one wants to be acquainted with or talk to a criminal attorney until they are in trouble. There is a particular curse or hex that people seem to sense pursue folks seeking out criminal defense counsel before they require it. But, when you are charged with a misdemeanor, you swiftly grasp how vital a first-class Seattle DUI attorney is.

And some of the need for a criminal defense attorney is the requirement to translate all of the legal nonsense that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of expressions you might hear during your criminal process, some you may perhaps be acquainted with, some you may well not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.

Well, today at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog we're going to to help you know what one of those legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you may not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an critical term for your defense attorney to know, specifically if you have confessed to a wrong and he or she wishes to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better appreciate the word, I've broken it down for you below.

As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most regularly in the context of confessions, and specifically in the context of confessions where not a lot of supplementary data exists against the defendant. witness, judges and courts, although more than ready to allow in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, specifically if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be acquainted with false confessions are provided from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are timid to permit confessions in unless there is some other independent proof of the criminal act.

And that other independent facts of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or extra unconnected support of a wrong, the court will not permit in a confession for the reason that there is the likelihood (whether reasonable or otherwise) that the confession was falsely provided. Still a little bit baffled as to what it means? How about an example.

Let's say there is a guy. He is standing out in a parking lot with some supplementary citizens around some automobiles. Let's say the citizens in the vehicle and the citizens out of the auto get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the chaps in the car decide to depart. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a noise on his van and turns around. He doesn't spot any person touching his van or necessarily by his car, but there is solitary one person in the vicinity. The male in the automobile doesn't check his van out until later, when he sees a dent in the side of his sedan. He surmises it was the guy he saw around his auto before.

The police go and pick up the man they suspect of injuring the vehicle and take him down to the police station. After some chatting and interrogating, they get the man to let in to kicking the car. He is detained and charged with malicious mischief.

In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the confession, all the cops have for data is the man hearing something happen to his auto, turn around, and notice the gentleman near the auto. What is omitted is any proof that the male hit the vehicle, and that he did it with an plan to injure the auto. It is feasible (in theory, if no confession had been given) that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the gentleman turned around. For a instance like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.

Corpus delicti, like most additional Latin legal terms, are not difficult to understand after they are clarified. But getting that explanation can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal training of the prosecutors? The instant you are placed under arrest or believe like you can't go away is the moment you should demand to speak with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not only help you through the network of legal nonsense, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the police off your back.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Theft

Seattle DUI Attorneys | Politicians and DUIs

Seattle DUI Attorney | Confidentiality

Whether a Seattle DUI attorney, a civil attorney, or just a ordinary self on the block, nearly everyone has heard of and has a vague image concerning what the attorney-client benefit is. If we haven't dealt with it straightforwardly in our individual lives then we've practically certainly had the chance to see it in action on television or in the movie theater.

But what is the attorney-client benefit actually? Does it represent that when you disclose to a lawyer something that they can't reveal to anyone no matter what? And when does it commence? Do you have to engage the criminal lawyer? And when does it finish? Will a criminal attorney in truth take your secrets to their grave? Read on to have these questions answered.

Let's commence with what the benefit denotes. And, since I am a DUI attorney Seattle, we'll use it in the perspective of criminal law, although it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The lawyer-client privilege is the thought that everything you disclose to your attorney, in confidence (when merely the two of you are present) is confidential.

This represents the lawyer cannot reveal to anyone what you have spoken about. They can't inform their husband, they can't disclose to their friends, they can't inform the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only occasion they can make known is if the information you've told them is to execute the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of a person. It is a very robust benefit.

And the best thing is, the privilege starts right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have hired the lawyer for the privilege to attach. It happens automatically, and even if you don't engage that attorney, they still have to keep your secrets secure. Let me present you an example to show you how commanding it can be. Let's say you are looking for a divorce and you go chat to a attorney regarding it.

You inform him all about your situation and what has been going on, he quotes you a fee, and you disclose to him it's too pricey and go find a person else. A week afterward your companion comes in and wishes to speak to a attorney concerning a divorce. The lawyer not only can't adopt the case because he's already talked to you and representing the spouse would create a conflict, but he can't tell the husband why he can't represent her! The husband would simply be sent away. That's how powerful the privilege is.

And the privilege outlasts even your life. Your secrets die with the attorney. In the criminal law situation there are examples of people who have confessed to murdering people (it isn't the commission of a future crime so it is confidential) to their attorney, another self is tried and convicted of the murder, and the attorney never told anybody about the confession (it obviously later came out, but not in any way that affected the client). So, essentially, your secrets are safe.

There is good reason behind this benefit - your criminal defense lawyer must know as much regarding your case as possible to furnish you the greatest defense possible. Without your data and candid conversation, that is nearly impossible. So, the next instance you are with your lawyer, don't be afraid to speak up. Your secrets are safe.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle DUI Attorney | Theft Charges

Seattle DUI Attorney | Probable Cause Explained

In the realm of DUI law, probable cause is everything. It is required for a justifiable seizure, and everything police officers do, especially when it comes to DUI accusations, is carried out to assemble adequate substantiation to rationalize probable cause. But what is probable cause? It is a bit of an shapeless thing, never having a clear line definitive state of being. As one famed Supreme Court Justice put "I identify it when I see it." Now hear it explained from a Seattle DUI attorney.

Before I embark on my explanation of probable cause, in particular as it relates to Seattle criminal charges, I want to point out that this article is for educational purposes. If you are charged with a DUI, please get in touch with a Seattle criminal attorney for consultation on your precise case. Do not rely on this as legal counsel, as each set of circumstances is so factually special particular counsel is mandatory.

Probable cause is in general viewed as a mixed problem of law and fact. It requires extensive facts and a legal conclusion of probable cause. Sizeable proof requires "a adequate amount of evidence in the record to persuade a fair-minded, normal individual of the truth of the determination." It is the who, what, when, and where of the analysis.

For instance, let's say we have a man driving around in Seattle after having consumed more than a few cocktails. He is pulled over by a police officer for speeding - 37 in a 25. He is otherwise driving normally, including pulling off to the side of the road in a responsible manner. At this moment there in all probability is no probable cause for criminal, despite the fact that there is probable cause for speeding. But what if when the police officer approaches the driver he smells a robust odor of alcohol and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. This might rise to the level of sizeable evidence of DUI.

The subsequent prong of probable cause is whether the facts substantiate a legal determination of probable cause. Essentially, do the facts as recognized support a rational belief that a crime has been committed. In this set of circumstances, maybe so, perhaps not. People are allowed to drink and then drive (just not when impaired by alcohol), and the watery eyes may be explained away by something else.

So, what if the police officer then asks the driver to carry out field sobriety tests (which you can and must always decline to do in the State of Washington) and he does, failing to touch his finger to his nose, failing to balance on one leg, and failing to touch heel to toe in a walk and turn analysis? Is that an adequate amount of for an officer to derive a rational conclusion that the driver was driving under the influence of booze? In all probability. It is unquestionably a stronger set of circumstances for the officer (although not definitive - injuries and weather circumstances may have been a factor, for instance).

Now, why is this important for you, the usual Seattle resident? Because it is significant to comprehend that each time a cop stops you and begins to question you he is not concerned with your wellbeing (excluding in those obvious situations) and is generally attempting to collect adequate data from you to verify probable cause. And it is even more central to recognize it is within your Constitutional rights to refuse to give him information he will in the end utilize against you (although you should make available your license, registration, and act politely to the officer).

If you do find yourself likely to be apprehended for criminal, talk to the cops as little as possible by saying no politely ("I'd respectfully refuse to answer that problem") and if things continue to heat up request to have a minute to contact your Seattle DUI attorney. Even if they get you to say things your Seattle criminal attorney will have a good chance of getting it thrown out (you should never waive our rights, for your information).

Related Posts:

If You are Running From the Cops, Don't Stop for Tea

Talk to a Seattle DUI Attorney Before You Take a Breathalyzer

Seattle DUI Attorney Explains Plea Bargaining Procedure So You Are able to Understand What is Happening

The most awful circumstances scenario has occurred. You went to that anniversary social gathering last weekend in downtown Seattle that you knew was going to end up being outrageous (complimentary cocktails will do that to you). You considered securing transport to and from the event, nevertheless in the end determined it was too problematic to pay for a yellow cab. On the street home to Seattle, it happened. A Seattle officer pulled you over and in the end apprehended you for Seattle driving under the influence. You've hired a Seattle DUI attorney nevertheless are apprehensive concerning how everything is going to turn out.

If you've been viewing Law and Order, Boston Legal, Murphy Brown, or any of the other legal shows on TV, or if you've spoken to anyone that has had legal difficulty in the past, then you appreciate a little bit concerning how the course of action works. To start with, your Seattle criminal attorney is going to (or should) undertake an in-depth look at your occurrence, including the police reports, any film that exists, and interviewing some witnesses that might exist. Second, they are going to have you obtain an alcohol valuation, which, depending on what it states, will have an consequence on the route of the plea discussions. Following that, they'll call the prosecutor and see what they can work out.

But what are the options? What is probable? From the very beginning it is key to grasp that Washington driving under the influence laws (and drunk driving laws throughout the country) are some of the most strict when it comes to plea bargaining. No representative wishes to be accountable for releasing a drunk driver who goes out and drives intoxicated once more and causes injury (even though individuals can drive lacking a license). This makes it decently hard to plea bargain with the prosecutor, specifically to get a DUI charge lower to something lesser. But there are several choices. earlier I get going, it is crucial to bear in mind that the judge doesn't have to take a plea bargain. The court can always impose their own sentence.

To begin with, it may be possible to influence the prosecutor to prosecute your drunk driving as a firstly DUI even though you have a earlier infraction in the preceding 7 years. This allows your Seattle criminal attorney to get a lower sentence, reduced fines, and lower license revocation (although this will often not have an effect on the administrative license revocation as they work independently of the prosecutor's office).

Second, it may be possible to get several of the accompanying accusations dismissed. If you were pulled over for a cracked tail light, this may not seem like much. But if your driving under the influence charge is accompanied with leaving the scene of an collision, fleeing and alluding, or something comparable, getting those dismissed can be a suitable conclusion.

Third, in some instances, when the prosecutor's state of affairs is rather fragile, you might be able to plead down the drunk driving to reckless driving. This is helpful for the reason that it reduces the driving suspension, there is no mandatory jail time, and there is no ignition interlock condition. It will require the high risk insurance, but if your driver's license has already been suspended administratively, you need to have that anyway. If you can get negligent driving 1st degree, you do not even have to have the high risk insurance, and nearly all insurers treat it as a couple of speeding tickets, if they see it at all.

In any occasion, if you desire to get the best deal, you've got to find a drunk driving attorney in Seattle that is dependable, honest, and has a high-quality reputation at the prosecutor's office (for being a straight shooter, not necessarily someone the prosecutor likes). If your Seattle DUI attorney boasts about pulling one over on the prosecutor's office, you can expect that either the prosecutor is going to see through it, or the criminal lawyer in Seattle has done it before, and you are not going to be aided because of it. Lawyering is an art and a science, but if you don't hold credibility, you won't get that much desired benefit of the doubt. It could result in a much harsher sentence than was originally probable.

Related Posts:

Knowing How to Beat a Seattle DUI Won't Get You One

If Driving After Drinking When the Cops Are Out Better Know a Seattle DUI Attorney

Seattle DUI Attorney | The DUI Stop

One of the worst feelings you can possibly have is on that long drive home late at night after a few of beers at the pub. You feel satisfactory, but know deep down that feeling okay isn't what actually matters. And after that you notice them, flashing lights in your rear view mirror, and you know a Bellevue DUI Attorney is on the horizon.

A DUI stop is one of the most terrifying experiences there are, if, for no other reason, there are so many unknowns. Will the police officer suppose you are inebriated? Will you lose your driver's license? Will you need to go to confinement? Could you maybe immediately have squandered thousands of dollars in Seattle DUI lawyer fees and fines down the drain? All of these questions possibly race through your head, and with justifiable explanation.

This article, hopefully, will make you a bit less fearful. Although you shouldn't drink and drive, if you discover yourself in that position, at least in Washington State (Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Tacoma, Federal Way, Kent, etc.) this piece of writing is going to ensure you have the greatest opportunity of making it to your place safe. But remember, this data is not legal instruction. Prior to making any choices that might conclude your legal rights or fate, please confer with a Bellevue DUI attorney. Every situation is distinct, and you require a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle to calculate your particular case to identify exactly what to do.

There are various critical things you should appreciate about your typical criminal stop in Seattle. First, the majority of the time you are not being detained on suspicion of DUI (according to the police officer). Even though it is 1:00 a.m. and he's out pulling you over for failing to use a turn indication, a criminal is not the actual grounds he's pulling you over (okay, so it almost certainly is, but it is beside the point here - if they've got a grounds to pull you over, they can). Presuming you weren't swerving all over the place or doing something else to make the cop think you were drunk, getting the encounter over as quickly as doable is the target.

Getting it completed signifies three things: (1) act courteously; (2) say as little as doable; and (3) once it seems as though the original stop is concluded, ask if you may go so you can get back home. After the officer pulls you over, he is looking for signs that you are under the influence. We all know what those are: glassy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech; the smell of beer. Try not to offer out those clues to the police officer if feasible (don't chat too much). The objective is to thwart the cop from establishing probable cause that you are criminal. Lacking that he is going to have a hard time seizing you.

Subsequently, if he asks you to move out of the automobile, you can do so. However, if he asks if you'd mind taking a couple of field sobriety tests, at this point is where you have to take a path special than that of a good number Seattle drivers. Respectfully decline. You don't even need to give an excuse. In Washington State, you have the right to stay silent, to abstain from providing incriminating evidence in contradiction of yourself, including field sobriety tests. It prevents a lot of facts from being obtained that can be utilized in opposition to you later on, and it is the accurate thing to do. Nevertheless, be prepared, for the reason that it may get you ushered to the station for a breath test (if they take you, though, you were going besides).

Now, here is the significant part. The instant they say you are going to take a breath test, let the police realize you desire to talk with a Seattle criminal attorney. When you do this, numerous things occur. First, the cops cannot interview you any more. And next, you get to speak to a criminal attorney in Seattle to figure out what you ought to do next. And, no matter what time of day, an lawyer is available (many Seattle criminal lawyers make themselves on hand for specifically such phone calls). And any Seattle criminal defense attorney must be able to guide you to a person who will answer the telephone. And if you don't know who to call, a public defender is ordinarily on call, so even at three in the morning you'll have a person to chatter to.

From there on, you ought to in fact do what your Seattle DUI attorney states, as your particular situation, counting any prior offenses, your occupation, how much you've had to drink, and further things, can affect what you need to do moving ahead.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | In-Lane Swerving Okay

Seattle DUI Attorney | You Need One for Court

DUI Lawyer Seattle | Illegal Searches

Here we go again, a new run down of the drunk driving law cases ruled in the previous week in Washington State. As with preceding week, the quantity of decisions out is small - possibly it has something to do with the holidays or something, so this article might not be that lengthy (although I doubt it). And bear in mind, as usual, that though I am a Seattle DUI attorney, I would not propose you take my outline of these cases and my analysis of these cases as gospel as you amble into court to chat to the judge. If you really require the benefit of one of these cases to facilitate you, do the brainy thing and read the state of affairs. That way you can be rest secure that what you are uttering is accurate - or better yet, phone a drunk driving defense lawyer in Seattle to assist - you’ll be pleased you did.

The initial drunk driving state of affairs on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of facts, namely 404(b). Thanks for coming back to the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog!

State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the type of case a driving under the influence defense attorney enjoys because the evidence was poor. It is not the variety of situation a driving under the influence attorney loves since the prosecutor employed some fresh theories of using the rules of proof that appeared to be suspect upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to state.

Facts - The victim was awakened in his abode by gunshots. He looked outside and witnessed someone shooting out of a red car. The automobile was moving as the firing was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one person. A unconnected victim heard the identical thing, and afterward found bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. afterward the cops searched the house of Hartzell’s friend, who admitted to shooting a revolver at a different time. According to ballistics, the handgun was that used in the shooting described above.

The cops were then later called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The police showed up, viewed a bullet hole in a automobile, and brought a search dog to try to uncover the gun that was used. The canine smelled within the vehicle, then went out and found the gun a few hundred yards away from the sedan. This handgun also matched the bullets fired at the first described site.

Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his van as illegal and that previous incidents were wrongly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a tendency to execute gun crimes.

breakdown - First, concerning the search question. The Washington State constitution protects citizens from unwarranted searches of their individual and their confidential things. This proviso is not violated if no search occurs. A search happens when the state interferes with a individual’s private dealings. Usually, a search does not arise if an police officer is able to notice something utilizing one of his senses from a non-invasive point of view.

With regard to canine sniffs, a search occurs depending on the conditions. Earlier decisions have held that a search does not happen if the sniff happens in a location the individual would not have a practical expectation of privacy and the sniff was not intrusive. Here, the canine sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the vehicle when the sniff occurred and the canine didn’t get into the van. The search was rational.

Second, on the topic of the 404(b) proof issue. ER 404(b) provides:

evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a individual in order to demonstrate action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

The test for admitting proof under this rule is well established. The trial court must: (1) come across by a preponderance of the facts that a crime occurred; (2) distinguish the point for which the proof is sought to be introduced; (3) conclude whether the facts is relevant to decide the element of a offense charged; and (4) evaluate the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

In this situation, there was a reasonable deduction that the revolver found 100 yards from Hartzell’s car was possessed by him, particularly since the dog found the gun after sniffing Hartzell’s van. Ammunition from the firearm was also discovered on Hartzell and in the automobile driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that facts not to demonstrate that the crimes created an identity that could demonstrate the first offense and the crime alleged were the same, but that it was probable the defendants committed the crimes for the reason that they were found in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these specifics, the court discovered that proof to be relevant. And to end with, the trial court’s breakdown of the admission of the facts was sensible since it reasoned the lack of information about the incident would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.

Seattle criminal attorney’s analysis - This isn’t the greatest case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their limitations to attempt to get this in. Do I feel the fact that these guys are located with the guns later have any influence on what happened under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one saw anything it is not possible to see who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon inference to achieve their preferred conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t make out in any of this scrutiny (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any proof that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can unquestionably see why this situation was brought to trial - the evidence just isn’t there.

Next we have State v. Bliss, a situation concerning possession of meth, search and seizure, and vehicle stops.

State v. Bliss is a case about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the vehicle and the discovery of methamphetamine. It brings up a hot theme these days, the search occurrence to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s look at on and see what happens.

Facts - Bliss was driving around one night when a cop got behind her and checked the registration on her car. The police officer discovered that Bliss had unsettled misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, established Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the car, discovering a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of meth. The police officer completed a property inventory before having the van towed.

Bliss’s Seattle drunk driving defense attorney moved to suppress the verification on two grounds: (1) the police officer didn’t have justification to stop the automobile; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court discovered the officer was correct in the stop and the search was legal.

Just before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the theory that the search was not occurrence to the arrest. The court located the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.

Issues - Was the search legal?

scrutiny - Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at topic here, is when an cop stops a person briefly to investigate a rational suspicion that driving under the influence activity is afoot. Under this exception, the cop must have a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. The realistic suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific individual stopped such that the stop and investigation is realistic under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.

In this situation when the officer stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the individual driving the automobile at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.

As for the Gant examination, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the motor vehicle. This issue is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the question under Gant.

DUI attorney in Seattle scrutiny - This was probably the right thing to do here. If the topic wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court may perhaps have the information it needs to determine if the search was legal. One thing I did unearth interesting in this opinion was the fact that later on the sports car was impounded, which suggests the automobile would have been searched to inventory the van. Whether that includes a search of the within of the bag remains to be seen.

Gant has actually given a tool for Seattle DUI defense attorneys to use on a regular basis, particularly since police don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search occasion to arrest. I guess we’ll see…

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Run From Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | It's Okay to Know What to Do

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops. Ever.

I have several of DUI clients in Seattle. Most are people exactly resembling you and me. Normal people. The single difference is they frequently have committed simply one flawed misstep that they are currently facing reprimand for. For most it is a Seattle DUI allegation or marijuana possession accusation.

Nevertheless since my customers have regularly never been in dilemma before outside the arbitrary speeding infraction here and there, they possess no inkling how to deal amid the cops as soon as they get there and are investigating you for a criminal act. This is for two primary reasons: firstly, because of the media (plus advertising by the police) we inherently accept as true the cops are out there to assist us; and second, the cops see this and play to this, and utilize their power as repeatedly as feasible to induce you to do things you don't desire to do.

If my patrons would have just paid attention in social studies seminar in high school and government class in high school, or actually watch those cop programs that are all over television, they would recognize that when the police show up and are investigating a crime, they are not your buddy. They are there for one reason only - to collect data in opposition to you. And the preeminent means the obtain that information is you - that's correct, repeatedly you make your own bed when it comes to the Seattle driving under the influence accusations you face.

Like I said, I'm a Seattle DUI attorney. As a Seattle criminal attorney there is not anything I like to glimpse less than a law enforcement commentary that includes a lot of my client's statements. They never help - they all the time damage. And they are time and again the chief source for the charges my client is facing.

So, what should you do if you are investigated for a drunk driving? First, shut your lips. And don't open it unless you desire to utter the words "get me a attorney." Or else you are absolutely hurting yourself. Second, after you utter those terms, attempt to lock up yourself down as best you can. The police aren't going to be keen on this and they are going to try everything they can to get you talking. This includes using your suspicions, your main beliefs, and the effects you care about, counter to you. Just continue quiet until you have a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle there to assist you. It will create a mammoth alteration.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Confidentiality

Seattle DUI Attorney | In Lane Weaving

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Run From Cops

Another week, a different column reviewing the key DUI law case decisions from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Although last week there was an significant determination that affects a lot of DUI prosecutions, this week, the actual effect of the cases on the practice of law for your average Seattle DUI attorney is slight.

To give you a concise sample, we have two decisions, one out of Division II of the Court of Appeals and one out of Division III of the Court of Appeals. It was a slow week for the Supreme Court - they didn’t announce any up-to-the-minute cases of consequence. The Division II case concerns something drunk driving defense attorneys in Seattle will run into from time to time, or at least face inquiries on - the restoration of firearm rights after a DUI guilty verdict. The Division III case concerns the fundamentals of residential burglary and whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate crime for a conviction of residential burglary. Let’s get started at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog!

Restoring Fire Arms Rights - State v. Mihali

Facts - State v. Mihali is a case about restoring fire arms rights to an entity convicted of a transgression. Mihali, in 2000, was found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (i.e. drugs - probably methamphetamine). In 2004 Mihali received a official recognition from the Department of Corrections that she had finished the terms of her sentence, was discharged from DOC supervision, and had all of her civil rights restored (right to vote, etc.) except the entitlement to own and/or possess a weapon. In 2008 she filed with the court a motion to restore her firearms, alleging that she had met all of the requirements to have her right to firearms restored. The state opposed this motion, arguing that the required 10 years had not elapsed since her conviction was fulfilled, which is a requirement because she was convicted of a class B felony. The court agreed with Mihali and restored her firearms rights - the State appealed.

Issue - Was Mihali eligible to have her right to hold a gun restored?

Analysis - gun restoration rights are governed by RCW 9.41.040(4). It states that a person with no a guilty verdict for a sex offense or a Class A felony may formally request the court to have their right to hold a weapon if:

(b)(i) If the guilty verdict or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the person has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a weapon counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525

The state's contention that two circumstances must be met before firearms will be restored is a reliable one: (1) five or more years in the community without being found guilty or currently charged with a transgression; and (2) no previous felony convictions in her drunk driving history that would be included in her offender score calculation that ban possessing a firearm. The subject in scrutiny here is the date from which the second prong of the analysis is calculated from. The state contends the ten year look back phase goes from the date of the petition for restoration of firearm rights. Mihali argues the ten year look back period should be from the date of the last guilty verdict. If the state’s view is adopted, Mihali is not appropriate. If Mihali’s view is adopted, she is.

This issue has been raised and answered in previous case decisions. There we determined that the Legislature planned the look back phase to be from the date of the petition for firearm restoration. Although the decisions in these cases were not completely on point because they weren’t discussing this statute explicitly, the breakdown is comparable. In addition, this is reflected in the Legislative history of the law.

Holding - The trial court’s determination reinstating Mahili’s gun rights is overturned. Mahili must wait ten years from the date of her last conviction before the court can think about gun right restoration.

Tacoma DUI attorney’s Analysis - In cases such as these, whether or not the law appears to be reasonable, it is the law. I think the court decided the way that it should have, even though it forces Mihali to wait five more years to have her gun rights restored. It was almost certainly worth a shot from Mihali’s dui defense lawyer because the issue hadn’t been litigated, but it was a long shot to be upheld by the Court of Appeals. The fact is, at the time of her petition for firearm right restoration, Mihali had a felony conviction that would have counted as part of her offender score.

Elements of Residential Burglary - State v. Devitt

Facts - State v. Devitt is a case about the elements of residential burglary, namely whether or not obstructing a Seattle law enforcement officer counts as the predicate misdeed obligatory for a conviction of residential burglary. The case starts with the cops thinking Devitt stole a car and was caught up in a hit and run. The cops witnessed him close to the accident and Devitt took off and ran from them. He ended up hiding in an apartment complex, in the end finding himself in the apartment of a woman. While there Devitt spoke to the woman, had a glass of iced tea, made a cell phone call (with her consent), and just hung out waiting for the officers to leave. The female said she wasn’t in anxiety for her security. After a bit she went outside to take out the trash and let the officers know Devitt was in her residence.

Devitt was charged with residential burglary (first degree criminal trespass as an alternative), obstructing a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. At the completion of the state’s case, Devitt moved to dismiss the burglary charge for failing to prove all of the fundamentals, namely that Devitt planned to commit a transgression against the person or possessions inside the dwelling. The court said obstructing a law enforcement official was enough, and let the case go to the jury. Devitt was found guilty of all the charges.

Issue - Is obstructing a police officer sufficient to meet the underlying offense requirement of residential burglary?

Analysis - Residential burglary is defined in RCW 9A.52.025(1) as: entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle with intention to commit a misdeed against a person or property therein. To substantiate his posture that obstructing a law enforcement officer should not count as the underlying offense, Devitt pointed the court to the prosecutor’s standards for charging crimes. Obstructing a law enforcement officer is not characterized anywhere as a misdeed against a human being, much less anyone other than the cop.

The language of the residential burglary law requires a unambiguous transgression (against a human being or possessions) in a explicit place (inside a dwelling) and with a detailed intent (to go in the home to commit the misdeed). Because of this, more than just the intent to commit a offense usually is requisite.

The prerequisite that the misdeed intended to be committed be done “therein” or inside the lodging, is also crucial. In this case there was no law enforcement officer in the abode, making it hard for Devitt to have entered the house to commit that precise offense.

Holding - the state failed to show the essentials of the residential burglary law. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Tacoma DUI Lawyer’s Analysis - Really? Are you freaking kidding me? Why would the prosecutor even charge this misdeed, much less see it through to a jury trial and then claim their completely unreasonable opinion to the court of appeals? And why would the trial court judge not read the law and realize the elements of the crime had not been met? I am a Tacoma criminal attorney, so I am a little biased. But I am not the type of DUI attorney that is an apologist for my clients. I see the facts and I see the crimes charged and I work from there. Why can’t prosecutors do the same thing?

This is a great example of some of the things we are forced to deal with all the time that gum up the drunk driving justice system, make everyone grumpy, and make defense attorneys think prosecutors are unreasonable and gunning for victories at all times. If this prosecutor would have amended the charges to first degree trespass there would have been no trial, there would have been no appeal, and all of this time would not have been wasted. A first year law student should be able to make the analysis necessary to get this conclusion right.

That’s my two sense for today. Stay tuned next week for another installment of the latest criminal defense decisions from Washington State. Hopefully there will be more exciting news.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti

Seattle DUI Attorney | News

Seattle DUI Attorney | 10/24/09 Case Law Update

One more week, an additional evaluation of drunk driving cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a Seattle DUI attorney, it is imperative to stay on top of this data so you can be totally ready to contend your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of attention: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the search of a automobile incident to an arrest; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are attention-grabbing and worth noting, so I’ll summarize, and as usual, provide a little morsel of my own criminal lawyer investigation.

Search Incident to apprehension - State v. Patton

This is one of the primary in a what will be a long string of cases dealing with searching automobiles after an important person has been apprehended (also known as search incident to arrest). It is one of the exceptions to cops needing a warrant for detention, and lately the United States Supreme Court clarified what we criminal defense attorneys had acknowledged for a long time - the police were abusing this rule by searching trucks incident to the apprehension of somebody when the capture created no cause for the search. Here is the standard instance: someone is arrested for driving while their license is suspended. The person is arrested and positioned into the cop vehicle. After that the cops search the auto, “incident to the seizure.” Trouble is, there is no support to find for driving while license revoked. The substantiation is already in the control of the cops (the driver’s license records).

Facts of State v. Patton - Patton had an unsettled felony warrant. The cops knew where he was at and where waiting for him to come out so they could apprehension him on the warrant. It was night, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the van and somebody matching the portrayal of Patton out rummaging around in the van. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his cranium out of the automobile and ran into the motorhome. After backup arrived, they went into the motorhome and seized Patton. After arresting him, the cops searched Patton’s vehicle, discovering meth and cash. Patton was charged with custody of meth. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the proof for being illegally detained. The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the court sided with the prosecution, who argued that because when Patton was approached he was beside van that it was eligible to be searched incident to his detention.

Analysis - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unfair. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search must fall into one of more than a few enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are limited to the circumstances that brought them into existence. They shouldn’t be used to chip away at the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant prerequisite is the van search incident to detention. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s security is at issue or there is the opportunity that verification related to the wrong which predicated the arrest will be mislaid or smashed.

In this case, Patton’s contention is that the search of Patton’s truck does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not apprehended in his truck, but in his home, that he was never in his van during the dispute, and that he was captured for an unsettled warrant, for which no verification of the “crime” would exist in the car.

The Court primary looked to settle on when it was that Patton was under arrest. The court noted that:

an seizure takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an intention to take a person into confinement and actually seizes or detains the person. The existence of detention depends in each case upon an detached evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.

Here, the cop had detained Patton for all intents and purposes when he pulled up behind him in the driveway with his lights activated and told him he was under arrest and not to move. It makes sense for several reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from police to change the place of apprehension and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that apprehension. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under apprehension when he was at his car for purposes of the more investigation.

The next subject is whether or not the search incident to the capture Patton was justified. foremost, a search incident to seizure is not legitimate just because the seizure happened closely to the van. A more detailed study is required. Case law has prescribed:

[a] warrantless search [incident to capture] is allowable only to get rid of any weaponry the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist detention or effect an escape and to evade annihilation of confirmation by the arrestee of the felony for which he or she is apprehended…

This law has been recently clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to detention in a van occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the period of search.”

Analysis of these particulars under the set of laws establishes that this search was unfair and outside of the search incident to capture exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the automobile when he was arrested. There was no link between his capture, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the car. Also, there were no security concerns for the officers related to anything in the car - Patton was never in the automobile, he was detained outside of the car, and when the van was searched Patton was no where near the automobile (officer security in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take hold of something in the vehicle and use it to damage the cops).

Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, the trial court’s judgment is upheld, the support is suppressed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.

DUI lawyers perception - Obviously I believe they got this one correct. The officers inappropriately searched the car, located some drugs, and then tried to get the substantiation admitted by trying to generate a state of affairs that permitted their illegal search. As a Seattle drunk driving lawyer these are the types of situations I see all the time that I am happy are now being handled suitably. And, I must also add that I am pleased to see that somebody has really acted appropriately when dealing with the police and did not sanction to a search of his automobile, which while and period again gets people in trouble.

It was also exciting to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact wipe out a lot of case law that had for years been dogging driving under the influence defense lawyers and making it enormously difficult to get verification obtained illegitimately from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, the Washington courts had no alternative but to reverse much of their case law, probably much to their chagrin. This case, like Gant, is critical for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what cops can and can’t do when detaining you.

Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker

As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legal method set up by the legislature to allow, in specified circumstances, citizens that have committed a misdemeanor to take care of the crime by paying damages to the victim. If the payment is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received payment and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice. For DUI attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with robbery, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a smear on their record. In this case, the State challenged whether or not a compromise of misdemeanor could be executed for a hit and run attended (a hit and run case where somebody was in the car when it was hit, as opposed to a parked auto).

Facts - Stalker was charged with drunk driving and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the DUI but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court evidence that the victim was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the allegation pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.

Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have permission to charge repayment because it is not a direct result of the charge (fleeing the location after an accident has occurred)?

Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal organization is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to influence analysis of existing legal inquiries) and precedent is not set aside without due consideration. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is appropriate for compromise. This judgment, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was created to: “give compensation to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of small offenders.”

Because court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor law have determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise of misdemeanor, the legislature has had several opportunities to expressly eliminate hit and run attended from eligibility. While the legislature has excluded various crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to exclude hit and run attended. This shows the court that they do not feel like hit and run attended should be outside the compromise of misdemeanor law.

Holding - the trial court’s conclusion to grant the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.

Criminal attorney's Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The assessment is pretty obvious. One thing I find fascinating about this, and something I come across from period to time out there in the world of DUI defense, are prosecutors that are opposed to a compromise of misdemeanor, like they have a say in whether or not one created or one is granted. These things were created to reduce the work load of prosecutors and give people the chance to move past a brainless decision without having to pay for it for a long while. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an arrangement has been reached between defendant and injured party?

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Traffic Stops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Pretextual Stops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Why You Need to Know One

This could seem a tiny bit self-serving, because I myself am a Seattle DUI attorney, but hear me out prior to you write me off. As a DUI attorney in Seattle I have a rare viewpoint on this topic, and the perception is pretty harsh. I see time and time again people come into my law firm, and these are normal people like you and me, who, because they didn't have someone to converse to earlier than or during their DUI event, have dug themselves into a hole that will take a lot of struggle to get out of. So, if you are a average person, ahead of you write this article off, take a look at it the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog, and then make your own decisions.

Knowing a Seattle driving under the influence attorney and being able to talk to them from time to time to get information from them is important. Although none of us ever imagine to be mixed up in any criminal activity, it can happen upon us from time to time.

For example, in Seattle every year is this enormous hydroplane race called Seafair. Every year these hydroplane racers come to town to race their boats and every person takes out their own boats to observe and celebrate. And partying often includes alcohol. The cops know this, and they are out on the water en mass to give out as many BWI citations as possible.

Now, this usually isn't a big deal, unless the cops are on your boat checking you out. In that situation don't you wish you had a Seattle boating under the influence attorney to help you steer the waters, to know what you have to notify the cops and what you don't, and what tests you have to complete and those you don't? Hell yes you do.

And locating a drunk driving defense attorney to talk to isn't that tricky. All you have to do is solicit around and somebody will at one time or another have dealt with one. And once you acquire someone that was happy with their assistance, just give a buzz that guy or girl up and tell them you have some questions for them.

Promise them you will pass out five of their cards to your contacts if you will answer some questions for you and you pledge to use them for your services if you ever get in trouble. Then fire away. And when you are finished, put that lawyer's card in your wallet and get it out if you ever get in trouble. Trust me when I say there is nothing dui attorneys like more than informing their clients to tell the police they aren't speaking a word and watching the cops squirm.

To sum it all up, you ought to be acquainted with a respectable Seattle driving under the influence defense lawyer for one reason - it could assist save your butt one day when you are in conflict. So don't wait to pick up the phone. locate someone now you can have faith in, get them in your rolodex, and go on with life knowing if you ever get in a sticky situation you'll have someone to give a buzz.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Confidentiality

Seattle DUI Attorney | In the News

Seattle DUI Attorney | Arraignment

The Seattle criminal process can be very daunting, particularly if you haven't been involved in any criminal activity before hand (and this usually applies to a lot people, particularly those charged with DUI, theft, possession of drugs, assault, battery, driving while license suspended, and a whole slew of other crimes). But don't fret, if you haven't hired a Seattle DUI attorney you are happy with and have to go to your arraignment all by yourself, you don't have much to worry about.

Arraignment, for all intents and purposes, is your first appearance in front of the court. It is an opportunity for you to learn a little bit about them and for them to learn a little bit about you. In all seriousness it is a purely procedural exercise 99% of the time and takes five minutes once you actually get in front of the judge.

First, the courts responsibilities to you. When you get to your Seattle DUI arraignment, most of the time you will be given a sheet that explains your constitutional rights. These include the right to an attorney, the right to a jury trial, the right to plead not guilty or guilty, and the right to have your trial commenced within 90 days of your arraignment if you are out of custody and 60 days if you are in custody.

They ask you to read through the sheet and sign it. All that does is let the court know that you have been made aware of your rights and understand them. If you don't understand them ask the judge. Most of the time they will be more than happy to help you answer a question you might have.

Second, the court has to let you know, formally, what you have been charged with. Usually the prosecutor will give you a sheet of paper that says "complaint" on it that outlines the charges against you. If it were a Seattle DUI, for example, it would give the date and place, and describe the elements of DUI. You won't be asked to answer the charges at your arraignment. Just take the sheet. After that the judge will read the charges out loud - this is a requirement. If you have a Seattle DUI attorney with you this requirement will probably be waived - it is purely procedural.

After the court has done these two things, they will ask you if your name is your name and what your current address is. Then the court will ask you how you wish to plead to the charges. In all but a very few instances your answer should be not guilty. Once you plead not guilty the judge will set a pretrial hearing date and tell you your conditions of release.

Conditions of release are that 1% chance you have of running into some trouble at arraignment. If you have a DUI, for example, the court may impose more stringent conditions if you have a high blood test or previous DUI convictions. If you are charged with domestic violence, the court may place a high bail on you and require you to have no contact with the victim. This is the time you need a good Seattle criminal defense attorney on your side to argue.

In Seattle, and in the rest of the State of Washington, conditions of release can be set for two purposes only: (1) to get you to come back to court; and (2) to keep the public safe. If the conditions don't promote those two goals, they shouldn't be required. Your DUI attorney can help you sort through this if stringent conditions of release are required of you.

Like I said, in the end, arraignment is more a procedural thing than anything else. You'll wait in the courtroom for 30 minutes to an hour to get called up and then it will take 5 minutes. If you have the chance to hire a lawyer before that you should do so. We can come in handy from time to time.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti

Seattle DUI Attorney | Can't Talk Your Way Out

Seattle DUI Attorney | Theft

The Seattle DUI Attorney Blog isn't just for DUI talk. I have other stories too. Here's one. I talked to a prospective theft client the other day who had the following things happen to him (the names, dates, and places have been changed to protect the innocent), culminating in a Seattle theft charge he is currently trying to fight his way out from under.

It all started out like any other Saturday. Fred was out and about running some errands, picking up some things here and there, when he wondered into Banana Republic to check out the latest sales, fashions trends, and to make a wish list of clothes to get when he gets his next paycheck. As he entered BR, Fred had several bags with him from his errand running, some of which were pretty large. As Fred was perusing the store, he found a couple of items he wanted to buy that day, and held them in his arms as he made his way around the store.

As Fred made his way to the front of BR, near the door, he heard a great commotion, looked up, and saw to BR employees shuffling him toward the door. As they exited the store, items still in hand, the employees began to question him about the things he had and why he would try to steal stuff from the store. They asked him if he knew he could be charged with at least third degree theft in Seattle for doing the things that he'd done.

Fred, shocked, said he wasn't trying to steal anything, but was still walking around the store looking at merchandise. They took him to the back room for questioning, and he had the sinking feeling that he'd need a criminal lawyer sooner rather than later.

Once in the back room Fred began to feel pretty humiliated. The security staff, which were not the smartest individuals or the most well mannered, continued to make snide comment after snide comment about Fred as they processed him and waited for the cops to show up. At one point they were even making fun of him! Needless to say Fred was humiliated. But Fred was smart enough to know not to talk to the security people about his case - he knows that silence is golden in a Seattle criminal case.

Once the Seattle cops showed up they didn't even ask Fred his story. They just arrested him for third degree theft and took him down to the station for processing. Now he has to fight what amounts to a bogus theft charge all because the security staff at the place he was shopping was too dumb to recognize a regular customer.

Fred did to the smart thing, however and went out and hired a Seattle DUI attorney. He knows that a Seattle theft lawyer knows the ins and outs of criminal procedure, knows how to put Fred's best foot forward in the eyes of the prosecutor, and knows how to speak a language the prosecutor's understand. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out. Stay tuned!

(By the way, I want to reiterate that BR was in no way a part of this story. I just used them as an example of a clothing store, actually because I really like their store).

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle DUI Attorney | Get to Know a Good One

Seattle DUI Attorney | Knowing What to do Won't Get You One

Almost everyone I talk to about Seattle DUI law says the same thing, "I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to know about it. I don't want your card. I don't want to jinx myself into getting a Seattle DUI." At that point I never give up. After all, this is some of the most important information they might ever learn. In fact, it is the kind of information that will not only help them beat a Seattle DUI if charged with one, it may even prevent the charges all together.

So, I wanted to take a little time today and address the issue of the DUI jinx head on. Although my friends will probably never read this, you are, and if you are smart enough to be here, you are smart enough to know that information and knowledge are the most powerful weapons you can have when the Seattle cops are trying to peg you with DUI charges.

Before I get into why knowing a DUI attorney in Seattle and about Seattle DUI law is not going to jinx you into getting one, I wanted to talk about some other things people know about that don't immediately cause the event to be prevented. This first one that immediately comes to mind is fire escape routes.

Every building in the United States has a posted escape route somewhere, and most hold annual practices in case there is a fire in the building. So how come we don't have buildings going up in flames all the time? Why don't we try everything imaginable to try to avoid learning about what to do if there is a fire so as not to jinx a fire into happening? The reason is, it doesn't make any sense.

What about life insurance? Why would we want to jinx ourselves into dying by buying life insurance and covering ourselves in the event of death? If we learn about our options for our family when we die or spell out how we would like to be treated in death, aren't we just asking to get killed immediately, much like learning about Seattle DUI law?

The answer to both of these examples is that it can pay huge dividends to be prepared in the face of an emergency or unforeseen event. Knowing how to get out of a building in case of fire is extremely important. Covering your family financially in the off chance that you are killed unexpectedly is extremely important. But you know what? Knowing how to navigate a Seattle DUI and having a DUI attorney in Seattle that you can trust is also extremely important.

Admittedly, a Seattle DUI charge is not a life or death situation. But it can negatively affect your life for years and years after the case is resolved. And you know what, there is a lot of information that the police don't tell you that you could use to your significant advantage is stopped by the cops.

For example, did you know you don't have to take field sobriety tests and that refusing to take field sobriety tests cannot be held against you? Did you also know that field sobriety tests are only marginally reliable even under perfect test conditions? And, did you know that for the most part cops are not out there trying to see if you are too drunk to drive but trying to build a DUI case against you?

In this day and age, knowledge is power. Taking to the streets even after a couple of drinks can have dire consequences if you do not know your constitutional rights and do not understand why the cops are making you do what they are asking you to do. Learning about how to beat a Seattle DUI will not set you up to get busted for a DUI. Drinking and driving when you are too impaired to drive will set you up for a DUI in Seattle. Not being careful will set you up for a DUI in Seattle. And not knowing when to shut, when to say no, and when to call a Seattle DUI lawyer will set you up for a DUI.

Don't set yourself up for a fall. Read the rest of my posts and check out my website to learn your Constitutional rights before you need to know them. And if you have any questions, don't hesitate to call.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Run From the Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Talk to One Before the Breath Test

You thought it would be like any other night out in downtown Seattle. A few drinks at the Yarrow Bay Cafe, then over to Hector's for a little dinner and a couple more drinks. You felt fine when you left about 10:30 and made your way home. And then you see the flashing lights behind you and you tense up. How many drinks did you actually have? Are you sure you aren't over .08? Do you need a Seattle DUI attorney?

But, you were lucky enough to have picked up a business card which has the five things you should do if you are stopped and investigated for Seattle DUI. You are also an avid reader of the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog. You take a quick look over them and follow them step by step.

First, give the cop your driver's license and paperwork and shut up. Check.

Second, remain silent, particularly if he asks you any questions related to what you've done that night. Check.

Third, decline to take field sobriety tests and decline the portable breath test. Check.

Fourth, if arrested, say "I want to remain silent and talk to my Seattle DUI attorney." Check.

And finally, never consent to a search of anything. Check.

So, one by one you have to employ the rules listed on the card. When the officer asks you if you've had anything to drink that night you say "my attorney told me not to answer that question." When the officer asks you to take field sobriety tests, you decline. When he asks you to take a portable breath test, you decline. And when he arrests you you ask to speak with an attorney and invoke your right to silence.

But, why do you need to talk to a DUI lawyer before deciding to take the breath test? It doesn't seem like a very difficult decision since the penalties are so much harsher if you refuse. The thing is, if you follow the rules above, unless you are blatantly drunk or hit something or were swerving all over the place the police and the prosecutor are going to have very little evidence against you. You may have to deal with a civil license suspension (although you can fight it), but with the interlock ignition device, it isn't that big of a deal.

So, the reason you need to call a Seattle criminal defense attorney is simple - they can give you the advice you need to make the best case possible for you to beat your DUI.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | In Lane Weaving

Seattle DUI Attorney | Why You Should Know One

Seattle DUI Attorney | You Can't Talk Your Way Out

Time and time I see this scenario play out in court. It is an arraignment calendar. People are there to show up and show the court they know they are in trouble, find out exactly what they are charged with (if they don't already know), plead not guilty, and find out if they are going to have to do anything special to remain out of jail while the case is pending.

A Seattle DUI case is called and a guy gets up who does not yet have a Seattle DUI attorney and walks up to the front of the court. Once the guy gets up to the front, the judge asks the guy a couple of questions, "Is your name really Guy?" "Yes." "Do you know what you are charged with?" "Yes." "How do you plead?" "Judge, I don't think I should have been charged with a DUI. I only had four beers..." And that is when the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.

If you are charged with DUI in Seattle, or charged with any other crime, for that matter, you should understand one important concept about your arraignment - the judge doesn't care why you are there, the matter is purely procedural, and you should say as little as possible, get your next court date, and get out.

If you start telling the judge or the prosecutor about your case, including why you did what you did, not only will they not care, but it could significantly damage your case down the road. If you didn't understand the concept, when you are talking in court, your statements are being recorded. They will use those statements against you later on if they can. And they don't care what you have to say.

So, if you are charged with DUI and you don't have a Seattle DUI attorney yet, here is a word of advice - don't talk at your arraignment except to answer the judge's questions (and don't worry, he or she will not ask you about what happened). Hire a DUI lawyer as quickly as possible and just try to get out of there without doing more harm than good (by the way, this advice works if you need South Carolina DUI Attorneys too).

Contrary to popular belief, you cannot talk your way out of anything. What you can do is make things worse. So, moving forward, be quiet, keep your head low, and let your attorney do the work for you.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Befriend One

Seattle DUI Attorney | No Stopping for Tea

Seattle DUI Attorney | In-Lane Weaving Okay

The question often arises with groups of people discussing Seattle DUI attorney as to what constitutes "weaving" such that a Seattle cop could pull you over. To see if you know the law, let me give you an example and you can tell me if you think the police officer was justified in pulling over the driver and then investigating them for Seattle DUI.

You have had a long day of work and stop by a happy hour with a couple of friends. You have a couple of drinks and decide to head home. On your way home you are driving along, maybe up I-405, and you are staying in one lane. As you are driving, you begin to notice that you are weaving a bit within your lane, even going outside of your lane once.

And then you see the flashing lights behind you and a rush of fear goes through your body (you can see the DUI attorney in Seattle bills just piling up). The police officer pulls you over and says he saw you swerving in your lane, even crossing the line once. He asks if you've had anything to drink, and because you listened to your buddy who is a DUI attorney, you know not to answer his questions. You also know not to do any field sobriety tests or a portable breath test. Based on your driving and alcohol on your breath the officer arrests you for Seattle DUI. Is the arrest valid?

If you said no, you are correct. The Washington Supreme Court has determined that:

Washington State's requirement that automobile drivers remain within a single lane of travel "as nearly as practicable" does not impose strict liability.1 A vehicle crossing over a lane once for one second by two tire widths does not, without more, constitute a traffic violation justifying a stop by a police officer.

What this meant in the case the quote is taken from is that not only is the traffic stop illegal, but everything that happened as a result of the traffic stop (i.e. the DUI). In the end, the DUI was dismissed.

Stay tuned to the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog for more helpful information.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Illegal Searches

Seattle DUI Attorney | Breathalyzer Info

Watch Out for the Seattle Police this Weekend

If you have been around for any length of time anywhere, you know that during high volume weekends, particularly those associated with drinking and partying, the cops are going to be out in full force to catch as many drunk drivers as possible. But no matter how much everyone knows that, as Seattle DUI attorneys, the most busy time of the year for us is the Monday after Memorial Day, the Monday after Labor Day, and the Monday after the Fourth of July. No matter how aware people are of the increased police presence, people still gamble with their driving privileges by drinking and driving.

And they even let you know they are stepping up efforts (and we at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog let you know too). For example, I saw in the newspaper on Thursday an article that said the police would be increasing efforts to keep drunk drivers and speeders off the roadways this weekend.

If you didn't know, a DUI can follow you around for a long time. It is expensive to defend, the rules are stacked against you (to the point of being unfair) and they are just embarrassing to get. So why take the chance, particularly on these very busy weekends? Personally I don't mind you taking the chance, because you pay my salary and office expenses. But from a practical standpoint it is a bad idea, and something you can plan around.

If you are ever pulled over and investigated for DUI, don't try to be the tough guy and talk your way out of it. Give the officer your driving information and shut up. Be nice, but don't talk any more than you have to. And at the first opportunity, let the police officer know you'd like to speak with a DUI attorney in Seattle. And don't stop asking until you get in touch with one.

I hope everyone's Fourth of July weekend was enjoyable and filled with fun times with friends and family. And I hope none of you reading this have to pick up the phone tomorrow and use me for my services. If you do I'll help you fight your DUI and do my best to get you the results you deserve.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Pretextual Stops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Knowing Rights Won't Get You DUI

Seattle DUI Attorney | Multiple DUI Offender Flips Car

It's kind of a strange phenomenon, but as a Seattle DUI attorney I see it a lot. There are many people out there driving after drinking (whether too drunk to drive or not is a subjective question that hopefully you have a good enough DUI attorney to refute it!) who never ever get stopped by the police. And then there are those that need to have the best criminal lawyer in town on speed dial because they have an uncanny way of always finding the cops and getting into trouble for DUI (if you are stopped more than once, that is a very statistically improbable thing).

But sometimes people just bring trouble on themselves. For example, there is this guy, reported on in the Kirkland Reporter (you can read their story here).

Allegedly, he'd had too much to drink and was driving home and on his way home decided to speed and swerve (these are from the facts of the story, but from what happened next I'd have to tend to believe them). Once the Kirkland police officer tried to pull him over this guy didn't do the smart thing and pull over and try to get his traffic ticket and move along. No, he tried to outrun the cops.

Now here is a word to the wise from seasoned Seattle DUI attorneys, nobody really ever outruns the cops anymore. Once you take off they get a helicopter on you and it's pretty much impossible to get away.

This guy decided it was going to be cool to take off and reach speeds of 125 mph. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't often get to practice driving that fast. And apparently this guy doesn't either. After some time he rolled the vehicle, where, you guessed it, the police nabbed him. I don't think he made it to Bellevue but he definitely broke his car.

So, lesson for the day, if you are going to drink and drive (and not be drunk and drive - we can't condone that here) try your best to follow the traffic laws. Sometimes you are just unlucky if a taillight or something goes out, but if you are speeding and driving around like a crazy person, you are just asking to get pulled over (and that's about the only way it can happen, since Washington State doesn't allow DUI checkpoints). So drive safe, put your seat belt on, and wait until you get home and play video games to try to outrun the police.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Breathalyzer? Lawyer Please

Seattle DUI Attorney | Swerving in Lane Okay

Seattle DUI Attorney | Seat Belt Patrols Pretext for DUI Stop

I think everyone out there agrees that seat belts save lives. And I would even agree that seat belt education is important, and people should wear them. But is it really necessary to have saturation patrols to catch and ticket people that aren't wearing their seat belts? Aren't there better things our patrol officers could be doing, like at least catching people who are putting other people at risk? And if there isn't, should we be doing this anyway?

In the news today is a story about a statewide seat belt saturation patrol. And on top of it, it is a night saturation patrol. I am not making this up, but on May 21 and several date thereafter, there will actually be "sting" operations set up where an officer will be on the lookout for individuals that are not wearing their seat belts, who will then radio ahead to another officer who will pull over and ticket the individuals (at $112 a pop). The patrols will be occurring in King County, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, Kirkland, Maple Valley, Redmond, and Shoreline.

Like I said, I am all for wearing seat belts, but this crackdown on seat belt use sounds like one of two things: (1) a backdoor way for cities and counties to fill their coffers with traffic fines; and (2) a backdoor way to find and cite individuals with Seattle DUI. If either is the case, I wish they'd just come out and say it instead of cloaking it as some safety initiative. And that they are doing it at night because more accidents happen at night is ridiculous. How are these officers going to be able to see is someone in wearing their seat belt? Are they going to shine a spotlight on each passing car as it approaches?

As a Seattle DUI attorney I see instances all the time where people are stopped for minor traffic violations so they can in actuality be investigated for DUI. It is sneaky and it is underhanded, and pretextual stops are technically not allowed. But if I get to use all of the rules to my advantage, so do they.

I guess, then, on that note, the message is clear. Make sure you wear your seat belt. Don't give the spotters a reason to pull you over. And besides, wearing your seat belt is good for you.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | More Patrols This Weekend

Seattle DUI Attorney | There is No Jinx

Seattle DUI Attorney | Burien City Manager Gets DUI

As expected, Burien City Manager Mike Martin was formally charged with driving under the influence of alcohol by the King County sheriff's department on Wednesday. If you remember, several weeks ago Martin was cited for DUI in Seattle after he hit a planter located at a house on his way home while trying to turn around in the street.

In the story that followed today in the Des Moines news (you can see it here), some other interesting facts surfaced. The property owner who had their planter run over by Mr. Martin opined that he thought Martin was "really drunk."

And the police officer noted that Martin had a smell of alcohol on his breath and that his eyes were watery and bloodshot (when haven't you heard this though - this is almost automatic cop speak when arresting someone for DUI). Also, Martin refused to take field sobriety tests (which you should always do) and refused to take a breath test (which you should only do after consulting your DUI attorney - something you are allowed to do under the law).

What is really interesting about this case are some of the city's leaders reactions. One of the city councilwomen wrote a scathing editorial calling for Martin's resignation, while others, one of whom is a recovering alcoholic, have stood up for Martin and stood by him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

In any event, the lesson to be learned here is the same: don't drive drunk, but if you do drink and drive (not the same as driving drunk), know your rights, and don't be afraid to stop answering the officer's questions and ask to speak to your Seattle DUI defense attorney.

As always, thanks for reading the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog. Come back for more DUI news, tips, tricks, and decisions.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | More People Driving Drunk

Washington State Football Player Gets DUI

If there is one lesson learned by this Washington State football player over the weekend it was this: make sure you aren't violating any obscure laws after the hours of 11:00 p.m. or you are taking your chances if you drive drunk. It appears from this story that a Washington State football player was charged with Seattle DUI after an officer pulled him over at 2:51 a.m. for having studded tires on his vehicle. Really? Studded tires?

From the perspective of a Seattle criminal attorney, it really kind of irks me that cops are driving around at 3 o'clock in the morning looking to pull someone over for as obscure a traffic violation as possible.

I would venture to say that police officer has written only one citation for having studded tires recently (unless that's the "thing" he's known for around the police house). I'm all for getting drunk driver's off the road, but it doesn't sound like this guy was anything but unlucky.

Hopefully he'll get a good DUI attorney to help him out, and maybe he can get this kicked (pretextual stops in Washington are a no-no). In any event, if they guy is ever in Seattle and needs a Seattle DUI attorney, I can point him towards one.

By the way, the website this article comes from has great law firm website SEO. Just thought I'd mention that since I dabble in it a little.

Related Posts:

Burien City Manager Charged with Seattle DUI

If You are Driving Drunk, Don't Flip Your Car

Seattle DUI Attorney Law Overview

If you are in need of a Seattle DUI attorney, you are probably suspected of having committed a violation of at least one law. I figured that since you are accused of something, you might as well know what the law is. Today, at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog, I'm going to discuss Driving Under the Influence as defined in the RCW 46.61.502.

In layman's terms, driving under the influence, or DUI, occurs when consumes so much alcohol or uses so much drugs that it impairs their ability to properly operate a vehicle. As I'm sure you know, the amount of alcohol in your system is often measured by a breathalyzer test, and a measurement of .08 or greater presumes (accepts without question) that you are over the limit of alcohol consumption a safe driver can have. But, the statutes have even more than that.

There are actually three ways a person may be guilty of driving under the influence in Seattle according to RCW 46.61.502: if a person while driving a vehicle in the State of Washington: (1) has, within two hours of driving, a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher as shown by an analysis of the person's blood or breath made under RCW 46.61.506; (2) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (3) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

What does this paragraph mean? Well, a couple of things. The first thing it means is that the police don't necessarily need a breathalyzer to tell if you are driving under the influence. If, for example, a Seattle cop pulls you over and after speaking with you and running tests believes you are driving under the influence he can arrest you and then charge you even if your breath test comes back under .08. The police can use their "training and experience" to form an opinion as to your sobriety (those are the kinds of cases DUI attorneys love to defend). The second thing is that DUI is not limited to just alcohol. You can be arrested for drugs too (even prescription drugs, by the way).

Which brings us to section 2 of RCW 46.61.502: the fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section. This means that just because you were prescribed Valium doesn't mean you can use that as a defense if you were driving after just having taken some. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.

On to section 3: it is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense. Wow, that's a mouthful.

What they are saying in this case is that if, for example, you are driving in Kirkland, commit some driving violation, and the police are looking for you, and while they are looking for you, you get drunk, you can use that as a defense to drunk driving if you are charged with it. There are only two rules to this defense, though. First, you, the defendant, must prove that it was more likely than not that your drinking after driving is what caused you to blow above .08, and second, that you have to notify the court and the prosecutor of this before they have the omnibus hearing (a hearing where evidence is presented and motions are argued at the beginning stages of criminal proceedings). The law just recognizes that sometimes people drink after they are done driving.

Section 4 was put in there as a last resort in case the police mess up with your original breathalyzer test. It states that breath or blood samples collected after the 2 hour time limit to take the tests has passed may be used to show you were drunk within the two hour time frame after the incident, or that at least you had been drinking for the non-breathalyzer portions of the Seattle DUI laws. Does it sound a little shady, that the state or city prosecutor could use stale evidence to prove you committed a crime? That's because it is.

Section 5 says that a Washington state DUI is a gross misdemeanor unless section 6 applies. Section 6 says a DUI is a class C felony if: (1) you have four or more prior DUIs in the last 10 years; (2) the person has been previously convicted of: (a) vehicular homicide while DUI; (b) vehicular assault while DUI; or (c) and out of state offense compared to (a) or (b).

That is it for your basic DUI law. If only it were that simple. Stay tuned for more Seattle DUI information.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney Explains Arraignment

Swerving in Your Lane is Not Enough for a Seattle DUI