Category Archives: Search and Seizure

State v. Brock: The “Time for Arrest” Doctrine

Constitutional Rights, felony, Jail, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Should school officials be allowed to search students? | Debate.org

In State v. Brock, the WA Court of Appeals held that police officers cannot search someone’s backpack and arrest them for Drug Offenses 10 minutes after contacting a suspect on a Terry stop.

“NO,” said the Court of Appeals in a recent decision.  the facts were such that during a Terry stop, an officer separated Mr. Brock from his backpack. The officer subsequently arrested Brock and searched his backpack, but not until nearly 10 minutes after separating Brock from the bag. Officer Olson told Brock that he was not under arrest. Officer Olson asked Brock to put down his backpack, and Brock complied.

Officer Olson did not find any weapons or any other items during his pat down of Brock. He did not pat down or search the backpack at that time. At trial, the trial court denied Brock’s motion to suppress, finding that this was a valid search incident to arrest under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

Some explanation is necessary. A “Terry stop” is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. The name derives from a famous United States Supreme Court decision titled, Terry v. Ohio.

Also, under the “time of arrest” rule, an officer may search personal articles in an arrestee’s actual and exclusive possession at or immediately preceding the time of arrest.

Here, the search of the defendant’s bag did not happen immediately after he was arrested. Officer Olson searched the bag roughly 10 minutes after seizing it from Brock. The bag was secured in Officer Olson’s truck from the time of seizure through the time of the search. Brock was 12 to 15 feet away from the vehicle and the backpack at the time of arrest and during the search of the backpack.

Brock had actual possession of the backpack when Officer Olson initiated the Terry stop and when he seized it. However, Brock did not have actual possession of the backpack at the time of his arrest. Brock’s backpack was neither on his person nor within his area of control at the time of his arrest. While Officer Olson had probable cause to arrest Brock when he seized the backpack, it is the arrest itself—not probable cause—that constitutes the necessary authority of law to search under article I, section 7.

Therefore, to find that this was a valid search incident to arrest, the Court said it must be convinced that, for the purposes of what is in an arrestee’s possession, “immediately prior to arrest” includes either the time between a valid Terry stop and the actual resulting arrest or the time between seizure of the backpack during the Terry stop and the resulting arrest. The Court concluded in saying that Washington Supreme Court’s opinions have not gone this far, and “We decline to do so here.”

My opinion? Good decision. It’s pleasing to know our courts are upholding the WA Constitution and following the stringent search and seizure caselaw. Kudos.

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. Saggers: When Officers Exceed the Scope of Searches Under Terry v. Ohio

911 Call, Assault, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Terry V. Ohio (@ohio_terry) | Twitter

In State v. Saggers, the WQA Court of Appeals held that police officers exceed the scope of a Terry Stop when  an informant’s tip is questionably (un)reliable and the exigency of the alleged serious offense has dissipated.

Police arrived at the home of defendant Andrew Saggers because a 911 call indicated an altercation occurred outside his home involving a shotgun. The 911 call was placed from a payphone. Although the caller provided his name, he was unknown to the police. When police went to the payphone, the caller was gone and the phone was hanging from the cord. The police contacted Mr. Saggers.

Although the present situation was neither dangerous nor life-threatening, the police inquired whether Mr. Saggers had a shotgun in the house. He admitted, “Yes.” The police searched his home and found the gun. Mr. Saggers was subsequently charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. At trial, he was found guilty of the charges. The case went up on appeal.

The Court of Appeals held the police officers exceeded the scope of a search under Terry v. Ohio because the informant tip was unreliable and the emergency of any life-threatening situation was already passed. For those who don’t know, Terry v. Ohio is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.

Here, however, the Court of Appeals ruled that although it is understandable that officers faced with a 911 call like this one would rightfully pursue an investigation, the 911 Call itself was unreliable. Additionally, the danger had already passed by the time officers arrived at Sagger’s house. Consequently, the officer exceeded the scope of a valid search under Terry v. Ohio. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed Saggers’ conviction.

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.

State v. Martines: More Good Caselaw on Blood Tests Taken After DUI Arrests

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Both cops, drivers have rights at checkpoints | Local News | scnow.com

In State v. Martines, the WA Court of Appeals held that after police investigate and arrest a suspect for suspicion of DUI, the State may not conduct tests on lawfully procured blood samples without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing and specifying the types of evidence for which the sample may be tested.

The defendant was seen driving his SUV erratically. He veered into another car, careened across the highway, bounced off the barrier, and rolled over. A Washington State Trooper arrived and took Mr. Martines into custody. Martines smelled of intoxicants, had bloodshot watery eyes, and stumbled while walking.

Trooper Tardiff sought a warrant to extract blood samples from Martines. His affidavit of probable cause stated that a blood sample “may be tested to determine his/her current blood alcohol level and to detect the presence of any drugs that may have impaired his/her ability to drive.” He obtained a warrant that authorized a competent health care authority to extract a blood sample and ensure its safekeeping. The warrant did not say anything about testing the blood sample.

Martines’ blood was taken at a local hospital. Then it was tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol. The test results indicated that Martines had a blood alcohol level of .121 within an hour after the accident, and that the drug diazepam (Valium) was also present. Martines had a prior conviction for vehicular assault while driving under the influence. The State charged him with Felony DUI.

The trial court denied Martines’ motion to suppress. He was found guilty at trial. The case went up on appeal. The primary issue on appeal was that testing a blood sample for any purpose is a search for which a search warrant is required. Because the warrant authorizing the extraction of blood did not specifically authorize blood testing of any kind, Martines argued that the results should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search.

The court held that (1) the extraction of the blood was one search while (2) the testing of the blood constituted another:

“The extraction of blood from a drunk driving suspect is a search.  Testing the blood sample is a second search.  It is distinct from the initial extraction because its purpose is to examine the personal information blood contains.  We hold that the State may not conduct tests on a lawfully procured blood sample without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing and specifies the types of evidence for which the sample may be tested.”

In short, the court held that extracting someone’s blood is a first search, and testing the blood is a second search. The first search – the initial extraction – is totally different than the second search, which is analyzing the blood. Because the second search is so intrusive (blood contains someone’s personal DNA code, pregnancy results, information on diseases, etc.), a second warrant is needed. Consequently, the State may NOT test blood samples without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing. The warrant must specifically state the types of evidence they’re looking for.

My opinion? State v. Martines is an interesting decision. I admire the Court of Appeals for making a decision which is consistent with Missouri v. McNeely (discussed in another blog) and going one step further favoring a defendant’s constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment.

The opinion prevents police officers from getting a boilerplate search warrant and going on fishing expeditions when they pull people over on suspicion of DUI. The officers must be trained to determine what exactly they’re looking for; be it drugs, alcohol or both. Saying someone has bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech and smells of intoxicants does not, by itself, cut it anymore.

Good job, Court of Appeals. I’m impressed.

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. 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.

Unlawful Frisking Violates Constitutional Rights

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Austin PD defends officer who stopped and frisked woman in video

Good case. In State v. Russell, the WA Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of a small container found on the defendant’s body exceeded the proper scope of a pat-down search under the guise of a “protective frisk for weapons” during a Terry Stop.

The defendant Mr. Russell was stopped for violating several minor traffic laws. The officer recognized Russell from a prior stop. Although the Mr. Russell told officers he was not armed, he did, in fact, have a small pistol in his pocket. The officer frisked Mr. Russell for weapons. The officer felt a small box in Russell’s pants. The box was did not weigh any significant amount, and the officer had no idea whether the box contained a weapon. The officer opened the box. It contained a syringe filled with methamphetamine. The defendant was arrested for Possession of Meth.

The trial court granted Mr. Russell’s motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the case. However, the WA Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on appeal. Eventually, the case found its way to the WA Supreme Court.

The WA Supreme Court ruled that although the initial protective frisk was permissible, the officer violated Russell’s constitutional rights when he removed a small container from his pocket and searched it without a warrant. The officer admitted that the container’s contents weighed only a fraction of what a pistol weighs. Because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the container housed a gun, the warrantless search was not justified.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that any threat to the officer’s safety ended when he took control of the container. He did not have authority to search it while investigating traffic infractions. Finally, the WA Supreme Court  held that the search was not justified on the basis of consent because the State did not show that Russell consented to the search. For these reasons, the WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals.

My opinion? Great decision. Under the law, officers can only search for “hard and sharp” objects which might be used as weapons. Anything else they find is “fruit of the poisonous tree” under an unlawful search. Again, 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.

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.

State v. Roden: Text Messages Are Protected by Washington’s Privacy Act

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Washington Privacy Act: Amendments jeopardize protections for consumers | The Seattle Times

Good opinion.

In State v. Roden, the WA Supreme Court ruled that Washington’s Privacy Act is violated by an officer’s warrantless opening, reviewing, and responding to text messages sent to a suspect’s phone, before the suspect viewed the message.

In State v. Roden, Daniel Lee was arrested for possession of heroin. After the arrest, a police detective spent 5 to 10 minutes browsing through Lee’s cell phone. The detective noticed several text messages from Jonathan Roden. The detective arranged a drug deal with Roden via text messages. Roden was arrested for Attempted Possession of Heroin. The trial court denied Roden’s motion to suppress and found Roden guilty. On appeal, Roden argued that the detective’s conduct violated Washington’s Privacy Act.

The Washington Supreme Court agreed with Roden. It reviewed  the Privacy Act act and analyzed the following excerpt in pertinent part: “[I]t shall be unlawful for … the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication.”

Furthermore, RCW 9.73.050 declares that evidence obtained in violation of the act is inadmissible for any purpose at trial.

Against this backdrop, the court gave the four-part analysis under State v. Christensen to be considered when analyzing alleged violations of the privacy act. There must have been (1) a private communication transmitted by a device, which was (2) intercepted or recorded by use of (3) a device designed to record and/or transmit ( 4) without the consent of all parties to the private. Roden stated the communications in the text message were intended to be private when intercepted by the detective posing as Lee.

Applying those factors, the Court reasoned that Washington’s privacy act was violated because the detective intercepted private communications without Lee’s or Roden’s consent or a warrant.

My opinion? Good decision. In my experience, this type of situation happens quite often. It’s entrapment, plain and simple. And it  violates a defendant’s rights in the process. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney if you’re facing similar circumstances. Your privacy matters!

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. Green: When Inventory Searches Become Overbroad

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

Vehicle Inventory Search - Daigle Law Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

State v. Guevara: Stopping Schoolboys and Searching Them for Marijuana is Unlawful Without Probabale Cause.

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, law enforcement, marijuana, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

With Police in Schools, More Children in Court - The New York Times

In State v. Guevara, the WA Court of Appeals held that a Interesting search involving a “school resource officer” who stopped the defendant and his friends for suspected drug use was NOT a social contact and NOT a community caretaking function.

Guevara and his friends were walking near school one morning before class. A uniformed school resource officer stopped the group and inquired what they were doing. He told them he suspected they were skipping class to smoke marijuana. The officer found drugs on Mr. Guevara. At trial, the judge denied Guevara’s motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the stop was a social contact within the scope of the officer’s authority.

In suppressing the evidence, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the stop became a seizure when the officer told the boys he believed they were using drugs and sought their consent to search them. This, ruled the court, was neither a social contact nor a community caretaking function.

My opinion? Good decision. Although they may have skipped school, the boys were otherwise behaving in a lawful manner. They were not under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any other illegal drugs. They weren’t operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs or marijuana. Consequently, the officer appeared to lack probable cause to search them for possessing marijuana or any other drugs.  At worst, the officer should have merely escorted them back to school. Good decision.

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

Drug DUI: The Brass Tacks

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

Pima County Drugged Driving Attorney | Tucson Drug DUI Defense Lawyer | AZ

Yes, I’ve blogged on this before – the passage of Washington Initiative 502 (I-502) and its impacts on DUI investigations. Consider this Part II of an ongoing discussion.

Under I-502, it is now legal to possess marijuana in small amounts. Undeniably, this opens many legal issues for motorists suspected of Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana, typically called “Drug DUI,” “stoned driving” and/or “DUI-D.” What are the legal limits of THC consumption? How do officers obtain proof of Drug DUI? How does I-502 affect minors charged with Drug DUI? What are the consequences of refusing an officer’s attempts to obtain proof of DUI-D?

Under I-502, the legal limit for THC is 5.00 nanograms. Officers obtain THC readings from blood tests administered in hospitals. Consequently, I-502 gives law enforcement officers more incentive to transport citizens to a hospital and seek a blood test if the officer suspects Drug DUI. Citizens refusing the blood test shall be charged with an upper level “Refusal” DUI for violating RCW 46.20.308, which is Washington’s Implied Consent Law. Worse, an officer now has discretion to immediately seek a warrant for a citizen’s blood. With warrant in hand, the officer may obtain a blood test from the citizen anyway, despite the citizen’s prior refusal.

Under RCW 46.20.308, which is Washington’s Implied Consent statute, the citizen’s license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year.  Refusal of the blood test is also admissible in a criminal trial. In the case of minors, I-502 imposes zero tolerance.

In short, the impacts of I-502 are extremely egregious. Fortunately, there’s also a lot of room for error on the part of law enforcement officers charging citizens with Drug DUI. Some of these issues – in the form of defenses – are as follows:

(1) Why did the officer initiate the pullover?

(2) Was the officer trained as a Drug Recognition Expert?

(3) What is the officer’s probable cause for arresting someone for Drug DUI?

(4) Was the citizen informed of the Implied Consent Law?

(5) What constitutes a Refusal?

(6) How did the officer obtain a warrant for a blood test?

(7) Did a licensed medical professional draw the blood?

(8) Can the Prosecutor establish the chain of custody showing who took the blood, who sealed it, and who tested it? And more, are these individuals available to testify?

(9) How does being charged with DUI-D affect citizens who are licensed to smoke marijuana; citizens who probably have elevated levels of THC in their blood anyway?

These issues, and more, affect the outcome of your case. Immediately consult an experienced criminal law attorney like myself if you’re facing Drug DUI charges.

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