Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog

The Problem With Public Defenders

2010-05-18T15:25:00.000-07:00

I'm a criminal attorney. I am not a public defender. I'm in private practice. And if I was forced to choose, I would never take as an attorney someone from the public defender's office. Read on to find out why.

First things first, the point of this article is not to bag on public defenders. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I'm just trying to make a point about a broken system, in a way. The point of this article is also not to scare people into hiring private criminal attorneys. I think you choose who you have to choose.

If you are ever in court, or are ever bored and go to court, and want to see the difference between a private criminal lawyer and a public defender, just look at them. The people that you see waiting patiently with one person sitting with them, maybe two, that's the private criminal defense attorney. Now, look for the person with a stack of files in their hands walking frantically from person to person. That's the public defender. And that's why I wouldn't use one.

It really has nothing to do with their level of expertise or their skills as attorneys. In fact, they may be some of the best criminal lawyers out there. But because they are so busy, there is no way they can be the best criminal lawyer for your case. It's simply not possible. The work that your case needs and deserves simply takes too much time.

And public defenders have no time.

Public defenders are simply overworked. They are asked to handle caseloads that far exceed anyone's abilities. No case suffers horribly, but all suffer just enough that things can be missed, subtleties, that might be picked up if only they had a little bit more time.

If you're faced with a criminal charge and need to make a decision, think long and hard about it. Whichever way you go, be confident knowing you have a good DUI attorney helping you. Just accept that your public defender is working under constraints they have no control over.

Criminal Attorneys | Trial Attorney or Travel Agent

2010-05-09T15:23:00.000-07:00

I was at a trial advocacy training class this past weekend learning to become a better trail attorney through the use of better voir dire techniques, better opening statement techniques, and better case preparation techniques. I was in a room full of criminal attorneys, and it was an amazing group of people.

Each of these criminal lawyers was there for one reason - they see a lot of trials in their future and they want to get as good as they can at advocating during a trial. They took time away from their jobs and practices to do this, and they gave up most of their Saturday (which just happened to be the first beautiful Saturday in Seattle in about 6 weeks. But we all learned something. And we'll all be better trial lawyers because of it.

One of the great things I heard while I was there was a comparison between the two different types of criminal defense attorneys out there. The first is who I see myself as as a criminal lawyer. I am a trial attorney. I work hard for my clients. And if the state's offer sucks or my client doesn't want to take it, then we go to trial. This is the type of person you want on your team if you are in trouble.

The second type of criminal attorney is the travel agent. As the name implies, this type of criminal lawyer is simply there to escort you through the process, from criminal charge to jail time. They aren't interested in trials. They aren't interested in working up your case the way it needs to be worked up to give you the best chance of winning.

If you ever find yourself in trouble, make sure you hire a trial attorney and not a travel agent. It can mean the difference between a bad outcome and a great outcome.

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Bench Trial or Jury Trial?

2010-03-15T17:17:00.000-07:00

So you have been accused of a wrong. Possibly a DUI, maybe an beating, maybe a larceny. And the state isn't giving you anything you feel at ease taking as a plea bargain. Your Seattle criminal attorney informs you the only option, if you don't want the proposition, is a trial.

You're okay with that, but are a bit cautious about the particulars. In particular, you are not certain whether you ought to ask for a jury trial or request a bench trial. Your Seattle criminal attorney is pushing for a jury trial, however you simply don't know if you can rely on a group of individuals you do not know to make the correct judgment.

Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the conclusion of your guilt or innocence) can at times be hard (even for us criminal attorneys!). Let's look at a couple of scenarios that may need you to go one way or another.

To begin with, the jury trial. You like jury trials since jurors usually are not as cynical as judges (they've heard lots of excuses over the years and begin to stop trying to tell the difference). They endeavor fiercely to do the just thing and will habitually furnish you at least a fighting opportunity. On the contrary they can be unpredictable also.

You habitually desire a jury trial when the case is fairly shaky, when you get various inconsistencies in the facts that just do not make sense, and when you want the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's a little more hard.

After that, the bench trial. You commonly like to have these when you have a exceedingly technical defense, the details of the case are truly upsetting (the jury will virtually be certain to be in opposition to you from the start), or you are going to found your defense on a legal topic that you think the judge will value better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, though not unpredictable, have a propensity to tilt in the direction of the prosecution.

In the end, the verdict to go jury trial or bench trial should possibly be completed by your Seattle criminal lawyer. They possess the practice to appreciate which one to use, and they recognize the intricacy of the verdict. No matter which you decide on, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill struggle. Good luck!

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Take the Breath Test or No?

2010-01-05T09:35:00.000-08:00

Determining whether or not to take on a breath examination if you were seized for DUI used to be a gigantic choice (even for a Seattle criminal attorney. If you were requested to take on a blood alcohol analysis and said no, you were subjecting yourself to increased consequences for refusing, but had the benefit moving onward of not having to fight blood alcohol test results.

Well, nowadays it appears more and more likely that the situation may take place where you might reject a blood alcohol assessment, face the more stringent consequences for the denial, and nonetheless be subject to giving blood alcohol results.

Most, if not all states, have fashioned DUI laws that incorporate implied consent laws. In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the thoroughfare in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath examination if the cops have probable cause to think you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the facility to say no the blood alcohol assessment if you so decide. The downside to denial, however, is the imposition of worse costs if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license revocation - for case in point, in Seattle, WA a denial subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).

But, things have changed a bit recently that really worry us criminal attorneys. The cops have started going to judges and asking for search warrants when people decline blood alcohol tests. And quite a few judges have upheld this practice (the way the courts perceive it, the denial has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by indicating probable cause to a judge and obtaining a search warrant.

One detail is assured. If you have the facility to tell with criminal attorneys Seattle before deciding whether or not to take on a blood alcohol analysis, you should do so. The issues revolving around breath test denial are getting more and more complicated every day, and the only way you can be certain you are doing what is best for you is by speaking with an practiced Seattle DUI attorney and learning all of your options.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | How a Good One Can Help

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Testimonial Evidence Explained

Seattle DUI Attorney Explains the Idea of Corpus Delicti

2009-12-29T16:24:00.000-08:00

Nobody desires to be acquainted with or speak to a criminal attorney until they are in trouble. There is a specific jinx or hex that people seem to believe pursue folks seeking out criminal information before they need it. Nevertheless, once you are charged with a crime, you rapidly realize how important a good Seattle criminal attorney is.

And some of the need for a criminal attorney is the requirement to decipher all of the legal gibberish that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of words you might hear at some stage in your criminal process, some you may well be on familiar terms with, some you may perhaps not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.

Well, I'm here today to help you comprehend what one of folks legal terms means - corpus delicti. This is a word you might not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an important term for your defense attorney to know, particularly if you have confessed to a felony and he or she wants to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better understand the word, I've broken it down for you below.

As I said above, corpus delicti arises most repeatedly in the situation of confessions, and particularly in the situation of confessions where not a lot of additional evidence exists against the defendant. see, judges and courts, though more than ready to let in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the lone thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we know false confessions are provided from time to time. And we be on familiar terms with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are hesitant to allow confessions in unless there is some additional impartial facts of the criminal act.

And that supplementary unrelated support of a criminal act is what corpus delicti stands for. If there is no corpus delicti, or supplementary independent proof of a felony, the court will not permit in a confession since there is the likelihood (whether sensible or otherwise) that the confession was mistakenly provided. Still a little bit puzzled as to what it means? How about an example.

Let's say there is a chap. He is standing out in a parking lot with some supplementary citizens around some vehicles. Let's say the individuals in the sedan and the citizens out of the auto get into a yelling match, for whatever reason. In the end, the dudes in the sedan choose to leave. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a clatter on his automobile and turns around. He doesn't glimpse anybody touching his car or necessarily by his sedan, but there is solitary one person in the area. The guy in the sedan doesn't check his automobile out until later, when he observes a dent in the side of his sedan. He assumes it was the guy he saw around his auto earlier.

The cops go and pick up the man they suspect of harming the car and take him down to the cops station. After some chatting and interrogating, they get the guy to admit to kicking the auto. He is arrested and charged with malicious mischief.

In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? With no the confession, all the cops have for facts is the chap hearing something happen to his automobile, turn around, and observe the gentleman near the auto. What is omitted is any facts that the chap hit the van, and that he did it with an intent to scratch the vehicle. It is feasible (in theory, if no declaration of guilt had been provided) that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when the man turned around. For a case like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.

Corpus delicti, like most supplementary Latin legal expressions, are not tricky to know once they are clarified. But getting that description can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction for the reason that you don't have the legal teaching of the prosecutors? The moment you are placed under arrest or deem like you can't leave is the minute you should demand to converse with a Seattle criminal attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not only help you through the labyrinth of legal nonsense, but facilitate you to keep your lips shut and the police off your back.

Hopefully you are learning something from the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog. If you are, let me know!

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Arraignment

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Crawford Explained

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Lawyer-Client Relationship

2009-12-22T13:55:00.000-08:00

Whether a Seattle criminal attorney, a civil attorney, or only a regular individual on the block, virtually everybody has heard of and has a vague thought concerning what the attorney-client benefit is. If we haven't dealt with it straightforwardly in our personal lives then we've practically undoubtedly had the occasion to see it in action on TV or in the movies.

But what is the lawyer-client privilege actually? Does it denote that when you reveal to a lawyer something that they can't disclose to anybody no matter what? And when does it begin? Do you have to hire the criminal attorney? And when does it finish? Will a criminal defense lawyer in reality take your secrets to their grave? Read on to have these questions answered.

Let's commence with what the benefit stands for. And, because I am a Seattle criminal attorney, we'll use it in the situation of criminal law, even though it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The lawyer-client privilege is the outline that everything you disclose to your lawyer, in private (when just the two of you are present) is restricted. This represents the lawyer cannot inform anyone what you have talked regarding. They can't reveal to their companion, they can't tell their friends, they can't inform the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only time they can divulge is if the information you've told them is to execute the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of someone. It is a very robust privilege.

And the greatest thing is, the privilege begins right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have hired the lawyer for the benefit to attach. It happens automatically, and even if you don't hire that attorney, they nevertheless have to keep your secrets protected. 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 lawyer regarding it.

You disclose to him all regarding your situation and what has been going on, he quotes you a cost, and you tell him it's too expensive and go locate someone else. A week later your husband comes in and desires to talk to a lawyer about a divorce. The attorney not only can't adopt the case since he's already talked to you and representing the companion would create a conflict, but he can't disclose to the spouse why he can't represent her! The companion would basically be sent away. That's how commanding the benefit is.

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

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

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | We Can Help You

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Testimonial Evidence Explained

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause Uncovered

2009-12-18T11:34:00.000-08:00

Within the world of DUI law, probable cause is the whole thing. It is essential for a legal seizure, and everything officers do, specifically when it comes to DUI charges, is carried out to develop adequate evidence to validate probable cause. But what is probable cause? It is a bit of an fluid thing, never having a clear line authoritative state of being. As one celebrated Supreme Court Justice put "I identify it when I see it." Now hear it explained from a Seattle criminal attorney.

Before I start in on my portrayal of probable cause, in particular as it relates to criminal charges, I want to underscore that this editorial is for informational purposes. If you are charged with a crime or facing criminal charges, please speak to a Seattle criminal attorney for conference on your individual case. Do not rely on this as legal advice, as each situation is so factually different precise guidance is essential.

Probable cause is generally viewed as a mixed issue of law and fact. It requires extensive evidence and a legal conclusion of probable cause. Extensive evidence requires "a sufficient amount of proof in the record to sway a fair-minded, lucid person of the accuracy of the finding." It is the who, what, when, and where of the examination.

For instance, let's suppose we have a guy driving around in Seattle after having drank more than a few drinks. He is pulled over by a cop for speeding - 37 in a 25. He is otherwise driving normally, including pulling off to the side of the highway in a responsible manner. At this time there likely is no probable cause for criminal, although there is probable cause for speeding. But what if when the police officer approaches the driver he notices a robust odor of alcohol and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. This might rise to the level of extensive evidence of DUI.

The subsequent prong of probable cause is whether the facts support a legal finding of probable cause. Basically, do the evidence as known substantiate a logical belief that a crime has been committed. In this case, perhaps so, maybe not (a good Seattle criminal lawyer would be great here). Individuals are permitted to drink and then drive (just not when impaired by liquor), and the watery eyes may be described away by something else.

So, what if the police officer then asks the driver to carry out field sobriety tests (which you are able to and ought to at all times refuse 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 meet heel to toe in a walk and turn examination? Is that an adequate amount of for an police officer to draw a sensible conclusion that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol? In all probability. It is undoubtedly a stronger situation for the police officer (although not definitive - injuries and weather circumstances may have been a factor, for instance).

Now, why is this vital for you, the usual citizen? Because it is critical to appreciate that each time a cop stops you and begins to question you he is not fretful with your safety (excluding in those obvious situations) and is regularly trying to collect sufficient information from you to establish probable cause. And it is even more vital to recognize it is within your Constitutional rights to decline to give him data he will in the end utilize against you (despite the fact that you ought to supply your license, registration, and act courteously to the officer).

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

Related Posts:

How a Good Criminal Attorney Can Help You

Criminal Attorneys Love the Crawford Case

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining

2009-12-08T09:25:00.000-08:00

The most awful situation situation has occurred. You went to that anniversary celebration last weekend in downtown Seattle that you knew was going to end up being fanatical (complimentary beers will do that to you). You thought securing transport to and from the event, however in the end determined it was excessively annoying to pay for a taxi. On the road home to Seattle, it occurred. A Seattle officer pulled you over and in the end captured you for Seattle drunk driving. You've hired a Seattle criminal attorney but are concerned concerning how everything is going to turn out.

If you've been watching 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 earlier, then you recognize a little bit regarding how the procedure works. To start with, your DUI defense lawyer in Seattle is going to (or should) undertake an in-depth look at your occurrence, including the police reports, several film that exists, and interviewing any witnesses that may exist. Next, they are going to have you obtain an alcohol assessment, which, depending on what it says, will have an consequence on the course of the plea discussions. Following that, they'll call the prosecutor and see what they can work out.

But what are the choices? What is probable? From the very beginning it is key to grasp that Washington driving under the influence laws (and DUI laws throughout the country) are several of the most harsh when it comes to plea bargaining. No congressperson wants to be in charge for releasing a drunk driver who goes out and drives under the influence once more and causes injury (even though individuals can drive devoid of a license).

This makes it fairly tricky to plea bargain with the prosecutor, particularly to get a driving under the influence charge lower to something lesser. But there are some options. in the past I get started, it is essential to keep in mind that the judge doesn't have to accept a plea bargain. The court can always impose their own sentence.

To begin with, it may be achievable to convince the prosecutor to prosecute your DUI as a to start with DUI even though you have a past infraction in the preceding 7 years. This allows your Seattle criminal attorney to get a reduced sentence, lower fines, and reduced driver's license revocation (although this will regularly not influence the administrative license revocation since they work independently of the prosecutor's office).

Next, it may be likely to get some of the accompanying charges dismissed. If you were pulled over for a cracked tail light, this might not seem like much. But if your criminal charge is accompanied with leaving the scene of an crash, fleeing and alluding, or something similar, getting those dismissed can be a all right conclusion.

Third, in some instances, when the prosecutor's occurrence is comparatively weak, you may be able to plead down the DUI to reckless driving. This is helpful because it reduces the driving suspension, there is no compulsory jail time, and there is no ignition interlock prerequisite. It will require the high risk insurance, but if your license has previously been revoked administratively, you have 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 spot it at all.

In any event, if you need to get the greatest deal, you've got to find a driving under the influence attorney in Seattle that is truthful, honest, and has a superior reputation at the prosecutor's office (read the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog to learn how to find the right person). If your drunk driving attorney brags regarding pulling one over on the prosecutor's office, you can expect that either the prosecutor is going to see through it, or the criminal attorney in Seattle has done it before, and you are not going to be assisted because of it. Lawyering is an art and a science, but if you don't hold trustworthiness, you won't get that much desired benefit of the doubt. It could result in a much harsher sentence than was originally achievable.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse?

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Can't Talk Your Way Out

Seattle Criminal Attorney | The DUI Stop

2009-12-01T10:52:00.000-08:00

One of the most awful feelings you can ever experience is on that long drive home late at night following a few of cocktails at the tavern. You feel satisfactory, but comprehend deep down that feeling okay isn't what in reality matters. And next you see them, flashing lights in your rear view mirror, and you know you need a Seattle criminal attorney.

A drunk driving detention is one of the most upsetting experiences there are, if, for no additional explanation, there are so many unknowns. Will the police officer suppose you are intoxicated? Will you lose your driver's license? Will you have to go to confinement? Could you perhaps immediately have squandered thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines down the drain? All of these questions possibly race through your head, and with justifiable cause.

This commentary, on the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog, optimistically, will make you a little less frightened. Although you shouldn't drink and drive, if you stumble on yourself in that spot, at least in Washington State (Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Tacoma, Federal Way, Kent, etc.) this editorial is going to make sure you have the best opportunity of making it to your place out of harm's way. But remember, this data is not legal advice. Prior to making any decisions that could decide your legal rights or fate, please confer with a Seattle criminal attorney. Every circumstances is distinct, and you need a criminal defense attorney in Seattle to calculate your individual case to recognize just what to do.

There are various important things you should understand about your typical DUI stop in Seattle. First, the majority of the time you are not being pulled over 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 employ a turn indication, a DUI is not the true explanation he's pulling you over (okay, so it almost certainly is, but it is irrelevant here - if they've got a basis to pull you over, they can). Assuming you weren't swerving all over the place or doing something else to make the police officer consider you were impaired, getting the stop over as rapidly as doable is the ambition.

Getting it ended represents three things: (1) act courteously; (2) say as little as possible; and (3) when it seems as though the initial encounter is over, 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 intoxicated. We all understand what those are: glassy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech; the smell of liquor. Try not to offer out those clues to the police officer if achievable (don't speak too much). The purpose is to avert the police officer from establishing probable cause that you are DUI. Devoid of that he is going to have a hard time apprehending you.

Subsequently, if he asks you to move out of the sedan, you can do so. But, if he asks if you'd mind taking a few of field sobriety tests, at this point is where you must take a path special than that of a good number Seattle drivers. Respectfully refuse. You don't even need to furnish an reason. In Washington State, you have the right to stay silent, to abstain from providing incriminating evidence in opposition to yourself, including field sobriety tests. It prevents a lot of verification from being obtained that can be used hostile to you later on, and it is the proper thing to do. But, be ready, because it may get you taken to the police station for a breath test (if they take you, nonetheless, you were going anyway).

Now, here is the significant part. The minute they say you are going to take a breath test, let the cops recognize you need to have a word with a Seattle criminal attorney. When you do this, numerous things happen. First, the police cannot grill you any further. And next, you get to speak to a criminal lawyer in Seattle to figure out what you ought to do after that. And, no matter what time of day, an lawyer is available (many Seattle criminal lawyers make themselves accessible for just such phone calls). And any Seattle criminal defense lawyer ought to be able to lead you to someone who will answer the phone. And if you don't know who to call, a public defender is commonly on call, so even at three in the morning you'll have a person to speak to.

From there on, you must certainly do what your Seattle criminal defense attorney says, as your particular circumstance, counting any prior offenses, your occupation, how much you've had to drink, and additional things, can affect what you need to do going onward.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Can't Talk Your Way Out One

Criminal Attorney Seattle | Possession of Meth and Relevant Evidence

2009-11-24T13:06:00.000-08:00

Here we go again, another run down of the criminal law cases ruled in the last week in Washington State at the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog. As with preceding week, the number of decisions out is minute - maybe it has a little to do with the holidays or something, so this post might not be that long (although I doubt it). And bear in mind, as always, that although I am a Seattle criminal lawyer, I would not recommend you take my summary of these cases and my examination of these cases as gospel as you walk into court to speak to the judge.

If you in reality need the help of one of these cases to facilitate you, do the intelligent thing and read the situation. That way you can be rest confident that what you are speaking is correct - or better yet, phone a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle to facilitate - you’ll be happy you did.

The primary drunk driving state of affairs on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a state of affairs focused on the rules of facts, namely 404(b). Here we go.

State v. Hartzell is a situation about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the sort of state of affairs a criminal defense lawyer cherishes because the verification was poor. It is not the kind of state of affairs a driving under the influence attorney cherishes because the prosecutor employed some unique theories of using the rules of facts that seemed to be dubious upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to declare.

Facts - The victim was awakened in his home by gunshots. He gazed outside and witnessed someone shooting out of a red sports car. The van was moving as the firing was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one individual. A unconnected victim heard the identical thing, and later on located bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were pulled from the bed. afterward the cops searched the residence of Hartzell’s companion, who admitted to shooting a revolver at a different time. According to ballistics, the pistol was that used in the firing described above.

The police 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 canine to try to find the firearm that was used. The canine smelled in the sports car, then went out and located the firearm a few hundred yards away from the van. This handgun also matched the bullets fired at the first described location.

Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his automobile as improper and that earlier incidents were wrongly admitted to show that the defendants had a proclivity to carry out pistol crimes.

breakdown - First, on the topic of the search topic. The Washington State constitution protects people from needless searches of their person and their private things. This stipulation is not violated if no search happens. A search occurs when the state interferes with a individual’s confidential dealings. Usually, a search does not transpire if an officer is able to perceive 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 person would not have a realistic belief of privacy and the sniff was not invasive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the automobile when the sniff occurred and the dog didn’t get into the car. The search was rational.

Second, regarding the 404(b) proof topic. ER 404(b) provides:

verification of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person 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 analysis for admitting verification under this rule is well recognized. The trial court must: (1) discover by a preponderance of the verification that a offense occurred; (2) distinguish the rationale for which the evidence is sought to be introduced; (3) decide whether the proof is related to determine the element of a crime charged; and (4) evaluate the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

In this situation, there was a practical inference that the firearm found 100 yards from Hartzell’s automobile was possessed by him, particularly because the dog found the revolver after sniffing Hartzell’s sports car. Ammunition from the revolver was also discovered on Hartzell and in the vehicle driven by Hartzell.

Next, the prosecutor was trying to use that proof not to illustrate that the crimes created an identity that may perhaps demonstrate the first offense and the offense alleged were the identical, but that it was likely the defendants committed the crimes for the reason that they were located in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter.

Because of these facts, the court discovered that evidence to be relevant. And to end with, the trial court’s breakdown of the admission of the proof was sensible since it reasoned the lack of information about the occasion would preclude the admission of the information from being prejudicial.

Seattle criminal defense lawyer’s analysis - This isn’t the most excellent case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their boundaries 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 viewed anything it is impossible to distinguish who was utilizing those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing inference upon inference to achieve their desired conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t notice in any of this analysis (and granted, all of the facts wasn’t here) was any corroboration that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can unquestionably see why this state of affairs was brought to trial - the verification just isn’t there.

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

State v. Bliss is a case about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the van and the detection of meth. It brings up a hot issue these days, the search incident to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s look at on and see what happens.

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

Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense lawyer moved to suppress the proof on two grounds: (1) the officer didn’t have justification to stop the car; and (2) the cop couldn’t have seen who was driving the vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court found the officer was correct in the stop and the search was legal.

Very soon before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the theory that the search was not incident to the arrest. The court found the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.

Issues - Was the search legal?

analysis - 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 question here, is when an police officer stops a individual briefly to investigate a practical suspicion that driving under the influence activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a realistic suspicion that offense is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific person stopped such that the stop and investigation is reasonable 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 person driving the sedan at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.

As for the Gant scrutiny, 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 question is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the issue under Gant.

criminal 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 decide if the search was legal. One thing I did uncover interesting in this opinion was the fact that later the sports car was impounded, which suggests the car would have been searched to inventory the truck. Whether that includes a search of the within of the bag remains to be seen.

Gant has actually given a tool for drunk driving defense attorney’s to use on a regular basis, particularly since cops 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 happening to arrest. I guess we’ll see…

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse?

You Can't Talk Your Way Out of a Seattle DUI

2009-11-20T12:56:00.000-08:00

I hold several of driving under the influence defense consumers in Seattle. A good number are citizens just similar to you and me (although not a Seattle criminal attorney). Ordinary individuals. The only distinction is they generally have committed solely one faulty fault that they are at the moment facing penalty for. For a good number it is a Seattle DUI accusation or drug possession charge.

Nevertheless because my patrons have frequently never been in dilemma before beyond the chance speeding ticket here and there, they possess no idea how to deal along with the police when they get there and are investigating you for a DUI. This is for two main reasons: firstly, since of the media (plus advertising by the cops) we intrinsically believe the cops are out there to assist us; and second, the cops identify this and play to this, and use their say-so as habitually as doable to persuade you to do things you don't desire to do (like not talking to a DUI attorney before making critical decisions).

If my consumers would have just paid attention in social studies class in high school and government seminar in high school, or in fact observe those cop programs that are all over television, they would discern that when the cops show up and are investigating a criminal act, they are not your buddy. They are there for one goal only - to gather facts not in favor of you. And the preeminent method the get that information is you - that's precise, regularly you make your own bed when it comes to the Seattle driving under the influence accusations you face.

Like I said, we're criminal attorneys in Seattle. There is not anything I like to see less than a law enforcement description that includes a lot of my client's statements. They never help out - they at all times injure. And they are habitually the main basis for the accusations my client is in front of.

So, what should you do if you are investigated for a criminal act? First, lock up your lips. And don't open it unless you desire to express the expression "get me a lawyer." If not you are absolutely hurting yourself. Second, once you speak those words, attempt to close yourself down as best you can. The police aren't going to be fond of this and they are going to try everything they can to get you talking. This includes using your suspicions, your values, and the possessions you care about, in opposition to you. Simply remain quiet until you have a Seattle DUI attorney there to help you. It will make a mammoth modification.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Confidentiality

Seattle Criminal Attorney | How a Good One Can Help

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Firearms and Residential Burglary

2009-11-10T17:52:00.001-08:00

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

To give you a concise preview, 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 print any fresh cases of consequence. The Division II case concerns something driving under the influence defense attorneys in Bellevue will run into from time to time, or at least face inquiries on - the restoration of firearm rights after a criminal conviction. The Division III case concerns the elements 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 Criminal Attorney Blog!

Restoring Fire Arms Rights - State v. Mihali

Facts - State v. Mihali is a case about restoring fire arms rights to an person found guilty of a crime. Mihali, in 2000, was convicted 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 judgment, was discharged from DOC supervision, and had all of her civil rights restored (right to vote, etc.) excluding the privilege to hold and/or own 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, quarrelling that the mandatory 10 years had not elapsed since her guilty verdict was complete, which is a prerequisite because she was convicted of a class B felony. The court settled with Mihali and restored her firearms rights - the State appealed.

Issue - Was Mihali qualified to have her right to own a weapon restored?

Analysis - weapon 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 petition the court to have their right to hold a gun 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 gun counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525

The state's argument that two circumstances must be met before firearms will be restored is a reliable one: (1) five or more years in the area without being found guilty or currently charged with a crime; and (2) no prior felony convictions in her criminal defense history that would be incorporated in her offender score computation that bar possessing a gun. The issue 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 period goes from the date of the petition for restoration of gun 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 suitable. If Mihali’s view is adopted, she is.

This issue has been raised and answered in earlier case decisions. There we determined that the Legislature intended the look back period to be from the date of the petition for firearm restoration. Although the decisions in these cases were not precisely on point because they weren’t discussing this law particularly, the examination is comparable. Furthermore, this is reflected in the Legislative history of the law.

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

Seattle criminal defense attorney’s Analysis - In cases such as these, whether or not the law appears to be rational, 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 weapon rights restored. It was most likely worth a shot from Mihali’s attorney because the topic 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 weapon 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 basics of residential burglary, namely whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate offense requisite for a guilty verdict of residential burglary. The case begins with the cops believing Devitt stole a car and was concerned in a hit and run. The cops saw him near 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 conversed to the woman, had a goblet of iced tea, made a phone call (with her permission), and just hung out waiting for the cops to leave. The lady said she wasn’t in anxiety for her security. After a bit she went outside to take out the trash and let the cops know Devitt was in her apartment.

Devitt was charged with residential burglary (first degree drunk driving trespass as an alternative), obstructing a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. At the close of the state’s case, Devitt moved to dismiss the burglary charge for failing to provide evidence all of the fundamentals, namely that Devitt planned to commit a offense against the person or property in the home. The court said obstructing a law enforcement officer was enough, and let the case go to the jury. Devitt was convicted of all the charges.

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

Analysis - Residential burglary is defined in RCW 9A.52.025(1) as: entering or remaining unlawfully in a home other than a automobile with intention to commit a crime against a person or possessions therein. To support his position that obstructing a law enforcement officer should not be important as the underlying crime, 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 words of the residential burglary statute requires a exact misdeed (against a being or goods) in a exact place (inside a dwelling) and with a exact intent (to go into the dwelling to commit the crime). Because of this, more than just the intent to commit a transgression usually is requisite.

The condition that the crime intended to be committed be done “therein” or within the abode, is also main. In this case there was no law enforcement officer in the dwelling, making it hard for Devitt to have entered the abode to commit that precise transgression.

Holding - the state failed to provide evidence the elements of the residential burglary law. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Seattle driving under the influence 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 maintain their completely awkward take 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 Kirkland driving under the influence attorney, so I am a little biased. But I am not the type of criminal defense 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 dui defense 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 required to get this conclusion right.

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

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | 10/25/09 Decisions

Seattle Criminal Attorney | The Arraignment

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Case Decisions 10/25/09

2009-10-27T17:12:00.000-07:00

Another week, one more examination of drunk driving cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a Seattle criminal attorney, it is essential to stay on top of this data so you can be wholly prepared to contend your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of relevance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the exploration of a van 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 appealing and worth noting, so I’ll summarize, and as usual, provide a petite speck of my own DUI attorney investigation.

Search Incident to apprehension - State v. Patton

This is one of the essential in a what will be a extensive line of cases dealing with searching automobiles after somebody has been seized (also recognized as search incident to seizure). It is one of the exceptions to law enforcement needing a warrant for arrest, and recently the United States Supreme Court clarified what a Seattle criminal attorney had identified for a long while - the law enforcement were abusing this directive by searching vehicles incident to the capture of somebody when the arrest created no grounds for the search.

Here is the common illustration: someone is arrested for driving while their license is suspended. The human being is captured and placed into the cop van. After that the police search the automobile, “incident to the seizure.” Problem is, there is no confirmation to find for driving while license revoked. The support is already in the custody of the cops (the driver’s license records).

Facts of State v. Patton - Patton had an unresolved felony warrant. The cops knew where he was at and where waiting for him to come out so they could capture him on the warrant. It was night, and after a bit the cop saw the dome light come on in the car and someone matching the description of Patton out digging around in the auto. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his cranium out of the car and ran into the trailer. After backup arrived, they went into the trailer and seized Patton. After seizing him, the cops searched Patton’s vehicle, locating methamphetamine and money. Patton was charged with control of methamphetamine.

At trial, Patton moved to exclude the confirmation for being illegally seized. 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 vehicle that it was appropriate to be searched incident to his seizure.

Breakdown - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unjust. 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 conditions that brought them into being.

They shouldn’t be used to weaken the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant condition is the vehicle search incident to capture. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s wellbeing is at issue or there is the chance that proof correlated to the misdeed which predicated the detention will be misplaced or ruined.

In this case, Patton’s reason is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the restricted confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not detained in his car, but in his home, that he was never in his vehicle during the argument, and that he was arrested for an outstanding warrant, for which no substantiation of the “crime” would exist in the van.

The Court first looked to decide when it was that Patton was under capture. The court noted that:

an arrest takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an objective to take a individual into supervision and in fact seizes or detains the person. The existence of seizure depends in each case upon an objective appraisal of all the surrounding circumstances.

Here, the officer had captured 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 capture and not to move. It makes sense for quite a few reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from cops to change the place of arrest and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that arrest. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under arrest when he was at his automobile for purposes of the more scrutiny.

The next topic is whether or not the search incident to the arrest Patton was right. original, a search incident to arrest is not legitimate just because the detention happened closely to the vehicle. A more detailed analysis is required. Case law has prescribed:

[a] warrantless search [incident to detention] is permitted only to remove any guns the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist detention or effect an escape and to elude demolition of substantiation by the arrestee of the crime for which he or she is seized…

This law has been newly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to apprehension in a truck happens “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search.”

Study of these details under the regulations establishes that this search was unfair and beyond of the search incident to seizure exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the vehicle when he was detained. There was no relationship between his detention, which was for the warrant for failing to appear in court, and a search of the automobile.

Also, there were no safety concerns for the officers related to anything in the truck - Patton was never in the car, he was seized outside of the van, and when the car was searched Patton was no where near the car (officer security in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the auto and use it to harm the cops).

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

DUI attorneys point of view - Clearly I think they got this one correct. The cops inappropriately searched the auto, located some drugs, and then tried to get the support admitted by trying to generate a situation that allowed their illegal search.

As a Seattle DUI attorney these are the types of situations I see all the period that I am happy are now being handled suitably. And, I must also add that I am happy to glimpse that someone has actually acted appropriately when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his vehicle, which time and period again gets people in trouble.

It was also thrilling to see the Washington Supreme Court in effect negate a lot of case law that had for years been dogging criminal defense lawyers and making it tremendously complicated to get support obtained illegally from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s declaration in Gant, the Washington courts had no choice but to negate much of their case law, most likely much to their annoyance. This case, like Gant, is significant for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what cops can and can’t do when seizing you.

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

As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a statutory method set up by the governing body to allow, in precise circumstances, people that have committed a wrong to take care of the misdemeanor by paying damages to the injured party. If the compensation 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 criminal defense attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with theft, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows citizens that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a smudge on their history. 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 someone was in the auto when it was hit, as opposed to a parked van).

Facts - Stalker was charged with DUI and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the drunk driving but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court substantiation that the sufferer 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 right to order compensation because it is not a direct result of the charge (fleeing the area after an smash has occurred)?

Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal system is founded on precedent (using earlier decisions of law to have an effect on examination of contemporary legal questions) and precedent is not set aside nonchalantly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is appropriate for compromise. This conclusion, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was established to: “present restitution to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of insignificant offenders.”

Because court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is entitled for compromise of misdemeanor, the legislature has had many opportunities to specifically eliminate hit and run attended from eligibility.

While the government has disqualified diverse crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to keep out hit and run attended. This shows the court that they do not feel like hit and run attended should be beyond the compromise of misdemeanor law.

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

DUI attorney's Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The decision is pretty obvious. One thing I find attention-grabbing about this, and something I encounter from period to time out there in the world of criminal 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 diminish the work load of prosecutors and give people the opportunity to move past a stupid choice without having to pay for it for a long while. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an understanding has been reached between defendant and sufferer?

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Speeding Ticket to DUI

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Know a Good One

2009-10-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

This may well look a slight bit self-serving, since I myself am a Seattle criminal attorney, but hear me out previous to you write me off. As a criminal attorney I have a rare viewpoint on this topic, and the outlook is pretty grim. I see time and time again people come into my law firm, and these are regular people like you and me, who, because they didn't have someone to chatter to ahead of or during their driving under the influence incident, have dug themselves into a hole that will take a lot of struggle to get out of. So, if you are a average person, prior to you write this commentary off, take a look at it, and then make your own decisions.

Knowing a Seattle criminal defense attorney and being able to speak to them from time to time to get information from them is helpful. Although none of us ever imagine to be implicated in any criminal activity, it can happen upon us from time to time. So we at the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog are going to throw a little knowledge your way.

For example, in Seattle every year is this enormous hydroplane contest called Seafair. Every year these hydroplane racers come to town to event their boats and everyone takes out their own boats to view and celebrate. And partying often includes booze. The cops know this, and they are out on the water en mass to serve as many BUI citations as doable. Now, this usually isn't a big deal, unless the police are on your vessel checking you out.

In that situation don't you wish you had a Seattle BWI attorney to help you steer the waters, to know what you have to tell the police and what you don't, and what tests you have to carry out and those you don't? Hell yes you do.

And finding a DUI defense attorney to chatter to isn't that hard. All you have to do is request around and somebody will at one time or another have dealt with one. And once you acquire someone that was delighted with their help, 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 associates if you will answer some questions for you and you guarantee 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. Believe me when I say there is nothing DUI lawyers like better than telling their clients to inform the police they aren't speaking a word and watching the police squirm.

To sum it all up, you have to to know a first-rate dui 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 telephone. discover someone now you can believe, get them in your rolodex, and go on with life knowing if you ever get in a tough situation you'll have someone to telephone.

Related Posts

Seatte Criminal Attorney | Case Reviews

Seattle Criminal Attorney | The Traffic Stop

Seattle Criminal Attorney | The Arraignment

2009-09-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

Being arrested and charged with Seattle DUI can be a very frightening experience, particularly if you have never been in trouble with the law before (or if you aren't a Seattle criminal attorney). All you hear and see in the news are stories about people being ridiculed and wrung through the ringer for driving under the influence of alcohol (or even being accused of driving under the influence of alcohol). And then you get that Seattle court notice in the mail, telling you that you have a DUI arraignment date coming up in a week. And you have no idea what that means.

Well, you are lucky, because I, a criminal attorney, am here to help you understand the Seattle DUI process, and in this case specifically, the DUI court process. It isn't too hard to understand, and I can assure you that for the most part the judge and court personnel are there to help you through the process. The most important thing to remember is that much of the court time you will be experiencing, and in particular your Seattle DUI arraignment, will be purely procedural.

Arraignment, in its most plain terms, is your first court appearance before the judge. At your arraignment, several things will happen: first, you will be apprised of your rights to counsel, to a jury trial, and to plead guilty or not guilty; second, you will be apprised of the precise charges against you; third, you will have an opportunity to plead to those charges; and fourth, the court will set your conditions of release until your next hearing, the pretrial conference.

Your Consitutional Rights When Charged with Seattle DUI

In case you didn't know it, you are afforded several rights by the constitution that apply to your DUI case. You have the right to have a criminal attorney in Seattle represent you throughout the court process. If you can't afford one one will be appointed to you. If you can afford one you should consider hiring one before your arraignment - it will just make things that much easier for you.

You also have the right to a jury trial and to plead guilty or not guilty. Pretty much everyone knows of these rights, and they are automatic with a Seattle DUI case since the punishment is up to a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine. The Supreme Court has decided everyone facing punishment like that should be allowed to have their case heard by a jury.

Formal Charging Document Disclosed

If you have been charged with a DUI in Seattle, you probably already know what the charge is. Nonetheless, at your arraignment, the prosecutor will give you a copy of the complaint that has been filed with the court and will read it out loud if you don't understand or want to hear them read it (this is something that you can, and is often, waived). This, for the most part, is purely a procedural exercise. If you want to waste your time and everyone else's, have them read the complaint in court.

Conditions of Release

This might be something you hope you have a Seattle DUI lawyer in the room with you for, as it can get a little hairy sometimes. Conditions of release are supposed to be set when they are necessary to accomplish two goals: (1) get you to show up for your next hearing; or (2) keep the public safe. This is why you see high bail amounts for murderers - it accomplishes both goals because they can't make bail. In the DUI in Seattle context, you will from time to time see overzealous prosecutors asking for harsh conditions of release, particularly if you had a high breath test number or have previous DUI convictions. If this is the case, it is nice to have an advocate on your side who can talk some sense into the judge and keep your conditions of release in a normal place.

For the most part, your arraignment is nothing to worry about. When you get to court, the majority of your time will be spent waiting to get your name called. When you do finally get in front of the judge, if you have a criminal lawyer on your side, you can be in and out in under five minutes.

Next time - the pretrial hearing.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Take the Breath Test?

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Burglary and Firearms

Seattle Criminal Attorney | How a Good One Can Help

2009-08-27T11:19:00.000-07:00

Criminal defense attorneys in some respects are a lot like plumbers and auto mechanics. We perform an invaluable service. We do something you probably know nothing about, requiring a lot of trust. And there are some of out there that are extremely good and some of us out there that are just trying to take your money and get rid of your case. And, to add on one more, it is sometimes really difficult to tell the difference between the really great ones and the really shitty ones.

And in case you didn't know, there is a difference between attorneys. The primary difference is the amount of time that will be put into your case. For some criminal lawyers in Seattle, particularly DUI lawyers, their work on your case consists of glancing over the police reports, glancing over the breath test information, and talking you into taking the first plea that is offered by the prosecution.

And there are some criminal attorneys in Seattle out there that will dive into your case. They will ask you important questions, delve into the police reports and breath test results, and actually try to beat your Seattle DUI (and if they can't do that poke as many holes as they can to get you the best deal possible). And the thing is, if your criminal lawyer is on top of their game, there are dismissals out there to be won from time to time.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I watched a motions hearing after a court date I had. The facts were pretty straightforward. There was this lady driving a red Corvette in line at one of the ferries in Seattle. She cut in line to get on the boat (the lines can get really long at the ferries) and a bunch of passengers complained. The toll booth operator did not see the line cutting occur, but when the Corvette got to the booth, the operator made her go back to the end of the line. After that, the operator mentioned to the cop working that day that there was a lady in a red Corvette that was accused of cutting in line, which is a traffic infraction in Seattle.

When the Corvette got back up to the front of the line to pay the toll, the officer approached the vehicle to find out what happened with the line cutting. When he got there, he smelled alcohol, investigated her for Seattle DUI, and eventually arrested her for it. Then the case got to this DUI attorney in Seattle, who took a look at the facts and noticed that something might be a little fishy.

For Seattle cops to investigate a crime, particularly something as small as a traffic infraction, there needs to be a reasonable suspicion the crime occurred. Unidentified eyewitness testimony is enough, so long as it is reliable and can be corroborated by some other evidence. If the unknown witnesses story cannot be corroborated and is not found to be reliable, then that information cannot be used to initiate a traffic or investigative stop.

In this case, the toll booth operator didn't see the lady cut in line - the people waiting in line to get on the ferry did. Because the officer didn't corroborate what the ferry toll booth operator told him with an actual witness to the event, there was no corroborating evidence there to investigate the cutting in line, or initiate the traffic stop. This argument, from the defendant's point of view, made all the evidence seized after the illegal stop (which is pretty much all of the evidence) inadmissible, meaning his Seattle DUI charge should be dismissed. And the judge did dismiss this guy's DUI case.

Moral of the story at the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog? Take a little bit of time to find a DUI lawyer in Seattle that you can trust. Ask around and see if anyone has any recommendations. Ask the Seattle criminal defense attorney when you meet them what they plan to do on your case to see if any technical or procedural violations exist. And go on the internet to see if any one has been complaining about this attorney or law firm in the past (though I will admit you must take those with a grain of salt - sometimes no matter what a DUI attorney in Seattle does the outcome will not be favorable to the client). Bottom line - find someone you can trust, someone you can afford, and someone that will do a good job for you.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Can't Talk Your Way Out of Charges

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Testimonial Evidence

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse?

2009-08-17T11:31:00.000-07:00

Here is the Seattle criminal attorney question of the day. Let's say you are in one of the neighborhoods in the area that has equestrian trails running through it. And you love to ride horses. So you go out to your buddies house to take a spin on one of his mares. But before you do you watch the Seahawks game. And drink. A lot. Let's say you have a twelve pack during the game, getting you pretty sauced.

After the game you put the saddle on the horse, get on, and start taking her around on the trails. You aren't doing any professional riding or anything, just enjoying the horse. And then a Seattle cop pulls up next to you. He immediately thinks something is fishy, as he sees a guy riding a horse in full Seahawks gear with his face still painted from the game (you forgot to wash that off - oops). He asks you what's going on and you tell him you are just out riding your buddies horse.

This is where things get interesting. He asks if you've had anything to drink. After telling him it's none of his business (which is correct) you give in and tell him about your day. That's when he asks for your driver's license and if you would agree to take field sobriety tests. You aren't sure what to do, so you call your buddy who is a Seattle criminal attorney to ask him what he should do. He correctly tells you not to do anything, so you don't. Next thing you know you are being hauled down to jail for DUI on a horse.

Sound stranger than fiction? Well, it happened in a Chatanooga, Tennessee. You can read the story here, but the summary is two guys were out riding horses when they were stopped by police and cited for DUI - on a horse. The guys couldn't believe it, the news media picked it up, and it became a bit of a running joke. Eventually the charges were dismissed, but not soon enough. How's that for a little entertaining DUI news?

This just goes to show you that you never know what will happen any time you have a run in with a cop. Whether in Seattle or Chatanooga, sometimes they make huge mistakes. You can prevent yourself from being at the end of one of those huge mistakes by having a Seattle criminal lawyer that you can trust, someone that will answer the phone and help you when you have a dumb question, like "Can I get a DUI on a horse?"

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | You Can't Talk Your Way Out of Trouble

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Lawyer-Client Privilege

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Is It Ever Okay To Drive Drunk in Seattle?

2009-07-27T11:24:00.000-07:00

Is there ever a valid defense for DUI in Seattle? What I mean is, is it ever okay for someone to drive when they are clearly too impaired to operate a vehicle? If you think it might never happen, let the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog run this scenario by you.

In a truth is stranger than fiction type of a story, a New York woman was charged with DUI for fleeing someone who was sexually assaulting her. It appears, from the story, which you can read here, that this lady was at a bar with a guy, got really really drunk, went with the guy in his car into the woods, and soon became the victim of a sexual assault. When she was arrested by the police for DUI, an examination by a doctor showed that signs of a sexual assault were in fact present.

As a Seattle criminal attorney, or just a human being, this is a story that has to strike a nerve, and surely would rise to the level of a necessity defense for DUI, right? But what do the prosecutor's do who want to be tough on driving under the influence and keep the roads safe and things of that nature? Could they really charge her with DUI under these circumstances?

They could, and they did. And when they lost (the judge believed the lady, in part because of the forensic evidence, and in part because the alleged assaulter was an admitted crack addict, not to mention her competent criminal attorney), they couldn't even understand where the victim was coming from. So says the prosecutor, in such a way that only prosecutor's have:

"If she [Powell] can make this unsubstantiated claim and get off, it makes you concerned about what other claims will be made by other defendants in the future," she said. "They would have every reason to be emboldened by this decision."

I guess now we'll have to be on the lookout for every DUI defendant crying wolf about sexual assaults to escape their DUI. Or not.

If you've been charged with DUI in Seattle don't wait to hire a Seattle criminal lawyer. Call one today. They can fight for your rights and help to make sure you get the best result possible on your case.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Driving and Texting

Seattle Criminal Attorney | New Cases 10/25/09

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Testimonial Evidence Reviewed

2009-07-18T11:30:00.000-07:00

You don't need to be an avid reader of the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog to know that 99% of DUI prosecutions rely on the Breathalyzer test as it's primary evidence of guilt. And why wouldn't they? If you blow over .08, you are presumed to have been too impaired to drive - this essentially means the burden shifts to you the defendant to prove that you were in fact not too impaired to drive. It's unconstitutional, but that's for another day.

I have a lot of DUI clients, and I am constantly pushing the boundaries of the law to make the prosecution actually prove its case against my clients (which is what a good Seattle criminal attorney should do). What I mean is, not only do they have all the advantages on their side, but they want to take short cuts to try to get evidence admitted that may or may not be reliable.

For example, when introducing breath tests, prosecutors will often try to introduce the certification of the breath test maintenance records without calling the custodian of the records to court. As far as I'm concerned, this is hearsay evidence, and should not be admitted at trial unless it can meet the business records exception of that rule.

Seattle DUI charges are not easy to beat. The deck is stacked against you. To win your case, to beat your Seattle DUI, or to get the prosecution to agree to reduce your charges significantly, you need to have good facts on your side. This means limiting the evidence against you. It also means exercising your constitutional rights. Don't talk to the cops, don't take field sobriety tests, don't take portable breath tests, and don't take a breathalyzer until you've had the chance to speak with a criminal attorney Seattle.

If you are charged with Seattle DUI don't wait to call someone, and don't wait to appeal your license suspension to the department of licensing. Call us today. We can help. We are Seattle criminal attorneys.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Confidentiality

Seattle Criminal Attorney | How a Good One Can Really Help

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Speeding Ticket to DUI

2009-07-11T16:14:00.000-07:00

Looking for the latest Seattle DUI attorney news? You found it. The Tacoma Daily Index today reported on an effort by Pierce County and related city police officials to step up traffic patrols to attempt to lower what were higher than expected traffic fatalities last year.

The good news is, these patrols wont "reduce any efforts to curb DUI." Thank goodness that a blind eye is not being turned away from all of those people making turns without a turn signal or driving with a broken taillight that end up charged with DUI so while they put a new emphasis on speeding, which actually resulted in fatality accidents last year.

It looks like in Pierce County, including Bonney Lake, Fircrest, Sumner, Ruston, Orting, Gig Harbor, Roy, Dupont, Edgewood, Milton, Steilacoom, Fife, Tacoma, UP, Lakewood and Puyallup the need for Seattle criminal attorneys will be even greater in the coming months. Because with increased speeding patrols will invariably come increased DUI arrests.

I'd estimate that over 90% of all Seattle DUI arrests are the result not of driving associated with being too impaired to operate a vehicle but of speeding and other extremely minor violations (I even had a guy who was pulled over for having tires that were too wide). As a Seattle criminal attorney these are the cases I hate to get because good people can be affected in such a negative way. So watch out if you know the speed patrols are out.

Related Posts:

How a Good Seattle DUI Attorney Can Help You

Focus on Seattle DUI and Other Things That Kill People

Seattle Criminal Attorney | What About Driving and Texting?

2009-05-19T11:10:00.001-07:00

I should probably preface this the way I do many of the articles I write. I do not condone drunk driving, nor do I condone teenager drunk driving. I am not a fan of drunk driving at all, and don't think people should drive drunk (notice, however, that I did not say drink and drive - because that is not against the law). As a Seattle criminal attorney, I see every day the effect that drunk driving can have on people, and I see the effects a drunk driving charge can have on someone that has not been convicted of anything.

And then I read articles like the one I read today (though not in the Criminal Attorney Seattle Blog) about the mock DUI crash that some high school students put on in Pierce County to bring awareness to teens driving drunk. It was a great article full of statistics, like drunk driving fatalities are the highest they've ever been, and how kids these days still like to experiment with drinking (I find it hard to believe that a majority of the population could say with a straight face that they didn't drink when they were in high school - that doesn't condone it, but most of us turned out okay - it is not a sky is falling type of situation).

The article also points out that:

In most cases, it’s a mistake to assume that teen car crashes are alcohol-related. Most teenage automobile accidents are instead due to inexperience and lack of judgment, because teenagers are easily distractible drivers, even without the effects of alcohol or drugs.

I wonder then, why it is that we aren't seeing mock crashes from kids texting on their cell phones, talking on their cell phones, being distracted by their friends, or any other number of reasons that teens get in car crashes. Reasons that are admittedly more common than DUI fatalities? I guess maybe the glamour of DUI isn't there, making it less provocative to put on.

For whatever the reason, I hope the same emphasis that is put on not DUI is placed on the other, more common causes of teen car accidents. I agree with the author of the article that is devastating to lose someone close to you. But if you really care, put the emphasis where it is due, on the factors that cause the majority of teenage car accidents and deaths, not the one that gets the most readers.

If you are too drunk to drive, don't. If you are pulled over for drunk driving, call a criminal attorney before you agree to do anything. You don't want to be a post here at the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog.

Related Posts:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Court Decisions 10/25/09

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Home Arrest Rules

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Cops Arrest 59 in Raid

2009-04-22T13:51:00.000-07:00

It appears that in the Seattle area a few weeks ago cops thought it would be fun to bust up some spring break parties and catch underage drinkers. And it wasn't just one party, it was four. And it wasn't just a couple of underage drinkers, it was 59. The story, one of which is located here, is supposed to be (I am guessing) a warning to all those underage drinkers out there - don't do it. All it's doing is drumming up business for Seattle criminal attorneys.

The article goes on to say that the police were trying to break up what might be "deadly" underage drinking parties. With kids playing games such as "beer bong" (which, by the way, is not a game, but an action - beer pong, on the other hand, is at the top of the list for a way for most college kids to spend their Saturday afternoon) and other things, they were worried some kids might be hurting themselves.

Maybe this is just the cynic in me, but I highly doubt these Tacoma police officers were out trying to save kids. Although deaths by over-consumption of alcohol does occur, and when it does it is a travesty, it is a very rare occurrence. I don't mind if the cops want to spend their time harassing high school and college kids about drinking beer (I am not condoning underage drinking, just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of it, since almost every single person in the United States has consumed alcohol under the legal drinking age), but why not just say that they wanted to scare some kids and make some money off of minor in possession tickets?

As I said, I am against under age drinking, but taking this from the perspective of a criminal attorney Seattle, I am fine with handing out as many Seattle minor in possession tickets as you want. I need the work, and I'm sure some of the kids out there were asked to do some things under the law you shouldn't have asked them without first reading their rights and allowing them to speak with an attorney).

If you ever get in trouble with alcohol related criminal offenses such as driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs, minor in possession, transporting an open container, or anything else, you should call a Seattle criminal lawyer immediately. And if you need a DUI lawyer, you should, instead of turning to the yellow pages, ask around for people who have needed a DUI lawyer and have used one before. Tell them it's for a friend if you are embarrassed.

And kids, don't drink alcohol if you are under 21. It is more trouble than its worth if you get caught. Melbourne Lawyer

Related Post:

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Burglary News

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse?

The Police Cannot Arrest You in Your House for Seattle DUI (most of the time)

2009-04-20T13:56:00.000-07:00

One of the things people are always concerned with, whether they are in Seattle and stopped for a DUI, a traffic ticket, on the street, or at their house, is what the police can and can't do, and what you should consent to. Today you can learn a little bit about that from a Seattle criminal attorney.

For example, it often happens where the Tacoma police will initiate a traffic stop on an individual for something like speeding or failing to signal or something like that, and while in the process of talking to the person, the Tacoma police officer will ask the individual if they mind if they search the vehicle. This will be covered in another post, but you should generally say no, and make the Tacoma police officer get a search warrant (unless you are 100% sure, with no doubts, that there is nothing in the car incriminating).

The same goes in your home, and the Washington Supreme Court just ruled that police cannot come into your home to get you and arrest you for drunk driving just because they think evidence might be lost (although they may come in at other times for other reasons). In this case, this guy's Seattle criminal attorneys did an excellent job of working for the client, essentially getting his case dismissed, even though the guy admitted to driving drunk.

The facts are this, generally. This guy Hinshaw was driving around Moses Lake (about 3 hours east of Seattle)(presumably drunk) one night and ran into several things along the way (no people were injured). Someone eventually called the cops and reported someone driving around drunk running into things. The cops responded to the call looking for someone they could arrest for DUI.

While driving around they saw Hinshaw on a bike. They asked him if he saw anything and he said no. Later, they found the car that had done the damage. It had a flat front tire and was parked in front of Hinshaw's house. They knocked on the door and Hinshaw answered it, though a screen door remained closed.

While talking to Hinshaw, he admitted drinking at a bar and the officers could smell alcohol on his breath. In Moses Lake, as in Seattle, most likely, the cops opened the screen door, grabbed Hinshaw, and arrested him for DUI. The reason for the arrest, the officers said, was because they were concerned the evidence of the DUI, the level of alcohol in Hinshaw's system, was in jeopardy of being lost if they didn't arrest him for DUI immediately.

Once Hinshaw hired his Seattle DUI attorney they immediately asked the court to rule the arrest invalid and dismiss the charges.

The thing about criminal law in Seattle is there is a strong rule against people being arrested in their home. The only time you can be arrested in your home is with a warrant or exigent circumstances. An example of exigent circumstances is if the cops chased you into the home, the cops were afraid evidence would be destroyed, or if they were afraid that someone might be injured. Absent this, any good criminal attorney Seattle should be able to get the arrest and the evidence gather after that thrown out of court.

In this case, the trial court said the fact that the breath evidence might be lost is a good reason to barge into someone's home and arrest them without a warrant. After being convicted, Hinshaw appealed the ruling, and the Supreme Court, this time, ruled correctly, invalidating the arrest and the evidence that came after.

Without getting into the messy details, the moral of the story is this, if you are ever out boozing at a bar and on the way home cause some trouble, but somehow make it home (let me make it clear right now that I am not condoning leaving the scene of an accident under any circumstances) and the cops show up later, do not allow them to come into you home until they get a warrant. They don't have the right. And if they do, your Seattle criminal attorney should be able to get that thrown out and probably get your case dismissed.

Related Posts:

You Can't Talk Your Way Out of a Seattle DUI

Keeping Seattle Criminal Attorneys Busy - Cops Arrest 47 in Underage Drinking Raid

Seattle DUI Law Overview

2009-04-20T13:53:00.000-07:00

If you are in need of a Seattle criminal 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, in the Seattle Criminal Attorney Blog, I'm going to discuss driving under the influence as defined in the RCW 46.61.502.

In layman's terms, 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 (this statute discusses all the rules of breathalyzer tests, blood tests, and refusing breathalyzer and blood tests - we'll talk all about this another time);

(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 criminal 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 Tacoma, commit some driving violation, and the police are looking for you, and while they are looking for you (at your home in Kirkland, for example), 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.

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.