Tag Archives: Mount Vernon Criminal Defense

AI Facial Recognition Tech Leads to Mistaken Identity Arrests

Artificial Intelligence, Bellingham Defense Attorney, False Arrest, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Interesting article by Sudhin Thanawala and the Associated Press describes lawsuits filed on the misuse of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. The lawsuits come as Facial Recognition Technology and its potential risks are under scrutiny. Experts warn about Artificial Intelligence (AI’s) tendency toward errors and bias.

Numerous black plaintiffs claim they were misidentified by facial recognition technology and then wrongly arrested. Three of those lawsuits, including one by a woman who was eight months pregnant and accused of a carjacking, are against Detroit police.

The lawsuits accuse law enforcement of false arrest, malicious prosecution and negligence. They also allege Detroit police engaged “in a pattern of racial discrimination of (Woodruff) and other Black citizens by using facial recognition technology practices proven to misidentify Black citizens at a higher rate than others in violation of the equal protection guaranteed by” Michigan’s 1976 civil rights act.

WHAT IS FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY?

The technology allows law enforcement agencies to feed images from video surveillance into software that can search government databases or social media for a possible match. Critics say it results in a higher rate of misidentification of people of color than of white people. Supporters say it has been vital in catching drug dealers, solving killings and missing persons cases and identifying and rescuing human trafficking victims. They also contend the vast majority of images that are scoured are criminal mugshots, not driver’s license photos or random pictures of individuals.

Still, some states and cities have limited its use.

“The use of this technology by law enforcement, even if standards and protocols are in place, has grave civil liberty and privacy concerns . . . And that’s to say nothing about the reliability of the technology itself.” ~Sam Starks, a senior attorney with The Cochran Firm in Atlanta.

FALSE ARRESTS BASED ON INACCURATE IDENTIFICATIONS FROM AI CAN SUPPORT A DEFENSE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY

My opinion? AI should be abandoned if the technology incorrectly identifies perpetrators. As a matter of law, the prosecution must prove the identity of the perpetrator of an alleged crime.

According to the jury instructions on Mistaken Identity, in determining the weight to be given to eyewitness identification testimony, jurors may consider other factors that bear on the accuracy of the identification. These may include:

  • The witness’s capacity for observation, recall and identification;
  • The opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged criminal act and the perpetrator of that act;
  • The emotional state of the witness at the time of the observation;
  • The witness’s ability, following the observation, to provide a description of the perpetrator of the act;
  • The witness’s familiarity or lack of familiarity with people of the perceived race or ethnicity of the perpetrator of the act;
  • The period of time between the alleged criminal act and the witness’s identification;
  • The extent to which any outside influences or circumstances may have affected the witness’s impressions or recollection; and
  • Any other factor relevant to this question.

But what happens when the “eyewitness identifier” is, in fact, AI technology?

At trial, the defense should procure an expert witness who’d testify on the inaccuracies of AI technology. That’s an appropriate route to challenging the credibility of this “witness.”

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

Organized Retail Theft On the Rise

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Organized Retail Theft, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Theft, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Journalist Nathan Bomey for Axios.com wrote an article reporting that people aren’t paying retailers for merchandise. The data suggests that the scale and complexity of Organized Retail Theft schemes seems to be on the rise.

WHAT IS ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT?

Organized retail crime (ORC) is the large-scale theft of retail merchandise with the intent to resell the items for financial gain. ORC typically involves a criminal enterprise employing a group of individuals who steal large quantities of merchandise from a number of stores and a fencing operation that converts the stolen goods into cash. Stolen items can be sold through online auction sites, at flea markets and even to other retailers.

In addition to targeting stores, ORC gangs engage in cargo theft activities. They also commit other frauds such as using stolen or cloned credit cards to obtain merchandise, changing bar codes to pay lower prices, and returning stolen merchandise to obtain cash or gift cards. ORC is distinct from ordinary shoplifting committed by individuals seeking goods for personal use.

In April, the National Retail Federation reported that retailers experienced a 26.5% increase in organized retail theft incidents in 2021.

“Organized retail theft schemes typically involve careful planning and deliberate targeting, while perpetrators have specialized roles, including inventory management, marketing and sales fulfillment.” ~National Retail Federation

 Retailers are already grappling with an uncertain economy, a shift toward spending on services, and rising labor costs. Clearly, the last thing they need is another threat to the bottom line.

However, it’s also unjust to charge people for crimes they did not intentionally commit. Organized Retail Theft is a crime of dishonesty with the potential to cause major setbacks in people’s lives, careers and trajectories.

CAN A DEFENDANT RAISE A LEGAL DEFENSE?

Yes. A few common defenses include showing that you did not act with an accomplice or that the value of the property stolen was below the suggested amount. Defendants can also contest an organized theft charge by showing that the police violated one of their constitutional rights. For example, maybe the police arrested an offender without probable cause, or coerced a confession.

In both of these instances, a prosecutor may decide to reduce your charge or drop it altogether.

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

Speed Cameras In Demand As Fatal Crashes Rise in WA State

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Informative article in the Olympian by journalist Martin Bilbao describes Governor Inslee’s efforts to acquire more traffic cameras in WA as traffic fatalities rose. The data showed a concerning lack of progress for Target Zero, a state safety plan that aims to eliminate fatal and serious injury collisions by 2030.

Traffic fatalities in Washington state increased about 39% from 538 in 2019 to 750 in 2022, according to data presented by Shelly Baldwin, director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. However, she cautioned that 2022 data was preliminary.

“We have not seen such a rapid increase since back in the ‘70s . . . We want to keep in mind that these are not just numbers. These are families and friends and co-workers whose lives have been lost and left the people around them grieving.” ~Shelly Baldwin, director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission

The data show eight counties account for about 60% of all fatalities. The top three are in the state’s population center — King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Thurston County ranks seventh in fatalities, but is sixth in population. The state’s traffic fatality rate per 100 vehicle miles traveled reached 1.16 in 2021 compared to 1.37 at the national level, Baldwin shared. She said impaired driving, followed by speeding and distracted driving, were key risk factors in traffic fatalities.

Earlier this year, the state authorized the use of speed cameras in highway work zones with the passage of Senate Bill 5272. However, Inslee’s proposal would go further:

“The fact, we’re not doing that, frankly, is a little frustrating right now . . . I’m glad we’ve taken the first step in construction zones, but we can’t allow this carnage to continue when we have a technology that works.” ~Governor Jay Inslee

Inslee said he would direct the Washington Traffic Safety Commission to work with his staff to develop a plan for increasing the use of speed cameras. Additionally, Inslee said he supports recruiting more law enforcement personnel to enforce traffic laws.

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

Drivers Can’t Consent to Police Searching a Passenger’s Belongings

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In State v. Garner, No. 56861-6-II (2023), the WA Court of Appeals held that a driver’s consent to search their car does not extend to searching the contents of closed containers inside the car that do not belong to the driver.

BACKGROUND FACTS

A police officer arrested Mr. Garner on an outstanding warrant after stopping a car and encountering Garner as a passenger. Garner tried to flee on foot but the officer apprehended him. After placing Garner under arrest, the officer spoke with the car’s driver, who said Garner left three backpacks behind in her car. The officer asked the driver for permission to search the car and she granted it.

The officer then searched Garner’s backpacks without requesting his permission and found controlled substances. Later testing established that the controlled substances found in the backpacks were 86.9 grams of methamphetamine and 3.8 grams of heroin.

The State charged Garner with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Before trial, Garner moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his backpacks. The trial court denied Garner’s suppression motion. After a bench trial, the trial court found Garner guilty of both counts of possession with intent to deliver.

On appeal, Mr. Garner argued that the trial court improperly denied his suppression motion.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

In short, the WA Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have granted Garner’s suppression motion. It reasoned that a person’s bag or closed container heightened protection under the federal and state constitutions. It emphasized that the Washington Supreme Court has also recognized an expectation of privacy in purses, briefcases, and other traditional containers of personal belongings.

Here, the defendant passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the backpacks he left inside the car when he fled from the police during a traffic stop.  He did not abandon the backpacks or relinquish his privacy interest in them because he was in the vehicle with permission, and took steps to conceal the backpacks from the officer before fleeing.

The Court of Appeals also reasoned that that the driver’s consent to search her car did not extend to Garner’s backpacks.

“Garner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his backpacks. And while Washington case law does not squarely address whether a passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy in items left in another’s car, our cases point to the conclusion that Garner did not relinquish his expectation of privacy when he left his backpacks in the driver’s car. Unlike the defendant in Samalia, Garner did not leave his backpacks in a stolen car. He left them in a car he had occupied with the driver’s permission.”

“And unlike the defendant in Reynolds, he did not remove the backpacks from the car and leave them on the road. Rather, Garner, who lacked housing, left his belongings with a person he knew. Moreover, Garner never disclaimed ownership of the backpacks. He took the time to put two of the backpacks on the vehicle’s rear floorboard and tried stowing the third backpack under the driver’s seat. The circumstances lend themselves to the conclusion that he intended to safeguard the backpacks until he could recover them.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Garner’s convictions because the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress.

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

Broad Coalition Launches to Restore the Constitutional Right to Trial

Uncategorized, , , ,

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) reports that numerous organizations have united to end the trial penalty. This coalition, called End the Trial Penalty, consists of twenty-four criminal justice organizations, impacted people, think tanks, academics, activists, and reform leaders from across the ideological spectrum have united to end the trial penalty.

What is a “Trial Penalty?”

A “trial penalty” refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after trial. This penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial. To avoid the penalty, accused persons must surrender many other fundamental rights which are essential to a fair justice system.

The coercive and punitive effects of the trial penalty are so pervasive that they have virtually eliminated our constitutional right to trial. In fact, over 97% of cases ending in a conviction never go to trial, leading to a range of issues reverberating through our legal system, including the waiver of numerous constitutional freedoms and rights, overcriminalization, loss of public oversight, and racial injustice.

Fortunately, the End the Trial Penalty Coalition aims to restore the right to trial, helping right these wrongs to ensure a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system.

Members of this new Coalition will work together to raise awareness of the adverse effects of a justice system without trials, advocate policy reform, and forge relationships with key policymakers. The Coalition will also serve as a resource for people interested in participating in an impactful criminal legal reform movement.

The Coalition has published a comprehensive Policy Overview which includes policy ideas to combat coercive practices in the plea bargaining process, to improve data collection and transparency, and to foster post-trial reform and accountability measures.

The Coalition plans to further partner with impacted people and their families, community leaders, criminal legal system stakeholders, and local organizers to ensure everyone has a seat at the table in the efforts to restore justice to our legal system.

About End the Trial Penalty

End the Trial Penalty is an ideologically diverse coalition of criminal justice organizations and leaders committed to ending the trial penalty to ensure a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system. The coalition aims to eliminate the coercive elements of plea bargaining to restore our fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial.

My opinion?

The Sixth Amendment enshrines the right to trial for anyone accused of a crime. Yet, in America today, less than 3% of criminal cases ever make it to trial. Many factors drive that statistic, including the trial penalty. Defendants are confronted with an impossible choice: either fighting for their innocence but often risking decades in prison or admitting to something they didn’t do but salvaging their family and future. It’s no wonder that innocent people can and do plead guilty.

I’m pleased that organizations like End the Trial Penalty exists to uphold our constitutional right to trial. 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.

Lock Your Pet In Your Car?

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

Summer approaches! And with it, the hurry-up-and-have-fun approach to life. We have barbeques. Go to beaches. Play in the sun. In between fun time, we run errands. And when we run errands, we leave our pets in the car.

Unfortunately, without ventilation, the temperature inside your car will rise high and fast. Leaving pets in a hot car can cause heat stroke or death. Cracking a window open isn’t enough.

CIVIL INFRACTIONS & CRIMINAL CHARGES.

Washington state law makes it a civil infraction to leave any animal alone in a car. The law also applies to any other enclosed space, if they could be killed by excessive heat, excessive cold, lack of ventilation or lack of water. This civil infraction comes with a maximum fine of $125.

It is also possible to get slapped with an animal cruelty charge, depending on the severity of the situation, and other circumstances. In Washington, you can be convicted of animal cruelty if you don’t provide needed shelter, sanitation, space, or vet treatment. The law applies if you acted recklessly, purposefully, or with criminal negligence, and only if the animal suffers unjustified pain as a result.

HOW HOT CAN A CAR GET?

According to a 2005 study from the American Academy of Pediatrics, outside temperatures of around 70 degrees can heat the inside of a car to over 115 degrees within minutes.

Dogs experience heat exhaustion when their body temperature hits 103 degrees, according to pet food company Hill’s Pet Nutrition. It’s typically safe to leave your dog in the car for no more than five minutes when the outside temperature is above freezing and below 70 degrees.

RESCUING PETS FROM HOT OR COLD CARS.

If you see a dog or pet in obvious distress inside a car, what can you do to help? Wherever you live, you should try to contact local animal control authorities or law enforcement. Authorities may be able to track down and contact the car owner. Many states also allow officers or emergency responders to use force, if needed, to save endangered animals.

CAN YOU BREAK A CAR WINDOW?

Some states have Good Samaritan laws that protect a rescuer from criminal or civil liability for breaking into a locked car to rescue an animal. But in order to be protected, rescuers must take certain steps—including calling 911 or law enforcement first. And usually, their actions—such as breaking a window—must be absolutely necessary or used only as a last resort. In states that don’t have Good Samaritan laws, the rescuer could face legal repercussions for their actions.

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

April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Distracted Driving, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

April is distracted Driving Awareness month. A recent report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) says that Distracted Driving has become a deadly epidemic on our roads.

Distracted driving is any activity that takes your attention away from driving. Distractions can include anything from texting and talking on a mobile phone to eating and drinking. Other activities include putting on makeup, shaving, reading, programming a navigation system, watching a video, and even adjusting the radio.

“For the past decade, distracted driving has taken U.S. roadways by storm, endangering not only the distracted drivers, but their passengers, pedestrians and others using the road. When we’re behind the wheel, we must focus on one task: safe driving. Anytime you shift your attention from driving, you’re distracted.” ~NHTSA

According to its report, distracted driving killed 3,522 people in 2021. From April 3 through 10, you may see increased law enforcement on the roadways as part of the national paid media campaign U Drive. U Text. U Pay. This campaign reminds drivers of the deadly dangers and the legal consequences – including fines – of texting behind the wheel.

Clearly, Distracted Driving is one of the fastest growing safety issues on the roads today. It’s also one of the most litigous. Fortunately, there’s great advice on avoiding Distracted Driving.

“DO NOT DISTURB” WHILE DRIVING.

Program autoreplies to texts and calls so others know you are not responding because you are driving. Cell phones and providers have several apps and programming options to reduce the temptation to drive distracted. For example, Apple’s “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature stops notifications and sends a preprogrammed autoreply to anyone who texts the driver while the vehicle is in motion. There are also: AT&T DriveMode®, Verizon Safely Go®, and Sprint Drive First®.

Consider utilizing one of these options to stop notifications while you drive. A great message for a friend or a family member when they try to reach you when you are driving is: “Hi, I am driving right now, so it’s not safe to respond to your message. This is an autoreply to let you know that when I stop, I will get right back to you.” That way, you can tell others that you are not ignoring them. They may see how good the idea is and do the same on their phones.

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

“Victim Penalty Assessment” Court Fine Held As Constitutional

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Court Fines, Eighth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

In State v. Griepsma, the WA Court of Appeals held that a mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment is still not an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, even if it might be partially punitive.

BACKGROUND FACTS

IN 2019, a jury convicted Griepsma of six counts of third degree felony assault of a law enforcement officer and one count of third degree malicious mischief. The trial court imposed concurrent midrange sentences of 55 months for each of the assault convictions. It also imposed a current 364-day sentence for the misdemeanor, but it did not order community custody. Finally, the court imposed a mandatory $500 Victim Penalty Assessment (VPA).

Griepsma appealed imposition of the mandatory $500 VPA. He argued it was unconstitutional under the excessive fines clauses of the Eighth Amendment and the Washington State Constitution.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court explained that under the Eighth Amendment, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” And under the WA Constitution, “Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted.”  Finally, for a fine to be unconstitutional, it must be at least partially punitive and it must be excessive.

On appeal, Griepsma argued that the United States and Washington Supreme Court cases make clear that the VPA is at least partially punitive. In support of his argument, Griepsma pointed to Timbs v. Indiana and City of Seattle v. Long. Both cases held that in their specific circumstances, the excessive fines clause was aprtially punitive and therefore unconstitutional.

“But neither case addresses whether the VPA is subject to an excessive fines clause analysis,” said the Court of Appeals. With that, it affirmed the trial court’s imposition of the mandatory $500 VPA.

My opinion? States and municipalities are increasingly relying on fines and fees imposed on defendants by criminal courts to fund their court systems and other government operations. Rather than relying on taxes, state and local governments have opted to extract wealth from their poorest and most vulnerable citizens in the form of “criminal legal debt”—financial sanctions imposed as part of the criminal legal system.

These types of penalties are inherently regressive—that is, they have a greater impact on those who are poorer as compared to those who are richer. And such a financial sanction would be difficult for many Americans to bear. A 2020 report issued by the Federal Reserve found that nearly 40 percent of adults would be unable to immediately cover an unexpected $400 expense.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Avoid resolving your criminal case by paying excessive and/or punitive court fines. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Pandemic Crisis Created a Blueprint to Courts in the Future

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

According to a press release, Washington courts proved during the pandemic they can adapt quickly to new technologies and methods when the need is urgent. In doing so, they also opened a door to building a more accessible and responsive court system.

That is a key conclusion of the Board for Judicial Administration’s Court Recovery Task Force. The Task Force issued its final report after two years of work coordinating emergency actions to keep courts operating safely. The report, “Re-Imagining Our Courts: Pandemic Response and Recovery Lead Courts Into the Future,” compiles the information gathered, the lessons learned, and the task force’s recommendations to the judicial branch on how to maintain the responsiveness and expanded access it forged out of necessity.

“We commit to not going back to business as usual, but instead to incorporate the important lessons we learned together,” wrote Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven González in the report. Justice González served as co-chair of the Task Force with King County Superior Court Judge Judith Ramseyer and Olympia Municipal Court Judge Scott Ahlf.

Some common adaptations adopted during the pandemic included expanded electronic filing and use of electronic signatures, extensive use of remote video technology to conduct proceedings rather than requiring participants to appear in person, adjusting procedures to allow attorneys to take more actions for their clients, providing access to technology for those who lacked it, and much more. Many court rules permitting temporary measures are set to expire, but “a number of these emergency rules proved so effective they were recommended for permanent implementation,” according to the report.

The Task Force was convened in May 2020 by then-Chief Justice Debra Stephens to “share experiences and coordinate responses to the fluid and devastating situation we faced,” according to the report. Shortly after this, a racial justice movement surged nationwide in response to the killing of George Floyd, and Task Force members agreed that a racial justice lens should be used in considering responses and innovations. The Task Force also established Guiding Principles to guide their work and their recommendations.

Experts from throughout the courts, system partners, and community members were recruited to provide insight into needs and potential responses. These experts divided into 11 committees that created such tools as templates for virtual dependency proceedings, facility checklists for off-site safety, best practices for virtual discovery, alternative dispute resolution and pre-trial processes, a virtual court directory with online links to remote hearings, technology principles for the courts, best practices for court websites that are intuitive for users, and more.

In working together to transform court operations and services during the pandemic, “we used our experiences to overcome the daunting challenges we faced,” wrote the Task Force co-chairs in their introduction to the report. “Thankfully, this process also informed a blueprint for our courts to keep evolving into the most efficient, respectful, and just legal system we can become. As usual, from crisis comes opportunity.”

After sharing experiences, actions, and findings of the past two years, the Task Force recommended that courts of the future will:

  • Embrace positive change;
  • Communicate and collaborate with justice partners and local leaders, using the expanded input that led to many effective solutions during the pandemic;
  • Use technology to promote access and efficiency – “Unquestionably, technological advancements offer access to courts and efficiencies never imagined when many Washington courthouses were constructed.”
  • Gather feedback from court users, share findings, and use the information to adapt;
  • Implement new practices and procedures through a racial justice lens;
  • Prioritize the health, safety, and morale of the court work force;
  • Plan for emergencies;
  • Actively work with local and state governments to guarantee stable funding.

The Task Force also listed unfinished work that should be actively pursued such as addressing case backlogs, uniform access to technology for courts, universal broadband for court users, confronting and dismantling institutional racism, and gathering and disseminating meaningful data on use of essential court services.

My opinion? I’m proud that our Washington court systems pivoted so effectively. Still our access to justice is only as good as the means of access possessed by the people it serves. Zoom hearings were an excellent way to conduct court.  Most courts pivoted to conducting motion and evidentiary hearings via Zoom. This platform allowed attorneys to teleconference for meetings, mediations and depositions.

However,  actual court hearings via Zoom presented unique challenges. An estimated 42 million Americans live beyond the reach of broadband service. Also, older people may be unable or unwilling to master videoconferencing technology.  Many criminal defendants are impoverished. They don’t have access to the internet. And many other defendants are illiterate or non-English speakers and cannot navigate these platforms.

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.

Lawsuit: Washington State Patrol Misused Breathalyzer Tests, Misconstrued Readings

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

A recently filed lawsuit claims that the Washington State Patrol official responsible for ensuring the consistency and reliability of breath-test machines violated the rights of drunk driving suspects who later had their licenses revoked.

I discussed this in an earlier blog where a panel of District Court judges had already found breath machine results inadmissible in all Kitsap County cases. The four District Court judges tossed the breath machine results in all drunken-driving cases before the court. The judges also found that Fiona Couper, the WA State Patrol Forensics Lab, “submitted false or misleading testimony by declaration in tens of thousands of cases.” About 81,000 people were tested over the past decade.

THE LAWSUIT

The lawsuit was filed by David LaCross on behalf of plaintiff Nicholas Kori Solis, 29, of Bremerton. The respondent is Ms. Couper. The lawsuit claims that Ms. Couper filed false statements vouching for the legality of the machines and “deprived the plaintiff of due process.”

The lawsuit specifically criticizes Washington’s procedures for revoking drunk driving suspects’ licenses. This process is administrative, not criminal, and the breath test results are admitted to prove the driver was impaired to allow the state to revoke their driver’s license. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages, among other remedies.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Solis was arrested March 19 by a State Patrol trooper who observed him driving 88 mph on Highway 3. In addition to signs of impairment, the trooper tested Solis using the Dräger breath test machine. The machine found Solis had a blood alcohol content reading of about .10. Solis was charged with DUI in Kitsap County District Court. He pleaded not guilty and entered a diversion agreement with prosecutors.

LEGAL ISSUE

The legal issue is whether Washington’s BAC machine accurately processed the results of breath tests. The state limit for blood alcohol content is .08. As the machines perform the required calculations, however, they produce results that contain more than two digits.

State law says the numbers are to be “rounded” but instead the software had been “truncating” them, or cutting off the numbers at a certain decimal point, a fact the judges found Couper knew or should have known.

The practical results of truncation vs. rounding can actually benefit defendants – as rounding a number could result in it increasing and showing a person was perhaps more intoxicated, something that cannot happen when the numbers are simply cut off.

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.