Category Archives: DUI

State v. Feely: Endangering Other Officers During Pursuit Brings Enhanced Penalties

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Eluding, felony, law enforcement, police, Sentencing, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Here’s an interesting case out of Whatcom County.

In State v. Feely, the WA Court of Appeals held that a defendant convicted of Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle also faces sentencing enhancements under RCW 9.94A.834 when an officer who deploys spike strips is endangered.

Shortly after midnight, Trooper Travis Lipton was parked in an unmarked vehicle on the shoulder of the northbound on ramp to Interstate 5. A pickup truck driven by defendant Thomas Feely passed very close to Trooper Lipton’s car while merging onto the freeway. Trooper Lipton saw the truck drift into the left lane before returning to the right lane. He followed Feely.

Once Trooper Lipton caught up to Feely, he started his car’s audio and video recording system. He observed Feely drift “back and forth within the right lane continuously,” and cross the fog line and the “center skip line” dividing the two lanes. After Feely failed to signal a lane change, Trooper Lipton activated his siren and emergency lights.

Feely continued northbound. Trooper Lipton advised dispatch of Feely’s failure to stop. Feely took the next exit and ran the stop sign at the top of the exit ramp. Feely continued on the two-lane road, greatly exceeding the speed limit and drifting “over onto the oncoming lane frequently.” He bypassed two cars that slowed or stopped as a result. Trooper Lipton requested dispatch contact other troopers to deploy spike strips.

Police set up a spike strip, but Feely went around it. Sergeant Larry Flynn set up another spike strip. Feely attempted to drive around it but “immediately locked up” his brakes. He “slid almost the whole way” towards Sergeant Flynn and stopped just short of where Sergeant Flynn was standing. Feely then “started to jerk forward” towards Sergeant Flynn by the side of the road. Sergeant Flynn released some slack on the spike strips so he could get farther off the road. Feely ran over one of the spike strips with his front left tire and sped away. Trooper Lipton maintained his pursuit.

After turning down a private driveway, Feely drove his truck into a swamp. He ran into the woods, leaving one shoe behind in the mud. More police officers shortly arrived, and after searching with two police dogs, they found Feely hiding in a tree. He had no shoes on and his clothes were wet. The officers took Feely into custody and smelled alcohol on his breath.

Trooper Lipton took Feely to a hospital. About an hour later, Trooper Lipton collected Feely’s blood, which registered a blood alcohol level of 0.13.

The State initially charged Feely with one count of Felony Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and one count of Attempting to Elude a Pursuing Police Vehicle with an endangerment sentencing enhancement. The State later amended the information to allege an aggravating circumstance under RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c) because Feely had committed multiple current offenses and his high offender score results in some of the current offenses going unpunished.

At trial, Feely stipulated that he had four prior qualifying convictions, elevating the DUI to a felony. The jury found Feely guilty as charged. In a special verdict, the jury also found that a “person, other than [Feely] or a pursuing law enforcement officer, was endangered by Feely’s actions during his commission of the crime of Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle.”

The trial court sentenced Feely to 60 months for the felony DUI. The court sentenced him to 29 months for attempting to elude, plus 12 months and one day for the endangerment enhancement. The court ordered “all counts shall be served consecutively, including the portion of those counts for which there is an enhancement.” The court imposed this upward exceptional sentence after expressly finding that Mr. Feely committed multiple current offenses and the defendant’s high offender score resulted in some of the current offenses going unpunished.

Feely appealed. One of his arguments was that the prosecutor misstated the law when he argued the jury “could find Feely endangered someone other than himself or a pursuing police officer if it found he endangered the officers who deployed the spike strips.”

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. It reasoned that the prosecutor did not misstate the law in arguing that the jury could consider Feely’s endangerment of the spike strip officers for the sentencing enhancement.

The Court also reasoned that multiple, corroborating facts identified Feely as the driver of the truck, consequently, compelling evidence supports his convictions:

Moreover, Feely’s crime was captured on Trooper Lipton’s vehicle’s video recording system and admitted at trial. This video showed one driver driving a truck registered to Feely’s parents. The officers testified that they followed Feely down the private driveway, where they found his truck stuck in a swamp with the driver side window partially rolled down and the driver side door ajar. The passenger side door was closed and an expired Washington State identification card belonging to Feely was in the center console. The officers also testified that they heard what “sounded like one person” “making his way through the brush and the sticks,” and that they did not hear any sounds coming from any other direction. Moreover, police dogs, who arrived within five minutes of finding Feely’s truck, were able to locate him hiding nearby in a tree. These dogs led the officers to the same tree. Feely smelled of alcohol, and several hours after the incident, had a blood alcohol level of 0.13.

Additionally, the Court of Appeals rejected Feely’s argument that the Prosecutor’s minimization of the State’s burden of proof here was improper. It reasoned that the prosecutor here never implied the jury had a duty to convict without a reason to do so or ever suggested that the burden of proof shifted to Feely. “In context of the total closing argument, we conclude the prosecutor did not trivialize the State’s burden.” Consequently, and because Feely did not object at trial and fails to establish any resulting prejudice, the Court decided Feely’s claim fails.

Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court properly imposed an exceptional sentence based on Feely’s high offender score: “Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, the sentencing range increases based on the defendant’s offender score, up to a score of 9.59. Based on Feely’s offender score of 14 for each count, he faced a 60–month sentence for the felony DUI conviction alone.”

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 Law Would Require Bartenders to Cut Drunk People Off

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

A news article written by S.E. Smith of www.care2.com reveals that a new bill was introduced into the California State Assembly that would require bartending personnel and managers to undergo training in how to handle alcohol and cut off intoxicated customers.

Under the Responsible Interventions for Beverage Servers Training Act of 2016 (RIBS), Assembly Bill 2121 would require bartenders to intervene when a bar customer has had too much to drink. The law, which if passed would go into effect in 2020, hopes to save lives decrease DUI, and curb drunk drivers. Bartenders would be required to complete a minimum of four training hours on subjects like recognizing intoxication and understanding the physical and social effects of alcohol. The course would also examine state laws surrounding beverage service. Every three years, participants would need to renew their certifications.

Although the California Business & Professions Code reveals that bartenders have always practiced some discretion in this area, the bill would create a more robust legal framework and provide bars with specific training requirements for staff. Furthermore, the legislation would ensure that bartenders across the state follow the same curriculum when they learn how to interact with customers.

According to S.E. Smith, one of the most frustrating parts of the job can involve making judgement calls about when someone has had too much to drink and needs to go home. Some states – including Washington State – have “cut off” laws requiring bartenders to stop serving intoxicated customers. Most have laws barring service to people who are already drunk. Individual bars also have their own policies and procedures for handling customers.

Drunk drivers are the main concern here. Intoxicated people who hurt themselves — an uninsured person who requires care for a broken limb, for instance —  may create public health nuisances and expenses. However, when intoxicated people get in cars, the decision can be fatal.

S.E. Smith emphasizes that 30 people die as a result of drunk driving every day in the United States, including sober drivers in other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. One third of traffic deaths can be attributed to intoxicated driving.

My opinion? Similar to Ms. Smith, this bill is a step in the right direction. Many of my DUI clients tell me they were over-served at the bars they frequented before being pulled over for DUI. It helps to have backup — like policies a bartender can apply — to remind a customer that they’re breaking the law if they kept serving.

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. Robison: Implied Consent & Pot DUI

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Implied Consent, Legislation, marijuana, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In State v. Robison,  the WA Court of Appeals Division I held that a BAC test requires suppression when the officer giving the breath to a driver suspected of marijuana DUI fails to provide that driver with Implied Consent warnings required by that statute.

On June 29, 2013, Washington State Patrol Trooper B.S. Hyatt stopped Darren J. Robison for traffic violations. Trooper Hyatt smelled intoxicants and marijuana. Trooper Hyatt asked how long it had been since Robison had smoked marijuana. Robison responded that it had been a couple of hours. Trooper Hyatt arrested Robison. At the Tulalip Police Department, officers read Robison an “Implied Consent Warning for Breath” form, which Robison stated he understood and signed.

The form included warnings only about alcohol and did not include any marijuana-related warnings. The two breath tests given Robison both produced results over the legal limit. The State charged Robison with DUI. Robison asked the district court to suppress evidence based on an illegal stop and to suppress the breath test because Robison did not receive all required implied consent warnings.

The district court denied the motion. It concluded that Trooper Hyatt had probable cause to stop Robison. The district court also took judicial notice that the breath test used cannot detect THC, and that its purpose was to determine the alcohol concentration in Robison’s breath. The district court decided that the implied consent warnings given accurately informed Robison of the consequences of the breath tests, which “were all the warnings that were legally required on the date of violation given the decision facing the defendant.” The district court found Robison guilty but stayed his sentence pending his appeal. Robison appealed to the superior court.

The superior court reversed the district court. It found that the marijuana-related warnings were a significant part of the required implied consent warnings and the failure to give these warnings under the circumstances made the warnings given incomplete and misleading. The superior court suppressed the test results and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Ultimately, the WA Court of Appeals granted the State’s request for discretionary review of the superior court’s decision.

First, the Court of Appeals gave background on how police officers apply Washington’s Implied Consent Laws in DUI investigations. Before giving a breath test to a person reasonably believed to be driving under the influence, an officer must provide that person with certain warnings required by statute. Specifically, an officer must inform the driver of his right to refuse the test or to have additional tests done.

The Court reasoned that the officer’s warning must also state that refusal to take the test will result in license revocation, that the refusal may be used at a criminal trial, and that the driver may be eligible for an ignition interlock license. Pertinent to this case, the officer must also warn about the consequences of certain test results. This warning has changed several times in recent years.

The court further explained that in 2012, Washington voters enacted Initiative 502, which legalized some uses of marijuana. This initiative also amended Washington’s Implied Consent laws by adding a warning about marijuana test results.

In this case, Trooper Hyatt warned Robison about the consequences of test results showing an alcohol concentration in his breath. However, Trooper Hyatt failed to warn Robison of the consequences of test results showing a prohibited level of THC concentration in his blood. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the BAC test was properly suppressed because of this omission.

Additionally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that (1) an arresting officer has discretion to edit implied consent warnings as he deems appropriate to the facts of a case, and (2) the officer’s incomplete warning was harmless. Here, Robison smelled of marijuana when arrested and admitted smoking marijuana to the arresting officer. “Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Robison would have agreed to take the breath test had he received the THC warning.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that because the State cannot show that an officer gave Robison all the statutorily required warnings, it cannot establish the foundation required for admission of the breath tests given to him. “While cases have characterized this result as suppression, when the State cannot show that it complied with the implied consent statute, the State has failed to meet its burden of proof for admission of evidence it offers to prove guilt. The defendant does not have to show prejudice in this circumstance.”

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s decision to suppress Robison’s BAC test.

My opinion? Good decision.  DUI investigations involving Implied Consent Warnings must keep up with today’s legislative amendments. The law is the law.

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.

Harsher DUI Penalties Pass Washington House

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Image result for washington house bill 2280 DUI

According to Q13 Fox News, a bill that would require harsher penalties for people convicted of felony-level offenses for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol has unanimously passed the House.

House Bill 2280, approved Monday, would make a driver’s fourth DUI conviction within 10 years a Class B felony, rather than a Class C felony.

According to Mothers Against Drunk Drivers of Washington State, in 2015, 149 people died from crashes related to drunk driving. That makes up more than 34-percent of all traffic deaths in the state of Washington. And MADD says that 2015 number increased by more than four-percent from 2014.

The bill will now be considered by the Senate.

A Class C felony has a maximum of five years in prison, a $10,000 fine or both.

A Class B felony has a maximum of 10 years in prison, $20,000 fine or both.

A DUI is a gross misdemeanor in existing law.

A DUI for someone convicted of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault while intoxicated would also be a Class B felony under the bill.

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

Wrongful Incarceration

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Jail, Misidentification, Qualified Immunity, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In Garcia v. County of Riverside, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an individual’s lawsuit against police may proceed when the jail did not engage in readily available identity checks to ensure that they were not detaining the wrong person.

Plaintiff was arrested for DUI in Riverside County, California, on November 26, 2012. He was booked in a Riverside County jail. A booked individual is electronically fingerprinted through a system called “Livescan.” The Livescan image is then sent to the California Department of Justice.

When Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) officers searched for Plaintiff “Mario Garcia,” they found a felony warrant for Mario L. Garcia issued by the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1994. The warrant described Mario L. Garcia using only his first and last name, date of birth, height, and weight. The first and last name and birth date matched Plaintiff’s own. However, the authorities did not forward information on Mario L. Garcia’s biometric identifiers, middle name, or criminal record, all of which were different from Plaintiff’s.

AS a result, RCSD matched Plaintiff to the warrant and told him that he would be detained, despite Plaintiff’s protests that he was not Mario L. Garcia and that he had been mistakenly detained before based on the same warrant.

The next day Plaintiff was transferred to an LA County jail, where he alleges that he repeated his complaints to LASD officers. Plaintiff contends that LASD knew or should have known that he was not Mario L. Garcia for several reasons: (1) their middle names do not match; (2) their height and weight differ considerably (Mario L. Garcia is listed as 5’1″, 130 lbs. Plaintiff is 5’10”, 170 lbs.); (3) Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers, including fingerprints and CII number, did not match the subject’s; and (4) Plaintiff’s criminal history, which was linked in the system to his fingerprints, did not match the subject’s.

Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment by LASD, LA County, and several other defendants. He also brought state-law claims against LASD and LA County. He claimed that it is the policy of LASD to ignore identification processes, to ignore prisoners’ complaints of misidentification, and to accept an outside agency’s determination that an arrestee is the subject of a warrant rather than conduct an independent identity check upon booking in LA County.

The LASD and LA County’s defense was “Qualified Immunity.”

For those who don’t know, “Qualified Immunity” protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.

The “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.”

Here, the 9th Circuit decided that law enforcement’s failed to investigate his claim of mistaken identity after he was arrested. There was an obvious physical discrepancy between the warrant subject and Mr. Garcia, the most obvious which consisted of a nine-inch difference in height. That, accompanied by a detainee’s complaints of misidentification, should prompt officers to engage in readily available and resource-efficient identity checks, such as a fingerprint comparison, to ensure that they are not detaining the wrong person.

My opinion? Excellent decision. Civil rights violations do not always involve incidents of police shootings or beatings. Wrongful incarceration is covered, too. I’m happy the 9th Circuit understands this.

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.

Stoned Drivers Hit Test Course To Evaluate Marijuana DUI Limits

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Evidence, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Image result for Stoned Drivers obstacle course

An article from the Denver Huffington Post addressed an interesting question regarding the regulation of legal marijuana: how high is too high to drive?

Given the lack of precedent, Washington TV station KIRO opted to observe actions over words. The station assembled a group of volunteers, had them smoke pot (appropriately, the strain was called “blueberry train wreck”), and set them loose on a driving test course.

Here’s the video.

A handful of police officers stood nearby, watching any telltale signs of stoned driving. Also, a driving school instructor sat in the passenger’s seat, ready to take the wheel or stomp the brake pedal at a moment’s notice.

Unfortunately, the results (while entertaining) don’t add much clarity to the question at all. A regular smoker of marijuana tested above the legal limit to begin with, yet drove without much of a problem (at least initially). Two casual smokers also navigated the course without incident. (Spoiler alert: after smoking more marijuana, things devolve quickly).

In 2012, Colorado legislators declined to pass a law that would have limited drivers to 5 nanograms of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, per milliliter of blood.

“This is a bit of unprecedented territory, so trying to find the right approach has proven difficult and cumbersome,” explained Rep. Dan Pabon, a lawmaker on Colorado’s marijuana-legalizing task force, to CBS News in 2012.

Washington lawmakers, meanwhile, passed a law in 2012 setting the threshold for legal impairment at 5 nanograms of THC, reports NPR.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to common sense. Explains Bob Calkins, a Washington State Patrol spokesman, to The Oregonian, “We don’t just pull people over and draw blood… If you’re driving OK, we’re not going pull you over. But driving impaired is still driving impaired.”

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

Lower Legal Alcohol Limit?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Boating Under the Influence, Deferred Prosecution, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, Ignition Interlock Device, marijuana, misdemeanor, Studies, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Image result for lower legal alcohol limit

The National Transportation Safety Board wants the nationwide legal limit of .08 cut almost in half to .05, in an effort to save more lives.

Oddly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the nation’s most prominent advocacy group against drunk driving, does not support the legislation. MADD says there’s not enough data to show it would make much of a difference.

“Until we know that and can compare that and have an intellectual conversation on that, we want to focus on what we know is effective,” said Jason Derscheid, the Executive Director of MADD North Texas.

The organization most recently helped pass an interlock ignition law in Texas, allowing DWI offenders to have a device installed on their car. MADD has found that the alternative, suspending an offender’s license, doesn’t prevent them from continuing to drink and drive.

It’s advocating for similar laws to be passed in all 50 states.

Despite its lack of support for lowering the legal limit, MADD says it does not condone any level of drinking of driving.

“The only safe way to get home is to have a non-drinking, designated driver,” said Derscheid.

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

 

State v. Rich: Evidence of DUI Also Shows Reckless Driving

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Reckless Endangerment, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In State v. Rich, the WA Supreme Court ruled that although proof of DUI alone does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment, here, proof that a driver whose breath alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit and who showed awareness that she had done something wrong once stopped, and who sped past a police car in traffic with a young child in the front seat, was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger; which meets the definition of Reckless Endangerment.

A jury convicted defendant Andrea Rich of driving under the influence (DUI) and Reckless Endangerment. The evidence showed that Rich was speeding in traffic while highly intoxicated and with a young child in the front passenger seat. But the officer who arrested Rich followed her car because he believed that the car was stolen. Rich’s manner of driving posed no observable danger.

The WA Court of Appeals reversed the Reckless Endangerment conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Rich’s driving created an actual, substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. It reasoned that proof of a DUI does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment.

In response, the State Prosecutor appealed to the WA Supreme Court on the issue of whether there was sufficient to support Rich’s Reckless Endangerment conviction.

The WA Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that proof of DUI alone does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment. The WA Supreme Court also reasoned, however, that the State proved more than just DUI in this case:

It also proved speeding, past a police car, in traffic, by a driver whose breath alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, who showed awareness that she had done something wrong once stopped, and who had a young child in the front passenger seat. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger, that Rich knew of the substantial risk, and that Rich disregarded that risk in gross deviation from the way a reasonable person would act in her situation.

With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the conviction.

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.

Ignition Interlock Devices Are Cash Cows for States.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, marijuana, misdemeanor, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

According to news released from the Blow & Drive Interlock Corporation (BDIC) The Alcohol Ignition Interlock Industry is experiencing tremendous growth as more and more states continue to pass laws requiring Ignition Interlock Devices for DUI/DWI offenders.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that requiring or highly incentivizing interlocks for all convicted drunken drivers reduces drunken driving recidivism by 67 percent. The CDC recommends ignition interlocks for everyone convicted of DWI, even for first offenders.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Continues to Push for Tougher DUI Laws. In 2006, there were only 100,000 interlocks installed in the United States. As of July 2013, there were nearly 305,000 interlocks in use.

NEW 2016 IGNITION INTERLOCK LAWS

Texas: Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 2246 into law in June 2015, allowing those convicted of DWI with blood alcohol content less than 0.15 percent to be able to drive as long as they have an ignition interlock system installed in their car.

New Hampshire: After Jan. 1st 2016, anyone convicted in New Hampshire for a first offense of driving while intoxicated can petition a judge for a limited driver’s license that will allow them to drive to work, school or medical appointments, while their license is suspended, the new law comes with a host of restrictions – including installation of an alcohol-detecting automotive interlock device.

Illinois: New Ignition Interlock Law goes into effect January 1st, 2016, requiring anyone convicted of two or more DUIs to install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device on their vehicles for 5 years.

South Carolina: Governor signed Emma’s Law, which requires all offenders, including first-time offenders, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15 or greater mandated installation of an ignition interlock device.

Hawaii: New Law Requires Ignition Interlock Users to drive with a Hawaii ID Card. The new law, Act 40, goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2016

PENDING IGNITION INTERLOCK LEGISLATION

Federal: Legislation, called “Alisa’s Law”, would require all first time DUI offenders in all 50 states to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle for up to 2 years

Pennsylvania: Senate unanimously approved Senate Bill 290, which would require all repeat convicted drunk drivers as well as first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol concentration of .10 or above to use the alcohol ignition interlock devices.

Oregon: House Bill 2660 Provides court discretion to order person participating in driving while under influence of intoxicants a diversion agreement to install an ignition interlock device if person submitted to chemical test of person’s breath, blood or urine and test disclosed blood alcohol content below 0.08 percent by weight.

Washington: House Bill 1276 includes many provisions to deal with impaired driving.

Ohio: Lawmakers introduced a bill, called Annie’s Law, calling for ignition interlocks to be installed on vehicles if the driver has been convicted two or more times for drunk driving.

Indiana: Lawmakers plan to discuss the problem of repeat drunk drivers this legislative session, including a bill that would improve the ignition interlock system in Indiana.

Wisconsin: Lawmakers have proposed closing a loophole in state law so people who are required to have an ignition interlock device in their vehicle would face criminal punishment if they get caught driving a vehicle without such a device

Massachusetts: State Senate proposed a bill that would give drunk drivers a chance to avoid a license suspension, requiring them instead to install an ignition interlock

Maryland: Governor Larry Hogan is trying to push through one of his latest initiatives, which would require drivers arrested on drunk-driving charges to install an ignition interlock device inside their vehicle.

MADD will continue to push for stricter DUI Laws, and they will continue to Ask More States to pass All-Offender Ignition Interlock Legislation in an effort to keep the roads safe for sober motorists. From only one state requiring interlocks in 2006 today twenty‐six states require or highly incentivize the use of ignition interlocks for every convicted offender and as a result they have reduced drunk driving deaths by 24% overall.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court to Update DUI Procedures

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, Due Process, DUI, Evidence, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,


The US Supreme Court plans to update the rules for prosecuting individuals accused of drunk driving by reviewing a trio of cases dealing with “Refusal” statutes.

In North Dakota, a state law makes it a crime for a motorist to refuse to take “any” type of test — blood, alcohol or urine — used to prosecute driving under the influence (DUI) cases. The court will decide the constitutionality of this provision in the context of two cases, Birchfield v. North Dakota and Beylund v. North Dakota, each of which presents the same question from a slightly different angle.

In Beylund, motorist Steve Michael Beylund agreed to take a blood test after being threatened with criminal penalties if he refused. In Birchfield, motorist Danny Birchfield refused to take a breath test. The highest court in North Dakota reviewed the existing legal precedent and found no reason to overturn the refusal law.

The drunk-driving cases provide the Court with something of a sequel to its ruling in 2013 in Missouri v. McNeely, which left the clear impression that, if police have enough time, they should get a warrant before taking a test of a suspected drunk driver.  The Court ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not always amount to an emergency situation that permits a DUI test without a warrant.

The North Dakota justices wrote, “Birchfield has not drawn our attention to any appellate court decisions striking down criminal refusal statutes, and we have found that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McNeely, criminal refusal statutes have continued to withstand Fourth Amendment challenges, particularly in Minnesota.”

Last month, however, in Hawaii v. Won, the Hawaii Supreme Court cited the US Supreme Court’s reasoning in finding refusal statutes as unconstitutional. In light of McNeely, Hawaii’s justices decided the US Supreme Court had clearly ordered law enforcement to obtain a warrant before compelling a “search” of a person’s blood, as the Fourth Amendment requires.

The US Supreme Court will tackle the different rulings from these States in the context of a third case, Bernard v. Minnesota, which deals with that state’s law treating a breath test as a “search incident to arrest.” Here, William Robert Bernard Jr used his truck to pull a boat out of the water. Officers believed he was DUI. After Bernard was arrested, he refused a breath test.

At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether criminalized refusal statutes represent a DUI exception to the Constitution.

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.