Category Archives: Legislation

Federal Government Mum on Washington & Denver Legalizing Marijuana

Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Uncategorized, , ,

The Feds are silent on Colorado Legalizing Marijuana.

“We’ve got bigger fish to fry,” said President Barack Obama, during an interview with Barbara Walters of ABC News. In short, it’s not a major concern in his administration to continue prosecuting citizens for possessing small amounts of marijuana in states that have legalized the drug.

“This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law,” Obama told Walters of the legalization in Colorado and Washington. “I head up the executive branch; we’re supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we’re going to need to have is a conversation about, how do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?”

Backers of new laws that legalized marijuana in Washington and Colorado were cautiously optimistic after President Barack Obama said Uncle Sam wouldn’t pursue pot users in those states. Following the November votes in Washington and Colorado the Justice Department reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but had been vague about what its specific response would be.

Marijuana activists were relieved at Obama’s comments, but had questions about how regulation will work. They said even if individual users aren’t charged with crimes, marijuana producers and sellers could be subject to prosecution.

My opinion? Although it appears there’s a cautious green light for citizens in “now-legal” states to possess small amounts of marijuana, don’t light up a joint in the streets any time soon. The new law comes with many strings, bells and whistles attached making it illegal to display and/or possess marijuana in certain situations.

For example, it’s not legal to smoke marijuana while walking around in public places, before driving a vehicle, etc. And the DUI implications are even more staggering.

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.

How Washington’s New Marijuana Law Affects DUI Investigations?

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

So it passed.

Pot, at least certain amounts of it, will soon be legal under state laws in Washington. So it begs the question – how will law enforcement investigate DUI charges where the suspect appears under the influence of marijuana?

First, Washington’s law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana – a limit police are training to enforce.  Know this: they’re proactively going to arrest drivers who drive impaired, whether it be drugs or alcohol. Drugged driving is illegal, and nothing in the measures that Washington voters passed this month to tax and regulate the sale of pot for recreational use by adults over 21 changes that.

Statistics gathered for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that in 2009, a third of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers in 2007, more than 16 percent were positive for drugs.  Studies also show that Marijuana can cause dizziness and slowed reaction time, and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they’re high.

Most convictions for drugged driving currently are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.  Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there’s no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent marijuana use.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, peak THC concentrations are reached during the act of smoking. However, within three hours, they generally fall to less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood – the same standard in Washington’s law, one supporters describe as roughly equivalent to the .08 limit for alcohol.

In Washington, police still have to observe signs of impaired driving before pulling someone over. The blood would be drawn by a medical professional, and tests above 5 nanograms would automatically subject the driver to a DUI conviction.

My opinion?  Simply put, people arrested for DUI should ready themselves to get transported to the hospital for blood testing.  I believe officers will take defendants to the hospital if they appear AT ALL impaired; whether it be drugs or alcohol.  I also predict that law enforcement is going to be concerned about people consuming a combination of alcohol and marijuana.

Perhaps people will believe they can consume one or two drinks – enough to stay under the .08 limit – and follow it up with smoking marijuana to maintain the “high” of being under the influence. The slight combination, some may believe; may mask any signs they are under the influence of alcohol, especially if the alcohol consumptions signs are minimal.

Don’t think you can fool ’em.  Believe me, the hospitals will become more crowded with drug-DUI investigations.  And if people refuse the blood test, it’s just like refusing a BAC test: raised penalties and heavier DOL consequences.

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.

“New Approach” to Legalizing Marijuana

ACLU, Legislation, marijuana, , ,

Maybe this time it’ll stick . . .

 

The group New Approach Washington announced the filing of an initiative to the legislature to legalize and regulate the production and sale of marijuana. The initiative’s sponsors include Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, former federal district attorney John McKay, and ACLU-WA’s Alison Holcomb, as well as experts in medicine, drug treatment and prevention, law and  business.  

The initiative calls for Washington to treat marijuana essentially the way we currently treat hard alcohol – with clear distribution and use restrictions – and will earmark a portion of the state’s revenues for drug education and prevention programs. The group is united in the belief that Washington should neither treat the adult use of marijuana as a crime nor promote its unrestricted use.  

  

The ACLU of Washington is in full support of New Approach Washington.  They argue our current marijuana laws are ineffective, unreasonable and unfairly enforced.  The initiative addresses many issues at the heart of the ACLU’s work:  racial justice, overreaching government, privacy, and over-incarceration.   The ACLU-WA is providing strategic support to New Approach Washington, and, as an in-kind donation, our Drug Policy Director Alison Holcomb is serving as campaign director.

 

Under the initiative, marijuana that is grown by licensed Washington facilities and sold through licensed stores will be made legal for people age 21 and over.  Clear restrictions, age-limits, regulations and taxing are established – measures that will increase safety, undercut the black market and provide state and local tax revenue.  

In addition, the laws that allow authorized patients and providers to grow medical marijuana will continue in place.  The initiative is the most comprehensive and carefully drawn of any marijuana legalization initiative.  It is likely to become a national model for other state marijuana law reform, which is a prerequisite for change at the federal level.

  

My opinion? The time has come for marijuana legalization.  It is widely accepted that the War on Drugs has been an utter failure, and has caused far more harm than good. It is time for Washington to address this reality and to take a new approach.

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.

Bellingham’s New Noise Ordinance: A Step In the Right Direction

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

On December 6, at 7:00 p.m., Bellingham City Council members will vote on the creation of entertainment districts designed to simultaneously protect musicians/venues from noise complaints and downtown residents from excessive noise.

Under the ordinance, the council would officially create entertainment districts downtown and in Fairhaven.  It also would make a basic declaration recognizing that music venues “add to the vibrancy and economic vitality” of the city.  Then it directs police, in considering noise complaints, to assess the issue using various criteria like (1) time of day the complaint occurs; (2) duration and volume of sound; (3) the nature of the sound; and (4) the character of the business or industry from where the sound originates.

Members of the Bellingham Downtown Alliance for Music and Nightlife said the law contains some “very promising elements” and that it was exciting the council would be making an official declaration about the importance of music and nightlife to the city.  The group also wants the city to require landlords to disclose to potential tenants in the entertainment districts that they’d be living in an area with higher volumes of noise at later hours.

My opinion?  I live downtown.  There are three  noisy nightclubs/bars in my neighborhood.  They attract a noisy crowd, especially on the weekends.  However, I moved into this area knowing the noise existed.  Indeed, I welcomed it (if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em; if you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen, yadda yadda . . .).

The police and the City have cowed to the complaints of local citizens and businesses who can’t handle urban noise.  Indeed, mere months ago, Plan B Lounge closed down due to the excessive complaints of one neighbor (1!) who lived above the lounge and stated he couldn’t sleep because of the noise.  The City found in his favor and determined that Plan B must install soundproofing, and/or decrease the music.  The owners chose to leave.  Another local business bit the dust.  What a loss!  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I’m in favor of the ordinance.  Police must now apply specific criteria in determining whether the noise ordinance is violated.  They can no longer make arbitrary and capricious decisions (it’s more difficult, anyway).  Good.  Let’s make standards and apply them fairly.  Otherwise, musicians and venues will continue face Disorderly Conduct charges for merely expressing themselves.

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.

Make New Crack Law Retroactive

Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Race & Law, , ,

Good stuff.  Very informative article regarding Obama’s move to lighten up on federal crack cocaine laws,

Last month, President Obama signed landmark legislation title the Fair Sentencing Act. The legislation broadly condemned laws passed in the late 1980s that punished crack cocaine offenses much more harshly than crimes ­involving powder cocaine. The new law raises the minimum amount of crack required to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence from 5 to 28 grams, and the amount of crack required to generate a 10-year mandatory minimum from 50 to 280 grams.

Although far from perfect — the new law still maintains an excessive distinction between crack and powder cocaine — the changes could, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, affect as many as 3,000 defendants each year, reducing the average prison term for crack offenses by more than two years.

The article’s authors also argue Congress should finish the job by making the new scheme retroactive — a move that would permit thousands of men and women who were sentenced long ago for crimes involving crack to benefit from lawmakers’ new and enlightened perspectives about punishment for those types of offenses.

My opinion?  I totally agree with the article’s authors.  The so-called harmful effects of crack cocaine was largely demonized as the exact reason why the “War on Drugs” became so popular.  And here we are, 2-3 decades later, with overcrowded jails and the “harmful effects of crack cocaine” proven largely untrue.  Yet the war rages on, stupidly.  Congress needs to abandon the archaic drug laws relating to crack cocaine.

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

State v. Hall: WA Supremes Determine The “Unit of Prosecution” For Multiple Charges of Witness Tampering

Assault, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Legislation, Unit of Prosecution, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

In State v. Hall, the WA Supreme Court decided that an incarcerated defendant’s numerous phone calls to a witness constituted only one charge of Witness Tampering.

Defendant Mr. Hall threatened his girlfriend and her lover with a gun after finding them together in her apartment.  He flees the scene and drives away in a car owned by his friend, Desirae Aquiningoc.  Police later confront Aquiningoc about lending her car to Hall.  She said that Hall was her boyfriend, that he lived with her, that he had borrowed her car on that January 14 to visit his mother.  Later, police find Hall at his home and arrest him.

Based on what happened at Salazar’s apartment, Hall was charged with Burglary First Degree Burglary and Assault Second Degree and held in jail pending trial.  While in jail, Hall attempted to call Aquiningoc over 1,200 times. During those phone calls, some of which were played for the jury, Hall attempted to persuade Aquiningoc that his legal woes were her fault and that she had a moral obligation not to testify or to testify falsely.

The phone calls were recorded.  The State charged Hall with four counts of Witness Tampering.  Hall goes to trial.  The trial judge treated each count of Witness Tampering as a separate unit of prosecution.  Hall appeals.  The case winds its way to the WA Supreme Court.

The legal issue was whether Witness Tampering is a continuing offense or whether it is committed anew with each single act of attempting to persuade a potential witness not to testify or to testify falsely.

The WA Supremes reasoned that a “unit of prosecution” can be either a single act or a course of conduct.  Here, the plain language of the statute supports the conclusion that the unit of prosecution is the ongoing attempt to persuade a witness not to testify in a proceeding.  They further reasoned that, in the alternative, each conversation is a separate crime and, in this case for example, could lead to as many as 1,200 separate crimes.

“Such an interpretation could lead to absurd results, which we are bound to avoid when we can do so without doing violence to the words of the statute,” said the Court.  “It seems unlikely the legislature intended that a person could be prosecuted for over a thousand crimes under the circumstances presented here.”  Consequently, the Court held, under the facts of this case, Hall committed one crime of Witness Tampering, not three.

My opinion?  Makes sense.  It DOES seem absurd to stack multiple charges in this case.  After all, a unit of prosecution can either be a single act or a course of conduct.  It seems more realistic to view Halls many calls as a continuing course of conduct.  You can’t label the calls as single acts because he didn’t change his plans, motive, or modus operandi.

Good decision.

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 Changes To Prevent Future Police Murders

Accomplice, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Violent Crime, Washington State Patrol, , ,

In the wake of the Lakewood police officer shooting tragedy, Representative Mike Hope (R-Lake Stevens) is drafting legislation to prevent serial offenders like Maurice Clemmons from having an opportunity to harm others. Hope, a Seattle police officer who works patrol when not in session, said this was at the top of his legislative agenda.

The three-part legislation will include two proposed changes to the Washington State Constitution and a sentencing enhancement, proposals he says would have prevented the murders of four Lakewood police officers Nov. 29.

The first bill would remove bail opportunities for dangerous individuals who have committed two felonies and are charged with a possible “third strike” felony offense.   The second bill would prevent defendants from receiving bail if they commit another violent crime in Washington and are proven dangerous to the public.  The third bill would require a sentencing enhancement against those who aid and abet criminals who are not bailable.

A change to the state constitution requires a two-thirds approval in both the House and the Senate and simple majority approval from voters.

My opinion?  Like everyone, I’m deeply saddened with the deaths of the four Lakewood Officers.  Their murders were completely meaningless and senseless.  I’m also disturbed the defendant’s friends/relatives assisted him.

That said, I question whether altering the WA Constitution and chipping away at a defendant’s rights is the answer to preventing similar murders from happening in the future.  I’m a staunch defender of constitutional rights.  Indeed, if I were to wrap an American flag around myself and proclaim my patriotism out loud, then THAT is the platform I stand upon: vigilant, aggressive protection of individual rights against a tyrannical government.

The proposed legislation is strong medicine.  Too strong.  At worst, defendants can be held without bail.  This is disturbing.  Under court rules, judges may hold defendants without bail only if the charge they face is a capital charge; like murder.  Additionally, judges must impose the least restrictive release alternatives to defendants.

Disallowing bail and indefinitely holding defendants in jail laughs in the face of “least restrictive alternative.” Finally, holding defendants without bail leads to “plea tenderization” by cutting defendants off from work and family.  As a result, defendants may plead guilty not because they committed a crime; but simply to get out of jail and move on with their lives.  That’s an utterly inhumane result if the defendant is innocent of the charges.

We’ll see what happens.  The bill needs extremely strong support.

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. Stately: Vehicular Homicide By Disregard Is NOT A Violent Offense; Some Defendants Eligible for First Offender Waiver.

Due Process, DUI, felony, First Time Offender Waiver, Homicide & Manslaughter, Legislation, Sentencing, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

In State v. Stately, the WA Court of Appeals held that Vehicular Homicide By Disregard is NOT a Violent Offense and that some defendants are eligible for the First-Time Offender Waiver.

About a week before her 18th birthday, Ms. Stately drove a car while intoxicated.  Unfortunately, she caused an accident that killed her best friend.  Stately was charged — and later convicted — of Vehicular Homicide by Disregard under RCW 46.61.520(1)(c).  At sentencing, the State recommended 17 months of incarceration.  However, Stately argued she was entitled to a first-time offender waiver under former RCW 9.94A.650 because her crime was not defined as a violent offense.

The trial court agreed.  Stately was sentenced under the first-time offender waiver to 30 days of incarceration, 12 months of community custody, and 4,000 hours of community restitution (community service).

For those who don’t know, a “first-time offender” is any person who has no prior felony convictions.  At sentencing, the court may waive the imposition of a sentence within the standard sentencing range.  The sentence imposed under the first-time offender provision is not an exceptional sentence but is, rather, a waiver of the standard sentence range.

On appeal, the Prosecution argued that Stately was not eligible for a first-time offender waiver because she committed a violent offense.

However, the Court of Appeals thought different.  It reasoned that there are three types of vehicular homicide, all currently class A felonies.  Subsection (xiv) lists the first two types, homicide by intoxication and recklessness, but does not include the third type, homicide by disregard.  Former RCW 9.94A.030(50)(a)(xiv).

The court further reasoned, “If we read the statute to define Vehicular Homicide by Disregard as a violent offense simply because it is a class A felony, then subsection (xiv) would be superfluous.  We presume, however, that the legislature does not include superfluous language and we interpret statutes to give meaning to each section.

Here, it is impossible to harmonize the statute’s terms in subsection (i) with its terms in subsection (xiv).  The later subsection, relating specifically to vehicular homicide, is more specific than subsection (i), which relates generally to all class A felonies.  Applying the specific-general doctrine, the specific terms of subsection (xiv) prevail and Stately’s Vehicular Homicide by Disregard conviction is not a violent offense”  (emphasis supplied).

My opinion?  Again, excellent decision.  It’s pleasing when our legal system takes an academic approach to cases by methodically reviewing the WORDING and LEGISLATIVE INTENT of statutes.  Fortunately, that’s exactly what happened here.  The court avoided a huge miscarriage of justice by refusing to allow the general rule of “violent offense” swallow legislative exceptions to the rule.

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.

US Supremes Rule Convicted Defendants Have No Right To Test DNA

Assault, Constitutional Rights, DNA, Due Process, felony, Forensics, Legislation, Race & Law, Rape, Sex Crimes, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, , ,

In Yeager v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.

The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project.

The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.

William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt.

In parole proceedings, however, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a separate bid for release from prison.

The high court reversed the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

“To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,” Roberts said. Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are the only states without DNA testing laws. In some other states, the laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess.

But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. “The court today blesses the state’s arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks,” Stevens said.

My opinion?  HORRIBLE DECISION.  Although the crime in question was heinous, there is no doubt that a small group of innocent people — and it is a small group — will languish in prison because they can’t get access to the evidence.  This directly violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment rights.  Unbelievable.

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.

Class Action Lawsuit Challenges “Camera Tickets”

Bellingham, Due Process, law enforcement, Legislation, Red Light Cameras, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, , ,
Rosen Law Firm in Seattle is currently researching a class action law suit against many Washington cities that operate red light and speed zone cameras in Washington.  If you have paid for a photo enforcement ticket in Washington, they may be interested in representing you and trying to get your money back.
Apparently, the firm is willing to do so at no cost to you unless they win, and then only a percentage of the amount they recover for you. If you are interested and meet the eligibility requirements of 1) having received a photo enforcement ticket; 2) in Washington; and 3) you paid the ticket, please contact the Rosen Law Firm:

My opinion?  I wish success upon this class action!  Red light camera tickets seem like an easy way for cities and counties to fill their coffers.  And it is working.  For example, the city of Balitmore shortened the yellow light on just one intersection and collected $1000’s in traffic light camera violation fines until one alert victim took them to court.   Additionally, I’ve heard complaints (hearsay, I know) that yellow lights times are SHORTENED if a camera is observing the intersection; and that the cameras actually don’t decrease people’s speed.

Good luck, RosenLaw Firm.  Give ’em Hell!   🙂

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.



Alexander F. Ransom

Attorney at Law
Criminal Defense Lawyer

119 North Commercial St.
Suite #1420
Bellingham, WA 98225

117 North 1st Street
Suite #27
Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: (360) 746-2642
Fax: (360) 746-2949

Blog Update

WA Supreme Court: When Taking DUI Breathalyzer Tests, Tobacco Strands Are Not “Foreign Substances” In a Person’s Mouth
... read more »

WSU Issues "Back To School" DUI Emphasis Patrols
... read more »

Flock Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns
... read more »

Crime of "Receiving Unlawful Compensation" Also Includes Receiving Sexual Contact
... read more »

Consultation Request

Footer Consultation Request

Copyright 2026 Law Offices of Alex Ransom, PLLC   |   Sitemap   |   Website Design by Peter James Web Design Studio
error: Content is protected !!