Tag Archives: Skagit County Criminal Defense Attorney

State v. Ollivier: What Happens When the Defense Attorney Wants a Continuance and the Defendant Doesn’t?

Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Pretrial Investigations, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

How to Write a Letter for Not Being Able to Attend Court

In State v. Ollivier, the WA Supremes held that a defendant’s speedy trial rights were NOT violated when a defendant’s attorney requested the continuance over the objection of his client. The facts were such that the defendant, Ollivier, was charged with Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexual Activity. The depictions involved the use of the defendant’s computer. Ollivier was arraigned on April 18, 2007. His case went pending for 5 years before finally going to trial.

There were, in total, 22 continuances. The reasons for the continuances varied: defense counsel sought most of the continuances to allow time for investigation, obtain expert review of computer content, obtain discovery material from the Washington State Department of Corrections and the King County Sheriff’s Office, and because of a new investigator on the case.

Some of the requested continuances mentioned circumstances involving the State and some motions were joined by the State. At one point, an arresting officer resigned. Consequently, a continuance was requested to allow time to investigate her misconducts.

The Court reasoned that, in order to establish that multiple continuances of Ollivier’s trial dates violated his constitutional right to trial, a defendant must establish actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense. Further, prejudice will only be presumed in extremely unusual cases in which the post-indictment delay lasted at least five years or the government was responsible for the delay by virtue of something beyond simple negligence.

Finally, the Court stated the following: “Nearly all of the continuances were sought so that defense counsel could be prepared to defend. This is an extremely important aspect of the balancing and leads us to conclude that the length of delay was reasonably necessary for defense preparation and weighs against the defendant.”

My opinion? I agree with the WA Supremes. I’ve conducted MANY jury trials in my career, and shall probably conduct many more. Although few, my trial losses typically happen when clients insist on going to trial too early, and usually against my advice.

It’s important for clients and attorneys to have frank discussions of how long it will take to resolve the case. This decision usually depends on whether the client wants to resolve the case or go to trial. And THAT decision usually rests on the evidence contained within witnesses, police reports, forensics, etc. These decisions are not easy. It takes an exorbitant amount of time, preparation and patience for all parties to fashion and execute a successful trial defense. But as the old saying goes, “Cooler heads will prevail.”

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

State v. Green: When Inventory Searches Become Overbroad

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

Vehicle Inventory Search - Daigle Law Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Winter DUI Emphasis Patrols to Begin Again

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

DUI Emphasis Patrols this summer (click to read) - Paul Hanson

Be aware, all . . .

All along the I-5 corridor from Canada to Mexico, law enforcement agencies begin emphasis enforcement beginning on Wednesday November 27, 2013.

The goal is to prevent even a single death on I-5 during the Thanksgiving weekend.   To that end, Washington, Oregon, and California law enforcement are combining forces this week to keep the road safe from impaired drivers.  Spread the word!

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.

More DUI Drivers Are Testing Positive for Marijuana

Blood Test, Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Marijuana DUI: How Long Does Marijuana Stay in Your System | Leyba Defense Seattle

According to new data released from the Washington State Patrol, more drivers have been testing positive for marijuana since Washington legalized the drug last year.

In the first six months of 2013, 745 people tested positive for marijuana. Typically, there are about 1,000 positive pot tests on drivers in a full year. But this doesn’t necessarily mean there’s been a rash of people driving high, says patrol spokesman Bob Calkins. Well, then what’s the reason?

“We’re testing blood we didn’t test before,” he said.

In addition, the overall number of impaired-driving cases handled by the patrol doesn’t appear to have risen this year, and should be on track to hit the rough annual average of 20,000 – which could mean some people are using marijuana instead of alcohol before getting behind the wheel, Calkins said.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy

Last year, Washington and Colorado voters legalized the recreational use of marijuana by adults over 21. Both states have set a legal limit of 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood for drivers; anything above that is a per se violation of impaired driving laws, similar to blowing 0.08 or above on an alcohol breath test. The violation is generally a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail — and at least one day in custody for a first offense.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy

Of the 745 people who tested positive for marijuana in the first half of this year, the State Patrol says a slight majority tested above the legal limit. The exact number: 420. It’s a curious coincidence, since “420” is an old slang term for marijuana.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/11/22/3331209/more-drivers-testing-positive.html#storylink=cpy

My opinion? If they can, they will. Meaning, if the police can test your for blood for marijuana, they will. As I predicted in earlier blogs, the passage of I-502 gives police more search authority. If police think you’re high, they’ll request a blood test. If you refuse, they’ll get a warrant for your blood and/or enter a “Refusal” DUI.

The data is predictable. What I’m seeing happen, unfortunately, is the police seeking blood tests on my clients who are not smoking marijuana. Making matters worse, I’m seeing judges impose Ignition Interlock Devices as a condition of pretrial release, and before clients are convicted of ANYTHING!

There’s something wrong with that. Just saying.

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

State v. Quaale: Mistrials Happen When Police Officers Offer Opinion Testimony

Constitutional Rights, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Pushback on Capitol Police chief testimony continues - Roll Call

In State v. Quaale, the WA Court of Appeals wrote an excellent opinion on the issue of whether a defendant’s right to a fair trial was violated when the Prosecutor invited objectionable testimony from the officer.

The defendant was charged with Eluding Police and DUI. At trial, the Trooper  was asked to describe the extent of his experience, explain the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and the procedure for testing it, and tell the jury about his administration of the test to the defendant. The prosecutor also asked, “In this case, based on the HGN test alone, did you form an opinion based on your training and experience as to whether or not the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired?”

Rightfully, the defendant’s lawyer immediately objected that the Trooper was being asked to provide an opinion on the ultimate issue determining guilt. The objection was overruled. The Trooper answered, “Absolutely. There was no doubt he was impaired.”

The Court of Appeals reasoned that impermissible testimony regarding the defendant’s guilt may be reversible error because such evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial, which includes independent determination of the facts by the jury. Here, and even where expert testimony is helpful to the jury, it is unnecessary for a witness to express belief that certain facts or findings lead to a conclusion of guilt. Opinion testimony should be avoided if the information can be presented in such a way that the jury can draw its own conclusions.

 My opinion? The defense attorney was very smart to object to the Officer’s opinion testimony and preserve the issue for appeal. Opinion testimony should NEVER be allowed at trial. The State’s witnesses – including officers – may only testify to their observations. They are not expert witnesses who can offer opinions.

Before trial, I routinely draft and argue motions in limine expressly requesting the judge to instruct the Prosecutor to not ask questions instructing witnesses/officers to provide opinion testimony. These motions strengthen a standing objection and help preserve legal issues for appeal when they are violated. Great opinion.

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

The Brass Tacks Part II: Increased Penalties for DUI if Child Under 16 In Vehicle

Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, Pretrial Investigations, Washington State Patrol, , ,

What Happens If You Get a DUI

Here’s a summary of more changes that went into effect on September 28, 2013 regarding our ever-increasing and ever-punitive DUI laws. The changes included changes to RCW 46.61.5055 that increase DUI penalties if there was a passenger under 16 in the car. There’s also an increase in mandatory jail for repeat offenders. Here is what is NOW subsection 6 of RCW 46.61.5055: 

 

(6) If a person who is convicted of a violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 committed the offense while a passenger under the age of sixteen was in the vehicle, the court shall:

 

(a) Order the use of an ignition interlock or other device for an additional six months;

 

(b) In any case in which the person has no prior offenses within seven years, and except as provided in RCW 46.61.502(6) or 46.61.504(6), order an additional twenty-four hours of imprisonment and a fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars. One thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended unless the court finds the offender to be indigent;

 

(c) In any case in which the person has one prior offense within seven years, and except as provided in RCW 46.61.502(6) or 46.61.504(6), order an additional five days of imprisonment and a fine of not less than two thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars. One thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended unless the court finds the offender to be indigent;

 

(d) In any case in which the person has two or three prior offenses within seven years, and except as provided in RCW 46.61.502(6) or 46.61.504(6), order an additional ten days of imprisonment and a fine of not less than three thousand dollars and not more than ten thousand dollars. One thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended unless the court finds the offender to be indigent.

 

RCW § 46.61.5055 (6).

 

My opinion? The passage of I-502 has simultaneously loosened Washington’s Drug Laws and enhanced Washington’s DUI laws. Period.

 

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 Brass Tacks: A Look at How Courts Are Automatically Imposing Ignition Interlock Devices ASAP

Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

California's Ignition Interlock Law Takes Effect Jan. 1 -- Occupational Health & Safety

Recently, a client hired me to represent him on a new DUI charge. Unfortunately, this client already has a prior DUI conviction within 7 years. We met at my office. He showed me his paperwork – arraignment dates, property seizures, BAC ticket, etc. – and also showed me a document I haven’t yet seen in my years of practice.

It was a Court Order signed by the judge titled, “IGNITION INTERLOCK RULES.”

I knew I’d eventually see this document, sooner or later. Under the recent passage of RCW 46.20.740 and RCW 46.20.385 the COURTS – and NOT the DOL – shall order any person convicted of an alcohol-related violation to apply for an ignition interlock driver’s license and to have a functioning ignition interlock device installed on all motor vehicles operated by the person.

The court may also order the installation of an interlock device for a driver that is convicted of Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving within 7 years of an alcohol related driving offense. An ignition interlock may be required for Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving without a prior DUI conviction. Finally, under the law, an ignition interlock device will be required for any driver convicted of vehicular homicide while driving under the influence.

This document was proof that the Courts are diligently following the passage of these laws. It read the following, ver batim:

* The defendant shall not operate a motor vehicle unless the defendant has a valid driver’s license and insurance;

* Once the defendant has a valid driver’s license and insurance, the defendant shall only operate a motor vehicle equipped with a functioning ignition interlock breath alcohol device while on pretrial;

* The defendant shall have an ignition interlock breath alcohol device installed by a Washington State Patrol certified ignition interlock breath alcohol device vendor on any motor vehicle the defendant will operate;

* The defendant shall bear the cost of installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock breath alcohol device and show proof of installation of the ignition interlock to the court;

* Any ignition interlock breath alcohol device installed pursuant to this order shall be monitored by the installer, and a report filed with the court every sixty (60) days;

* The defendant shall not adjust, tamper with, remove, or circumvent – (1) any ignition interlock breath alcohol device, (2) the wiring of any ignition interlock breath alcohol device, or (3) the ignition system of any vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock breath alcohol device. Any violation or tampering must be reported to the court by the ignition interlock breath alcohol device vendor, and;

* The ignition interlock breath alcohol device shall have certain minimum settings.

My opinion? Although I understand the need for community safety, it appears these new requirements are unconstitutional and overbearing in some cases. The government assumes people are guilty before they even go to trial. Indeed, this particular client showed NO signs of alcohol intoxication in his police reports. Police contacted him because someone complained of his driving.

After pulling him over, the police had no proof whatsoever that he was under the influence of alcohol, and instead believed he was under the influence of drugs. It’s going to take WEEKS to get his blood test back. In the meantime, he must drive around with an Ignition Interlock Device on his vehicle. Unfair.

If you’re facing a similar situation please contact a qualified attorney. I, for one, look forward to fighting this case tooth and nail and removing the Ignition Interlock Device from my client’s vehicle!

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

State v. Saintcalle: The WA Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on Race Discrimination in Our Criminal Justice System

Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Race & Law, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

That a man was tried six times for the same crime is remarkable enough.

In State v. Saintcalle, the WA Supreme Court addressed an interesting case regarding peremptory strikes against potential black jurors.

The defendant Kirk Saintcalle, a black man, was charged with Felony Murder in the First Degree. At trial, the State’s prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only black person in the jury pool. He was found guilty by a jury. On appeal, Saintcalle claimed the strike was racially motivated in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

The WA Supreme Court disagreed and agreed with Saintcalle. They disagreed with Saintcalle to the extent that the Prosecutor’s peremptory striking of the only African-American juror in this case did not give rise to a Batson violation. However, the majority agreed that Washington’s Batson procedures were not strong enough to effectively combat race discrimination in the selection of juries.

Justice Wiggins also stated our Batson procedures must change so as to deal with unconscious, institutional, or unintentional racism, however, “[T]his is not the case in which to announce a new standard.” Saintcalle’s conviction was upheld.

Chief Justice Madsen’s concurrence, which was signed by Justice Jim Johnson, also expressed her concern about racial discrimination during jury selection. She would not adjust Batson or do away with peremptory challenges in an attempt to address nonpurposeful discrimination based on race during jury selection. Chief Justice Madsen also took issue with Justice Wiggins’ charts and graphs that compared the prosecutor’s questioning of the African-American juror to the prosecutor’s questioning of other jurors.

Justice Stephens’ concurrence, which was signed by Justices Fairhurst and Charles Johnson, “sound[s] a note of restraint amidst the enthusiasm to craft a new solution to the problem of the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.”

Justice González’s concurrence calls for the immediate abolishment of peremptory challenges.

Justice Chambers dissented.

My opinion? I’ve heard that getting attorneys to agree to something – and judges, for that matter – is akin to trying to herd cats. Clearly, State v. Saintcalle  captures the “herding cats” imagery. The smattering of different opinions by our justices captures the complexity of racism in our judicial system. Some see it.  Some don’t. Others call it something else.

Although I’m saddened the WA Supremes passed on an opportunity to capture a racist act and make an example of it, I’m happy they said Washington needs to have stronger procedures and standards in place to stop these situations from happening again. Perhaps jury pools should intentionally include more minority jurors. Who knows? The solution, it seems, is potentially as multi-layered as the problem itself.

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.

Drug Recognition Experts: The Newly Trained Weapon In Detecting Drug DUI

Blood Test, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Drug-recognition experts gain importance as pot DUIs increase – San Bernardino Sun

Think you can fool the cops? Don’t even try. Nowadays, Drug-Recognition Experts – nicknamed, “DRE’s” – are law enforcement’s answer to Initiative 502 and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that officers must have a warrant for a drug test. They are trained to identify symptoms of impairment from alcohol and a variety of drugs.

Although Initiative 502 legalized recreational marijuana use in Washington last year, drivers still face a DUI charge if they’re too high to drive. State law limits a person’s BAC levels to 5 nanograms of THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, per milliliter of whole blood.

A blood test is the quickest way to indicate whether someone has these levels.  Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that officers must have a warrant to obtain blood samples. And since most DUI stops happen late at night, when judges aren’t available, officers must determine on the scene whether the driver is intoxicated and/or impaired.

This is where the DRE come in. These are police officers who receive two weeks of training on detecting impaired drivers and analyzing their behavior for the presence of alcohol or drugs. Typically, a DRE is called to investigate major collisions, especially those involving fatalities, and any in which police officers suspect drug impairment beyond alcohol. Their observations help prosecutors in “Drug DUI” cases.

The two-week course is rigorous. It includes lectures, quizzes and comprehensive tests.  Training officers must also perform six field-sobriety tests and observe another six by their colleagues. They’ll write reports for all 12 tests, which are reviewed and signed by an observing instructor. After the course is completed, each officer must perform four evaluations in front of an instructor every two years to maintain DRE status.

Calculating the standard filed sobriety tests performed on intoxicated drivers is nothing new to the majority of police officers. Most often, an impaired driver’s eyes are the giveaway. In one part of the test – called the “Horizontal gaze Nystagmus Test” – a driver must follow a pen-sized light left and right without turning his or her head. If the driver is impaired, the eyes often have trouble tracking the light, or don’t dilate properly.

A subsequent recital of the alphabet isn’t just a memory test: It can give way to slurring the letters “L-M-N-O-P” if the speaker has been drinking or doing drugs. And most people say the letters quickly, all in one or two big exhaled breaths that can carry the telltale scents of alcohol or marijuana.

The walk-and-turn, counting backward, standing on one leg, and other tests give officers a clear picture of the person’s motor skills. The test ends with a Breathalyzer.

DREs focus on the more “subtle” signs in drivers while on patrol. They look for a wide turn, crossing the line, taking an extra second or two to realize the light is green, etc.

My opinion? Contact an attorney if you’re pulled over. Just as the DRE’s are trained to observe whether someone is high on drugs when driving, a competent attorney can analyze whether the stop was lawful, whether there was enough evidence to arrest for Drug DUI, whether the nanogram levels were active or inactive, etc. Don’t allow the State’s “experts” to convince judges and prosecutors that you were high when, in fact, you may not have been.

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.

Seafair 2013 Brought Less Arrests for Boating Under the Influence.

Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Washington's New Boating Under the Influence 'Implied Consent' Law

The numbers are out: 34 people were cited for boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BUI) during the Seafair events on Lake Washington this weekend. This shows a drop of more than 40 percent from last year’s Seafair BUI total, which was 61.

Matching the decrease, however, was the fact that Seafair’s ticket sales also decreased dramatically. Seafair officials said that since it’s an open festival, exact numbers weren’t available, but ticket sales at the log boom were down 20 percent.

Police contacted 473 boats, down 32 percent from last year’s event, and doled out 42 citations for speeding or unsafe lane changes, among other infractions. Medical assistance was called for four boaters. Of those contacted, 15 refused breath tests. Nowadays, refusing a breath test carries a fine of $2,050.

Of the 34 people charged with BUIs, four were booked and taken to jail. Others were pulled over and told to have someone come pick them up. Four search warrants were served for blood samples and one for search of a vessel resulted in a drug arrest.

RCW 79A.60.040 is Washington’s Boating Under the Influence Statute. In short, It prevents people from operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. A person is considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person has 0.08 grams or more of alcohol. This can be proven by breath tests of a blood test. Drugs and/or the combination of drugs and alcohol may also constitute Boating Under the Influence.

Unlike DUI, Boating Under the Influence is a simple misdemeanor. It isn’t viewed as seriously as DUI, and carries less punishment as far as court fines and jail time is concerned. Still, the court may still order the defendant to pay restitution for any damages or injuries resulting from the offense. Additionally, a BUI charge/conviction can negatively impact a Skipper’s license to operate their vessel.

And it only gets worse. If someone is seriously injured at the hands of an intoxicated boat operator, that operator can be charged under RCW 79A.60.60, a Class B felony. And if someone dies as a result as a proximate cause of the operation of any vessel by an intoxicated person, that person will be charged with a Class A felony under RCW 79A.60.50. Finally, any operator of a boat who willfully fails to stop when requested or signaled to do so by a law enforcement officer is guilty of a gross misdemeanor under RCW 79A.60.080.

Hire an attorney if you find yourself charged with any of the above-referenced water related crimes. You’ll need all the help you can get. Nowadays, consuming two beers while enjoying your vessel can easily get you in trouble.

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.