Category Archives: Constitutional Rights

State v. Green: When Inventory Searches Become Overbroad

Constitutional Rights, DUI, felony, law enforcement, police, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

In State v. Green, the WA Court of Appeals decided that evidence of Identity Theft  was not admissible when the officer obtained the evidence after searching the defendant’s car during a DUI and Hit & Run investigation.

Mr. Green was arrested for DUI after his vehicle struck a pedestrian who later died. After arrest, police searched Mr. Green’s car. They found a paper bag containing numerous receipts. After more investigating,  it was later determined the receipts were evidence of purchases using stolen credit cards. The car was later towed to a police impound lot. The officer began investigating the defendant for theft/fraud charges in addition to the Vehicular Homicide charge. However, the officer’s search warrant was only specific to the Vehicular Homicide charge.

A few days later, the officer obtained a second search warrant to search the car for evidence of fraud and identity theft. Mr. Green moved to suppress the receipts. The state argued the receipts were properly seized pursuant to an inventory search and were admissible pursuant to the independent source doctrine.

Some background is necessary. Under the 4th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and article I section 7 of the Washington Constitution, warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional. However one exception to the warrant requirement are Inventory Searches accompanying a lawful vehicle impound. The purpose of an inventory search is to (1) protect the vehicle owner’s property; (2) protect the police against false claims of theft by the owner, and (3) protect the police from potential danger.

The direction and scope of an inventory search must be limited to the purpose of justifying the exception. Under the Independent Source Exception, evidence obtained by unlawful governmental action is not suppressed under the exclusionary rule if the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action.

In this case, the officer did not find the receipts as part of an inventory search. Stated different, the officer looked in the paper bag but did not consider the receipts to be relevant to the inventory search. Therefore, there was no evidence that he inventoried them. The officer seized the receipts for investigatory purposes on a different matter altogether, namely, the soon-to-be-pending Identity Theft charges.

 

The Court further reasoned the receipts were not admissible under the Independent Source doctrine because the officer neither found the receipts nor had knowledge of them through an independent source.

My opinion? This was a reasonable, practical approach. In this case, it makes no sense to allow the police to conduct investigations of different crimes other than the one they are already working on, especially if they lack independent evidence to begin with.

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. Quaale: Mistrials Happen When Police Officers Offer Opinion Testimony

Constitutional Rights, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

In State v. Quaale, the WA Court of Appeals wrote an excellent opinion on the issue of whether a defendant’s right to a fair trial was violated when the Prosecutor invited objectionable testimony from the officer.

The defendant was charged with Eluding Police and DUI. At trial, the Trooper  was asked to describe the extent of his experience, explain the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and the procedure for testing it, and tell the jury about his administration of the test to the defendant. The prosecutor also asked, “In this case, based on the HGN test alone, did you form an opinion based on your training and experience as to whether or not the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired?”

Rightfully, the defendant’s lawyer immediately objected that the Trooper was being asked to provide an opinion on the ultimate issue determining guilt. The objection was overruled. The Trooper answered, “Absolutely. There was no doubt he was impaired.”

The Court of Appeals reasoned that impermissible testimony regarding the defendant’s guilt may be reversible error because such evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial, which includes independent determination of the facts by the jury. Here, and even where expert testimony is helpful to the jury, it is unnecessary for a witness to express belief that certain facts or findings lead to a conclusion of guilt. Opinion testimony should be avoided if the information can be presented in such a way that the jury can draw its own conclusions.

 My opinion? The defense attorney was very smart to object to the Officer’s opinion testimony and preserve the issue for appeal. Opinion testimony should NEVER be allowed at trial. The State’s witnesses – including officers – may only testify to their observations. They are not expert witnesses who can offer opinions.

Before trial, I routinely draft and argue motions in limine expressly requesting the judge to instruct the Prosecutor to not ask questions instructing witnesses/officers to provide opinion testimony. These motions strengthen a standing objection and help preserve legal issues for appeal when they are violated. Great opinion.

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. Saintcalle: The WA Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on Race Discrimination in Our Criminal Justice System

Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Race & Law, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

In State v. Saintcalle, the WA Supreme Court addressed an interesting case regarding peremptory strikes against potential black jurors.

The defendant Kirk Saintcalle, a black man, was charged with Felony Murder in the First Degree. At trial, the State’s prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only black person in the jury pool. He was found guilty by a jury. On appeal, Saintcalle claimed the strike was racially motivated in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

The WA Supreme Court disagreed and agreed with Saintcalle. They disagreed with Saintcalle to the extent that the Prosecutor’s peremptory striking of the only African-American juror in this case did not give rise to a Batson violation. However, the majority agreed that Washington’s Batson procedures were not strong enough to effectively combat race discrimination in the selection of juries.

Justice Wiggins also stated our Batson procedures must change so as to deal with unconscious, institutional, or unintentional racism, however, “[T]his is not the case in which to announce a new standard.” Saintcalle’s conviction was upheld.

Chief Justice Madsen’s concurrence, which was signed by Justice Jim Johnson, also expressed her concern about racial discrimination during jury selection. She would not adjust Batson or do away with peremptory challenges in an attempt to address nonpurposeful discrimination based on race during jury selection. Chief Justice Madsen also took issue with Justice Wiggins’ charts and graphs that compared the prosecutor’s questioning of the African-American juror to the prosecutor’s questioning of other jurors.

Justice Stephens’ concurrence, which was signed by Justices Fairhurst and Charles Johnson, “sound[s] a note of restraint amidst the enthusiasm to craft a new solution to the problem of the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.”

Justice González’s concurrence calls for the immediate abolishment of peremptory challenges.

Justice Chambers dissented.

My opinion? I’ve heard that getting attorneys to agree to something – and judges, for that matter – is akin to trying to herd cats. Clearly, State v. Saintcalle  captures the “herding cats” imagery. The smattering of different opinions by our justices captures the complexity of racism in our judicial system. Some see it.  Some don’t. Others call it something else.

Although I’m saddened the WA Supremes passed on an opportunity to capture a racist act and make an example of it, I’m happy they said Washington needs to have stronger procedures and standards in place to stop these situations from happening again. Perhaps jury pools should intentionally include more minority jurors. Who knows? The solution, it seems, is potentially as multi-layered as the problem itself.

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.

Are Washington’s New Proposed DUI Laws Unconstitutional?

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Firearm, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Gov. Jay Inslee shall sign into law a measure to increase monitoring of motorists who repeatedly drive under the influence.

Under the revised bill to be signed this morning in Tacoma, drivers charged with a second impaired driving offense would face mandatory arrest AND booking in jail AND have an interlock device installed on their vehicles within five days of being charged. The state would also begin a pilot program to conduct daily alcohol monitoring on a person convicted twice under the DUI law.

Finally, the State will give counties and cities more money to prosecute and punish DUI offenders quicker. The law, sparked by tragic accidents earlier this year, is a scaled back version of an initial plan that would have increased minimum jail times for offenders.

My opinion? More and more, we are witnessing the erosion of our rights when it comes to DUI legislation and enforcement. There are four basic legal issues when it comes to DUI: (1) whether the stop conducted by the police was lawful, (2) whether the officer had enough evidence to arrest for DUI, (3) whether the defendant was informed of the Implied Consent law, and (4) whether the defendant’s breath test was over .08 and/or whether the defendant refused the test. These four basic issues bring LOTS of sub-issues; which is the stuff of good lawyering and effective pretrial motions to suppress and/or dismiss the case.

Most people don’t know that DUI charges bring separate actions from both the Department of Licensing (DOL) and the City/State Prosecutor. The DOL will try revoking or suspending your license. Following that, they’ll order defendants to obtain an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) and an Ignition Interlock Device License (IIDL) if the defendant wants to continue driving.

To combat this, defendants are entitled to a DOL hearing if they want to stop the DOL from suspending/revoking the license. The hearing costs $375.00. A good attorney will brief the legal issues and request a hearing before the DOL’s Hearing Examiner in order to persuade the Hearing Examiner to NOT suspend/revoke the defendant’s license.

Problematically, it appears Inslee’s new DUI legislation circumvents the DOL process altogether. It appears a defendant’s car will be automatically installed with an IID 5 days after arrest. Defendants will be closely monitored while their case is pending. In all likelihood, they’ll be forced to take time out of their day to appear before their probation officer and succumb to UA and/or portable breath testing. All of these actions assume the defendant is guilty. They violate the “innocent until proven guilty” standard.

Also, the bill’s enforcement of pretrial orders for IIDs violates State v. Rose, 146 Wn.App. 439 (2008). That case held government programs which require the defendant to pay fees/costs before conviction are unconstitutional. Additionally, these provisions may violate Art. 1 Section 22 of the WA Constitution by requiring advancement of money before conviction.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to find a competent defense attorney to help maneuver the pitfalls of our increasing anti-DUI legislation.

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.

Proposed Changes in DUI Laws: Draconian or Timely?

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

The state Legislature shall consider strengthening DUI consequences in Washington.

It makes sense, in a way. News reports indicate that DUI accidents have increased, or at least, a recent string of crashes in Washington leads us to believe so. While these tragedies are awful, it is important to remember that these results are not typical.

It’s no secret that DUI penalties are already harsh. Mandatory minimum penalties start at 24 consecutive hours in jail (convertible to 15 days of electronic home monitoring); $941 fine/court assessment; a 90-day license suspension; court-ordered alcohol evaluation, treatment, and victim impact panel; a one-year ignition interlock device (IID) requirement; five years of probation; and mandatory 12- hour impoundment of the vehicle immediately following arrest.

The mandatory minimum penalties get stiffer with subsequent convictions within seven years or higher BAC levels. Even worse, defendants convicted of DUI cannot vacate or expunge their conviction. The DUI remains on their criminal history forever.

The Legislature has amended DUI penalties 11 times in the past 10 years. It’s a subject of intense debate among lawmakers. Nowadays, legislatures are looking at different ways to, once again, enhance the penalties of DUI drivers.

The proposals could be seen as Draconian. They include making someone’s third DUI a felony; requiring impounded vehicles have Ignition Interlock Devices be installed before releasing the vehicle; random sobriety checkpoints; increasing jail sentences;  a 10- year prohibition on the consumption or purchase of alcohol following the third DUI conviction; faster filing of charges and mandatory jail booking following arrest.

My opinion? The proposals are Draconian. Requiring installation of IID devices on impounded vehicles is potentially unconstitutional. What if the defendant borrowed the vehicle from a family member or friend? Additionally, the Washington Supreme Court has already ruled random sobriety checkpoints unconstitutional. Finally, mandatory incarceration following arrest will cause a massive need for more jail space and money to pay for it.

Yes, increasing DUI penalties to stop repeat offenders – or even first-time offenders – is a worthwhile goal. However, careful measures must be taken by our lawmakers to draft laws and policies that address the problem while keeping in mind that everyone is entitled to make mistakes.

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.

Toxicologist Says, “No Spike YET In Marijuana DUI Arrests”

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Jail, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

The state toxicologist hasn’t seen a spike in positive blood tests for marijuana since pot became legal under Washington law.

Voters last fall passed Initiative 502, allowing adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. The measure, which took effect Dec. 6, set a DUI limit designed to be similar to the .08 blood-alcohol content for drunken driving – 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood.

State toxicologist Fiona Couper told a legislative hearing in Olympia on Wednesday that the Washington State Patrol’s toxicology lab has completed tests on all blood samples taken from drivers in December, and has started on samples from last month. She says there’s no spike, but notes the law has only just taken effect.

Couper says that every year, about 6,000 blood samples from drivers are submitted to the lab. About 1,000 to 1,100 of those come back positive for active THC, with the average being about 6 nanograms.

My opinion? This could be the proverbial calm before the storm. Who knows, perhaps law enforcement officers are being trained and retrained on becoming Drug Recognition Experts on marijuana DUI detection. Progressive laws are slow to get enacted, and the government’s response to progressive legislation even slower; especially if it costs money to train/retrain officers. Yes, there’s no spike yet. But don’t get too comfy . . .

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.

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, , ,

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, , ,

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, , ,

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, , ,

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.