Category Archives: Search and Seizure

Seattle v. St. John: Police May Obtain a Search Warrant For a Blood Sample When Motorists Refuse to Give Breath Test.

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Can I Refuse A Blood Test? - Welch and Avery

In Seattle v. St. John, the WA Supreme Court held that police may obtain a search warrant for a blood sample when motorists refuse to give a breath test.

After crashing his motorcycle in Seattle, Robert St. John was investigated for DUI. A police officer asked St. John to consent to a blood alcohol test.  St. John refused.   The officer obtained a warrant for the test.  The results were suppressed in municipal court based on a broad interpretation of a provision of the Implied Consent Law that prohibits performing the test once consent has been refused. The superior court reversed and the Court of Appeals certified three questions to the Supreme Court:

1. Does the implied consent statute allow the State to administer a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant after a driver has declined a voluntary blood alcohol test?

2. Does an implied consent warning violate due process if it does not inform drivers that an officer may seek a warrant for a blood alcohol test even if the driver declines the voluntary blood alcohol test?

3. Does the doctrine of equitable estoppel bar the State from seeking a warrant for a blood alcohol test after informing drivers that they may refuse the voluntary blood alcohol test?

The WA Supreme Court upheld the superior court and allowed the blood test evidence.  They reasoned that the Implied Consent law restricts performing a blood test pursuant to that law, but does not prohibit performing a blood test pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant (RCW 46.20.308). Similarly, the officer’s statements about the Implied Consent law did not foreclose his obtaining the warrant.

I echo the dissenting opinion of Justice Charles Sanders.  Simply put, an officer cannot force a driver to submit to a blood test if the driver refuses consent.  However, under the majority opinion’s reasoning, a driver’s refusal to consent to a Breath test is essentially meaningless.

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.

X52 Program Leads to Increased DUI Patrols and Arrests

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

2018 DRUNK-DRIVING AWARENESS ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGN | DMV Assistant

This past Labor Day Weekend, the Washington State Patrol made 296 arrests for suspicion of DUI.  That’s slightly higher than the 292 arrests WSP made over the same weekend in 2008.  In a recent report released by the WSP, there were 44 calls from concerned motorists which led to 20 arrests for suspicion of DUI.  The increased arrests — and inevitable prosecutions — are directly attributed to Washington State Patrol’s (WSP)  implementation of the X52 anti-DUI campaign.

X52 stands for extra patrols 52 weeks per year. The goal of the X52 program is to reduce speeding and DUI-related traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Washington’s roads.

Under the program, Washington Traffic Safety Commission released $450,000 worth of grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them provide additional impaired driving and speed patrols every week of the year.  These sustained enforcement patrols specifically target speed and DUI offenders, as well as look for other traffic violations. The program is being administered statewide through a network of community traffic safety task forces.

The X52 program also includes initiatives designed to let the public know that these extra patrols are happening in Washington every week. $450,000 is budgeted for paid radio advertising and alternative messaging. Earned media efforts will be spearheaded by community traffic safety task forces.

My opinion?  Clearly, the WSP is aggressively campaigning the X52 program.  I foresee even greater DUI patrol this holiday season.

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. Eriksen: Tribal Officers Can Pursue Suspects Off the Reservation

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Anatomy of a DUI investigation - Sanford Horowitz Criminal Defense, PC.

In State v. Eriksen, the WA Supreme Court decided that tribal police officers can pursue motorists beyond the limits of tribal lands after having observed them commit a traffic infraction on the reservation.

A Lummi Nation Police Department officer witnessed a motorist on the reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider.  He began following the vehicle and activated his emergency lights.  After traveling a quarter mile the car pulled into a gas station located off the reservation.  The police officer witnessed the driver, Loretta Eriksen, hop over the car’s center console and into the passenger’s seat.  The officer detained Eriksen until a Whatcom County police deputy arrived, who arrested her for DUI.

Ms. Eriksen was convicted for DUI.  The trial court said Lummi Nation’s inherent sovereign power authorizes tribal police to continue in “fresh pursuit” of offenders who drive off the reservation.

The Supreme Court agreed.  It reasoned  that the Lummi Nation is a sovereign nation with inherent authority to enforce its laws and detain Indians or non-Indians who violate those laws.  Courts have long recognized the right of law enforcement officers to cross jurisdictional lines when in hot pursuit of a violator.

The court said this doctrine should apply to sovereign tribal nations as well.  “The Lummi Nation Police Department has authority under the Lummi Nation’s sovereign authority and under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, chapter 10.93 RCW, to enforce its laws by continuing the ‘fresh pursuit’ of suspects off the reservation and then detaining these suspects until authorities with jurisdiction arrive.”

My opinion?  I’m not surprised.  Recently, the WA Supremes have deciding other “hot pursuit” cases in similar fashion.  Indeed, in State v. Rivera-Santos, a recent case which my blog covered earlier this month, the WA Supremes decided that a defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights IF law enforcement was engaged in hot pursuit across state lines.

Additionally, I’ve found the criminal justice system is extra tough on defendants who “elude” law enforcement with high-speed chases.  Eluding is a fairly serious felony, especially if the defendant already has felony convictions on their criminal record.

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. Rivera-Santos: Why Crossing State Lines – Intoxicated – Is Double Trouble

Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Two DUI arrests made in southern Arizona following Labor Day weekend

In State v. Rivera-Santos, the WA Supreme Court determined that the defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights.

Rivera-Santos led police on a chase that started on the Washington side of I-5 and ended on the Oregon side. He was found to have a blood-alcohol content level of .17 percent (more than twice the legal limit), and convicted by an Oregon court of driving under the influence. He was also charged with a DUI in Clark County District Court, but Rivera-Santos argued that it should be dismissed under the constitutional protections against double-jeopardy (i.e. being punished twice for the same crime).

Justice Fairhurst wrote that convicting Rivera-Santos in Washington would not be double-jeopardy, as it was a separate crime.  He drove while drunk in Oregon, and was punished for that by an Oregon court. He also drove while drunk in Washington, and a Washington court could punish him for that separate crime.

My opinion?  If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, then it must be a duck.  Said differently, this legal decision looks like double jeopardy, smells like double jeopardy, therefore it must be double jeopardy.

For those who don’t know, “Double Jeopardy” happens when defendants are prosecuted twice for the same offense.  It’s unconstitutional.  The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.’ U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Here, the WA Supremes stated that Mr. Rivera-Santos committed two different crimes in two different states.  Fine, I can agree with that.  HOWEVER, I disagree with their decision that charging these crimes is not double jeopardy.  Why do I disagree?  Because these “two crimes” arose from the same facts and circumstances.

Mr. Rivera-Santos did not steal candy from a 7-11 in Oregon, cross State lines, and then steal candy from a 7-11 in Washington.  The crime of DUI is, essentially, driving while intoxicated.   Although Mr. Rivera-Santos drove across State lines while intoxicated, he was DUI only one time during that crossing.  Therefore, he should only be punished once.   Anything more is double jeopardy.

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.

Why Henry Louis Gates Should Sue

Constitutional Rights, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Studies, , ,

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Will Offer Presidential Colloquium | Smith College

Last week in Cambridge, Mass., Sgt. James Crowley arrested Henry Louis Gates Jr., a professor at Harvard, for Disorderly Conduct while responding to a reported break-in at Gates’s home.  The charges were subsequently dismissed.  Nevertheless, media pundits are asking the question:  should Mr. Gates sue?

Not surprisingly, the article’s author advocates legal action.  A lawsuit from Gates could lead to formal examination of the troubled history of police interactions with African-Americans.  The suit would also oppose systemic injustice and benefit the larger community.  Finally, lawsuits can be an important tool for reform when coupled with advocacy and public education efforts when the circumstances are conducive to change.

My opinion?  Personally, I also believe Gates should file suit.  Some police officers wrongfully become offended when questioned by citizens.  These same officers consider it unlawful when citizens exercise their Constitutional rights.   In short, citizens have the 4th amendment right to refuse illegal searches/seizures by police.

We also have the 5th Amendment right to remain silent upon arrest.  In other words, we may legally refuse to provide police with information which may incriminate ourselves.   When and why did it become unlawful to exercise our rights?  Where is the Disorderly Conduct in that?

It could be problematic, however, for Mr. gates to prove damages.

In order to prevail, Mr. Gates must show that he was (1) injured before/during/after the arrest, and (2) that his injuries led to quantifiable damages.  Admittedly, the damages portion is difficult to quantify.  Was Mr. Gates physically injured at any time?  Was he incarcerated?  If so, did his incarceration cause him any other injuries?  Did Mr. Gates undergo mental trauma?  The answers to these questions should determine whether his lawsuit has merit or is frivolous.

Good luck, Mr. Gates.

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. Redding: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional

ACLU, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, United States Supreme Court, , ,

Should schools be strip-searching students? | Illinois Attorney Referrals and Legal Guidance

In State v. Redding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen, a banned medication. This is the biggest victory for students’ rights in the last 20 years.

My opinion?  I’ll let Savannah speak for herself.  Below is a post she wrote for the ACLU’s blog:

“People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property — a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I’m happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through.

Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Every day, parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school.

But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won’t have to. Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.”

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. Garvin: WA Supremes Held “Squeeze Search” Unlawful

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Know Your Rights: Stop-and-Frisk | ACLU of DC

In State v. Garvin, the Court held that police officers cannot “squeeze” a defendant’s pockets to determine the nature of objects in the pocket.

An officer pulled Anthony Garvin over for a traffic infraction. When he noticed a knife on the seat next to Garvin, the officer ordered Garvin out of the car and conducted a search for additional weapons. In the process he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine. At trial the officer testified, “We don’t really pat anymore. It’s more of a squeeze search.”

Garvin moved to suppress the evidence seized, and the trial court denied the motion. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.  The WA Supreme Court granted review.

The court reasoned that the officer was not allowed to manipulate objects within the clothing, and his “squeeze method” exceeded the scope of a valid frisk under the “stop and frisk” rule articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The court added, “Without probable cause and a warrant, an officer is limited in what he can do.  He cannot arrest a suspect, he cannot conduct a broad search.”

My opinion?  Yaaaay!!

Many clients get arrested because police officers obtain evidence unlawfully.  It’s an outrage!  This case is beautiful.  I can’t wait to argue a Garvin motion in my future attempts to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.   🙂

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. Hinshaw: Absent Exigent Circumstances, Cops Can’t Enter Your Home Without a Warrant & Arrest for DUI

911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Corpus Delicti, Due Process, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES | Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer

Great opinion.

In State v. Hinshaw, the WA Court of Appeals held that absent Exigent Circumstances, police cannot enter a home without a warrant & arrest for DUI.

Here, the Moses Lake Police investigated reports of a car unlawfully driving on a bike path.  Police search the path.  They find Mr. Hinshaw on a bike close to the path.  He said he was a passenger in the suspect car, but denies driving.  They release him.

Later, the police find the suspect car in his driveway.  It had a flat tire.  They knock on the door.  He answers the door, yet refuses to come out.  He admits to drinking earlier.  Officers grab his arm, go inside of his home, and arrest him for DUI.  They are concerned his BAC level was dissipating.

The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that “exigent circumstances” justified Mr. Hinshaw’s warrantless seizure.  The Court saw several errors in the police officer’s conduct.   First, the officers failed to establish how quickly the BAC would/could dissipate.  Second, the officers could not estimate how long it would take to get a warrant.

Third, although the police had probable cause to believe Mr. Hinshaw became intoxicated and drove home, the reckless operation of the car and consequent threat to public safety had ended.  Mr. Hinshaw was neither armed nor dangerous.  He posed no threat to the public or officers.  His car was disabled.  Consequently, exigent circumstances did not exist.

My opinion?  Great opinion!  The Court of Appeals saw through the State’s smoke and mirrors.  This was not a case about exigent circumstances.  An emergency never existed!  No, this was a bona-fide; unlawful exercise of “arrest first, ask questions later” on the part of the police.  Clearly unlawful.  Kudos to the Court of Appeals.

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.

 

Study: Drug, Driving Charges Sap Nation’s Courts

Court Fines, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Studies, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, , ,

Stop jailing those accused of low-level, non violent crimes before trial | TheHill

According to a Seattle Times article, low-level drug and driving charges are a financial burden for misdemeanor courts.

My opinion?  As a former public defender (and proud of it), I was dismayed when defendants were prosecuted and jailed on Driving While License Suspended charges.  Indeed, defending these kinds of cases exposed me to some ugly truths about the criminal justice system.

Here’s a typical situation: “Speeder” gets pulled over for speeding.  Speeder can’t afford to pay the ticket.  They miss their court date.  Court gives them a “Failure to Appear” for missing said court date.  The Department of Licensing catches wind.  Speeder’s license gets suspended.   He is now Speeder-Turned-Suspended Licensee (STSL).

Eventually STSL get pulled over – and possibly arrested – on the suspended license.  If STSL is lucky, police officer won’t (1) investigate STSL for DUI, and/or (2) search STSL’s car following the arrest.  If unlucky, STSL might have had a couple of drinks before being pulled over.  They get investigated for DUI.  Or STSL has contraband tucked away in the glove compartment that gets discovered on the search.

All of the sudden, “Speeder” is now a criminal.

The grinding wheels of justice.  Steel jaws gnashing away at people’s rights.  Police using a suspended license as probable cause to arrest you and search your car.  Unbelievable.

Now, more than ever, change is necessary.  King County has implemented a program which simultaneously circumvents the criminal justice system and allows people get their licenses back.  Legal fees are waived if people successfully complete it.  The program is a success.  And it costs less than prosecuting/jailing people.

There’s more.  In 2007, the study’s authors found, 11,553 misdemeanor marijuana cases were filed.  Of those, 3,638 convictions were made, which resulted in about $7.6 million in direct costs to the state.

Again, unbelievable.  Taxpayers subsidize these enormous costs.  However, most people believe small-time drug cases should NOT be prosecuted.  Remember Seattle Initiative I-75?  The measure – which passed successfully in 2003 – directed police officers and prosecutors to treat the personal use of marijuana by adults as the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.

It’s time our court system caught up with the will of the people.

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. Dingman: Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Due Process, felony, Forensics, Jury Trial, Pretrial Investigations, Search and Seizure, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

What Is A Discovery Request? Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

In State v. Dingman, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant at the time of arrest.

Here, the authorities seized Mr. Dingman’s computers while investigating him for Theft and Money Laundering.  The State created mirror image copies of the computers’ hard drives using a program called EnCase.  Dingman asked for direct access to his computer.  The Court refused, and instead ordered copies be provided using Encase, a program the defense neither had not knew how to use.

Applying court rules/procedures, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant.  The computer hard drives were tangible objects obtained from the defendant.  Defense counsel should be allowed to examine the hard drives.  Therefore, it was error not to give the defense access to the hard drives.

My Opinion?  Great decision. Division II gave an excellent decision regarding the violation of a defendant’s right to review evidence. The defendant should ALWAYS have access to materials the prosecutor wants to use at trial.  Indeed, it’s a blatant violation of a defendant’s Constitutional rights to deny access.  Providing evidence to the other side is also, quite simply, a professional courtesy.

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.