Category Archives: Constitutional Rights

Supreme Court Wary of Warrantless Blood Tests in DUI Cases

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, , ,

Miami Police Usually Need a Search Warrant to Draw Your Blood for a DUI

Good stuff. The Supreme Court is considering requiring police to get a search warrant before forcing drunken-driving suspects to have blood draws.

In State of Missouri v. McNeely, the defendant was pulled over for speeding. He failed field sobriety tests and refused to take a breath test. The officer then took McNeely to a nearby hospital, where a technician drew blood over the handcuffed suspect’s objection. The legal issue is whether blood draws taken under these circumstances violate a defendant’s Constitutional rights. If so, the blood test  is suppressed and inadmissible to a jury if the case proceeds to jury trial.

The prosecution argues that getting a nighttime warrant takes an average of two hours, by which point a person’s blood-alcohol level may have dropped below the legal limit.  Alcohol typically dissipates in the bloodstream at a rate of 0.015 to 0.020 percentage points an hour. The limit in Missouri is 0.08 percent.

McNeely’s defense attorney argues that Missouri’s Implied Consent law allows drivers the right to refuse a blood test. All 50 states have implied-consent laws in some form. In short, Implied Consent law says drivers who refuse a blood or breath test automatically lose their license for a year.

My opinion? Police should get warrants. Period. Getting a warrant is the proper remedy when defendants exercise their Constitutional rights. Also, it doesn’t take long to get one. Police can call a judge while driving a defendant to the jail. Judges typically issue warrants over the phone.

Due to the passage of I-502, this issue is especially relevant in WA. I-502 allows for citizens to possess small amounts of marijuana. Unfortunately, when it comes to DUI arrests, I-502 set the legal limit for THC is the bloodstream at only 5 nanograms. This is a very low amount, especially for citizens who are licensed to smoke marijuana.

In other blogs I predicted that the passage of I-502 would probably convince law enforcement to immediately transport citizens investigated for DUI straight to the hospital to undergo blood tests. Blood draws are necessary to determine nanogram levels (they also detect alcohol levels). I also predicted that unlawfully obtained blood tests would soon become the subject matter of intense pretrial litigation.

Was the officer trained in drug DUI detection? Was the blood draw performed by someone who is medically licensed? Was it performed within 2 hours of the defendant being pulled over? Was the blood test tampered with? Can the prosecution properly establish the chain of custody of all persons who handled the blood sample? And now, according to the above case, can law enforcement simply circumvent the warrant requirement and obtain blood draws if the defendant refuses?

All of these issues are the subject matter of intense legal arguments. A good trial attorney will argue pretrial motions to suppress unlawfully obtained and/or tainted evidence. Yes, this pending case is a big deal.

We’ll see what happens. . .

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with DUI or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Guevara: Stopping Schoolboys and Searching Them for Marijuana is Unlawful Without Probabale Cause.

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, law enforcement, marijuana, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

With Police in Schools, More Children in Court - The New York Times

In State v. Guevara, the WA Court of Appeals held that a Interesting search involving a “school resource officer” who stopped the defendant and his friends for suspected drug use was NOT a social contact and NOT a community caretaking function.

Guevara and his friends were walking near school one morning before class. A uniformed school resource officer stopped the group and inquired what they were doing. He told them he suspected they were skipping class to smoke marijuana. The officer found drugs on Mr. Guevara. At trial, the judge denied Guevara’s motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the stop was a social contact within the scope of the officer’s authority.

In suppressing the evidence, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the stop became a seizure when the officer told the boys he believed they were using drugs and sought their consent to search them. This, ruled the court, was neither a social contact nor a community caretaking function.

My opinion? Good decision. Although they may have skipped school, the boys were otherwise behaving in a lawful manner. They were not under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any other illegal drugs. They weren’t operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs or marijuana. Consequently, the officer appeared to lack probable cause to search them for possessing marijuana or any other drugs.  At worst, the officer should have merely escorted them back to school. Good decision.

Please review my Search and Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Drug DUI: The Brass Tacks

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, , ,

Pima County Drugged Driving Attorney | Tucson Drug DUI Defense Lawyer | AZ

Yes, I’ve blogged on this before – the passage of Washington Initiative 502 (I-502) and its impacts on DUI investigations. Consider this Part II of an ongoing discussion.

Under I-502, it is now legal to possess marijuana in small amounts. Undeniably, this opens many legal issues for motorists suspected of Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana, typically called “Drug DUI,” “stoned driving” and/or “DUI-D.” What are the legal limits of THC consumption? How do officers obtain proof of Drug DUI? How does I-502 affect minors charged with Drug DUI? What are the consequences of refusing an officer’s attempts to obtain proof of DUI-D?

Under I-502, the legal limit for THC is 5.00 nanograms. Officers obtain THC readings from blood tests administered in hospitals. Consequently, I-502 gives law enforcement officers more incentive to transport citizens to a hospital and seek a blood test if the officer suspects Drug DUI. Citizens refusing the blood test shall be charged with an upper level “Refusal” DUI for violating RCW 46.20.308, which is Washington’s Implied Consent Law. Worse, an officer now has discretion to immediately seek a warrant for a citizen’s blood. With warrant in hand, the officer may obtain a blood test from the citizen anyway, despite the citizen’s prior refusal.

Under RCW 46.20.308, which is Washington’s Implied Consent statute, the citizen’s license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year.  Refusal of the blood test is also admissible in a criminal trial. In the case of minors, I-502 imposes zero tolerance.

In short, the impacts of I-502 are extremely egregious. Fortunately, there’s also a lot of room for error on the part of law enforcement officers charging citizens with Drug DUI. Some of these issues – in the form of defenses – are as follows:

(1) Why did the officer initiate the pullover?

(2) Was the officer trained as a Drug Recognition Expert?

(3) What is the officer’s probable cause for arresting someone for Drug DUI?

(4) Was the citizen informed of the Implied Consent Law?

(5) What constitutes a Refusal?

(6) How did the officer obtain a warrant for a blood test?

(7) Did a licensed medical professional draw the blood?

(8) Can the Prosecutor establish the chain of custody showing who took the blood, who sealed it, and who tested it? And more, are these individuals available to testify?

(9) How does being charged with DUI-D affect citizens who are licensed to smoke marijuana; citizens who probably have elevated levels of THC in their blood anyway?

These issues, and more, affect the outcome of your case. Immediately consult an experienced criminal law attorney like myself if you’re facing Drug DUI charges.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Extra DUI Patrols Nab 1,600 Washington Drivers

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Drive Hammered-Get Nailed - Impaired Driving TV Ad on Vimeo

Police across Washington state arrested more than 1,600 people during a recent drunken-driving enforcement campaign.

According to statistics from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, 1,603 drivers got busted during this summer’s “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” anti-DUI campaign, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 3.

A grant from the Traffic Safety Commission paid for the extra patrols. The commission says August is typically one of the deadliest months on Washington’s roads.

My opinion?  Obviously, it’s important to know your Constitutional rights – and respectfully exercise them – during a DUI investigation.  Being stopped for DUI brings many legal issues to the forefront which a competent attorney can address.  Hopefully, your attorney can suppress the evidence and/or get the DUI charges reduced/dismissed.

Was the stop legal?  Was there enough evidence to establish probable cause to arrest?  Were you informed of the implied consent warnings?  Were you advised of your right to an attorney?  Did you provide a portable breath test reading?  Did you perform field sobriety tests?  Did you refuse the Blood Alcohol test at the jail?  If not, was your test result above .08?  Is there an administrative action from the Department of Licensing to suspend or revoke your driver’s license?

These questions, and a host of others, affect how an attorney represents you case.  Although it’s best to avoid a DUI in the first place, it’s equally important to hire competent counsel if you’re charged with DUI.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Mount Vernon and Burlington Sued for Allegedly Violating Constitutional Rights of Indigent Defendants

Constitutional Rights, , ,

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel – Meaning And Remedies

On June 10, three inmates in Skagit County jail filed a class action lawsuit against the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. Allegedly, the cities are systematically failing to provide assistance of counsel to low‐income persons who face criminal charges in municipal court.  According to papers filed in Skagit County Superior Court, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that will stop the cities from violating the constitutional rights of low‐income individuals. They are not requesting monetary damages.

 

Documents obtained from the cities show that Mount Vernon and Burlington jointly contract with two attorneys to provide all of the public defense services in those jurisdictions. In 2010, these two attorneys were responsible for handling more than 2,100 public defense misdemeanor cases.

Under the Standards for Indigent Defense Services adopted by the Washington State Bar Association, a full‐time public defender should not have more than 400 such cases per year. The limit is even lower for attorneys working on a part-time basis.

 According to the plaintiffs, the attorneys who contract with Mount Vernon and Burlington spend no more than a third of their time on public defense work, which allows for a maximum of 267 misdemeanor cases per year between the two of them. The plaintiffs allege that excessive caseloads and inadequate monitoring by the cities have resulted in a public defense system that deprives indigent persons of their constitutional rights.

Among other things, plaintiffs claim the attorneys do not investigate the charges filed against indigent persons, do not respond to communications from indigent persons, do not meet with indigent persons in advance of court, and do not stand with or represent indigent persons during court hearings. 

 The plaintiffs cite numerous complaints with the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. In December 2008, for example, the Skagit County Office of Assigned Counsel emailed city officials to inform them that indigent persons in Mount Vernon and Burlington will “go to court, come to our office, and [go] again to court with no attorney there to represent them even though counsel has been appointed.”

One low‐income person charged in Mount Vernon wrote: “I have not been fairly represented by either [attorney]. They have neglected to help my case at all. I would like a new public defender appointed to my cases please. Someone who will go over my case w/ me, discuss my options, meet w/ me before court, [etc.].”

City officials have even received emails from Mount Vernon police officers who complain about the “difficulty” they have “contacting Public Defenders,” adding “we are not getting the service that is their obligation to perform.” Despite these complaints, Mount Vernon and Burlington recently agreed to extend their contract with the attorneys for an additional two years. Records obtained from Mount Vernon show the city council voted unanimously in favor of this extension.

Toby Marshall, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, says: “When you are arrested and charged with a crime, the right to counsel is the most fundamental and important right that you have. This is true regardless of your economic status.” The plaintiffs claim that in Mount Vernon and Burlington, low income individuals who are charged with a crime are being appointed counsel in name only. Matt Zuchetto, another lead attorney in the case, says: “We intend to present extensive evidence that will show the public defense system in Mount Vernon and Burlington is broken. At the end of the day, our clients are simply asking for one thing: to fix the system.”

My opinion?  I’ve got to agree with attorneys Marshall and Zuchetto.  The right to counsel is a civil right that is guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and Washington.  This is especially true for low income defendants, who tend to face more criminal charges anyway. 

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

DUI Emphasis Patrol Begin June 24

Bellingham, Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, , ,

DUI Enforcement | City of Vancouver Washington

Be careful . . .

Extra DUI patrols will be enforced throughout Whatcom County from June 24 to July 4.

The patrols are part of an annual statewide emphasis on DUI enforcement. More than 20 percent of deaths related to drunk driving happen in June and July, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, which is funding the increased patrols through a grant.

During last year’s summer patrol emphasis, police arrested 91 motorists in Whatcom County for driving under the influence.

Drunk driving is involved in about half of all deaths on state roads, according to the commission. In 2010, there were 229 deaths involving a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Washington. That’s 17 percent below the previous five-year average.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Schultz: Warrantless Search of Home

911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, marijuana, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Vindictive Police: 6 Detectives Search Yehuda Glick's Home following Temple Mount Arrest | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | David Israel | 24 Shevat 5780 – February 19, 2020 | JewishPress.com

Excellent opinion. In State v. Schulz, the WA Supreme Court held that the Exigent Circumstances exception to the Search Warrant requirement was inapplicable when police unlawfully searched the Defendant’s home.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Officers received a 911 call about a couple was yelling inside their apartment.  Officers drove to the scene.  The woman, Ms. Schultz, consented to the officer’s request to enter the apartment.  Officers found a marijuana pipe.  Upon their find, they also conducted a more intrusive – and warrantless – search of the apartment.  Methamphetamine was found. Ms. Schultz was charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

COURT’S REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS

The WA Supremes reasoned the test for an emergency aid exception (also called Exigent Circumstances) entry has been expanded to include the following elements: (1) The police officer subjectively believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety concerns; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was need for assistance; (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place being searched; (4) there is an imminent threat of substantial injury to persons or property; (5) state agents must believe a specific person or persons or property are in need of immediate help for health or safety reasons; and (6) the claimed emergency is not a mere pretext for an evidentiary search.

They further reasoned that here, the mere acquiescence to an officer’s entry is not consent to search.  It is also not an exception to our state’s constitutional protection of the privacy of the home. Finally, while the likelihood of domestic violence may be considered by courts when evaluating whether the requirements of the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement have been satisfied, the warrantless entry in this case was unnecessary.  Officers merely heard raised voices from outside the home.  The agitated and flustered woman who answered the door indicated that no one else was present in the home.  No emergency existed.

My opinion?  Good decision.  Granting a police officer’s request to enter the home is not, by itself, consent to search the home.  Period.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Irby: Jury Selection Gone Wrong

Constitutional Rights, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

How to weed out bad jurors during jury selection

Very interesting case. In State v. Irby, the WA Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to be present during jury selection was violated when the trial judge emailed the attorneys and said he was inclined to release ten prospective jurors for hardship.

The defendant, Terrance Irby, was charged with first degree murder.  During jury selection, several members of the jury were disqualified by the judge and attorneys through email exchanges.  The communications occurred without the defendant being present.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals overturned Irby’s conviction.

The WA Supremes reasoned,  “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend person, or by counsel”   under the due process clause of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 22 of the WA Constitution.  Here, the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the removal of several potential jurors in Irby’s absence had no effect on the verdict.

My opinion?  Good decision.  The rule is clear as day.  Perhaps one of the jurors who was struck via email would have found Irby not guilty.  We’ll never know.  At any rate, Mr. Irby’s rights were clearly violated.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Representing Veterans

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Webinar: Representing Veterans in Criminal Cases: Obtaining and Understanding Military Records - July 15 at 1 PM - Florida Mental Health Law

Good news.  The Louisiana Public Defender Board, in collaboration with the Louisiana Department of veterans Affairs, has developed a guide for public defense attorneys who represent veterans.

The guide provides information on substance abuse services, PTSD treatment, VA recovery services in mental health, transitional work experience (TWE) and Supported Employment (SE) and Depression Treatment.

My opinion? The guide is a great tool that could fairly easily be replicated in every state in the country.  Although it’s written for public defenders, the guide also helps private defense attorneys identify the resources available to assist their veteran clients.

I’m honored to represent veterans against criminal charges.  In my experience, their crimes can be traced back to an underlying PTSD issue from serving in the war.  They deserve the highest level of legal representation, and should be treated with dignity from the judges and prosecutors.  Our veterans fought for our country.

Attorneys representing veterans MUST KNOW their veteran clients may lose pension benefits if they plead to any convictions garnering 60 or more days of incarceration.  For more information, please click “Section A: General Information on Payment of Benefits After Incarceration after clicking the link below:

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/va_search.jsp?SQ=&TT=1&QT=incarceration

To the veterans, I salute you. 🙂

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Werner: Who Let The Dogs Out?

911 Call, Animal Abuse, Assault, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, Self-Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

HOA Senior Communities Should Ban Vicious Dogs | YourHub

In State v. Werner, the WA Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in the prosecution for first degree assault after accidentally discharging a firearm when confronted by a neighbor’s pack of dangerous dogs.

“Victim” Daniel Barnes moved to the property next door to to defendant Gary Werner. Almost immediately, Werner and Barnes  began an ongoing property dispute concerning a shared easement.  Barnes kept seven dogs on Barnes’s property, including a Rottweiler and pit bulls. At least  three times before the incident giving rise to criminal charges, the dogs came onto Werner’s property and acted menacingly, barking and circling Werner. Werner started carrying a handgun with him on the property because he was afraid of the dogs.

The property dispute  intensified.  On the day of the incident, Werner was on his property in the easement area when one of Barnes’s pit bulls approached him, baring its teeth. Werner noticed six other dogs with the pit bull, including the Rottweiler and other pit bulls.  The dogs started circling Werner.  He pulled out his pistol, thinking he could scare the dogs, and started yelling for Barnes to call off the dogs.  Werner panicked and called 911 on his cell phone, but due to his arthritis, the gun went off, discharging into the ground.  The police were contacted.

The State charged Werner with Assault First Degree and Malicious Harassment. The jury acquitted him of the Malicious Harassment charge but found him guilty of Assault First Degree.  He appealed.  The case ended up before the WA Supremes.

The Court reviewed the law on self-defense.  “To prove self-defense, there must be evidence that (1) the defendant subjectively feared that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (2) this belief was objectively reasonable; [and] (3) the defendant exercised no greater force than was reasonably necessary.” Callahan, 87 Wn. App. at 929 (citation omitted).

The Court reasoned that here, Werner stated that he was afraid. That fear was arguably reasonable, given that he was facing seven snarling dogs, including several pit bulls and a Rottweiler.  Pursuant to State v. Hoeldt, 139 Wn. App. 225, 160 P.3d 55 (2007), a pit bull can be a deadly weapon under RCW 9A.04.110(6). There is evidence that Barnes’s friend refused requests to call off the dogs. By that conduct, Werner could reasonably have believed that Barnes’s friend personally posed a threat through the agency of a formidable group of canines that were under his control.

As to the firing of the weapon, the WA Supremes believed Werner’s accounting that it was an accident.  They found sufficient evidence of both accident and self-defense to warrant instructing the jury on self-defense.  “Since the outcome turns on which version of events the jury believed, the failure to give a self-defense instruction prejudiced Werner.” Accordingly, the WA Supremes reversed Werner’s conviction.

My opinion?  Good decision.  A pack of wild dogs surrounding and growling at you definitely warrants self-defense.  That’s a no-brainer!  The “victim” is lucky none of his dogs were killed.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.