DUI Washington Blog

I ran across a DUI thread on a travel site recently. In it, one of the guests wrote that they were quite concerned about filling out a visa application to China. Should they admit on the application that they had a criminal record because they had been convicted of a DUI?

Some of the participants on the forum advised dishonesty because China doesn’t have the same attitude toward DUI as some countries such as Canada do. Others claimed it didn’t matter because China doesn’t do a criminal background check when your apply for a visitor’s visa. One went so far as to suggest that anyone who was honest belonged to a minority group.

All such advice is ill advice. First, it is important to contact an attorney with experience in dealing with the country and their immigration policies.  In the past, we have found that honesty when dealing with a foreign country is always the best policy. We side with the guest who stated that he/she admitted to the two DUIs on record and included a brief explanation of what had happened. When the visa is approved, you can know that you have no worries that the discovery that you entered false information on your application will come back to cause problems in the future.

You never know where a first visit to a foreign country may lead. The guest with the two DUIs wanted to teach English in China for a year. China issued the visa, despite her DUIs.

While complete honesty about DUIs in your record could result in the denial of a travel visa to some countries, we maintain that honesty is the best policy. Of course, it is best when you enlist the aid of a DUI attorney as soon as possible after you are stopped for a suspected DUI. In many cases, you may be able to avoid a DUI record entirely.

Residents of Washington, especially the Seattle area may turn to Burg Criminal Defense for honest and compassionate DUI attorney services.

RCW 46.61.140 informs Washingtonians that there are rules to observe when a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes. The law informs us that a vehicle needs to remain “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane” and only move out of that lane when the driver has determined that it is safe to do so.

This is interesting wording. It suggests that the Washington State legislature knows that there are road conditions that will make it impossible for a driver to always keep his or her vehicle entirely within a single lane. This was highlighted a few years ago in the case of State v. Prado. Prado had crossed over a lane divider by the width of two tires on a highway off ramp. He was pulled over and arrested.

Washington State’s Court of Appeals  concluded that in Prado’s case, a brief incursion over the lane line did not justify the officer pulling him over for a traffic stop. The Court found that a momentary lapse is not a legitimate basis for a traffic stop.

At the same time, if the officer had noted other traffic violations at the same time or behavior suggesting that the driver was impaired, this would have been a legitimate reason for a traffic stop.

Repeated evidence of weaving back and forth within the single lane may still be considered sufficient reason for an officer to stop a vehicle, but if you briefly cross outside your own lane of travel, Washington’s Court of Appeals has ruled that an officer cannot use this as the sole reason for pulling you over.

If you suspect that you have been wrongfully pulled over for violation of Washington’s lane travel statute, contact an experienced DUI attorney as soon as possible. The attorneys at Burg Criminal Defense have the experience you need to represent you if you are facing a DUI charge.

At the Law Offices of Geoffrey Burg, we work extensively on judicial campaigns because we believe a high quality judiciary is essential to achieving just results for our clients.

Patricia Fulton and Geoffrey Burg are very active in an organization called Citizens for Judicial Excellence. With the other members of this organization, we have spent literally hundreds of hours studying the records of current judges and reviewing the credentials of new judicial candidates. We and our colleagues are in court virtually every day and have an opportunity to observe dozens of judges first hand.

We have endorsed several candidates who are running for election right now, and their names will be on the General Election ballot. We know how difficult it is to cast an educated vote in judicial elections, so we hope you will appreciate our recommendations.

Depending on where you live, you will have an opportunity to vote for one of the following candidates:

Seattle – Ed McKenna is our choice in this race for Seattle Municipal Court Judge. Ed’s opponent, Edsonya Charles, is the incumbent; however, she recently earned the distinction of being rated the worst performing judge in all of King County on a recent Bar Association survey of attorneys. We believe the Seattle Municipal Court is badly in need of improvement, and the people of Seattle deserve better. We recommend Ed McKenna. www.edmckennaforjudge.com

Southwest – If you live in any of the following areas, you can vote for our pick, Susan Mahoney: Burien, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Des Moines, Seatac, Tukwila, or Vashon Island. Susan has been rated Outstanding by the Municipal League of King County and Exceptionally Well Qualified by the King County Bar Association. Her opponent, Judith Eiler, is the incumbent, but has been rated Not Qualified by the Bar and was recently suspended from office by the State Supreme Court. Again, we believe the citizens deserve better. We recommend Susan Mahoney. www.mahoneyforjudge.com

Southeast – If you live in the southeastern part of King County, you can vote for Matt Williams, who is our overwhelming choice in this district: Kent, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Covington, Algona, Pacific, and Enumclaw. Matt has an unmatched level of legal experience as a prosecutor, trial practice professor and a nationally known expert on courtroom procedure. We are fortunate Matt wants to serve South King County as a judge, and he has been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the King County Bar Association. We recommend Matt Williams. www.electmattwilliams.com

Northeast – If you live anywhere on the Eastside, you can vote for John O’Brien: Bellevue, Issaquah, Sammamish, Redmond, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Fall City, Duvall, Bothell, Yarrow Point, Woodinville, Carnation, Mercer Island, Kirkland, Medina, Hunts Point, Clyde Hill, and Newcastle. John has been an outstanding trial lawyer and community leader on the Eastside for 29 years. He has also been endorsed by former Governor Gary Locke and Supreme Court Justice Tom Chambers, also an Eastside resident. We recommend John O’Brien. www.johnobrienforjudge.com

Once in a while we see a DUI case that would provide a real laugh if we didn’t represent DUI clients. The story of one creative Minnesota man is just such an example. After having his driver’s license revoked for DUI, a Proctor, Minnesota man turned his La-Z-Boy recliner into a motorized vehicle.

The man powered his recliner with a lawnmower engine, added a steering column, and decked the chair out with a stereo, cup holders and headlights so he didn’t have to make the trip to the bar on foot or call a cab. Unfortunately, when he left the bar, he had trouble maneuvering his makeshift transport and crashed into one of the cars in the parking lot.

Police estimated that the recliner had the ability to top out at 15 – 20 miles/hr. They confiscated the powered chair and arrested the man for DUI, despite his pleas that they give him a break.

Fortunately, the man’s six month jail sentence was stayed along with half of the $2000 fine on condition that he stay under supervision for two years and participate in a chemical dependency assessment, agree to random testing and 30 days of electronic monitoring.

We can only wonder if this man who does auto body repair work out of his home will get any orders for motorized recliners. Possibly not. The story goes on.

DUI Recliner goes on E-Bay.

When the Proctor Police Department put the motorized recliner up for auction on E-Bay, La-Z-Boy called in its trademark rights. Bidding had already reached $43,700 when the manufacturer took exception to the Police Department’s description of what it called a glorified lawn mower, not a La-Z-Boy. When relisted using verbiage La-Z-Boy would accept, the bidding only went up to $5000.00.

So the man who lost his chair to police impound may, in the end, have gotten the last laugh. He was able to auction photographs of himself in his chair on eBay. Who knows how many he was able to sell?

This story makes us wonder if we’ll be seeing motorized wheelchair or lawnmower DUI’s in the future. If a man can be arrested for DUI because he lost control of his motorized recliner, where will the line be drawn? Really, how much damage could the man have caused? Somehow this whole story reeks of justice run amok, a police department needing to make an example.

Keep DUI Laws in Perspective

As DUI attorneys, Burg Criminal Defense agrees that DUI laws should exist to protect lives first. Protection of property is secondary. The driver of this tripped out recliner posed little threat to other’s lives, and minimal threat to property.  We can only hope that the police departments in the greater Seattle area would have a better sense of humor.

DUI Attorney Advises Washington ILL Holders to Not Take Risk Renting Car Without Ignition Interlock.

A client of ours is required to have an ignition interlock license in Washington State. He is a resident of Washington State, but business travels take him around the country.  He recently asked this question:  Can I rent a car out of Washington State if I have an ignition interlock license issued by the State of Washington? Unfortunately, the answer is complicated, but worth sharing.  The current law in Washington State, RCW 46.20.720(3), in effect to December 31, 2010, reads as follows:

(3) The department shall require that, after any applicable period of suspension, revocation, or denial of driving privileges, a person may drive only a motor vehicle equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device if the person is convicted of an alcohol-related violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local ordinance.

The department may waive the requirement for the use of such a device if it concludes that such devices are not reasonably available in the local area. The device is not necessary on vehicles owned by a person’s employer and driven as a requirement of employment during working hours. The person must provide the department with a declaration pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085 from his or her employer stating that the person’s employment requires the person to operate a vehicle owned by the employer during working hours.

Under this current law, I don’t think there is any exception for rental vehicles driven out of state for work.  It is my legal opinion that driving a rental car without an IID on it would be a violation of the law.  Some attorneys I know have argued that it is not a violation since it would fall under the work exception.  Remember, even the work exception requires a declaration from the employer saying that the vehicle is being driven for work.

The current law was amended in the last legislative session. SSHB2742 now specifically excludes having an ignition interlock system on vehicles rented for work.  This new law will take effect on January 1, 2011.   The language of this bill is:

… an ignition interlock device is not necessary on vehicles owned, leased, or rented by a person’s employer and on those vehicles whose care and/or maintenance is the temporary responsibility of the employer, and driven at the direction of a person’s employer as a requirement of employment during working hours. The person must provide the department with a declaration pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085 from his or her employer stating that the person’s employment requires the person to operate a vehicle owned by the employer or other persons during working hours.

When this law takes effect on January 1, 2011, people will be able to rent cars without an IID on them.

It is an entirely different question as to whether or not a rental company will rent a vehicle to someone with an ignition interlock license.  Again, under Washington State law anyone with an ignition interlock license can rent a vehicle beginning January 1, 2011.  However, because rental companies are private companies, each rental company has the right to determine whether or not to actually allow you to rent a vehicle.  I have not had a client tell me that they were unable to rent a car with an ignition interlock license, even under the current law (nor have I had a client tell me they could).    However, I just had a client who was turned down by Enterprise because she had a hole in her license (even though she had not yet been suspended).

As you know, the clerks and managers at the front desk of rental car companies all act differently. Car rental companies may have different policies at different branches. Without calling the specific branch, there is no way to tell whether your ignition interlock license will create difficulties or not.

When you call the car rental company, be sure to ask for the branch manager. Get the name and record the time of your call. This will help you if you find yourself facing an uncertain employee when the manager has stepped out.

A forum posting on Prairielaw.com brings up a very important question. Should Washington consider instituting a lifetime Driver’s License Revocation for drivers that have been convicted of DUI four or more times? Other states have gone this route. Should Washington follow suit?

At Burg Criminal Defense, we feel that this is a harsh sentence that is unworkable in today’s society.  Life without a car is virtually impossible in Washington State.  A man we will call Frank states on the Prairielaw forum that he has been totally sober for the past seven years. He admits that he went through a divorce and job loss that sent him to the bottle at the time he received his fourth DUI in Florida. Fortunately, he was never involved in an accident and in the seven years before he finally gave up drinking entirely and the seven years since that, he has never tried to drive a car. He feels that 14 years without a driver’s license is adequate punishment for his four DUIs.

We would agree. Frank is now actively involved working with alcoholics and drug addicts and trying to prevent others from driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs.

Frank rightly points out that there are many forms of addiction, and stiffer punishment doesn’t always lead to the right behavior. Denying a driver’s license doesn’t necessarily keep a person from getting behind the wheel. In fact, it can cause someone to feel that all hope is lost. Irrational laws can create irrational behavior.

There are better DUI solutions than revoking driving privileges for life!

If someone has a drinking problem, ignition interlocks and other monitoring measures make far more sense than revoking driving privileges for life.

We at the Law Offices of Geoffrey Burg believe in hope. We have it for every one of our clients. If you have been charged with a DUI in Washington, we will represent you with compassion and experience. If you need help with treatment, we can point you in that direction while still defending your legal rights.  If you are not in need of treatment, we will steer you in the correct direction.  Under either situation, there is no lifetime ban for driving in Washington State. We are committed to keeping it that way.

Family Loyalty Lands Three Month Jail Sentence

Just a few days ago, a Sarasota, Florida man was sentenced to three months in jail for refusing to testify that his brother had been the driver in a DUI accident that resulted in the death of one of the passengers in the Ford Pickup truck he had allegedly been driving. He had already spent 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

The judge was not swayed by the testimony of numerous witnesses that the Sarasota man did not deserve to be sentenced for doing what he felt was right. One of the witnesses included the father of the man who died in the crash. She commended the man for his convictions and sentenced him to jail time anyway.

The Court is pressuring the man to speak against his brother because unless he does so, the state prosecutor cannot bring manslaughter charges. The state has to prove that the man who had BAC blood levels nearly 3 times than allowed by Florida law was the actual driver of the wrecked vehicle. Without his brother’s testimony, the state’s case is destroyed.

Another passenger in the truck at the time of the accident reports that he doesn’t remember who was driving. All he knows is that a deer jumped in front of the pick-up, and the driver lost control swerving to avoid it. The question remains, “Who was the driver?”

Washington State DUI Laws—Refusing to testify can mean jail time.

The law in Washington is similar. You can serve jail time for refusing to testify. And the prosecution must prove the identity of the driver in order to successfully prosecute a DUI manslaughter charge. If there is any question as to who the driver was, the DUI attorneys at the Law Offices of Geoffrey Burg will work to protect the rights of our clients.  We are dedicated to a vigorous defense of our client’s constitutional rights.  We do everything within the law and our ability to make sure that our clients get the best possible outcome for their DUI charges.  It is for this reason that we regularly speak at seminars, work with the legislature, and keep abreast of all changes in the law.

Burg Criminal Defense is often asked whether you can refuse to take field sobriety tests without it being used against you in court.   Yes, you definitely can – however, you must do this correctly and the correct way to do it is by asking for an attorney, not to just say that you don’t want to do the tests.  In the State of Washington, roadside sobriety tests are voluntary. This means you do have the right to decline taking them.

Speak with a DUI Attorney Instead of Performing Field Sobriety Tests

Instead of performing the field sobriety tests, it is better to ask to speak with a DUI attorney.  The police officer should then cease  all questioning. You can expect an arrest to follow. Then arrest you will be provided with an attorney.   The attorney will advise you not to perform the tests, reducing the ability of the prosecution to use the tests against you. You will be able to say that your attorney advised you not to take the DUI field sobriety tests. When a private attorney isn’t available, you should speak to a public defender.

However, many people don’t know this until after they have been arrested.  Unfortunately, if you fail to perform well on a field sobriety, this could be used against you. You may be reading this blog post because you already performed poorly on a Washington DUI roadside sobriety test. You didn’t know that it was your legal right to ask for an attorney.  Not to worry. This is very common and we can still help you if poor test performance is working against you.

Field sobriety exercises can be unreliable for many reasons.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) believes they have standardized these tests, but how do you standardize a test when so many variables can exist—different weights, varying athletic abilities, assorted medical conditions and diverse ages? These tests assume everyone can perform well when sober, which can be unfair.  They also vary in that not all officers administer the tests in the proper way.  If the officer did not follow the NHTSA standards than we can show that the tests are not valid.

Testing conditions are another issue with field sobriety tests.  Being pulled over on suspicion of a Washington DUI is an upsetting event for anyone. The resulting anxiety and nervousness can be misinterpreted as impairment.  Fatigue can impact performance on a roadside test as can low blood sugar. Traffic passing too close on the roadway can cause anxiety. The shoulder at the side of the road is often tilted, making standing on one leg or walking a straight line more difficult for most people. If it is raining, the road or sidewalk is often slippery. Most people aren’t familiar with the sobriety tests which can produce unreliable results.

NHTSA considers the horizontal gaze nystagmus or HGN test one of the most accurate field sobriety tests available for proving a Washington DUI. Prosecutors would like juries to believe that it is very accurate. It isn’t quite as perfect as they would like you to think. If lighting is poor, it affects an officer’s ability to conduct the test accurately. HGN can also occur for reasons that are not connected to alcohol consumption.

DUI Attorneys Offer Hope.

All of these things can invalidate roadside DUI evaluations based on field sobriety tests. As far as we are concerned  there is hope for everyone we meet with.  Over the years we have seen so many Washington State DUI cases resolved in ways that at first blush did not look possible.  So, please do not give up hope about your case.  We may be able to help you resolve it in a way you never thought possible.

In conclusion, if you have been stopped for an infraction in Washington State and it appears that the officer is doing a DUI investigation, the very best thing to do is to ask for an attorney and keep your mouth shut.  You may be arrested, but you will have helped yourself by maintaining all of your constitutional and state rights.

It is against the law in Washington state for anyone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that there is a Zero Tolerance law that targets drivers that are under the legal drinking age.

Why Zero Tolerance for Teen DUI?

Organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have been at the forefront of the movement to make the penalties for DUI strict at all levels, but especially for underage drivers. They point to the research.

• Drivers between the age of 16 – 20 are at the highest risk for dying from a car accident than any other age group.
• Alcohol is involved in twice as many vehicle accidents in the under 21 age group than in older age groups.

Does Zero Tolerance for Teen DUI work?

Studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation (NHTSA) suggest that it does. States that have Teen Zero Tolerance laws have seen a 16% drop in nighttime fatal crashes involving underage drinkers.

Zero Tolerance Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Level

In Washington, the blood alcohol concentration cannot be higher than 0.02%. One beer is enough to raise your BAC over Washington’s  Zero Tolerance limit unless you are a large person. If you drive into Oregon, your BAC will be above Oregon’s Zero Tolerance limit of 0.0% no matter how large you are.

Zero Tolerance Penalties for Teen DUI

The penalties for teen DUI can be steep.  Anyone under the age of 21 that has been accused of driving with a .02-.079 BAC faces a two part process.  First, if you are under the age of 21 and your breath test is at .02 or greater, the Washington State Department of Licensing takes away your license for 90 days.  If you have refused the breath test, they take away your license for 1 year.  In either case, you have the right to contest this action.  This is a right that you should exercise, and it is something we can help you with.

If your breath test is a .02 or greater you can also be charged with the crime of being under the age of 21 and operating a vehicle with a breath test of a .02-.079.  This is a criminal offense, a misdemeanor, with a penalty of up to 90 days in jail (most people don’t go to jail for this) and up to $1000 in fines.  It is not uncommon to see costs and fines run close to $1000.

Remember, if your breath test is a .08 or greater or if you have refused the breath test, you can be charged with a regular DUI.  This is a gross-misdemeanor with penalties of up to one year in jail and fines of up to $5000.  While most people (particularly first time offenders) do not face the maximum penalties and  fines, there are minimum penalties of a day or two in jail and costs of about $1000 for a first offense DUI.

Talk to a DUI Attorney

If you are detained for a potential Teen DUI, it is very important to ask for an attorney right away. Politely asking to speak with a DUI lawyer can help protect all of your rights.  If you have been accused of one of these offense, please feel free to contact us at (206) 467-2607 for a free consultation.

Affidavits of Prejudice — A DUI Attorney Tool

Affidavits of Prejudice have been a tool used by Washington DUI attorneys to avoid a judge who the attorney or client does not believe can be impartial in the case.  This “affidavit” allows either the attorney or the client to remove one judge from the case.  It can only be used once in any criminal proceeding.  This means if you remove one judge, you can’t later remove a second judge. The Washington State Legislature passed legislation that went into effect on July 1, 2008. Known as second substitute House Bill (SSHB) 2557, this legislation is intended to further clarify the rules of affidavits of prejudice.

How SSHB 2557 Affected Washington DUI Court Proceedings

When this law went into effect, it changed the landscape for affidavits of prejudice in some courts in the Seattle, Washington area, because it established four legal issues that are not considered discretionary. These concerns for DUI attorneys are 1) the arrangement of the calendar; 2) The setting of an action, motion, or proceeding for hearing or trial; 3) the arraignment of the accused; and 4) the setting of bail or conditions of release. This means that you may still remove a judge even if they have  handled your arraignment, set your pre-trial conditions, set your trial dates or set the jury calendar.

Under the new law, if an affidavit of prejudice against a judge is filed in a timely manner, he/she is barred from setting bail, handling motions, overseeing a trial, determining sentencing or performing reviews.

However, we are uncertain if all judges are going to agree with this reading of the statute and we are fearful that some judges, once affidavited, will continue to make bail decisions on the case.. A timely filing of affidavit of prejudice is supposed to deny a judge any authority to act in a matter. We believe that once a judge has been affidavited that judge can no longer make any decision on the case.