Tag Archives: Mount Vernon Criminal Defense

Protection Order Violations & Firearms Surrender

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Robbery, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Many clients charged with Protection Order Violations ask why they must surrender their firearms. They see this government act as unreasonable intrusion of their Second Amendment right to Bear Arms. Under the law, when a protection order is served, the respondent must immediately surrender all firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol licenses (CPL) to law enforcement. Failure to comply, or possessing firearms while under such an order, is a criminal violation.

In State v. Bell, the WA Court of Appeals recently held a protection order requiring an individual to surrender firearms does not violate the Second Amendment when the court finds the individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another. The threat does not have to be towards a specific identified person. Due Process only requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here, the defendant had an opportunity to be heard but he chose not to appear for the hearing. Thus, there was no Due Process violation.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In October 2021, a temporary protection order issued under former RCW 26.50 was served on Mr. Bell. It prohibited him from contacting his mother and minor child. The temporary order required Bell to “surrender all firearms and prohibit[ed] him from accessing, obtaining, or possessing firearms.” Bell was personally served with a copy of the petition, the temporary protection order, notice of a hearing on November 4, 2021, and an order to surrender weapons. Bell did not appear at the November 4 hearing, nor did he appear at a rescheduled hearing two weeks later.

On November 18, 2021, a superior court commissioner entered a final protection order.  Along with prohibiting contact with his mother and child, is also required Bell to surrender weapons and prohibited him from accessing, possessing, or obtaining any firearms. The order requiring Bell to surrender weapons was based on the court commissioner’s findings that Bell “had actual notice, represented a credible threat, and was an intimate partner.” The order also found that Bell “presents a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or the health and safety of any individual by possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon.”

On January 1, 2022, Bell appeared at a QFC kiosk with an AK-47 assault rifle. Bell asked the clerk for cigarettes. When the clerk asked for payment, Bell pointed the rifle at him. Bell admitted at trial that he knowingly possessed the rifle, which he was still carrying when arrested about an hour later. The AK-47 was later test-fired and determined operable.

The State charged Bell with attempted robbery in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree (UPF-2). The trial was bifurcated. A jury convicted Bell of attempted robbery and found that he had been armed with a firearm. Following a bench trial, Bell was convicted of UPF-2. The trial court found that the protection order met the legal requirements to support his conviction. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that Bell was guilty of UPF-2.

Bell timely appealed to this court raising a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the  UPF-2 firearms conviction.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (the Court) began with sweeping descriptions of the Second Amendment. Among other things, it said the U.S. Supreme Court has construed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This right extends to the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense as well as an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. In its analysis, the Court also explained that since the founding, the nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.

Here, the Court found Mr. Bell’s protection order was consistent with this nation’s tradition of firearm regulation and compatible with the Second Amendment. They also reasoned that Mr. Bell presented a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or the health or safety of any individual by possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon.

Next the Court rejected Mr. Bell’s argument that his conviction should be vacated because the “serious and imminent” finding was entered despite never hearing from Bell.  Stated differently, Bell argued that receiving notice and an opportunity to attend the hearing was not enough because there was no back up plan if he was not present in court and surety laws required actually hearing from the accused. In response, the Court rejected these arguments because he failed to appear at his court hearings:

“The court did not hear from Bell only because Bell chose not to appear at either of the two hearings on the protection order. The procedural protections were there, but Bell failed to use them.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Finally, the Court rejected Mr. Bell’s arguments that Washington’s UPF-2 was unconstitutional because it prohibits any and all possession of a firearm, including if done in self-defense of his home:

“Bell was disarmed because he represented a serious and imminent threat to the public. There is no authority that dangerous individuals can retain partial firearm rights even though they are lawfully disarmed.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, Mr. Bell’s criminal convictions were upheld.

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 Right To Counsel Does Not Also Include the Right to Coaching A Defendant Mid-Trial

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In Villarreal v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a trial court, during a brief daytime break in the defendant’s testimony, may entirely prohibit defense counsel from communicating with the defendant.

This protects the truth-seeking function of the trial by preventing mid-testimony coaching.  However, during more extended overnight breaks in the defendant’s testimony, a trial court may only prohibit defense counsel from influencing or managing the defendant’s testimony, not from discussing other topics with the defendant such as the availability of witnesses, trial tactics, or plea bargaining.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

David Villarreal’s murder trial culminated with his own testimony. That testimony was interrupted by a 24-hour overnight recess, during which the trial judge instructed Villarreal’s attorneys not to “manage his testimony.” The judge clarified, however, that Villarreal was not prohibited from talking to his attorneys. The judge recognized Villarreal’s constitutional right to confer about certain topics, such as possible sentencing issues. Villarreal resumed his testimony 24 hours later and was subsequently convicted of murder. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the order was a permissible exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Villarreal appealed on arguments that his 6th Amendment Right to Counsel was violated by the trial court’s rulings.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinon of the Court. In short, she affirmed Villarreal’s murder conviction, holding that a qualified conferral order during an overnight recess — one that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony “for its own sake” while allowing consultation on other protected topics — does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

The Court framed the issue as a tension between two principles: the defendant’s fundamental right to counsel and the truth-seeking interest in preventing lawyer-influenced midstream alteration of sworn testimony. It treated the case as a middle ground between Geders v. United States, (overnight total ban invalid) and Perry v. Leeke, (brief daytime ban valid), emphasizing that those cases involved unqualified bans on attorney-client communication, whereas this case involved a content-limited restriction.

The majority’s rationale was that the line between Geders and Perry is “substantive, not merely temporal.” In other words, a testifying defendant retains a constitutional right to consult counsel about matters like trial strategy, plea decisions, and other issues beyond the testimony itself, but does not have a constitutional right to discuss ongoing testimony as such while still on the stand:

“The trial judge’s order here prohibited Villarreal’s lawyers from “managing” his “ongoing testimony.” This order permissibly balanced the truth-seeking function of the trial against Villarreal’s right to discuss protected topics with his lawyers—things like trial strategy, whether to consider a guilty plea, and factual information crucial to tactical decisions.”

“A court cannot prohibit a defendant from obtaining his attorney’s advice on whether and why he should consider a guilty plea, even if the “why” includes the impact of ongoing testimony on the trial’s prospects. But it may, like the court here did, prohibit discussion of testimony as such.” ~Justice Ketanji Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court

The Court analogized such orders to witness-sequestration principles adapted to the defendant’s special status. In doing so, the Court reasoned that forbidding only “managing” testimony permissibly balances constitutional rights with the trial’s truth-seeking function.

In its conclusions, the Court also rejected Villarreal’s request for a bright-line rule barring any overnight restriction, reasoning that a narrow no-testimony-discussion order is not the same as an overbroad prohibition on all attorney-client consultation.

With that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Villareal’s murder conviction.

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

Federal Shutdown Strains Defense Attorneys

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Journalist Suzanne Monyak wrote a very informative Bloomberg article reporting that the government shutdown threatens to stress resources for an already strapped criminal defense bar, as the federal judiciary prepares to run out of cash.

Thousands of lawyers on the Federal Criminal Justice Act Panel – who represent indigent defendants when federal public defenders can’t – have now been working for over three months without pay after funds dried up. Making matters worse, there is no end in sight amid the shutdown that began Oct. 1.

The funding lapse could threaten the ability of criminal cases to continue when court-appointed attorneys are needed. Federal public defenders rely on CJA panel attorneys to take clients in cases involving multiple defendants when the defenders have a conflict of interest. Meanwhile, staff at federal public defender offices, who represent people who can’t afford attorneys, will begin working without pay next week. Their last guaranteed paychecks are set for Oct. 24 for work during the first two weeks of the month.

Though courts maintained funding for the five-week shutdown during the first Trump administration, multiple consecutive years of flat budgets have left the judiciary with narrower margins. Several federal defenders said they don’t plan to furlough any staff. They’ll continue working without pay under shutdown protocols requiring criminal litigation to continue. They noted their offices are already understaffed, following months under a hiring freeze and tight budgets.

Still, the cash crunch could have ripple effects across the criminal justice system where defendants are constitutionally mandated to have access to representation.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS CANNOT ACCEPT CASES?

If fewer CJA lawyers agree to take on cases, it could raise constitutional issues for defendants. The financial strain could also put lawyers in a precarious ethical position as they must effectively represent their clients while personally struggling financially. Roughly 85% of lawyers on the CJA panel are solo practitioners or work at small firms. Several federal public defenders raised concerns that their employees may struggle financially if the shutdown continues too long.

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.

Cognitive Biases Affect Trial Outcomes

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bias, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Experienced defense lawyers are aware of cognitive biases and implement debiasing techniques to promote justice. Extensive research shows that lawyers, judges and jurors are susceptible to predictable mental shortcuts. Unfortunately, these cognitive shortcuts can lead to systematic errors in judgment and potentially unjust outcomes.

WHY MUST DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BE AWARE OF COURTROOM BIASES?

Defense attorneys must actively address jury biases because an impartial jury is a fundamental right of the accused. Biases can affect juror decision-making in subtle and overt ways, and they can arise from pre-trial publicity, personal experiences, and cognitive shortcuts. Defense attorneys use a range of strategies before and during a trial to counter these biases and protect their client’s right to a fair trial. The following biases can infect every stage of a legal case:

Confirmation bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. For example, investigators who settle on an initial theory about a suspect may then selectively gather evidence to confirm it, overlooking contradictory information that could prove the suspect’s innocence.

Anchoring bias: The over-reliance on the first piece of information offered. A prosecutor’s initial demand for a lengthy sentence can “anchor” a judge’s final decision, even if the initial demand was arbitrary. Defense lawyers can mitigate this by controlling the order of evidence presentation to set a more favorable anchor for their client.

Hindsight bias: The tendency to view past events as more predictable than they were. A jury might wrongly believe a defendant should have foreseen a negative outcome, even if it was highly improbable at the time.

The rhyme-as-reason effect: The tendency to perceive statements as more truthful if they are presented in a way that is easy to understand, such as in a rhyme. The famous O.J. Simpson trial defense, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” is a textbook example of this cognitive bias being used to sway jurors.

Systemic and implicit biases: Cognitive biases can also be influenced by broader systemic issues like racial bias. For example, implicit racial biases can affect how law enforcement interacts with and perceives defendants, potentially cascading through the system to influence jurors.

DE-BIASING TECHNIQUES FOR DEFENSE LAWYERS

Defense lawyers can implement a number of techniques to counteract biases in their own practice and influence a fairer trial for their clients:

Educate the jury and judge: Provide expert testimony from cognitive psychologists to inform the court about common biases and explain how they may be at play in a given case. This encourages decision-makers to scrutinize their own thought processes.

Challenge prejudicial evidence: File motions to challenge the admissibility of evidence that may trigger biases, such as prior criminal history, especially if the defense fears it will unfairly influence a judge or jury.

Conduct blind procedures: Advocate for anonymized document reviews or blind lineups during investigations. Blinding helps to ensure that decisions are based on the merits of the evidence and not on subconscious stereotypes.

Promote deliberative decision-making: Encourage structured and slow deliberation. This might involve preparing judges with checklists or providing guided jury instructions that remind them to consider alternative explanations for the evidence.

Present alternative scenarios: During trial, frame the evidence in a way that draws attention to a plausible alternative narrative that challenges biased assumptions.

Focus on case-specific evidence: Counter representativeness heuristics (judging someone based on stereotypes) by emphasizing the unique circumstances of the defendant and the case, rather than allowing generalizations to take hold.

Jury trials are stressful and adversarial. Testifying witnesses, alleged victims, judges, attorneys and jurors all share cognitive biases heading into these proceedings. Consequently, in these spaces, people tend to assume their cognitive biases  as truth without considering why they exist. Trial outcomes are affcted by bias dynamics involving age, race, sex, education, income level, etc. During jury selection, it’s extremely wise to  create a space where potential jurors feel comfortable enough to discuss their biases.

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.

City of Bellingham Implements Tax To Fund Public Safety

Bellingham Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Bellingham City Council members approved a measure authorizing a sales tax for public safety. Such a tax would cost Bellingham shoppers about 10 cents on a $100 purchase. It’s estimated to raise about $3.9 million for a range of public safety services in 2026.

“If we do not implement this tax, we will have to come up with another way to close that gap,” Deputy City Administrator Forrest Longman told the council during a committee discussion Monday afternoon. “We’ve picked all the low-hanging fruit already.”

HOUSE BILL 2015 

House Bill 2015 is a statewide public safety funding law that allows qualifying cities and counties to impose a new 0.1% sales and use tax option to fund certain public safety efforts.  The legislation also creates a $100 million grant program that is available only to local and tribal law enforcement agencies that can demonstrate compliance with state law.

Sales tax must be used for criminal justice purposes, while the grant can be used for supporting hiring, training, and retaining officers, as well as community-based criminal justice programs in partnership with law enforcement agencies. Jurisdictions that want to impose the 0.1% sales and use tax must meet the grant criteria.

Whether a jurisdiction adopts the sales tax, applies for the grant, or does both, the eligibility criteria are the same. Law enforcement agencies must meet specific policy, training, and data reporting standards outlined in HB 2015 before funding is approved.

DOES THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM QUALIFY TO IMPOSE THE TAX?

Yes, Bellingham is on track to meet all the requirements for imposing the tax by Oct. 3rd. That’s when enough police officers will have completed training in de-escalation techniques, which is among the requirements under the state law that allows cities to impose the tax.

My opinion? Imposing the tax is a step in the right direction. The tax can be used for several programs that fall under the label of public safety. Examples of other programs include domestic violence, public defenders, re-entry work for offenders and crime-reduction measures.

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.

Vehicular Homicide Conviction Prohibits Defendants From Owning or Possessing Firearms

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

In State v. Hamilton, No. 85055-5-I (March 17, 2025), the WA Court of Appeals decided that disarming those convicted of Vehicular Homicide  is consistent with the United States’ historic tradition of firearms regulation.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Hamilton was convicted of Vehicular Homicide after a jury trial. Due to his felony conviction, the court notified Hamilton that he could no longer possess firearms. He was ordered to immediately surrender his concealed pistol license and any firearms in his possession. The court also imposed conditions forbidding him from owning, using, or possessing a firearm or ammunition, consistent with the prohibition set out under statute.

On appeal, Hamilton argued that Washington’s statutes restricting his firearms post-conviction violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) discussed numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing Second Amendment. These decision include New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi. In applying stare decisis, the COA ultimately held that the overwhelming majority of courts addressing statutes that ban convicted felons from possessing firearms have rejected the contention that such laws are now unconstitutional. Next, the COA addressed Hamilton challenging the as-applied constitutionality of several Washington statutes that work in conjunction to strip a person’s right to bear arms upon conviction for a felony.

” . . . We conclude that disarming those with felony convictions is demonstrably consistent with America’s historic tradition of firearms regulation. Common law has a long history of disarming individuals, or categories of individuals, who were viewed as a danger to public order . . . The historical justification for felon bans reveals one controlling principal that applies to each historical period: violent or otherwise dangerous persons could be disarmed . . .”

“Groups of people who were categorized as presenting a danger to the public order during that era of our nation’s history included American Indians, Catholics, Quakers, slaves, and freed Black people. Such restrictions are repugnant and would fail modern constitutional scrutiny, but they nevertheless demonstrate historical precedent for restricting the firearms rights of persons perceived to be dangerous.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Finally, the COA addressed Hamilton’s argument that his felony conviction involved a “tragic accident” rather than the actual use of a firearm or political activity. The COA reasoined that Hamilton nevertheless committed a felony offense that resulted in the death of another person. As a result, reasoned the COA, his behavior places him squarely in the category of persons deemed dangerous to the public order for the purpose of historical firearms regulation.

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Hamilton’s criminal conviction.

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

Drug Overdose Deaths Beginning to Decline

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Fentanyl, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Journalist Tanya Lewis wrote an insightful article on why opioid overdoses have fallen since their COVID-19 Pandemic peak. Although more than 100,000 people have died of overdoses every year since 2021 – mostly due to fentanyl – recent data from the CDC suggest that this brutal trend may have crested.

According to the article, overdose deaths have declined slightly overall since last fall, as have overdose deaths from opioids, including fentanyl. However, deaths over the last 12 months remain incredibly high, at more than 102,000, which is still well above prepandemic numbers. From 2017 to 2019, for example, it’s estimated that more than 68,000 people died every year from overdosing. These recent numbers are provisional and may represent an undercount, according to the CDC.

The reasons for the apparent peak in overdose deaths aren’t fully understood, but experts have a few hypotheses.

OVERDOSE DEATHS ARE REVERTING TO THEIR AVERAGE LEVEL FROM BEFORE THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

Overdose deaths spiked during the pandemic’s first few years. It’s not clear whether more people started using or whether people were simply dying at higher rates; exact counts aren’t available for the number of people who use illicit drugs such as fentanyl. Stress and social isolation increased during the pandemic, which may have led some people to start using or use more frequently or in riskier ways. Treatment for opioid use disorder was also disrupted, and if a person overdosed, it was less likely that someone would be there to intervene.

INVESTMENT IN TREATMENT AND INTERVENTIONS BRING POSITIVE EFFECTS.

Access to the overdose-reversing drug naloxone (often referred to by the brand name Narcan) has also increased. the drug is now available over the counter. Additionally, the availability of test strips for detecting fentanyl, as well as other types of drug testing equipment, Cerda says, may have also prevented overdose deaths by making it easier for people who use drugs to avoid fentanyl; the synthetic opioid is much stronger than other opioids and can lead to overdoses at much, much lower concentrations.

THE POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO USED FENTANYL AND WERE AT RISK OF OVERDOSING HAVE SIMPLY DIED OFF. 

The older generation of people who have opioid use disorder is dying. The younger generation sees how deadly the drugs are and may be less inclined to start using them, adds Jay Unick, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work.

REDUCED SUPPLY OF FENTANYL IN SOME PARTS OF THE U.S. 

Most of the illicit fentanyl in the U.S. comes from Mexican cartels, which obtain its precursor chemicals from China and other countries. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has been cracking down on a Mexican cartel called the Sinaloa cartel, which supplies fentanyl to much of the eastern U.S., and this could be leading to a shortage of the drugs.

The national trend belies important regional differences: while most eastern U.S. states saw declines in overdose deaths, many western states have seen increases. The timing of fentanyl’s introduction to these areas could explain the divide, experts say. The eastern half of the U.S.—from the Midwest to Appalachia—was first exposed to the drug around 2014, whereas it didn’t really emerge across the West Coast until 2019.

THE DEMOGRAPHICS HIT HARDEST BY THE U.S. OPIOID EPIDEMIC HAVE SHIFTED.

Fewer white people are now dying of overdoses, whereas Black and Indigenous people are dying at higher rates. The crisis has also been fueled by homelessness and high rates of mental illness, signs of the compounding effects of income inequality.

THE WEST COAST’S INCREASE IN OVERDOSE DEATHS IS LEADING SOEM STATES TO ADOPT TOUGHER STANCES ON VISIBLE DRUG USE.

In a landmark move in 2020 Oregon voted to decriminalize small amounts of certain drugs, including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. But in response to public pressure, the state recently rolled back that policy. It is unlikely that decriminalizing drugs in Oregon caused an increase in opioid overdoses. The increases were also seen in California, Washington and numerous other states that did not decriminalize them.

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.

Bellingham Sees a Summertime Spike In DUI Arrests

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

According to the Bellingham Herald, the City of Bellingham Has Seen a Spike in DUI’s this  Summer.

THE DATA

The Bellingham Police Department reported 14 DUI arrests the weekend of July 3-5. The department made another 15 arrests July 12-15, with eight on July 13 alone. That’s 29 DUI arrests over seven days in July.

To put that into perspective, BPD averaged 21 DUI arrests per month from 2019-2023, and the department never reported more than 40 in a single month during that time, according to the city’s crime statistics tracker. So far this year, monthly arrests have topped 50 twice — 50 in March and 55 in July. The annual trend is even more stark. BPD reported 245 DUI arrests from January through July, which puts the city on pace to top its 2023 total of 382.

ALTHOUGH DUI’S HAVE INCREASED VEHICLE CRASHES INVOLVING ALCOHOL HAVE DECREASED.

Meanwhile, crashes involving alcohol appear to be on the decline in Whatcom County and Bellingham. There have been 18 traffic crashes involving alcohol in Bellingham, which saw 72 such incidents reported in 2023, according to the Washington State Department of Transportation Crash Data Portal.

WHY THE SUDDEN INCREASE IN DUI ARRESTS?

The hot summer weather can cause dehydration, which in turn can affect the way your body metabolizes alcohol. When dehydrated, your body has less water available to dilute the alcohol in your system. This means that even a tiny amount of alcohol can result in a higher BAC level than it would under normal conditions. Additionally, high temperatures can increase your heart rate and cause your blood vessels to dilate, leading to faster absorption of alcohol into your bloodstream.

DOES SUMMER HEAT IMPACT DUI BREATHALYZER RESULTS?

The effects of dehydration and increased heart rate caused by the summer heat can also impact the accuracy of DUI tests. Breathalyzer tests rely on the assumption that a person’s breath contains an accurate representation of their BAC level. However, if someone is dehydrated or experiencing an elevated heart rate due to the heat, their breath may not provide an accurate reading. This means that someone who is actually below the legal limit could still test positive for driving under the influence.

TIPS FOR STAYING SAFE ON THE ROAD THIS SUMMER.

To avoid potential issues with elevated BAC levels and inaccurate DWI test results during the summer months, it’s important to stay safe on the road. Make sure to stay hydrated by drinking plenty of water throughout the day, especially if you plan on consuming alcohol later on. Limit your alcohol intake when it’s hot outside, as even a small amount could have a greater impact on your BAC level than usual. If you do decide to drink, make sure to wait a sufficient amount of time before getting behind the wheel to allow your body to metabolize the alcohol.

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.

Can Parents Allow Their Minor Children to Drink at Home?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In short, “Yes,” with some exceptions.

RCW 66.44.270 is Washington’s “Furnishing Liquor to a Minor” statute. It states that it is illegal to “sell, give, or otherwise supply liquor to any person under the age of 21 years”. This includes allowing anyone under 21 to drink alcohol in a building they own or are in charge of, or to possess, consume, or otherwise acquire any liquor. However, there is an exception for parents or guardians to furnish alcohol to their minor child as long as it is done under their supervision and consumed in their presence.

Nevertheless, this does not mean it is permissible for an adult to supervise anyone else other than their child. If a group of teenagers is drinking, all of their parents need to consent and observe. Otherwise, providing a safe place for your child and their friends to drink is illegal.

Unless with parental supervision, it is also illegal for a minor to be in public, including in a car in public, after clearly having consumed alcohol. To be in violation of this code, the minor’s breath must smell like liquor and either be near a container of alcohol or obviously under the influence, shown through speech or behavior.

Legal exceptions:

  • Liquor for medicinal purposes from a parent, guardian, physician or dentist
  • Religious context, when minimal amount is consumed
  • Specific permitted exceptions, like scientific research

Can underage viticulture students drink in WA?

Washington state law also allows underage viticulture and related students to taste wine, but not drink it, for educational purposes. The student must be at least 18, and tasting must be monitored by faculty.

That said, Washington state offers legal protection for minors at medical facilities who experience alcohol poisoning, or bring in another minor experiencing alcohol poisoning. Youth cannot be charged for underage consumption based on information gathered from the medical visit.

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.

WA Ranks Low In States With Road Rage

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Road Rage, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

A recent study from H&P Law ranks Washington among states with the least amount of road rage. The firm used data from The Trace and the NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System to rank states by most common road rage incidents. Washingtonians can consider themselves lucky – the Evergreen State falls in the bottom ten for reported or documented road rage incidents.

THE REPORT

The report ranks all 50 states utilizing analysis of six key factors. Data points used include the number of firearm-related incidents, the percentage of crashes involving aggressive or careless driving, the number of accidents with fatalities, the total number of deaths from crashes involving aggressive or careless driving, the percentage of incidents involving aggressive or careless driving that resulted in a fatality, and speeding violations, at varying weights.

Washington ranks 44 of 50, making it one of the states with the fewest road rage incidents. Rhode Island was ranked the best. The study ranked the least road rage prone states in the bottom ten as: Iowa South Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Virginia, California, Rhode Island.

WHAT MADE WASHINGTON’S SCORE SO LOW?

The Evergreen State has a low rate of firearm-related road rage incidents, at 1.5 per 100,000 residents. Less than 28% of the state’s car crashes involve aggressive or careless driving, according to the study. Washington experiences 2.5 fatal crashes due to aggressive driving per 100,000 residents, and a low number of speeding violations compared to other states.

WHICH STATES HAVE MOST ROAD RAGE?

According to the report, the states with the most road rage are:

  • Louisiana
  • New Mexico
  • Montana
  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • North Carolina
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Wisconsin
  • Tennessee

At some point in every driver’s life, they’ll inevitably experience road rage. Whether it’s screaming vulgarities, the middle finger, tailgating or aggression, being on the receiving end of road rage is jarring, and potentially dangerous.

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