Category Archives: marijuana

Washington State Patrol Upgrades its DUI Breath-Test Machines

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

Measurement of the ethanol level with the Alcotest 9510 (Dräger,... | Download Scientific Diagram

The Washington State Patrol is replacing its old breath-test machines (BAC Machines) with sleek, fast, new $9,500 devices that are used to test drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

While both BAC machines can measure the alcohol in a person’s system by analyzing a breath sample, the much smaller and sleeker replacement features a touch screen and Microsoft Windows software and can process information faster.

The State Patrol will place 83 of the new Dräger Alcotest 9510 machines in police and sheriff’s stations, jails and State Patrol divisions in northeast and southeast Washington before enough are available to use statewide. The machines will be used to test drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Whatcom County, Skagit County, Island County and San Juan County’s present BAC machines shall be replaced by the newer models.

Like the old devices, the new one measures alcohol in the lungs by analyzing exhaled breath. However, the new machines utilize a dry gas standard instead of a liquid solution to verify that the instrument is working properly. For years, liquid solutions have had to be mixed locally by scientists, monitored for temperature, and checked regularly by technicians. The Dräger’s dry gas contains a known concentration of alcohol, allowing the instrument to verify that a suspect’s breath alcohol is being measured accurately and reliably, the State Patrol says.

Only troopers, sheriff’s deputies and police officers certified in the Alcotest will be allowed to use the machines.

My opinion? Competent defense attorneys should investigate whether the police officers who arrest our clients for DUI and later operate these machines on our clients are, in fact, certified to operate these machines. If they’re not, then perhaps the BAC result can be suppressed.

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. McNeely: U.S. Supreme Court Says Blood Draws Require a Warrant

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

Harmless Error Blog: Missouri v. McNeely: Trouble for Implied Consent Laws?

In Missouri v. McNeely, the United States Supreme Court held that police officers investigating DUI must obtain search warrants for blood draws if emergency circumstances – in legal language, exigent circumstances – do not exist.

The issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.

The facts were such that the defendant McNeely was stopped by Missouri police for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood and alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing.

The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a blood sample anyway. McNeely’s BAC sample was well above the legal limit. He was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that rather than applying a blanket per se exigency due to the dissipation of BAC in a person’s body, an exigency must also be based upon “special facts” under a case-by-case analysis.

The Supremes reviewed prior caselaw on this subject. In State v. McNeely, the Court pointed out that a diminishing BAC result upon the passage of time that happens during a DUI investigation is only one factor that must be considered in determining whether a warrant is required.

The Court in McNeely further stated that other factors, such as the procedures in place for obtaining a warrant or the availability of a magistrate judge, may affect whether the police can establish whether an exigency exists. In other words, a warrantless blood draw can still be conducted provided there are other factors articulated by the officer.

My opinion? McNeely is a good, straightforward decision. In short, McNeely holds that when a person refuses to voluntarily submit to a chemical test for BAC, if time permits, a warrant should be obtained. If an officer cannot get a search warrant in a reasonable time, the officer should explain in great detail why a search warrant could not be obtained.

The officer must be able to articulate what factors were present that created an exigent circumstance. Also, and importantly, “exigent circumstance” cannot be a result of the officer’s conduct. There must be objective, independent facts articulating why exigent circumstances exist to get a warrant.

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.

When Prosecutors Violate the Advocate-Witness Rule: United States v. Rangel-Guzman

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Search and Seizure, , ,

 

Motion for Disqualification Based on “Witness-Advocate Rule” Deemed “Premature” | Westchester Commercial Division Blog

In U.S. v. Rangel-Guzman, the 9th Circuit holds that a prosecutor commits error by phrasing cross-examination questions regarding a witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements as “but you told us” and “I asked you and you said.” Such questions violate the advocate-witness rule.

The defendant was arrested at the border while trying to transport 91.4 kilos of marijuana into the U.S. The marijuana was hidden in a compartment behind his backseat.

The defendant was arrested and charged with the federal offenses of Unlawful Possession With intent to Distribute. While the case was pending, the Federal prosecutor interviewed the defendant. Eventually, the case went to trial.

 At trial, and during cross-examination, the Assistant United States Attorney repeatedly attempted to impeach Rangel-Guzman by referring to a meeting between herself, Homeland Security Agent Baxter, Rangel-Guzman and Rangel-Guzman’s attorney. In doing so, the Prosecutor made it clear that she had questioned Rangel-Guzman and that he had made certain statements inconsistent with his current testimony: “You told us that you and your mother ran into Martha . . . You told us that four or five months before . . . That’s what you told us last week . . . Don’t you remember that I was shocked that you were saying it was four to five months before you got arrested?”

The court reasoned that the Prosecutor engaged in improper vouching by effectively acting as a witness. Vouching occurs when a prosecutor “places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 1980).

The Advocate-Witness Rule prohibits attorneys from testifying in a trial they’re litigating; the rule “expresses an institutional concern, especially pronounced when the government is a litigant, that public confidence in our criminal justice system not be eroded by even the appearance of impropriety.” United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 553 (9th Cir. 1985).

Here, the prosecutor made a number of statements that used variations on “but you told us” and “I asked you and you said,” as well as assertions of fact about what had occurred during the meeting: “Well, we went over and over it, Mr. Rangel,” “Do you remember last week I specifically asked you multiple times who accompanied you to the Quinceanera?” And she left no doubt about her personal feelings during the meeting: “Don’t you remember that I was shocked that you were saying that it was four to five months before you got arrested that you met Martha?”

 When a prosecutor interviews a suspect prior to trial, the “correct procedure” is to do so “in the presence of a third person so that the third person can testify about the interview.”

The court concluded that undoubtedly, the Prosecutor was asking the jury to choose whether to believe her or the defendant. This was highly improper and unfair to the defendant.

 Despite the error, the court affirmed the conviction because the case against the defendant was so strong. In other words, the defendant failed to show that the outcome of the trial would have been different, had the error not occurred. For these reasons, the 9th Circuit affirmed the conviction.
My opinion? Interesting ruling. I’m satisfied the 9th Circuit actually took the case on appeal. It’s also pleasing they recognize when Prosecutors violate the Advocate-Witness Rule. It’s an important rule. Too often, Prosecutors lean on their own credibility when trying cases. This is a very subtle and damaging strategy because jurors have a tendency to want to believe everything a Prosecutor says!
This is very dangerous, however, when Prosecutors unlawfully insert themselves into proceedings and testify as witnesses. The Court was correct in saying that the Prosecutor should have called Agent Baxter to testify. Good opinion.

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

How High Is Too High to Drive?

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

How High Is Too High to Drive?

An interesting news article from the Bellingham Herald discusses how high is too high to drive after smoking marijuana.

As usual, the answers to this question were widespread:

“Pretty damned stoned is not as dangerous as drunk,” said Mark Kleiman, professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, who served as Washington state’s top pot consultant. He said Washington state has a law that’s far too strict and could lead to convictions of sober drivers, with many not even knowing whether they’re abiding by the law.

Washington state and Colorado, the only two states to fully legalize marijuana, have set a limit of five nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood. In Washington state, legalization proponents included the language in the ballot initiative approved by voters in 2012.

While police can use breathalyzers to easily measure the amount of alcohol in one’s bloodstream, the best way to determine marijuana intoxication is by examining a blood sample. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court complicated the situation for states by ruling that police must get a warrant before testing blood for a DUI.

As the debate heats up, both sides can point to competing research.

In February, researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health reported that fatal crashes involving marijuana use had tripled over the past decade, with one of every nine drivers now involved in a deadly accident testing positive for pot.

My opinion? The bad news is at the moment we don’t have have anything sensible to do about stoned driving. The good news is that it’s only a moderate-sized problem. I, for one, have not seen a dramatic increase in marijuana DUI’s and/or drug DUI’s. It simply hasn’t been an issue.  The best solution, it seems, is to wait for the science to improve.

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.

More DUI Drivers Are Testing Positive for Marijuana

Blood Test, Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Marijuana DUI: How Long Does Marijuana Stay in Your System | Leyba Defense Seattle

According to new data released from the Washington State Patrol, more drivers have been testing positive for marijuana since Washington legalized the drug last year.

In the first six months of 2013, 745 people tested positive for marijuana. Typically, there are about 1,000 positive pot tests on drivers in a full year. But this doesn’t necessarily mean there’s been a rash of people driving high, says patrol spokesman Bob Calkins. Well, then what’s the reason?

“We’re testing blood we didn’t test before,” he said.

In addition, the overall number of impaired-driving cases handled by the patrol doesn’t appear to have risen this year, and should be on track to hit the rough annual average of 20,000 – which could mean some people are using marijuana instead of alcohol before getting behind the wheel, Calkins said.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy

Last year, Washington and Colorado voters legalized the recreational use of marijuana by adults over 21. Both states have set a legal limit of 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood for drivers; anything above that is a per se violation of impaired driving laws, similar to blowing 0.08 or above on an alcohol breath test. The violation is generally a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail — and at least one day in custody for a first offense.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy

Of the 745 people who tested positive for marijuana in the first half of this year, the State Patrol says a slight majority tested above the legal limit. The exact number: 420. It’s a curious coincidence, since “420” is an old slang term for marijuana.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy

My opinion? If they can, they will. Meaning, if the police can test your for blood for marijuana, they will. As I predicted in earlier blogs, the passage of I-502 gives police more search authority. If police think you’re high, they’ll request a blood test. If you refuse, they’ll get a warrant for your blood and/or enter a “Refusal” DUI.

The data is predictable. What I’m seeing happen, unfortunately, is the police seeking blood tests on my clients who are not smoking marijuana. Making matters worse, I’m seeing judges impose Ignition Interlock Devices as a condition of pretrial release, and before clients are convicted of ANYTHING!

There’s something wrong with that. Just saying.

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.

The Brass Tacks: A Look at How Courts Are Automatically Imposing Ignition Interlock Devices ASAP

Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

California's Ignition Interlock Law Takes Effect Jan. 1 -- Occupational Health & Safety

Recently, a client hired me to represent him on a new DUI charge. Unfortunately, this client already has a prior DUI conviction within 7 years. We met at my office. He showed me his paperwork – arraignment dates, property seizures, BAC ticket, etc. – and also showed me a document I haven’t yet seen in my years of practice.

It was a Court Order signed by the judge titled, “IGNITION INTERLOCK RULES.”

I knew I’d eventually see this document, sooner or later. Under the recent passage of RCW 46.20.740 and RCW 46.20.385 the COURTS – and NOT the DOL – shall order any person convicted of an alcohol-related violation to apply for an ignition interlock driver’s license and to have a functioning ignition interlock device installed on all motor vehicles operated by the person.

The court may also order the installation of an interlock device for a driver that is convicted of Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving within 7 years of an alcohol related driving offense. An ignition interlock may be required for Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving without a prior DUI conviction. Finally, under the law, an ignition interlock device will be required for any driver convicted of vehicular homicide while driving under the influence.

This document was proof that the Courts are diligently following the passage of these laws. It read the following, ver batim:

* The defendant shall not operate a motor vehicle unless the defendant has a valid driver’s license and insurance;

* Once the defendant has a valid driver’s license and insurance, the defendant shall only operate a motor vehicle equipped with a functioning ignition interlock breath alcohol device while on pretrial;

* The defendant shall have an ignition interlock breath alcohol device installed by a Washington State Patrol certified ignition interlock breath alcohol device vendor on any motor vehicle the defendant will operate;

* The defendant shall bear the cost of installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock breath alcohol device and show proof of installation of the ignition interlock to the court;

* Any ignition interlock breath alcohol device installed pursuant to this order shall be monitored by the installer, and a report filed with the court every sixty (60) days;

* The defendant shall not adjust, tamper with, remove, or circumvent – (1) any ignition interlock breath alcohol device, (2) the wiring of any ignition interlock breath alcohol device, or (3) the ignition system of any vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock breath alcohol device. Any violation or tampering must be reported to the court by the ignition interlock breath alcohol device vendor, and;

* The ignition interlock breath alcohol device shall have certain minimum settings.

My opinion? Although I understand the need for community safety, it appears these new requirements are unconstitutional and overbearing in some cases. The government assumes people are guilty before they even go to trial. Indeed, this particular client showed NO signs of alcohol intoxication in his police reports. Police contacted him because someone complained of his driving.

After pulling him over, the police had no proof whatsoever that he was under the influence of alcohol, and instead believed he was under the influence of drugs. It’s going to take WEEKS to get his blood test back. In the meantime, he must drive around with an Ignition Interlock Device on his vehicle. Unfair.

If you’re facing a similar situation please contact a qualified attorney. I, for one, look forward to fighting this case tooth and nail and removing the Ignition Interlock Device from my client’s vehicle!

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.

Drug Recognition Experts: The Newly Trained Weapon In Detecting Drug DUI

Blood Test, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Drug-recognition experts gain importance as pot DUIs increase – San Bernardino Sun

Think you can fool the cops? Don’t even try. Nowadays, Drug-Recognition Experts – nicknamed, “DRE’s” – are law enforcement’s answer to Initiative 502 and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that officers must have a warrant for a drug test. They are trained to identify symptoms of impairment from alcohol and a variety of drugs.

Although Initiative 502 legalized recreational marijuana use in Washington last year, drivers still face a DUI charge if they’re too high to drive. State law limits a person’s BAC levels to 5 nanograms of THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, per milliliter of whole blood.

A blood test is the quickest way to indicate whether someone has these levels.  Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that officers must have a warrant to obtain blood samples. And since most DUI stops happen late at night, when judges aren’t available, officers must determine on the scene whether the driver is intoxicated and/or impaired.

This is where the DRE come in. These are police officers who receive two weeks of training on detecting impaired drivers and analyzing their behavior for the presence of alcohol or drugs. Typically, a DRE is called to investigate major collisions, especially those involving fatalities, and any in which police officers suspect drug impairment beyond alcohol. Their observations help prosecutors in “Drug DUI” cases.

The two-week course is rigorous. It includes lectures, quizzes and comprehensive tests.  Training officers must also perform six field-sobriety tests and observe another six by their colleagues. They’ll write reports for all 12 tests, which are reviewed and signed by an observing instructor. After the course is completed, each officer must perform four evaluations in front of an instructor every two years to maintain DRE status.

Calculating the standard filed sobriety tests performed on intoxicated drivers is nothing new to the majority of police officers. Most often, an impaired driver’s eyes are the giveaway. In one part of the test – called the “Horizontal gaze Nystagmus Test” – a driver must follow a pen-sized light left and right without turning his or her head. If the driver is impaired, the eyes often have trouble tracking the light, or don’t dilate properly.

A subsequent recital of the alphabet isn’t just a memory test: It can give way to slurring the letters “L-M-N-O-P” if the speaker has been drinking or doing drugs. And most people say the letters quickly, all in one or two big exhaled breaths that can carry the telltale scents of alcohol or marijuana.

The walk-and-turn, counting backward, standing on one leg, and other tests give officers a clear picture of the person’s motor skills. The test ends with a Breathalyzer.

DREs focus on the more “subtle” signs in drivers while on patrol. They look for a wide turn, crossing the line, taking an extra second or two to realize the light is green, etc.

My opinion? Contact an attorney if you’re pulled over. Just as the DRE’s are trained to observe whether someone is high on drugs when driving, a competent attorney can analyze whether the stop was lawful, whether there was enough evidence to arrest for Drug DUI, whether the nanogram levels were active or inactive, etc. Don’t allow the State’s “experts” to convince judges and prosecutors that you were high when, in fact, you may not have been.

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.

Seafair 2013 Brought Less Arrests for Boating Under the Influence.

Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Washington's New Boating Under the Influence 'Implied Consent' Law

The numbers are out: 34 people were cited for boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BUI) during the Seafair events on Lake Washington this weekend. This shows a drop of more than 40 percent from last year’s Seafair BUI total, which was 61.

Matching the decrease, however, was the fact that Seafair’s ticket sales also decreased dramatically. Seafair officials said that since it’s an open festival, exact numbers weren’t available, but ticket sales at the log boom were down 20 percent.

Police contacted 473 boats, down 32 percent from last year’s event, and doled out 42 citations for speeding or unsafe lane changes, among other infractions. Medical assistance was called for four boaters. Of those contacted, 15 refused breath tests. Nowadays, refusing a breath test carries a fine of $2,050.

Of the 34 people charged with BUIs, four were booked and taken to jail. Others were pulled over and told to have someone come pick them up. Four search warrants were served for blood samples and one for search of a vessel resulted in a drug arrest.

RCW 79A.60.040 is Washington’s Boating Under the Influence Statute. In short, It prevents people from operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. A person is considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person has 0.08 grams or more of alcohol. This can be proven by breath tests of a blood test. Drugs and/or the combination of drugs and alcohol may also constitute Boating Under the Influence.

Unlike DUI, Boating Under the Influence is a simple misdemeanor. It isn’t viewed as seriously as DUI, and carries less punishment as far as court fines and jail time is concerned. Still, the court may still order the defendant to pay restitution for any damages or injuries resulting from the offense. Additionally, a BUI charge/conviction can negatively impact a Skipper’s license to operate their vessel.

And it only gets worse. If someone is seriously injured at the hands of an intoxicated boat operator, that operator can be charged under RCW 79A.60.60, a Class B felony. And if someone dies as a result as a proximate cause of the operation of any vessel by an intoxicated person, that person will be charged with a Class A felony under RCW 79A.60.50. Finally, any operator of a boat who willfully fails to stop when requested or signaled to do so by a law enforcement officer is guilty of a gross misdemeanor under RCW 79A.60.080.

Hire an attorney if you find yourself charged with any of the above-referenced water related crimes. You’ll need all the help you can get. Nowadays, consuming two beers while enjoying your vessel can easily get you in trouble.

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

Are Washington’s New Proposed DUI Laws Unconstitutional?

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

9 Things You Should Know If You're a Repeat DUI Offender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatcom DUI Patrols Nab 60 People

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

5 Tips for First Time DUI Offenders - Defensive Driving

Just so we know the score . . .

Sixty people were arrested for DUI during county-wide emphasis patrols earlier this summer, according to the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force.

The patrols ran from June 21 through July 7, during which time Washington State Patrol troopers, police officers from local cities and Whatcom County Sheriff’s deputies focused on catching impaired drivers.

A grant from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission helped pay for any officers on overtime for the patrols.

Let’s crunch the number: in approximately 17-18 days, the Washington State Patrol arrested 60 people for DUI. That’s about 3-4 people per night, on average. Quite a bit. On the one hand, the news is good if the police are pulling over dangerously inebriated drivers. On the other hand, pulling non-dangerous drivers over an a mere suspicion of drunk driving – and unsupported by probable cause – is illegal and intrusive.

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.