Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense

Jury Selection & Face Masks

Can I Skip Jury Duty Because of Covid Fears? - The New York Times

In State v. Bell, the WA Court of Appeals held that it does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights for jurors to wear face masks at jury selection.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Bell was charged with first degree assault and drive-by shooting for an attack on his coworker. During jury selection, the court denied Bell’s request that jurors wear clear face shields rather than non-transparent face masks covering their noses and mouths. At trial, Mr. Bell was found guilty as charged. He appealed on arguments that the judge’s decision to deny his request for face shields violated his right to select an impartial jury.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals reasoned that starting at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Washington courts adopted a variety of strategies to ensure that trial could continue safely. The Washington State Supreme Court, in an order issued June 18, 2020, required courts to conduct all jury trial proceedings consistent with the most protective applicable public health guidance in their jurisdiction. It also ordered courts to inform jurors of steps the court would take to combat spread of the virus, including “face masking.”

“Washington was not alone in taking these steps to ensure the safety of jurors, court staff, counsel, parties, and the general public during a global health emergency. Many other jurisdictions did the same. Some of those jurisdictions have seen challenges to their pandemic-induced jury selection procedures similar to the one Bell brings. Courts have uniformly rejected these challenges.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bell’s motion. “It did not adopt procedures that no reasonable person could support,” it stated. “The trial court was responsive to Bell’s concerns throughout the selection process.” The Court of Appeals emphasized that Mr. Bell had the option to conduct voir dire online if he wished. This would have permitted access to the potential jurors’ faces, albeit at the cost of some of their body language. “He did not take advantage of this option, instead requesting that jurors wear face shields,”  stated the Court of Appeals.

“Here, the trial court’s decision to require potential jurors to wear face masks may have deprived Bell of some portion of his ability to assess their demeanor. But jurors’ discomfort at being forcibly unmasked in a crowded room around a group of strangers in the midst of a pandemic may have also affected their demeanor and impeded accurate determination of their mood and credibility. And their tone of voice, body language, eyes, and other aspects of their demeanor remained as accessible as they normally would have been.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, during a pandemic, it required jurors to wear face masks during jury selection.

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.

“Tranq”: The Skin-Rotting Street Drug Infiltrating Big Cities

Skin-rotting drug 'tranq' infiltrates big cities: 'Zombifying bodies'

Journalist Brooke Kato reports in the New York Post that Xylazineis wreaking havoc in major cities across the country with its devastating effects.  Otherwise known as “Tranq,” it can literally rot the user’s skin.

The substance, which seemed to first appear in Philadelphia before migrating west to San Francisco and Los Angeles, was used for cutting heroin. Most recently, it has been discovered in fentanyl and other illicit drugs. While approved by the Food and Drug Administration for veterinary use, Xylazine, a non-opioid, is not safe for humans. Those who overdose on the drug do not respond to naloxone, or Narcan, the most common overdose reversal treatment.

Xylazine causes sedative-like symptoms, such as excessive sleepiness and respiratory depression. It also causes and inflames raw wounds that can become severe and spread rapidly with repeated exposure. The crusty ulcerations, which can become dead skin called eschar, can result in amputation if left untreated. Because it is not listed as a controlled substance for animals or humans, “tranq” lands in a confusing and horrifying gray area — and hospitals rarely test for it with routine toxicology screenings.

The city of Philadelphia reported that 90% of lab-tested dope samples from 2021 contained xylazine, which can increase the risk of overdose when combined with other illicit substances.

But the lethal combination of substances is what gives xylazine its appeal — the high of the opioid, such as fentanyl, is extended with the help of “tranq.” People with substance use disorders who get hooked on the zombifying drug believe the emerging substance killed “any kind of joy” that came with getting high. The worrying “tranq” trend comes as the New York City Department of Health reported that 2,668 New Yorkers died of overdoses in 2021. Experts warn that xylazine could worsen the ongoing drug epidemic.

According to a 2022 report, xylazine has been discovered in 36 states. In New York City alone, the drug was found in 25% of samples, per the Times. Earlier this month, the San Francisco Department of Health announced that low levels of xylazine were found in the systems of four people who overdosed, suggesting that the substance can be hidden in drugs unbeknownst to the users.

The pressures from life are real. Building careers, buying homes, getting married, having kids, and trying to do it all well comes with lots of pressure. COVID-19 has magnified the stress. Some turn to drugs to cope. However, just because some drugs are legal to possess doesn’t mean they are less dangerous.

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.

SB 5467 Proposes Drug Possession Charges As Dismissable Misdemeanors

Drug possession would be reclassified as felony under Senate bill | king5.com

This legislative session, lawmakers are split over how to respond to the state Supreme Court’s Blake decision. That ruling struck down the state’s felony drug possession law. It essentially invalidating decades of criminal convictions and related penalties, like orders to pay restitution for such violations.

SB 5467 would make possession a misdemeanor and order completion of treatment to overturn the conviction and dismiss charges. If the person willfully abandons or rejects treatment, then a 45-day jail sentence would be imposed.

SB 5467, recently heard in committee, would provide an effective solution to the rampant problem of public drug use. This is an outside-the-box policy idea that is treatment-forward but with accountability for failure to undergo treatment. Many mayors, community members and police officers have personally expressed that the current system of essentially recommending to users that they go to treatment, without any charges filed or accountability applied, is not working. This bill provides a better path.

Under this bill, a person could be charged with a gross misdemeanor if they possess illegal drugs. If the person completes the substance use disorder treatment prior to their conviction being entered, the court would be required to dismiss the charge. If a conviction is entered, the court could not sentence to jail but would order the person to undergo treatment based on their treatment needs. If the person completes the treatment, the conviction would be overturned and dismissed.

If the person willfully abandons treatment or demonstrates a consistent failure to engage in treatment, however, the court would be required to impose at least 45 days of jail.

The requirement for treatment would be subject to the availability of treatment and the availability of funding for it. If treatment or funding were not available, the court would not be allowed to sanction the person with jail time for noncompliance.

This bipartisan bill has been co-sponsored by twelve Democratic and four Republican senators.

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.

Legislature Considers Banning At-Home Sexual Assault Evidence Kits

MeToo Kit, a DIY rape test, is a bad idea, says Michigan AG Dana Nessel

Seattle Times journalistreports that Washington lawmakers are considering a bipartisan bill prohibiting the sale of over-the-counter sexual assault kits. Apparently, these kits offer false hope and can thwart investigations and prosecutions. They are also not admissible in court.

“I just don’t think people should profit on trauma . . . I think that their heart was probably in the right place in the beginning … but at the end of the day, it’s my job as a legislator to protect people in the state.” ~Rep. Gina Mosbrucker, R-Goldendale, one of the bill sponsors.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson last year issued a cease-and-desist letter requiring Leda Health to stop distributing its kits. In the letter, Ferguson’s office said the kits violate the state Consumer Protection Act, which bans unfair or deceptive practices. The letter quotes Leda Health’s website, which at the time said “[we] believe though that courts should admit our kit results, especially if all our protocols are followed.” The terms and conditions on the company site said its products and information are not substitutes for professional advice. Moreover, the company “cannot guarantee” evidence collected will be admitted in court.

King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Emily Petersen said her main concern is the kits are being advertised as a way to collect evidence.

“The last thing we want is for a victim or survivor to decide to report a rape or a sexual assault, and only to find out that the evidence that they collected, stored and that they relied on to be admissible is not in fact, admissible.” ~King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Emily Petersen

Information from at-home kits cannot be uploaded to CODIS, the federal DNA database that tracks DNA samples of those convicted of felonies, including sexual assault and rape.

New York issued a cease-and-desist letter in 2019 to two companies selling at-home kits, Preserve Group and #MeToo Kits Company, which would later become Leda Health. The letter said the companies were misleading consumers by saying evidence collected with these kits could be used in court.

States including MichiganOklahomaDelawareHawaiiNew MexicoNorth Carolina and Virginia, as well as Washington, D.C., have issued warnings against buying any at-home sexual assault kits. And legislation similar to Washington’s bill to ban these kits stalled last year in Utah.

My opinion? These products are not admissible in court. Rape evidence must be collected by a specially trained nurse using specific tools. Also, collecting evidence must adhere to a chain of custody to maintain its integrity for use in court. The chain must include how the evidence was collected, who else had access to it and what happened to the evidence after.

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.

Self-Harming Juror Removed From Deliberations

Why Do People Self-Harm? | Lifeskills South Florida

In State v. Norman, the WA Supreme Court held that it was proper for a trial judge to dismiss a frustrated juror who engaged in self-harm during deliberations. The juror’s punching himself in the face raised legitimate concerns about his ability to deliberate.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Norman was tried before a jury on first degree burglary and second degree assault. The jury began deliberating at lunchtime. After only a few hours of deliberation, the jury pounded on the door and told court staff they were breaking for the evening. Over half of the jurors left the room before the court clerk arrived. The clerk discovered that during deliberations, juror 9 became overwhelmed and punched himself in the face. After several jurors expressed concern, the trial court questioned juror 9, who answered as follows:

“So yesterday, discussions became very heated, and . . . there were a number of people who had disagreements with me. This caused raising of voices, and I became . . . somewhat overwhelmed. I felt somewhat like—a little bit attacked, and I reacted with an emotional outburst of punching myself in the face. That has happened in the past when I get into high-stress situations. I have self-harmed in the past, but it hasn’t happened in a number of years. That being said, I still consider myself of sound mind and ability to continue going forward with this case.” ~Juror 9

The trial judge spoke to two other juros. They expressed concern over whether they could reach a verdict with juror 9. For example, juror 2 said she felt intimidated by juror 9’s actions. And according to juror 8, juror 9 was “in control of himself” for “80 percent of the day,.” Unfortunately, in the remaining time he “punched himself in the face a couple times and grabbed his hair” in reaction to contentious discussions.

The trial judge dismissed juror 9 for cause.

The reconstituted jury found Norman guilty of one of two counts. The Court of Appeals reversed Norman’s conviction, holding juror 9’s dismissal was improper under the heightened evidentiary standard set forth in State v. Elmore. On appeal, the WA Supreme Court decided the specific issue of whether the trial court abuse its discretion in dismissing juror 9.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Owens wrote the majority opinion. She began by saying trial judges have a continuous obligation to excuse a juror who has manifested unfitness. This can happen if a juror manifests bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by reason of conduct or practices incompatible with proper and efficient jury service. This obligation implicates a defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury and their right to a unanimous jury verdict.

Next, Justice Owens addressed how the Court of Appeals (COA) reversed Norman’s conviction.  In short, the COA held juror 9’s dismissal was improper under the evidentiary standard set forth in State v. Elmore. Justice Owens had some choice words:

“But the Elmore standard applies only where a juror is accused of nullification, refusing to follow the law, or refusing to deliberate. As there was no such accusation here, and the trial court found juror 9’s conduct likely affected the jury’s process of deliberating freely, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing juror 9.” ~Justice Owens, WA Supreme Court

Consequently, the WA Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing juror 9. His conduct could have impacted the jury’s ability to reach a unanimous verdict. The heightened evidentiary standard does not apply to juror 9’s dismissal because he was not accused of nullification, refusing to deliberate, or refusing to follow the law. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed Norman’s conviction.

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.

High Court Decides Barring People With DV Restraining Orders From Having Guns Is Unconstitutional

5th Circuit Overturns Law that Kept Guns Away from Domestic Abusers

CNN reports that a federal court held unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction. Last year, the Supreme Court expanded Second Amendment rights in New York v. Bruen.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

The court’s opinion was written by Judge Cory Todd Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He was joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones and Judge James Ho, another Trump appointee who also wrote a concurrence.

The 5th Circuit panel was not persuaded by the historical parallels put forward by the US Justice Department, which was defending the conviction of a person who possessed a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order that had been imposed after he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

The Justice Department argued that the domestic violence law was analogous to 17th-and 18th century regulations that disarmed “dangerous” persons.

“The purpose of these ‘dangerousness’ laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another,” the 5th Circuit opinion read. “Therefore, laws disarming ‘dangerous’ classes of people are not ‘relevantly similar'” to “serve as historical analogues.” ~5th Circuit Judge Cory Todd Wilson

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a CNN inquiry. If the 5th Circuit’s ruling is appealed, it could set up another showdown over gun rights at the Supreme Court.

The defendant challenging his conviction, Zackey Rahimi, had lost in an earlier round before the 5th Circuit, before the Supreme Court issued its Bruen ruling last year. The previous 5th Circuit opinion was withdrawn after the Bruen decision was handed down, and the appeals court did another round of briefing directed at the new test.

My opinion? I don’t see similar rulings coming from our 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit’s federal jurisdiction is fairly liberal, and includes the State of Washington.

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.

“Cold-Hearted”

Recording Your Spouse – A Preliminary Guide | Goranson Bain

In  State v. Fleeks, No. 82911-4-I (January 23, 2023), the WA Court of Appeals held that a recorded police interrogation – where the detective referred to the defendant as being “cold-hearted” – was improperly admitted opinion testimony.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Nineteen-year-old Mr. Fleeks often sold drugs on the streets of Seattle to make money. On December 3, 2018, Fleeks was in the Pioneer Square neighborhood of Seattle selling drugs. After Fleeks received a text message from an unknown number, one of Fleeks’s regular customers approached him and told him the text message was from Mr. George who wanted to buy some crack cocaine. Fleeks met George and sold him a small amount of crack cocaine.

Unfortunately, a confrontation took place. As a result, George died from a gunshot wound inflicted from Fleeks.

After arrest, the police interviewed Fleeks and he denied any connection with George’s death. When the police showed Fleeks surveillance footage, he continued to deny being the person in the footage. Detective Cooper continued to ask Fleeks to explain the encounter and shooting. Detective Cooper asked whether George was “fucking with you or . . . something like that?” Fleeks continued to deny any involvement. Detective Cooper made the following comment:

“Do you wanna explain anything to me? This, this is probably your last chance to try to make yourself not look so cold-hearted and stuff like that. We have witnesses that put you there, that identified you there. We have those pictures, that’s off a video, dude . . . I, I mean you’re 19 . . . was there an argument was there a disturbance, a fight, anything . . . so do you wanna explain what happened?”

The State charged Fleeks with one count of murder in the second degree, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree.

At trial, Fleeks raised self-defense. The State offered the police interview recording as evidence to prove its case. Defense counsel objected to the jury hearing the interview recording. However, the judge allowed the jury to review the transcript from a portion of the police interview with Fleeks. The jury watched the interview, including the police detective referred to Fleeks as “cold-hearted.”

Robert Fleeks Jr. was convicted as charged. He appealled his conviction on numerous issues. One issue was whether the trial judge improperly allowed opinion evidence of the police detective saying Fleeks was “cold-hearted.”

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals agreed with Fleeks that the officer’s opinion testimony was improper.

The Court reasoned that “Opinion Testimony” is testimony that is “based on one’s belief or idea rather than on direct knowledge of the facts at issue.” Furthermore, witnesses may not testify in the form of opinions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Opinions on guilt are improper because they impede the jury’s ability to make an independent determination of the facts. And testimony given by police officers possess an aura of reliability that make them particularly problematic.

“Testimony that is not a direct comment on the defendant’s guilt or on the veracity of a witness, is otherwise helpful to the jury, and is based on inferences from the evidence, is not improper opinion testimony. Opinion testimony is improper when it comments on the veracity or intent of a witness, tells the jury what decision to reach, or leaves no other conclusion but that a defendant is guilty.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Fleeks argued that the comment was an improper opinion of guilt, specifically, referring to Fleeks as “cold-hearted.” Conversely, the State argued that Detective Cooper was referring to his casual demeanor and unwillingness to cooperate, in conflict with Fleeks’s claim of self-defense. The trial court found the interview admissible:

“We disagree with the trial court. While Detective Cooper’s statement is an observation that Fleeks did not appear remorseful, it improperly commented on Fleeks’s intent and effectually directed the jury to not believe Fleeks’s self-defense theory. Detective Cooper’s opinion that Fleeks should make himself ‘look not so cold-hearted’ could easily appear to the jury as a belief that Fleeks was guilty of murder, not acting in self-defense. This testimony could interfere with the jury’s ability to determine every fact beyond a reasonable doubt. ~WA Court of Appeals

Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed Fleeks’s conviction on other grounds and remand for a new trial with instructions that the detective’s testimony should be redacted to exclude the “cold-hearted” statement.

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.

Traffic Fatalities Reach High in 2022

WTSC: Traffic deaths in Washington reach 20-year high – KIRO 7 News Seattle

Preliminary reports from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) showed 745 people were killed in crashes in 2022. Apparently, the number of people killed on Washington roads has now reached levels the state hasn’t seen in decades.

The rate of the year-over-year increase is something the commission said it hasn’t seen since the 1970s.

Impairment by drugs and alcohol is involved in more than half of fatal crashes. According to a December 2022 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “Alcohol-involved crashes resulted in 14,219 fatalities, 497,000 nonfatal injuries, and $68.9 billion in economic costs in 2019….”

“During 2017 through 2021, 32 percent of fatal crashes in Washington involved alcohol positive drivers,” said WTSC Director Shelly Baldwin. “Alcohol impairment, whether alone or in combination with other drugs, continues to be a leading risk factor in traffic fatalities.”

Health and safety experts have long advocated for states to reduce the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) per se limit for DUI from 0.08 to 0.05 percent. The state of Utah and more than 100 countries have set BAC limits at 0.05 percent or less. The Washington Legislature is currently considering Senate Bill 5002, which would change the state’s limit to 0.05.

“The goal of this bill is not to increase the number of DUI arrests but to remind and encourage people to avoid driving after drinking and thereby save lives. This was the outcome in Utah, and we expect a similar impact in Washington State.” ~Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste.

At a BAC of 0.05 percent, a driver has reduced coordination and ability to track moving objects, difficulty steering, and delayed response to emergency driving situations. “The evidence is clear that a driver’s ability to drive safely and react to unexpected traffic conditions is affected when their BAC reaches 0.05 percent,” Baldwin said.

If passed, the legislation would go into effect on July 1, 2023.

The WTSC reminds all people in Washington that there are simple things we can do to prevent impaired driving like planning ahead for a sober ride home if you will be out drinking. Friends and loved ones can help to prevent DUIs by being a sober designated driver, calling a rideshare, or offering a place to sleep.

WTSC analysis shows impaired drivers are more likely to speed and less likely to wear seat belts. These factors increase crash risk and are more likely to result in death.

If passed, the legislation would go into effect on July 1, 2023. There’s also growing momentum for an update to the “Cooper Jones Act.” This legislation requires drivers involved in serious or deadly crashes to have their license re-examined.

Many factors lead to traffic fatalities. Increasing public safety is almost always a step in the right direction.  However, please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with DUI, Vehicular Assault any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Proposed Bills Seek to Change Washington’s Police Pursuit Law

Washington police report rise in indifference after no-pursuit law - FISM TV

Lawmakers will soon be considering proposals to change Washington’s law that restricts police pursuits. The three legislative proposals – HB 1053SB 5352, and HB1363 – would all change the law to remove language specifying the types of offenses for which an officer can initiate a pursuit.

The bills repeal a 2021 reform that limited officers to only chasing cars where the suspect is accused of a violent offense, a sex offense, or where the officer suspects DUI.

Law enforcement leaders in Washington have said the new law is emboldening criminals to flee from officers with the belief that they will not be pursued.

“I have never seen criminals as emboldened as they are now,” said Steve Strachan, the Executive Director of the Washington Association of Sheriff’s and Police Chiefs (WASPC). The WASPC sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to undo the 2021 reforms. In short the letter says that offenders have been given the advantage over victims of crimes.

“Recent policies restricting pursuits made driving a car a ‘get out of jail free’ card and creates conditions that empower criminals, jeopardize public safety, and diminishes the rule of law in Washington. We can fix the pursuit law to fall in line with Washington State’s duty of care standards and enable more discretion in engaging in police vehicle pursuits in a manner that offers a balance between the risk of the pursuit versus the reasons(s) for the pursuit. Severe prohibitions on vehicular pursuits need to be reversed.” ~WASPC Letter to Lawmakers.

Supporters of the 2021 reforms, however, argue pursuits present too much of a danger and want the law left alone.

The Washington Coalition for Police Accountability (WCPA) wrote a letter to lawmakers on Tuesday urging them to leave the law as is.

“We sincerely believe that if this law is rolled back, there will be a sharp increase of fatalities of bystanders and passengers. That is a high cost, is not necessary, and the policy change cannot be explained or justified.” ~WCPA

Governor Jay Inslee said last week he is open to changes in the state’s pursuit laws, but pushed back on the idea that the 2021 reform is responsible for an increase in crime.

“It’s a myth that the police accountability laws have caused some crime rave – the fact is crime has gone up across the United States. So the fact that the legislature passed some police accountability, rightfully so, I think it hasn’t caused crime to go up in New Jersey or Minnesota. This is not the reason we’re experiencing some additional crime in our in our state. It is a national phenomena,” ~Governor Jay Inslee.

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.

Washington is the Second-Worst State to Drive

See Where Washington Ranks Among The Worst States To Drive In | Q103.3

Apparently, Washington State is one of the worst states in the U.S. to drive in, according to a new report. Personal finance website WalletHub took a look at all 50 states to determine which are the best – and the worst – to drive in. Unfortunately, Washington State landed second from last on the list.

Traffic, road conditions and the cost of vehicle maintenance are all things that can make drivers nervous. These conditions vary across states for a variety of reasons including population, weather and government investments.

THE RANKING/GRADING CRITERIA.

To rank the states, WalletHub compared them across four key dimensions: 1. Cost of ownership and maintenance, 2. Traffic and infrastructure, 3. Safety and 4. Access to vehicles and maintenance.

Researchers then broke those dimensions down into 31 relevant metrics, including things like average gas prices, the share of rush-hour traffic congestion, number of days with precipitation, road quality, traffic fatality rate, car theft rate and auto-repair shops per capita.

Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the best for drivers. WalletHub determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score.

THE RESULTS: WA STATE RANKS SECOND-TO-LAST IN WORST STATES TO DRIVE IN.

When the scores were determined, WalletHub’s report shows that Washington ranked 49th overall among 50 states, making it the second-worst state to drive in. The state ranked 47th among all states for its cost of vehicle ownership and maintenance and 39th among states for traffic and infrastructure. Both scores contributed greatly to the state finishing so low on the list.

The only state worse to drive in than Washington, according to the report, is Hawaii.

In the report, WalletHub asked experts how states can reduce the number of traffic fatalities. Dr. Arman Sargolzaei, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Southern Florida said the vast majority of U.S. traffic accidents are entirely or partially due to human error.

“A shift in responsibilities from the human driver to self-driving cars can potentially reduce accidents,” ~Dr. Arman Sargolzaei.

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.


Alexander F. Ransom

Attorney at Law
Criminal Defense Lawyer

119 North Commercial St.
Suite #1420
Bellingham, WA 98225

117 North 1st Street
Suite #27
Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: (360) 746-2642
Fax: (360) 746-2949

Consultation Request

Footer Consultation Request

Copyright 2024 Law Offices of Alex Ransom, PLLC   |   Sitemap   |   Website Design by Peter James Web Design Studio
error: Content is protected !!