Category Archives: Legislation

The Crackdown On Repeat Impaired Driving

Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, DUI arrests spike dramatically across the country. Law enforcement agencies ramp up patrols, set up more checkpoints, and dedicate extra resources to catching impaired drivers.

Earlier this year, Washington State is updated its DUI laws in ways that could have significant consequences for drivers with prior DUI convictions. One of the most important changes involves how past offenses are counted when determining whether a DUI charge rises to a felony.

EXTENDED “LOOK-BACK” PERIOR FOR PRIOR DUI’S

Under the updated law, HB 1493 updates the “look-back” period used to determine whether an impaired driving offense becomes a felony by increasing it from 10 years to 15 years. This means that if a person has three or more prior DUI or physical control convictions within the past 15 years, a subsequent impaired driving offense can be charged as a felony rather than a gross misdemeanor. Also, older convictions that would not have counted under the previous 10-year rule may now be considered in charging and sentencing.

ADDITIONAL DUI LAW CHANGES

In addition to the extended look-back period, the new law also includes the following:

  • New sentencing alternatives for some felony DUI cases, including treatment-based options aimed at addressing substance use issues.
  • Expanded options for deferred prosecution, including limited eligibility for a second deferred prosecution in certain circumstances.
  • Clarifications to ignition interlock and license processes, which may affect driving privileges and reinstatement procedures after a DUI.

WHY DO THESE CHANGES IN THE LAW MATTER?

A DUI conviction—especially a felony impaired driving charge—can carry serious penalties. Longer jail sentences, extended probation, ignition interlock device requirements, and lasting impacts on your driving record and insurance. And because the new law looks further back into a person’s history, older convictions now heavily influence how current charges are handled.

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.

Public Defenders Join Lawsuit Against WA For Funding

Public defenders are suing.

To be more precise, the King County Department of Public Defense is joining a lawsuit by rural counties that’s already in progress. The move shows that some advocates are running out of patience with the Legislature, which earlier this year retracted a proposal to dedicate some revenue from the state’s new “millionaires tax” for public defenders.

THE PROBLEM

For years, public defenders have reasoned and pleaded with Washington lawmakers to address a crisis in the courts by dramatically increasing what the state spends to provide attorneys for poor people. Unfortunately, the lawmakers haven’t taken much action. Public Defenders now see legal action as a way to force the Legislature’s hand to fund public defense.

“You don’t want to become a pessimist and say there’s no chance, but you realize you may have to have different approaches to motivate lawmakers. Sometimes, litigation is the only way.” ~Matt Sanders, Director of King County’s Public Defense Department

THE LAWSUIT

The lawsuit began in 2023, when Lincoln, Pacific and Yakima counties and the Washington State Association of Counties accused the state of neglecting its constitutional obligations by not adequately funding public defense. The suit suffered an initial setback in 2024. At this time a Superior Court Judge dismissed it, saying the counties lacked standing. But an appeals court disagreed last year and the state Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Under Washington’s longstanding approach, the Legislature has delegated its public defense obligations to the counties. This forces the counties to shoulder almost all those expenses, which total hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The counties claim the system is broken. They argue they can’t raise enough money at the local level to provide all their defendants with adequate counsel. Although the Legislature boosted its spending last year, the counties want much more.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

The debate matters because funding struggles and heavy caseloads have led to attorney shortages and uneven services across Washington, sometimes depriving defendants of representation and hampering prosecutions. The state Supreme Court has scheduled lower caseloads for defenders to reduce burnout and attract more recruits over time. For some counties, the new standards could exacerbate budget and staffing woes in the short term.

My opinion? Public defenders are indeed overworked. The situation is driven by systemic underfunding, high caseloads, and the growing complexity of criminal cases. This overwork not only affects the mental health and retention of attorneys but also undermines the constitutional right to effective legal representation. We urgently need reform in the public defense system.

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.

Millionaires Tax Will Not Help Fund Public Defense

Last month, Washington state lawmakers rejected a plan to use a new income tax to help pay for lawyers for criminal defendants, despite warnings of a growing public defense crisis. Apparently, the rising public defense costs — driven by new state caseload standards — could push county governments toward bankruptcy and bring the state’s criminal justice system to a standstill, county officials say.

THE NUMBERS

Washington’s counties paid more than $200 million to provide public defense services in 2024, Young’s group estimated. The state picked up less than $6 million of those costs that year. The Legislature has since boosted its contribution to $13.6 million annually. Unfortunately, this is merely a fraction of current costs, especially with the new caseload standards ramping up.

BACKGROUND

Early versions of the Legislature’s new tax on annual incomes over $1 million – commonly called a “millionaires tax” – would have directed between 5% and 7% of the revenue to county and city public defense costs. However, that language was stripped out of the bill that ultimately passed last week.

Instead, local governments could lose more than $300 million per year due to sales tax breaks in the new income tax plan. Apparently, those losses will make paying for public defense even harder.

Washington’s counties have long shouldered most of the cost of providing attorneys to criminal defendants who can’t afford them — a right guaranteed in the state constitution. This problem is ongoing. In 2023, the state Association of Counties sued the state, accusing the Legislature of shirking its duty to pay for those services. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Also, last year the state Supreme Court issued an order last year requiring public defenders to sharply reduce their caseloads. The new standards cut maximum felony and misdemeanor caseloads by roughly two-thirds. Counties have up to 10 years to fully comply, but must steadily reduce caseloads toward the new limits each year. Meeting those standards will more than triple public defense costs statewide, Young estimated.

My opinion? Public defenders continue to face funding issues. 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.

Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting Law Enforcement Impersonators

Governor Bob Ferguson signed a bill preventing individuals from posing as law enforcement with fake badges or other items with law enforcement insignia.

The Governor worked with Rep. Edwin Obras (D-Burien) and Sen. Adrian Cortes (D-Battle Ground) to propose the legislation, House Bill 2165. The bill bans individuals who are not law enforcement from wearing, displaying or possessing badges or other law enforcement insignias. House Bill 2165 passed the House in a bipartisan 66-29 vote and passed the Senate 30-18.

WHY IS THIS LAW NECESSARY?

CNN found that there were more ICE impersonation incidents in 2025 than in the past four presidential administrations combined. This bill increases safety and accountability by ensuring that only legitimate officers identify themselves as law enforcement.

“If you’re not a law enforcement officer, it needs to be illegal to wear something that gives the impression that you are. This common-sense change in state law will make Washingtonians safer and hold imposters accountable.” ~Governor Bob Ferguson

“It’s just common sense and good community safety policy,” Rep. Obras said. “If you talk to someone you believe is a law enforcement officer, you should be able to trust that they, in fact, are who they say they are. These unprecedented times, in which federal officials are arresting and detaining members of our communities, require us to ensure those creating additional chaos are held accountable. We should all be worried about vigilantism, assault, or property crimes that become easier if someone impersonates a police officer. We are taking steps to prevent these crimes to ensure all communities are safe from harm.”

“ICE agents are stoking fear across Washington state and the country, while making us less secure,” Sen. Cortes said. “The FBI has warned of criminals posing as ICE officers and carrying out robberies, kidnappings, and sexual assaults in several states. This is unacceptable and erodes the public’s trust in law enforcement. House Bill 2165 is a critical step in helping us restore that trust so we can keep our communities safe.”

HB 2165 will:

  • Expand the definition of law enforcement to include all federal agents who enforce the laws of the United States and have the authority to detain people — including ICE.
  • Create the crime of false identification of a peace officer, which means;
  • Make a violation a gross misdemeanor, in line with existing law regulating criminal impersonation;
  • Limit the possession of items with law enforcement insignias on them, with an exception for items used in works of art, commentary, satire, and parody; and
  • Ensure legitimate law enforcement officers are clearly identifiable.

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.

“Intelligent Speed Assistance” Devices Gaining Popularity

Very interesting article in Popular Science discusses recent legislation giving judges the authority to mandate the installation of devices that physically prevent repeat offenders from exceeding posted speed limits. Earlier this month, the Washington State Senate overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1596 (40-8), known as the BEAM Act, which aims to reduce reckless speeding and enhance road safety across the state.  At least five other states, including Cohen’s home state of New York, are considering similar legislation.

Apparently, the political will for this technology exists. Across the country, statistics show that a small portion of drivers who consistently drive too fast—a group referred to by advocates as “super speeders”—are responsible for a sizable chunk of fatal traffic deaths.

There’s reason to believe the issue is getting worse, too. Research shows drivers across the country started speeding more during the earlier stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Jessica Cicchino, vice president of research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, believes some drivers may be tempted to drive faster due to “empty roads” driving during lockdowns. But that habit seems to have lingered even when traffic increased. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims speeding-related fatalities in the US reached a 14-year high in 2021.

Supporters of anti-speed legislation see a parallel between the proposed court-mandated speed limiters and the more widely known ignition interlock devices (or “in-car breathalyzers”) used for people convicted of driving under the influence.

WHAT IS “INTELLIGENT SPEED ASSISTANCE?”

Devices broadly referred to as “Intelligent Speed Assistance” (ISA) systems, leverage advances in GPS and other technologies embedded in modern connected cars to apply a similar “in-car breathalyzers” concept to speeding. And while the movement against so-called “Super Speeders” is gaining momentum, some worry that mandatory ISA devices could introduce new, unintended safety risks. The legislation may also face an uphill battle in rural, lower-population states where driving—and driving fast—is deeply ingrained in daily life and culture.

Advocates say ISA devices, particularly those targeted toward alleged Reckless Driving, could make streets significantly safer for both motorists and pedestrians. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 11,775 people died in speed-related crashes last year. Speeding, the agency says, was a “contributing factor” in 29 percent of all traffic fatalities.

HOW DOES INTELLIGENT SPEED ASSISTANCE WORK?

Devices designed to limit a vehicle’s top speed, sometimes referred to as governors or speed limiters, date back to the early-20th century. Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) systems differ in that they rely on a combination of the vehicle’s current speed and the posted speed limit. These devices determine the legal speed limit using GPS data synced with a pre-programmed digital map, or by employing the vehicle’s onboard cameras and LiDAR sensors to read speed limit signs in real time. Cameras and LiDAR are the same types of sensors used to help Waymo and other autonomous vehicles “see” the world around them.

Once an ISA system detects that a driver has exceeded the speed limit, it triggers various visual and audio cues, usually in the form of warning chimes and flashing dashboard lights. These systems are referred to as “passive” ISA. All new vehicles sold in the European Union, as of last year, must have passive ISA systems. The “active” ISA systems, which the Super Speeder legislation focuses on, go a step further by using tactile responses to push back on the accelerator or limit the engine’s power output, physically preventing the driver from exceeding a certain speed.

Judges or local governments can set thresholds for how far over the speed limit a driver can go before the system intervenes—typically around 5 mph above the posted limit. These devices are designed to detect changes in speed limits in advance, giving the driver time to slow down gradually. In theory, this should help avoid scenarios where a vehicle suddenly slams on the brakes upon entering an area with a lower speed limit.

DOES ISA TECHNOLOGY HAVE CRITICS?

Yes. Some opponents argue that the inability to temporarily exceed the speed limit could create dangers in certain scenarios, like when a driver is suddenly confronted with a tailgater. There are also emergency situations, like rushing to a hospital due to an injury or pregnancy, or quickly avoiding a potential collision, where it would seem reasonable to allow a driver to momentarily exceed the posted speed limit at their discretion.

Some legislation, like the one in Washington, attempts to side step this by including a big red button that drivers could press up to three times per month to override their mandatory ISA system. The button is configurable, and can be programmed to only allow a certain amount of uses over a certain amount of times.

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

House Bill 1596 Seeks to Curb Speeding & Reckless Driving

New proposed legislation could prevent reckless drivers from exceeding speed limits. Introduced by Representative Mari Leavitt (D), the  Andrea Smith Hudson Act (House Bill 1596) is currently under consideration in the Washington state legislature. If passed, this legislation would require habitual speeders and reckless drivers with suspended licenses to have a speed limiter installed on their car’s ignition. Acting much like a breathalyzer, this device uses GPS to keep the vehicle within the speed limit.

The Andrea Smith Hudson Act is named in honor of Andrea Hudson, who was driving a minivan with five children when an Audi traveling at 112 mph struck her vehicle at an intersection in Renton. Hudson and three of the children in her car, including 12-year-old Buster Brown, 12-year-old Matilda Wilcoxson and 13-year-old Eloise Wilcoxson, were killed instantly.

“My bill attempts to address these factors by focusing on those who have repeatedly shown these behaviors. I propose implementing Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) technology for habitual speed violators as a tool for our Courts to impose on these habitual speeders. This technology, which has been successful in other regions as well as countries, ensures that vehicles adhere to posted speed limits, significantly reducing the likelihood of speed-related crashes. In addition to ISA devices, the bill requires speed limiters for repeat offenders as a condition of being able to drive.” ~Representative Mari Leavitt.

Key measures of the legislation include:

  • Targeting the most dangerous violations (20+ mph over the limit) rather than penalizing minor infractions.
  • Providing opportunities for folks with suspensions to drive with this tool similar to the ignition interlock program as imposed by a court.
  • Implementing a structured fee system for ISA device installation that considers financial capabilities, ensuring all drivers can comply.

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

Traffic Safety For All

The legislation is a top priority for the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. Instead of pulling people over, officers would send warnings in the mail about nonmoving violations if they have no other reason for a stop.

WHAT CAN/CAN’T POLICE PULL MOTORISTS OVER FOR?

Officers could still pull people over for any criminal offense, not wearing a seat belt, not having license plates, or having an expired registration. The same goes for faulty equipment, a shattered windshield that affects visibility or a dragging muffler. And police could still cite drivers for nonmoving violations during a stop. However, they would need to initially pull the driver over for something else.

HOW DOES THE BILL LIMIT POLICE POWERS?

When officers pull someone over, they would have to immediately inform drivers of the reason for the traffic stop. And they could only question the driver about that issue, unless they find evidence giving them a reasonable suspicion to ask about something else. Police would also need written consent to search the car. Furthermore, police can only search if the offense precipitating the stop is a gross misdemeanor or felony.

WHAT DO THE BILL’S SUPPORTERS ARGUE?

Supporters argue reducing stops for minor infractions would free up time for officers to prioritize drivers who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or speeding.

Police accountability advocates say stops for nonmoving violations do little to improve public safety while disproportionately affecting people of color. And the fines can be burdensome for low-income communities.

State troopers search the cars of Native American drivers five times more than white drivers, according to an InvestigateWest analysis of traffic stop data from 2018 to 2023. Troopers also searched Black and Hispanic drivers more than white drivers.

Between 2009 and 2019, Washington State Patrol troopers found contraband during a mere 0.27% of traffic stops, according to a Vera Institute of Justice analysis.

WHAT DO THE BILL’S OPPONENT’S ARGUE?

Police officials oppose the bill, arguing it is ill-timed given the dramatic rise in traffic deaths in the past few years. In 2023, over 800 people died on Washington roads, the highest mark since 1990. Impairment and speeding caused a half and a third of those deaths, respectively.

WHERE IS THE BILL PRESENTLY HEADED?

The Senate version of the legislation hasn’t been scheduled for a public hearing. The House bill doesn’t yet have a committee vote scheduled. The proposal would take effect 90 days after the session adjourns, scheduled for April 27.

My opinion?  Bouse Bill 1512 is public safety that benefits everyone. It addresses racially discriminatory police practices and improves safety.

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

State Legislature Passes Significant Public Defense Bill

Excellent article in the Seattle Times from journalist Daniel Beekman discussed the passage of Senate Bill 5780. The legislation is a huge win for WA state’s beleaguered criminal legal system. It won early support in the Senate but stalled before last Friday’s deadline to pass the House. Fortunately, it prevailed at the last minute only after a Seattle Times story spotlighted the public defense crisis. It is now headed to Gov. Jay Inslee’s desk to be signed into law.

WHAT IS THE CRISIS AND WHY DOES IT EXIST?

When you’re accused of a crime and don’t have enough money to pay an attorney, the government is supposed to provide you with one. It’s a constitutional right. But many Washington communities are struggling to hire and retain public defenders and to keep up with cases (statewide rules cap the number of cases a defender can handle each year). So some defendants are going without proper representation, even while in jail, and some prosecutions are getting delayed or dismissed. In some places, prosecutors are in short supply, as well.

The crisis exists because the COVID pandemic created backlogs, fewer people are going to law school, young attorneys are choosing other jobs, attorneys certified for high-level felony cases are burning out and policing changes are making cases more time-consuming, among other reasons.

Rural areas and Eastern Washington communities such as Yakima and the Tri-Cities have been hit especially hard, partly because they lack amenities and resources to compete with private sector employers for qualified attorneys. Unlike most other states, Washington relies on its counties to fund their own public defense services, and those costs have grown in recent years.

WHAT DOES SB 5780 HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH?

SB 5780 is meant to combat rampant staffing and caseload challenges that are pushing Washington’s public defense apparatus to the brink of collapse and simultaneously threatening prosecutorial operations. The legislation helps recruit and train more attorneys for crucial jobs in public defense and prosecution.

The bill directs state agencies to set up internship programs for aspiring public defenders and prosecutors in rural and underserved areas. It also directs the agencies to provide training to early-career public defenders and prosecutors. More specifically, SB 5780 calls for the state’s Office of Public Defense to administer a “law student rural defense program.” The program places students and recent graduates as interns with experienced public defenders in underserved communities. Similarly, it calls for the state Criminal Justice Training Commission to oversee a “law student rural prosecution program” placing interns with prosecutors. The interns are supposed to get mentoring, pay and housing stipends, and supervising attorneys may receive some money for their time.

The bill also expands the Criminal Defense Training Academy and the Criminal Justice Training Commission. These organizations train early-career public defenders and prosecutors.

My opinion? The legislation is a step in the right direction. Studies show public defenders face extremely heavy workloads that prevent them from providing effective legal representation to people accused of crimes.

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.

Cannabis Advocates: Biden is Missing an Opportunity Legalize Marijuana

The Hill reports that President Biden is missing an opportunity to sway young voters with his reluctance to take bigger steps to legalize marijuana at the federal level.

While campaigning for the White House in 2020, Biden said, “No one should be in jail because of marijuana. As President, I will decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions.”

Cannabis advocates say the Biden administration has opened several avenues for marijuana reform. These include issuing federal pardons for simple possession and starting the process of potentially rescheduling marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act from Schedule I to Schedule III.

But those measures have failed to excite advocates. They now say Biden is falling short of his 2020 campaign promises and failing to address the disparate overcriminalization of the drug that has unduly impacted minority communities. Progressive lawmakers in the Senate are urging the administration to go further and completely deschedule the drug. Legalization it would effectively decriminalize it at the federal level, as opposed to rescheduling it.

“Marijuana’s placement in the Controlled Substances Act] has had a devastating impact on our communities and is increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion,” 12 Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) last month.

IS THERE POLITICAL WILL TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

Public opinion is strongly in favor of marijuana legalization. A Gallup poll from November found a record 70 percent of Americans believed marijuana should be legal.

More recent polling from Lake Research Partners backs up public support for federal marijuana reform, with 58 percent supporting a rescheduling to Schedule III, compared to 19 percent who opposed the move.

“It’s a really strong issue with some constituencies that Democrats really need to increase their support and enthusiasm, specifically young people, African Americans, Democratic base voters, people of color, young men of color,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster and strategist who serves as president of Lake Research Partners.

Hayley Matz Meadvin, Executive Vice President of Communications at Precision Strategies and a former Biden administration staffer, noted the “supermajority of support” behind marijuana legalization could help Biden lure in voters across the political spectrum.

“This is a popular issue that motivates voters, and it doesn’t just motivate — it clearly just doesn’t motivate exclusively Democrats. And that will be critical this fall.” ~Hayley Matz Meadvin, Executive Vice President of Communications at Precision Strategies

THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

Biden and Trump, his likely 2024 rival, are polling neck and neck both nationally and in key swing states. The election could come down to a few thousand voters in those states, potentially giving niche issues such marijuana added importance.

Advocates say his actions so far fall short of that promise. And they said he may struggle to clearly communicate any progress on marijuana reform, especially as some actions are left unfinished; the DEA has yet to issue its decision on rescheduling marijuana, and the federal pardons issued last year could not apply to state-level convictions, though Biden has encouraged governors to follow his lead.

While marijuana reform may not be among the issues expected to dominate the 2024 elections, strategists note that smaller issues frequently break through the noise during election cycles.  Perhaps substantial marijuana reform action from Biden would signal to voters he is a “modern president” and could make a difference in states including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. As of now, possessing marijuana is still a federal crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Animal Cruelty Bill Heads to the Senate

On Monday, the Washington House of Representatives passed a proposed bill that would increase penalties for animal cruelty cases. The bill would elevate the punishment for first-degree animal cruelty. The bill passed 95 to 1. It now heads to the Senate for further consideration. State Representative Sam Low, a Republican representing the 39th legislative district, is sponsoring the bill.

“Elevating to a ranked crime would add it to the sentencing guidelines grid, creating consistency for the judges and prosecuting attorneys,” Low said.

“Inconsistency in sentencing only benefits abusers. House Bill 1961 would establish a clear legal framework for these horrific cases, ensuring those who inflict suffering on defenseless animals face consequences that reflect the severity of their crimes . . . Washington state should always stand for justice and compassion for all living beings. Through this bill, we have an opportunity to give a voice to the voiceless and deter future acts of cruelty. I am grateful for today’s vote and look forward to seeing the same outcome in the Senate.” ~State Representative Sam Low

The proposed legislation would enhance first-degree animal cruelty to a ranked felony. Ranked felony offenses have a seriousness level assigned to them. In short, higher-ranked offenses bring more serious consequences. These levels range from Level 1 (lowest level) to Level 16 (highest level). For a Level 1 offense, for someone with an offender score of zero, their standard range is 0-2 months, if convicted of the offense. By comparison, a Level 7 felony offense for someone with an offender score of zero, is facing a standard sentencing range of 15-20 months.

Surprisingly, animal cruelty is a complex phenomenon. It involves a multitude of different situational factors, motives, and other potential cause. The most frequently reported forms of animal cruelty are related to neglect. Denial of food, water, and veterinary care occurs in many cases. The most common forms of animal cruelty are the restriction of movement, insufficient food or water, abandonment, neglect, lack of veterinary care, and assault. There is no single type of companion animal cruelty offense, nor is there one typical type of companion animal cruelty offender.

There are, however, defenses to lower-level  charges. For example, it is a defense to a charge of second degree animal cruelty that the defendant’s failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant’s control. This can happen if the animal’s owner is  indigent, impoverished and/or simply cannot afford to care for the animal.

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.