Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti Revealed

Nobody wishes to be acquainted with or talk to a criminal attorney until they are in concern. There is a specific plague or hex that people seem to believe pursue those seeking out criminal information before they require it. Nevertheless, once you are charged with a wrong, you promptly appreciate how valuable a first-class Seattle DUI attorney is.

And some of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the requirement to explain all of the legal gibberish that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of terms you might hear at some stage in your criminal process, some you might be on familiar terms with, some you may not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.

Well, I'm here today to help you know what one of folks legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you might not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an imperative term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, specifically if you have confessed to a crime and he or she desires to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better know the word, I've broken it down for you below.

As I mentioned above, corpus delicti arises most repeatedly in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the context of confessions where not a lot of other support exists against the defendant. see, judges and courts, though more than eager to allow in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be on familiar terms with false confessions are given from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are tentative to allow confessions in unless there is some supplementary impartial evidence of the criminal act.

And that supplementary independent support of a criminal act is what corpus delicti stands for. If there is no corpus delicti, or supplementary separate proof of a wrong, the court will not allow in a confession since there is the possibility (whether reasonable or otherwise) that the confession was wrongly given. Still a little bit confused as to what it means? How about an illustration.

Let's say there is a man. He is standing out in a parking lot with some extra people around some trucks. Let's say the citizens in the automobile and the individuals out of the van get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the dudes in the auto elect to abscond. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a clatter on his vehicle and turns around. He doesn't observe anybody touching his automobile or necessarily by his car, but there is only one person in the locale. The gentleman in the van doesn't check his car out until later on, when he notices a dent in the side of his sedan. He thinks it was the male he saw around his vehicle before.

The police go and pick up the guy they suspect of damaging the auto and take him down to the cops station. Following some talking and interrogating, they get the man to let in to kicking the car. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.

In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the confession, all the police have for facts is the guy hearing something happen to his sedan, turn around, and glimpse the gentleman near the sedan. What is not there is any data that the man hit the automobile, and that he did it with an plan to injure the sedan. It is doable (hypothetically, if no admission had been given) that he was only in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a state of affairs like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.

Corpus delicti, like most extra Latin legal expressions, are not tricky to understand as soon as they are described. But getting that description can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal teaching of the prosecutors? The minute you are placed under arrest or feel like you can't go away is the moment you should demand to converse with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. Seattle DUI attorneys can not solitarily assist you through the web of legal gibberish, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the police off your back.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Possession of Pot

Seattle DUI Attorney | Illegal Search Cases

Seattle DUI Attorney | Lawyer-Client Confidentiality

Whether a Seattle DUI attorney, a civil lawyer, or just a ordinary person on the block, nearly everybody has heard of and has a vague indication regarding what the lawyer-client benefit is. If we haven't dealt with it straightforwardly in our private lives then we've almost certainly had the occasion to see it in action on television or in the movie theater.

But what is the lawyer-client privilege in actuality? Does it signify that when you tell a lawyer something that they can't reveal to anyone no matter what (or is just some law firm marketing ploy)? And when does it start? Do you have to engage the DUI attorney Seattle? And when does it terminate? Will a criminal defense lawyer really take your secrets to their grave? Read on to have these inquiries answered.

Let's commence with what the benefit represents. And, since I am a DUI attorney, we'll use it in the perspective of criminal law, even though it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The lawyer-client benefit is the idea that everything you tell your lawyer, in confidence (when simply the two of you are in attendance) is classified. This stands for the attorney cannot tell anyone what you have spoken about. They can't inform their companion, they can't inform their buddies, they can't disclose to the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only point they can divulge is if the data you've told them is to perpetrate the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of a person. It is a very commanding benefit.

And the best thing is, the benefit begins right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have retained the lawyer for the benefit to attach. It occurs automatically, and even if you don't employ that attorney, they nonetheless have to keep your secrets secure. Let me furnish you an illustration to show you how powerful it can be. Let's say you are looking for a divorce and you go chat to a lawyer concerning it.

You tell him all concerning your situation and what has been going on, he quotes you a cost, and you inform him it's too expensive and go locate a person else. A week later your husband comes in and desires to speak to a lawyer concerning a divorce. The attorney not only can't take the case since he's already conversed to you and representing the spouse would create a conflict, but he can't disclose to the spouse why he can't represent her! The husband would simply be sent away. That's how commanding the privilege is.

And the benefit outlasts even your life. Your secrets die with the attorney. In the criminal law context there are examples of people who have confessed to murdering people (it isn't the commission of a future crime so it is private) to their attorney, another person is tried and convicted of the murder, and the attorney never told anybody regarding the confession (it obviously later came out, but not in any way that affected the client). So, essentially, your secrets are safe.

There is good reason behind this privilege - your criminal defense lawyer must know as much regarding your case as possible to present you the most excellent defense possible. Without your data and candid conversation, that is nearly impossible. So, the next point you are with your lawyer, don't be afraid to speak up. Your secrets are safe.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Illegal Searches

Seattle DUI Attorney | Case Summaries

Seattle DUI Attorney | Probable Cause Defined

In the realm of DUI law, probable cause is everything. It is mandatory for a valid capture, and everything cops do, particularly when it comes to DUI charges, is carried out to develop sufficient substantiation to substantiate probable cause. But what is probable cause? It is a bit of an formless entity, never having a clear line definitive state of being. As one prominent Supreme Court Justice put "I appreciate it when I see it." Now hear it described from a Seattle DUI attorney.

Before I commence my description of probable cause, particularly as it relates to Seattle criminal accusations, I want to point out that this article is for informational purposes. If you are charged with a Seattle DUI please speak to a Seattle DUI attorney for consultation on your particular case. Do not rely on this as legal advice, as each set of circumstances is so factually diverse specific guidance is mandatory.

Probable cause is usually viewed as a mixed problem of law and fact. It requires sizeable facts and a legal determination of probable cause. Considerable substantiation requires "a sufficient amount of evidence in the record to convince a fair-minded, lucid individual of the accuracy of the determination." It is the who, what, when, and where of the scrutiny.

For instance, let's suppose we have a guy driving around in Seattle after having consumed more than a few beers. He is pulled over by a police officer for speeding - 37 in a 25. He is otherwise driving ordinarily, including pulling off to the side of the roadway in a responsible manner. At this point there almost certainly is no probable cause for criminal, despite the fact that there is probable cause for speeding. But what if when the officer approaches the driver he smells a strong odor of beer and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. This might climb to the quantity of extensive evidence of DUI.

The next element of probable cause is whether the details support a legal determination of probable cause. In essence, do the evidence as recognized confirm a practical belief that a crime has been committed. In this case, perhaps so, perhaps not. People are permitted to drink and then drive (just not when impaired by booze), and the watery eyes may be explained away by something else.

So, what if the cop then asks the driver to carry out field sobriety tests (which you can and must at all times refuse to do in the State of Washington) and he does, failing to tap his finger to his nose, failing to balance on one leg, and failing to touch heel to toe in a walk and turn examination? Is that sufficient for an officer to draw a sensible conclusion that the driver was driving under the influence of booze? In all probability. It is definitely a stronger set of circumstances for the cop (although not definitive - injuries and weather conditions may have been a factor, for instance).

Now, why is this essential for you, the average Seattle voter? Because it is central to understand that every time a officer stops you and begins to question you he is not disturbed with your security (except in those apparent conditions) and is frequently trying to collect adequate data from you to confirm probable cause. And it is even more crucial to recognize it is within your Constitutional rights to refuse to give him information he will eventually bring into play against you (although you ought to provide your license, registration, and act courteously to the officer).

If you do find yourself probably to be captured for criminal, speak to the cops as little as possible by declining courteously ("I'd respectfully decline to respond that problem") and if things continue to heat up ask to have a minute to get in touch with your criminal attorney. Even if they get you to say stuff your Seattle DUI attorney will have a good chance of getting it thrown out (you ought to never waive our rights, for your information).

Hope you are enjoying the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog. Keep up the reading!

Related Posts:

Don't Get a Seattle DUI Because You Didn't Read the Newspaper

Seattle DUI Attorney Explains Arraignment

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining

The most horrible case scenario has happened. You went to that birthday social gathering last weekend in downtown Seattle that you knew was going to end up being crazy (free drinks will do that to you). You contemplated securing a ride to and from the party, however in the end decided it was extremely problematic to pay for a taxicab. On the road home to Seattle, it occurred. A Seattle police officer pulled you over and in the end seized you for Seattle driving under the influence. You've retained a Seattle DUI attorney however are concerned concerning how everything is going to turn out.

If you've been watching Law and Order, Boston Legal, Murphy Brown, or several of the other legal programs on television, or if you've spoken to anyone that has had legal difficulty before, then you understand a little bit about how the route works. First, your Seattle DUI lawyer is going to (or ought to) undertake an in-depth look at your situation, including the police reports, several video that exists, and questioning some witnesses that may be present. Second, they are going to have you obtain an alcohol valuation, which, depending on what it states, will have an consequence on the course of the plea negotiations. Following that, they'll phone up the prosecutor and see what they can work out.

But what are the options? What is likely? From the very beginning it is crucial to understand that Washington DUI laws (and drunk driving laws across the country) are some of the most stringent when it comes to plea bargaining. No lawmaker wants to be responsible for releasing a drunk driver who goes out and drives drunk once more and causes harm (even though individuals can drive devoid of a driver's license). This makes it pretty arduous to plea bargain with the prosecutor, especially to get a driving under the influence charge reduced to something lesser. But there are some options. previously I get on track, it is essential to bear in mind that the judge doesn't have to accept a plea bargain. The court can always impose their own penalty.

Firstly, it may be achievable to persuade the prosecutor to prosecute your driving under the influence as a to begin with drunk driving even though you have a prior infraction in the preceding 7 years. This allows your Seattle drunk driving lawyer to get a reduced sentence, reduced fines, and reduced driver's license suspension (though this will frequently not influence the administrative driver's license suspension because they work independently of the prosecutor's office).

Second, it may be likely to get several of the accompanying accusations dismissed. If you were pulled over for a cracked tail light, this may not seem like much. But if your drunk driving charge is accompanied with leaving the scene of an crash, fleeing and alluding, or something comparable, getting those dismissed can be a satisfactory outcome.

Third, in several instances, when the prosecutor's state of affairs is relatively weak, you may be able to plead down the driving under the influence to reckless driving. This is beneficial since it reduces the driving suspension, there is no mandatory jail time, and there is no ignition interlock requirement. It will require the high risk insurance, but if your license has already been suspended administratively, you need to have that anyhow. If you can get negligent driving 1st degree, you don't even have to have the high risk insurance, and many insurers treat it as a couple of speeding tickets, if they notice it at all.

In some happening, if you want to get the greatest deal, you've got to find a driving under the influence attorney in Seattle that is honorable, honest, and has a fine reputation at the prosecutor's office (for being a straight shooter, not necessarily someone the prosecutor likes). If your Seattle DUI attorney brags regarding pulling one over on the prosecutor's office, you can expect that either the prosecutor is going to see through it, or the criminal lawyer in Seattle has done it earlier, and you are not going to be aided because of it. Lawyering is an art and a science, but if you don't have trustworthiness, you won't get that much desired benefit of the doubt. It could result in a much harsher sentence than was initially possible.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney Helps You Get Through a Traffic Stop

Seattle DUI Attorney Discusses Arraignment

Seattle DUI Attorney | Managing the Traffic Stop

One of the most awful feelings you can possibly have is on that extended drive home late at night subsequent to a couple of drinks at the tavern. You feel okay, but comprehend deep down that feeling all right isn't what really matters. And afterward you see them, flashing lights in your rear view mirror.

A Seattle DUI stop is one of the most scary experiences there are, if, for no other grounds, there are so many unknowns. Will the officer believe you are drunk? Will you lose your driver's license? Will you need to go to lockup? Could you potentially immediately have wasted thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and fines down the drain? All of these questions most likely race through your head, and with justifiable grounds.

This post, hopefully, will make you a little less scared. While you shouldn't drink and drive, if you stumble on yourself in that position, at least in Washington State (Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Tacoma, Federal Way, Kent, etc.) this commentary is going to confirm you control the greatest shot of making it to your house out of harm's way. But keep in mind, this data is not legal advice. Ahead of committing any choices that could conclude your legal rights or fate, please seek advice from a Seattle criminal attorney. Each occurrence is special, and you require DUI attorneys in Seattle to calculate your individual set of circumstances to distinguish just what to do.

There are several critical things you should appreciate about your typical criminal stop in Seattle. First, the majority of the time you are not being stopped on suspicion of DUI (according to the police officer). Even though it is 1:00 a.m. and he's out pulling you over for failing to utilize a turn signal, a DUI is not the genuine explanation he's pulling you over (okay, so it almost certainly is, but it is beside the point here - if they've got a explanation to pull you over, they can). Assuming you weren't swerving all over the place or doing something in addition to make the cop consider you were drunk, getting the stop over as rapidly as feasible is the goal.

Getting it completed signifies three things: (1) act courteously; (2) say as little as feasible; and (3) after it seems as though the original stop is over, ask if you may go so you can get to your house. After the officer pulls you over, he is looking for signs that you are under the influence. We all know what those are: glassy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech; the smell of alcohol. Try not to offer out those clues to the cop if achievable (don't converse too much). The purpose is to stop the officer from establishing probable cause that you are criminal. Lacking that he is going to have a hard time apprehending you.

Next, if he asks you to move out of the automobile, you can do so. But, if he asks if you'd mind taking a few of field sobriety tests, at this point is where you have to take a course different than that of a good number Seattle drivers. Respectfully decline. You don't even have to offer an explanation. In Washington State, you have the right to remain silent, to abstain from providing incriminating evidence against yourself, including field sobriety tests. This refusal cannot be utilized in opposition to you as evidence of intoxication, it prevents a lot of evidence from being obtained that can be used counter to you later, and it is the reasonable thing to do. However, be ready, because it may get you brought to the station for a breath test (if they take you, nonetheless, you were going nevertheless).

Now, here is the crucial part. The instant they say you are going to take a breath test, let the cops know you want to chat with a Seattle DUI defense attorney. After you do this, more than a few things take place. First, the police cannot interview you any further. And subsequent, you get to speak to a criminal lawyer in Seattle to figure out what you should do next. And, no matter what time of day, an attorney is available (many Seattle DUI lawyers make themselves on hand for exactly such phone calls). And any Seattle DUI attorney must be able to lead you to someone who will answer the telephone. And if you don't know who to call, a public defender is ordinarily on call, so even at three in the morning you'll have someone to speak to.

From there on, you should in fact do what your Seattle criminal defense lawyer says, as your personal situation, including any prior offenses, your job, how much you've had to drink, and additional things, can have an effect on what you desire to do moving ahead.

Related Posts:

Arrested for DUI? Talk to a Seattle DUI Attorney as Soon as Possible

Heed Seattle DUI Saturations in the News

Seattle DUI Attorney | Illegal Search and 404b Evidence

Here we go yet again, a new run down of the criminal jurisprudence cases ruled in the most recent week in Washington State. As with last week, the number of decisions released is minute - maybe it has a bit to do with the holidays or something, so this article may not be that long (though I doubt it). And bear in mind, as usual, that although I am a Seattle criminal lawyer, I would not propose you receive my synopsis of these cases and my scrutiny of these cases as gospel as you amble into court to talk to the judge. If you in reality need the help of one of these cases to help you, do the intelligent thing and study the situation. That way you can be rest assured that what you are uttering is right - or better yet, telephone a Seattle DUI attorney to facilitate - you’ll be delighted you did.

The primary criminal defense case on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a situation focused on the rules of facts, namely 404(b). Here we go.

State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the sort of case a DUI attorney loves because the proof was slight. It is not the kind of state of affairs a criminal attorney loves since the prosecutor employed some original theories of utilizing the rules of proof that appeared to be odd upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to say.

Facts - The victim was awakened in his home by gunshots. He looked outside and saw a person shooting out of a red van. The van was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one person. A independent victim heard the same thing, and later discovered bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. later the cops searched the house of Hartzell’s buddy, who admitted to shooting a pistol at a different time. According to ballistics, the handgun was that used during the firing described above.

The cops were then afterward called to a reported crime where Hartzell was. The police showed up, witnessed a bullet hole in a car, and brought a search dog to attempt to find the pistol that was used. The dog smelled in the vehicle, then went out and found the gun a few hundred yards away from the car. This gun also matched the bullets fired at the first described site.

Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his vehicle as illegal and that previous incidents were improperly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a tendency to perpetrate firearm crimes.

examination - First, on the subject of the search question. The Washington State constitution protects citizens from unnecessary searches of their person and their private things. This stipulation is not dishonored if no search occurs. A search happens when the state interferes with a individual’s private dealings. Usually, a search does not occur if an cop is able to uncover something utilizing one of his senses from a non-intrusive point of view.

With regard to canine sniffs, a search occurs depending on the situation. Prior decisions have held that a search does not arise if the sniff occurs in a place the person would not have a rational expectation of privacy and the sniff was not invasive. Here, the canine sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the van when the sniff happened and the dog didn’t get into the van. The search was realistic.

Second, on the topic of the 404(b) proof issue. ER 404(b) provides:

facts of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to illustrate action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

The test for admitting proof under this rule is well established. The trial court must: (1) discover by a preponderance of the proof that a offense happened; (2) identify the rationale for which the verification is sought to be introduced; (3) determine whether the evidence is relevant to determine the element of a crime charged; and (4) contemplate the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

In this case, there was a realistic inference that the revolver found 100 yards from Hartzell’s automobile was possessed by him, particularly because the canine found the pistol after sniffing Hartzell’s vehicle. Bullets from the gun was also discovered on Hartzell and in the van driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that facts not to show that the crimes formed an identity that may perhaps illustrate the first offense and the crime alleged were the similar, but that it was likely the defendants committed the crimes for the reason that they were discovered in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter.

Because of these specifics, the court located that facts to be important. And lastly, the trial court’s examination of the admission of the proof was sound since it reasoned the lack of data about the incident would prevent the entrance of the information from being prejudicial.

Seattle driving under the influence attorney’s examination - This isn’t the most excellent case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well inside their boundaries to attempt to get this in. Do I think the fact that these guys are located with the guns later have any influence on what occurred under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one spotted anything it is impossible to distinguish who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon inference to arrive at their desired conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t see in any of this examination (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any corroboration that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can absolutely see why this case was taken to trial - the verification just isn’t there.

Next at the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog we have State v. Bliss, a case on the topic of possession of meth, search and seizure, and car stops.

State v. Bliss is a situation about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the car and the discovery of meth. It brings up a hot topic these days, the search occasion to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s study on and see what happens.

Facts - Bliss was driving around one night when a officer got behind her and checked the registration on her motor vehicle. The officer found that Bliss had unresolved misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, established Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the truck, locating a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of meth. The officer completed a property account prior to having the van towed.

Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense attorney moved to suppress the proof on two grounds: (1) the officer didn’t have justification to stop the truck; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the car when Bliss drove by him. The trial court discovered the officer was justified in the stop and the search was legal.

Immediately before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the theory that the search was not happening to the arrest. The court discovered the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.

Issues - Was the search legal?

analysis - Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at issue here, is when an police officer stops a person briefly to investigate a practical suspicion that criminal defense activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a practical suspicion that offense is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific person stopped such that the stop and investigation is practical under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.

In this case when the cop stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the person driving the car at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.

As for the Gant scrutiny, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the truck. This topic is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.

Criminal defense attorney in Seattle examination - This was probably the right thing to do here. If the topic wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court may perhaps have the information it needs to conclude if the search was legal. One thing I did uncover interesting in this opinion was the fact that later the sedan was impounded, which suggests the vehicle would have been searched to inventory the automobile. Whether that includes a search of the inside of the bag remains to be seen.

Gant has actually given a tool for Seattle DUI attorneys to use on a regular basis, particularly since police don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search event to arrest. I guess we’ll see…

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | The Traffic Stop

Seattle DUI Attorney | Arraignment

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops

I retain many of drunk driving defense customers in Seattle. Nearly all are people exactly like you and me. Typical citizens. The solitary distinction is they mostly have made merely one poor blunder that they are at this instant facing penalty for. For nearly everyone it is a Seattle DUI charge or drug possession charge.

Nevertheless since my clients have by and large never been in dilemma previously outside the arbitrary speeding infraction here and there, they possess no idea how to interact amid the police when they show up and are investigating you for a crime. This is for two major reasons: first, since of the media (counting advertising by the cops) we inherently trust the cops are out there to facilitate us; and second, the police understand this and play to this, and utilize their power as often as doable to make you to do things you don't desire to do.

If my consumers would have merely paid attention in social studies class in high school and government class in high school, or actually examine those police officer programs that are all over television, they would grasp that after the police show up and are trying to bust them for Seattle DUI, they are not your companion. They are present for one grounds only - to gather support not in favor of you. And the best approach the get a hold that information is you - that's correct, often you prepare your own bed when it comes to the Seattle drunk driving charges you face.

Like I said, I'm a Seattle DUI attorney. As a Seattle driving under the influence attorney there is not anything I like to glimpse less than a law enforcement report that includes a bunch of my client's statements. They never benefit - they always hurt. And they are repeatedly the primary basis for the accusations my client is facing.

So, what should you do if you are investigated for a felony? First, close your lips. And don't open it unless you desire to state the words "get me a lawyer." Otherwise you are merely hurting yourself. Second, when you utter those words, make an effort to shut yourself down as best you can. The cops aren't going to enjoy this and they are going to try everything they can to get you chatting. This includes using your doubts, your ideology, and the possessions you care about, against you. Just continue quiet until you have a driving under the influence attorney in Seattle nearby to assist you. It will yield a giant alteration.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Breath Test?

Seattle DUI Attorney | Possession of Marijuana

Seattle DUI Attorney | Prosecutors Must Play Fair

A new week, a new post at the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog reviewing the significant criminal defense law case decisions from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Although last week there was an significant conclusion that affects a lot of Seattle DUI prosecutions, this week, the actual effect of the cases on the practice of law for your average Seattle DUI attorney is slight.

To give you a concise preview, we have two decisions, one out of Division II of the Court of Appeals and one out of Division III of the Court of Appeals. It was a slow week for the Supreme Court - they didn’t announce any fresh cases of significance. The Division II case concerns something criminal defense defense lawyers in Seattle will run into from time to time, or at least face questions on - the restoration of firearm rights after a criminal defense conviction. The Division III case concerns the essentials of residential burglary and whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate misdeed necessary for a guilty verdict of residential burglary. Let’s get going!

Restoring Fire Arms Rights - State v. Mihali

Facts - State v. Mihali is a case about restoring fire arms rights to an entity convicted of a crime. Mihali, in 2000, was found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (i.e. drugs - in all probability methamphetamine). In 2004 Mihali received a certification from the Department of Corrections that she had fulfilled the terms of her judgment, was discharged from DOC supervision, and had all of her civil rights restored (right to vote, etc.) not including the entitlement to own and/or hold a firearm. In 2008 she filed with the court a motion to restore her firearms, alleging that she had met all of the requirements to have her right to firearms restored. The state opposed this motion, arguing that the mandatory 10 years had not elapsed since her conviction was finished, which is a necessity because she was found guilty of a class B felony. The court agreed with Mihali and restored her firearms rights - the State appealed.

Issue - Was Mihali entitled to have her right to possess a firearm restored?

Analysis - firearm restoration rights are governed by RCW 9.41.040(4). It states that a person without a conviction for a sex offense or a Class A felony may petition the court to have their right to possess a weapon if:

(b)(i) If the guilty verdict or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being found guilty or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the human being has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a gun counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525

The state's contention that two conditions must be met before firearms will be restored is a sound one: (1) five or more years in the community without being convicted or currently charged with a crime; and (2) no earlier felony convictions in her criminal defense history that would be included in her offender score calculation that make illegal possessing a firearm. The issue in scrutiny here is the date from which the second prong of the scrutiny is calculated from. The state contends the ten year look back phase goes from the date of the petition for restoration of weapon rights. Mihali argues the ten year look back period should be from the date of the last guilty verdict. If the state’s view is adopted, Mihali is not appropriate. If Mihali’s view is adopted, she is.

This issue has been raised and answered in preceding case decisions. There we determined that the Legislature intended the look back phase to be from the date of the petition for firearm restoration. Although the decisions in these cases were not absolutely on point because they weren’t discussing this statute explicitly, the breakdown is similar. Furthermore, this is reflected in the Legislative history of the law.

Holding - The trial court’s decision reinstating Mahili’s weapon rights is overturned. Mahili must delay ten years from the date of her last guilty verdict before the court can consider firearm right restoration.

Seattle DUI attorney’s Analysis - In cases such as these, whether or not the law appears to be impartial, it is the law. I think the court decided the way that it should have, even though it forces Mihali to wait five more years to have her weapon rights restored. It was almost certainly worth a shot from Mihali’s criminal defense attorney because the matter hadn’t been litigated, but it was a long shot to be upheld by the Court of Appeals. The fact is, at the time of her petition for firearm right restoration, Mihali had a felony conviction that would have counted as part of her offender score.

Elements of Residential Burglary - State v. Devitt

Facts - State v. Devitt is a case about the basics of residential burglary, namely whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate transgression required for a conviction of residential burglary. The case starts with the cops thinking Devitt stole a car and was involved in a hit and run. The cops saw him nearby to the accident and Devitt took off and ran from them. He ended up hiding in an apartment complex, eventually finding himself in the apartment of a woman. While there Devitt talked to the woman, had a schooner of iced tea, made a telephone call (with her authorization), and just hung out waiting for the officers to leave. The woman said she wasn’t in fear for her security. After a bit she went outside to take out the trash and let the officers know Devitt was in her high-rise.

Devitt was charged with residential burglary (first degree dui trespass as an alternative), obstructing a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. At the completion of the state’s case, Devitt moved to dismiss the burglary charge for failing to show all of the fundamentals, namely that Devitt planned to commit a offense against the person or property in the dwelling. The court said obstructing a law enforcement officer was enough, and let the case go to the jury. Devitt was convicted of all the charges.

Issue - Is obstructing a police officer sufficient to meet the underlying transgression obligation of residential burglary?

Analysis - Residential burglary is defined in RCW 9A.52.025(1) as: entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle with plan to commit a misdeed against a person or goods therein. To support his posture that obstructing a law enforcement officer should not be important as the underlying offense, Devitt pointed the court to the prosecutor’s standards for charging crimes. Obstructing a law enforcement officer is not characterized anywhere as a transgression against a individual, much less anyone other than the officer.

The language of the residential burglary law requires a explicit transgression (against a being or possessions) in a detailed place (inside a dwelling) and with a specific intent (to go in the abode to commit the offense). Because of this, more than just the intent to commit a crime generally is necessary.

The condition that the offense intended to be committed be done “therein” or within the abode, is also notable. In this case there was no law enforcement officer in the dwelling, making it hard for Devitt to have entered the home to commit that precise offense.

Holding - the state failed to provide evidence the elements of the residential burglary statute. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Everett driving under the influence Lawyer’s Analysis - Really? Are you freaking kidding me? Why would the prosecutor even charge this offense, much less see it through to a jury trial and then maintain their completely awkward view to the court of appeals? And why would the trial court judge not read the law and realize the elements of the misdeed had not been met? I am a Seattle dui lawyer, so I am a little biased. But I am not the type of criminal defense attorney that is an apologist for my clients. I see the facts and I see the crimes charged and I work from there. Why can’t prosecutors do the same thing?

This is a great example of some of the things we are forced to deal with all the time that gum up the dui justice system, make everyone grumpy, and make defense attorneys think prosecutors are unreasonable and gunning for victories at all times. If this prosecutor would have amended the charges to first degree trespass there would have been no trial, there would have been no appeal, and all of this time would not have been wasted. A first year law student should be able to make the analysis mandatory to get this decision right.

That’s my two sense for today. Stay tuned next week for another installment of the latest criminal decisions from Washington State. Hopefully there will be more exciting news.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle DUI Attorney | Know One

Seattle DUI Attorney | Decisions 10/27/09

One more week, another review of DUI cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a Seattle DUI attorney, it is essential to stay on top of this information so you can be completely equipped to contend your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of notice: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the exploration of a vehicle incident to an seizure; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are interesting and worth noting, so I’ll review, and as typical, present a tiny crumb of my own criminal lawyer study.

Search Incident to detention - State v. Patton

This is one of the first in a what will be a extensive line of cases dealing with searching trucks after somebody has been arrested (also recognized as search incident to seizure). It is one of the exceptions to cops needing a warrant for arrest, and of late the United States Supreme Court clarified what we dui defense lawyers had recognized for a long time - the law enforcement were abusing this regulation by searching vehicles incident to the detention of someone when the apprehension formed no reason for the search. Here is the typical instance: somebody is arrested for driving while their license is suspended. The individual is apprehended and positioned into the cop van. After that the police search the auto, “incident to the apprehension.” Problem is, there is no verification to find for driving while license suspended. The substantiation is already in the possession of the cops (the driver’s license records).

Facts of State v. Patton - Patton had an unsettled felony warrant. The cops knew where he was at and where waiting for him to come out so they could apprehension him on the warrant. It was nighttime, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the van and somebody matching the picture of Patton out rummaging around in the auto. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his cranium out of the car and ran into the trailer. After support arrived, they went into the trailer and seized Patton. After capturing him, the cops searched Patton’s auto, locating methamphetamine and cash. Patton was charged with possession of meth. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the substantiation for being illegally detained. The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the court sided with the prosecution, who argued that because when Patton was approached he was beside automobile that it was qualified to be searched incident to his capture.

Analysis - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unjust. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search should fall into one of a number of enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are restricted to the conditions that brought them into being. They shouldn’t be used to weaken the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant condition is the van search incident to apprehension. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s wellbeing is at issue or there is the chance that substantiation correlated to the offense which predicated the seizure will be mislaid or damaged.

In this case, Patton’s reason is that the search of Patton’s truck does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not arrested in his truck, but in his home, that he was never in his automobile during the disagreement, and that he was apprehended for an outstanding warrant, for which no substantiation of the “crime” would exist in the truck.

The Court primary looked to resolve when it was that Patton was under arrest. The court noted that:

an seizure takes place when a duly authorized officer of the law manifests an objective to take a individual into confinement and actually seizes or detains the person. The existence of capture depends in each case upon an objective evaluation of all the surrounding conditions.

Here, the officer had apprehended Patton for all intents and purposes when he pulled up behind him in the driveway with his lights activated and told him he was under capture and not to move. It makes sense for quite a lot of reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from law enforcement to change the place of seizure and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that apprehension. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under detention when he was at his car for purposes of the added analysis.

The next question is whether or not the search incident to the detention Patton was permissible. essential, a search incident to seizure is not legitimate just because the seizure happened closely to the automobile. A more detailed investigation is required. Case law has prescribed:

[a] warrantless search [incident to detention] is permissible only to confiscate any weapons the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist capture or effect an escape and to elude destruction of verification by the arrestee of the misdeed for which he or she is apprehended…

This directive has been newly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to arrest in a vehicle happens “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the while of search.”

Analysis of these particulars under the rules establishes that this search was unreasonable and beyond of the search incident to capture exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the van when he was detained. There was no link between his apprehension, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the truck. Also, there were no security concerns for the officers related to anything in the automobile - Patton was never in the automobile, he was seized outside of the vehicle, and when the car was searched Patton was no where near the bus (officer safety in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take hold of something in the car and use it to damage the officers).

Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, the trial court’s verdict is upheld, the verification is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.

Drunk driving lawyers perception - Obviously I think they got this one correct. The cops inappropriately searched the auto, found some drugs, and then tried to get the support admitted by trying to generate a state that allowed their unlawful search. As a DUI attorney in Seattle these are the types of situations I see all the period that I am happy are now being handled properly. And, I must also add that I am glad to see that someone has actually acted properly when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his car, which period and time again gets people in trouble.

It was also stimulating to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact reverse a lot of case law that had for years been dogging drunk driving defense lawyers and making it tremendously difficult to get verification obtained unlawfully from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, the Washington courts had no option but to negate much of their case law, most likely much to their chagrin. This case, like Gant, is imperative for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what police can and can’t do when seizing you.

Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker

As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a statutory plan set up by the legislature to allow, in precise circumstances, citizens that have committed a misdemeanor to take care of the offense by paying costs to the injured party. If the payment is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received payment and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice. For criminal defense lawyers in Seattle, particularly those that deal with burglary, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a stain on their reputation. In this case, the State challenged whether or not a compromise of misdemeanor could be executed for a hit and run attended (a hit and run case where somebody was in the car when it was hit, as opposed to a parked auto).

Facts - Stalker was charged with DUI and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the DUI but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court confirmation that the victim was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the accusation pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.

Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have power to order repayment because it is not a direct result of the allegation (fleeing the scene after an crash has occurred)?

Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal structure is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to shape analysis of contemporary legal inquiries) and precedent is not set aside without due consideration. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is qualified for compromise. This conclusion, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was established to: “give repayment to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of minor offenders.”

Since court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is entitled for compromise of misdemeanor, the government has had many opportunities to specifically exclude hit and run attended from eligibility. While the government has disqualified assorted crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to prohibit hit and run attended. This shows the court that they do not feel like hit and run attended should be beyond the compromise of misdemeanor statute.

Holding - the trial court’s judgment to grant the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.

driving under the influence Lawyer’s Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The decision is pretty clear. One thing I find attention-grabbing about this, and something I come across from period to time out there in the world of criminal defense, are prosecutors that are opposed to a compromise of misdemeanor, like they have a say in whether or not one created or one is granted. These things were created to decrease the work load of prosecutors and give people the chance to move past a dense decision without having to pay for it for a long period. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an accord has been reached between defendant and injured party?

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Pay Attention!

Seattle DUI Attorney | You Should Know One

This may sound a small bit self-serving, seeing as I myself am a DUI defense attorney, but hear me out ahead of you write me off. As a Seattle DUI attorney I have a unique standpoint on this topic, and the outlook is pretty harsh. I see time and time again people come into my law firm, and these are typical people like you and me, who, because they didn't have someone to talk to prior to or during their criminal incident, have dug themselves into a hole that will take a lot of struggle to get out of. So, if you are a ordinary person, sooner than you write this piece of writing off, take a look at it, and then make your own decisions.

Knowing a DUI lawyer and being able to speak to them from time to time to get information from them is helpful. Although not any of us ever imagine to be caught up in any DUI activity, it can happen upon us from time to time.

For example, in Seattle every year is this gigantic hydroplane event called Seafair. Every year these hydroplane racers come to town to race their boats and everybody takes out their own boats to survey and have fun. And partying often includes booze. The police know this, and they are out on the water en mass to give out as many BWI citations as feasible. Now, this usually isn't a big deal, unless the police are on your yacht checking you out. In that situation don't you wish you had a Seattle boating under the influence lawyer to help you pilot the waters, to know what you have to inform the law enforcement and what you don't, and what tests you have to do and those you don't? Hell yes you do.

And finding a criminal attorney to speak to isn't that complex. All you have to do is request around and someone will at one time or another have dealt with one (you could even ask the guy that writes the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog!). And once you acquire someone that was pleased with their service, just call that guy or girl up and notify them you have some inquiries for them.

Pledge them you will hand out five of their cards to your acquaintances if you will answer some questions for you and you assure to use them for your services if you ever get in trouble. Then fire away. And when you are finished, put that lawyer's card in your wallet and get it out if you ever get in trouble. Trust me when I say there is zero criminal attorneys like more than informing their clients to notify the cops they aren't speaking a word and watching the police squirm.

To sum it all up, you must to be acquainted with a excellent DUI lawyer for one reason - it could aid save your butt one day when you are in disorder. So don't linger to pick up the telephone. find someone today you can rely on, get them in your rolodex, and go on with life knowing if you ever get in a tough position you'll have someone to give a buzz.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Confidentiality

Seattle DUI Attorney | Possession of Drugs

Seattle DUI Attorney | The Arraignment

The criminal process can be daunting and scary, particularly if you have never experienced it before. And chances are, if you are going to court for a DUI, this is your first exposure to the Seattle criminal process. Your DUI probably occurred after driving home after having a couple of drinks, getting pulled over for some minor traffic violation, and getting investigated and charged with DUI.

Before I get started discussing the arraignment process associated with a criminal case, I want to make sure you know how important it is to hire a Seattle DUI attorney as soon as possible after your arrest.

This is important for a couple of reasons; first, your DUI lawyer will be able to explain this process to you and answer any questions this article creates; and second, you are going to need an advocate for your case, and the only person that can help you is a criminal defense attorney.

The arraignment, generally is the first time for you to appear before the court, have your charges provided to you, and to enter a plea on those charges. Procedurally, your arraignment must be scheduled within fifteen days of your arrest if you are kept in custody, and within fifteen days of your first court appearance if you are not in custody. Typically, if you are not in custody, the arraignment will be your first court appearance.

If you have a DUI attorney, the arraignment process will last about 3 minutes once you finally get up in front of the judge. Once there, your attorney will announce to the court that you are there, acknowledge receipt of the complaint, stipulate to probable cause for the purposes of this hearing (basically acknowledge to the judge that the prosecutor has at least some basis for bringing the charges), and enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf. After that, the judge will set your next court date, establish your conditions of release, and let you go.

It is important to have a DUI lawyer at this hearing specifically for the conditions of release. These conditions are supposed to be set to ensure that you will make it to your next court hearing, and to keep the public safe. If you have a very high BAC reading or a history of DUI convictions, the prosecutor may ask for, and the judge may order, more stringent conditions of release. In this case you need someone there to advocate for you to keep your conditions of release at a minimum.

In the end, the arraignment is a procedural device to get you in court and get the criminal process started. You will plead not guilty, get your next court date, and get out. Having a DUI defense attorney will ensure the process runs smoothly.

Next up, the pretrial hearing.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle DUI Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops

Seattle DUI Attorney | Pay Attention!

As I've noted before, Seattle cops arrest more people for DUI on the summer holidays than other time of the year. And what time of the year is this? You guessed it, summertime. And what summer holiday is coming up? You guessed it, Labor Day. And what makes Labor Day so special for DUI cops? They know for a lot of people it is the last blow out of the summer, the last real day to let your hair down and enjoy the weather before the rain soaked days of winter fall upon us.

And do they let us enjoy that last grasp at an endless summer. Of course not. They are Seattle DUI police officers after all. But they don't take on their responsibilities without some advance notice. In fact, they try to get the word out, to warn us that they will be paying extra special attention to your driving habits around Labor Day to make sure you aren't drinking and driving in Seattle.

And where do they publicize this? Right in the newspaper. I'm pretty sure I've seen at least 5 articles on it this week (although we are DUI attorneys Seattle, so DUI stories catch our eye a little easier).

Here is the story, from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Extra DUI patrols will be on the roads through Labor Day as part of the "Drive Hammered, Get Nailed" enforcement campaign.

In King County, Seattle police and the State Patrol are participating, along with police in Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Newcastle, Normandy Park, Pacific, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Shoreline and Snoqualmie.

Statewide, police officers from 130 agencies will participate. The extra patrols, which started Friday, are supported through $200,000 in grants from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

With this year's drunken driving crackdown, police now have a network of more than 200 specially-trained police Drug Recognition Experts around the state. These officers are trained to evaluate drivers who may be under the influence of illegal or prescription drugs, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

The Traffic Safety Commission shares this anecdote:

"DRE Deputy Alan Tag from the King County Sheriff's Office stopped a driver who was licking his cell phone and who later tested positive for cocaine. One indicator Tag looks for in an impaired driver is the inability to multi-task. People typically talk while doing multiple tasks with no problem, so he becomes suspicious if a driver can't answer a question while looking for their registration and insurance."

When you see information like this, you need to be thinking one thing and one thing only - don't drive drunk on that weekend. The cops will be out there looking for you. They will be pulling you over for things like tail lights that are too red, tires that are too wide, and license plate lights that are burned out. All so they can try to pop you for Seattle DUI.

And as a side note, it seems pretty dumb for the cops to tell you where they will be and that they will be emphasizing a Seattle DUI patrol on that specific weekend, but they do it for a reason - they don't really want to catch a bunch of drunk drivers.

But they know that on that weekend people will be blowing out the parties as they say goodbye to summer and hello to winter, and that typically more serious accidents happen from Seattle DUI on these weekends than on other weekends. So they are telling you this information to keep you out of trouble, knowing a lot of people won't listen and will get popped for DUI anyway.

If you do decide to go out and drink and drive and get pulled over, I do have a few pieces of advice for you that may make beating your Seattle DUI a little easier. To begin, know that it is not illegal to drink and drive. It is only illegal to drive drunk.

There is a huge difference between the two, and while it probably doesn't make a lot of difference to you in the car, it makes a lot of difference for me when you hire me as your Seattle DUI attorney. So, when pulled over by the police, the key is not to talk your way out of the DUI arrest, but to limit the information the cops can gather, which limits their ability to arrest you.

The things you can do to limit the information you give the officer are: first, don't talk to the cops except to tell them your name - this means do not tell them that you've had anything to drink that night (although don't lie either - just tell them your lawyer told you not to answer that question); second, don't consent to a search of anything; third, no field sobreity tests and no portable breath test (you don't have to take them and you shouldn't); and finally, the moment you are placed under arrest invoke your right to silence and ask to speak with a Seattle DUI defense attorney.

Remember, when the police are out looking to bust people for DUI, they are going to find some. If you don't want to be one of those people, lie low the next couple of weeks. This means have fun but stay away from the wheel of a car. It will work out better for you in the long run.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Fourth of July DUIs

Seattle DUI Attorney | Judges Have to Follow the Rules Too

Seattle DUI Attorney | Just Say No to Searches

Seattle cops have one thing in common - sneakiness. They know what they can and can't do and take every opportunity to toe the line between legal and illegal activity. This includes traffic stops. As a Seattle DUI attorney I can't tell you how many client arrests have resulted from traffic stops that escalated into a drug or weapons charge. And how did this happen? They let the police search the car.

Now, most people ask, why would anyone let the police do this? The reason is sneakiness and playing off our fears and weaknesses. That gets confessions for the police all the time, and it gets people to consent to the search of their vehicle even if they know they have something illegal in it. And it also happens because people don't have a good grasp on what their rights are as it pertains to their vehicle (and their person, and their house). Bottom line - never consent to a search of anything - it throws all the rules out the window.

The rule is this - the police cannot search your car unless some very specific rules apply, or unless you let them. The police know this. That is why if they think you are a drug dealer they will follow you around, try to catch you in a minor traffic violation, pull you over, and try to do whatever they can to get inside of your car to search it. But they must have a reason to get into your car if you don't consent. That reason is called probable cause. And a traffic stop is not enough.

If you are ever stopped by the police and they continue to harass you even after a Seattle traffic ticket is issued, call a Seattle criminal attorney. We can help get the cops off your back, help you with the DUI charge. But whatever you do, do not consent to the search of your vehicle. It is asking for trouble, and nothing good ever comes of it.

Thanks for reading the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog. Come back soon!

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Confidentiality

Seattle DUI Attorney | Getting Through a DUI Stop

Exercise Your Consitutional Rights | Ask to Speak with a Seattle DUI Lawyer Immediately

If you have been charged with a Seattle DUI, it can be a very scary thing. Most of the time, it is the most legal trouble you've ever been in, and you're not sure exactly what to do. And police officers know this. And they try to play off of your fears to get you to give them the best chance to convict you of a Seattle DUI, when all you were doing was driving home minding your own business.

One of the easiest things you can do when you feel like you are in trouble with the police is tell them you want to speak to a Seattle DUI attorney. And don't say it like "do I need a lawyer" or "should I talk with an attorney first," because the police are just going to say "oh no, you don't need a Seattle DUI attorney. Just keep talking and tell us everything you did wrong and we promise to take care of you." Don't believe them.

The right to legal counsel is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution. And the State of Washington goes even farther, particularly for DUI cases, allowing and even requiring police to allow you to speak with a Seattle DUI attorney before you decide whether or not to take a breathalyzer test. This allows you the opportunity to set up an independent blood test and to have at least one witness who can testify as to your level of coherence at the time they spoke with you (this is often why you will not want to speak with your actual DUI lawyer on this phone call - any relatively experienced DUI attorney in Seattle will be able to give you good advice, but then they may become a witness for you as to your state at the time of the phone call - lawyers can't be witnesses and lawyers at the same time, so make sure you don't want the lawyer you get on the phone to represent you - they may have a hard time doing it).

Like I said, however, you must be firm in your conviction to have an attorney. And once you ask for one, don't think you are safe to say whatever you want. Although the police are supposed to stop asking you questions, there is nothing in the rules that says something you just blurt out can't be used against you. Often after you ask for an attorney they'll just sit in the room with you in silence waiting for you to get uncomfortable enough to talk. Sit tight, and don't talk until you get a chance to speak with your Seattle DUI lawyer.

Getting charged with a DUI isn't the end of the world, but it can have some dramatic effects on your life, both personal and professional, moving forward. And like most things, the more information you know up front, and the less information you give the police, the easier it is to fight your DUI and even beat your DUI.

If you want to learn what you can do if stopped by police and investigated for DUI to have the best chance of beating your DUI, call us today. We can give you the information you need to help yourself when stopped by the police and help you if you are charged with a DUI or traffic ticket. Don't wait, get ahead of the game today.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Fourth of July Heats Up

Seattle DUI Attorney | Know a Lawyer

Seattle DUI Attorney | Watch the Fourth of July

The 4th of July is one of the best times of the year: the weather is usually great, people are usually excited to get a vacation from work, and everyone loves fireworks. But, sometimes 4th of July festivities can get a little out of hand, and before long you find yourself needing the services of a Seattle DUI attorney.

What I mean is, every year I see a big spike in DUI arrests around the holidays that involve drinking and celebrating outside. And the reason is clear. Most of the time if you are going outside you are going to the lake, the river, a friends house, or some other designated party place.

To get there you have to drive, which is fine. But to get home, you also have to drive, which can be a problem since Seattle cops step up driving under the influence patrols and emphasize keeping drunk drivers off the street. This means when you are driving home, even if you don't think you are too drunk to drive, you are running an extremely high risk of being charged with Seattle DUI.

Another type of spike you often see is domestic violence cases. This also tends to go back to the holiday and the types of celebrations it sparks. Normally families get together to celebrate, and once the alcohol starts flowing feelings can run high. And I don't know about your family, but I definitely have a looser tongue with family members than with friends. That means that often arguments escalate more than they normally would. And one bad decision can result in life changing consequences, either because of a Seattle DUI or domestic violence charge.

For example, the Seattle Times reported that a Woodinville resident was shot and killed by a Woodinville police officer over the weekend. And although the details aren't clear, the officer was checking out a domestic violence call.

If you are charged with domestic violence or DUI, don't wait to get a Seattle DUI lawyer working for you.

Thanks for reading the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog. Come back for more!

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | The Stop Explained

Seattle DUI Attorney | Talk to Us

Possession of Marijuana and Seattle DUI Attorneys

Although the title of this blog is the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog, I wanted to take a second and go a different direction today and talk about possession of marijuana charges. As a Seattle DUI attorney I run into this from time to time, and I recently had a run in with a person charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana and if he'd made a couple of decisions differently when he was dealing with police his case may have come out much differently.

This individual I mentioned earlier was actually from Seattle, but was stopped by Bellevue police officers when he was driving through town. After being stopped, for speeding, the officer approached the vehicle and asked for license and registration. The person gave the officer this information.

After returning with ticket in hand, the officer gave the ticket, gave his usual speech, and then asked what he always asks when even remotely suspicious of the driver "got any drugs in the vehicle?" Of course the guy says "no." To which the officer replies "then you wouldn't mind if I searched the vehicle?" Instead of just saying yes I mind, they guys says "no, go ahead." Guess what's in the vehicle - marijuana. And once it was found the guy admitted it was his.

So, the guy is charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Seattle municipal court and he's in dire need of a DUI lawyer. Like I said, I work all over the place, including Bellevue, so he wanted to talk to me about being his Bellevue criminal attorney. And I talked to him about it. But what I wanted to do was have him call me before he even got in the vehicle with the marijuana so I could give him some advice.

If you were using drugs, wouldn't you spend a couple of hundred dollars to get a refresher course on your constitutional rights to make sure you never fall into a possession of marijuana charge like this guy?

First, and foremost, never consent to a police search of your vehicle, home, or person (but remember, if they just tell you they are searching, let them know you don't approve and let them proceed - that evidence will likely be suppressed and you will avoid a resisting arrest charge). Never. Never ever. Never never ever. It does only one thing, allow the police to find something illegal they can charge you with.

If you have drugs in your car, why would you let the police look in your car and find them? Because otherwise they might think you are guilty? I'll let you in on a secret - the police already think you are guilty. They are just looking for something to affirm that belief.

Second, and finally, let's say they search your stuff and find some marijuana. What should you do? What you should not do, ever, is talk to the police. What you should do, every time, is invoke your right to remain silent and ask to speak to your DUI lawyer. And then don't talk until you have a chance to speak with your Seattle DUI attorney.

There is a reason for this, and, ironically enough, the example I am about to use comes from an episode of "Raising the Bar," the criminal law show with Zach from Saved by the Bell, is that it is really hard to tell whose illegal drugs are whose, unless you claim ownership of them. It goes something like, there are no fingerprints on the vials, there are no fingerprints on the plastic baggies, do you know what is inside the cushions of your couch right now? The cop answers no to everything and says he is pretty sure no illegal drugs are in his couch cushions, to which Zach points out that pretty sure is reasonable doubt.

That story probably made little sense, so let me bottom line it for you. A good criminal defense attorney has more to work with and has a better chance of getting a not guilty verdict or your marijuana possession case dismissed the less you talk and agree to let the police do stuff.

So, I hope you learned your criminal defense lesson of the day - don't ever consent to a search and talk to the police as little as possible.

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney Advice - Don't Let the Cops Search Your Car

An Illegal Search Decision from the Supreme Court

Review of Seattle DUI Law

If you are in need of a Seattle DUI attorney, you are probably suspected of having committed a violation of at least one law. I figured that since you are accused of something, you might as well know what the law is. Today I'm going to discuss Driving Under the Influence as defined in the RCW 46.61.502.

In layman's terms, DUI occurs when consumes so much alcohol or uses so much drugs that it impairs their ability to properly operate a vehicle. As I'm sure you know, the amount of alcohol in your system is often measured by a breathalyzer test, and a measurement of .08 or greater presumes (accepts without question) that you are over the limit of alcohol consumption a safe driver can have. But, the statutes have even more than that.

There are actually three ways a person may be guilty of DUI in Seattle according to RCW 46.61.502: if a person while driving a vehicle in the State of Washington: (1) has, within two hours of driving, a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher as shown by an analysis of the person's blood or breath made under RCW 46.61.506 (this statute discusses all the rules of breathalyzer tests, blood tests, and refusing breathalyzer and blood tests - we'll talk all about this another time); (2) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (3) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

What does this paragraph mean? Well, a couple of things. The first thing it means is that the police don't necessarily need a breathalyzer to tell if you are driving under the influence. If, for example, a Seattle cop pulls you over and after speaking with you and running tests believes you are driving under the influence he can arrest you and then charge you even if your breath test comes back under .08. The police can use their "training and experience" to form an opinion as to your sobriety (those are the kinds of cases DUI lawyers love to defend).

The second thing is that DUI is not limited to just alcohol. You can be arrested for drugs too (even prescription drugs, by the way).

Which brings us to section 2 of RCW 46.61.502: the fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section. This means that just because you were prescribed Valium doesn't mean you can use that as a defense if you were driving after just having taken some. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.

On to section 3: it is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense. Wow, that's a mouthful.

What they are saying in this case is that if, for example, you are driving in Renton, commit some driving violation, and the police are looking for you, and while they are looking for you (at your home in Kirkland, for example), you get drunk, you can use that as a defense to drunk driving if you are charged with it. There are only two rules to this defense, though. First, you, the defendant, must prove that it was more likely than not that your drinking after driving is what caused you to blow above .08, and second, that you have to notify the court and the prosecutor of this before they have the omnibus hearing (a hearing where evidence is presented and motions are argued at the beginning stages of criminal proceedings). The law just recognizes that sometimes people drink after they are done driving.

Section 4 was put in there as a last resort in case the police mess up with your original breathalyzer test. It states that breath or blood samples collected after the 2 hour time limit to take the tests has passed may be used to show you were drunk within the two hour time frame after the incident, or that at least you had been drinking for the non-breathalyzer portions of the Seattle DUI laws. Does it sound a little shady, that the state or city prosecutor could use stale evidence to prove you committed a crime? That's because it is.

Section 5 says that a Washington state DUI is a gross misdemeanor unless section 6 applies. Section 6 says a DUI is a class C felony if: (1) you have four or more prior DUIs in the last 10 years; (2) the person has been previously convicted of: (a) vehicular homicide while DUI; (b) vehicular assault while DUI; or (c) and out of state offense compared to (a) or (b).

That is it for your basic DUI law from a Seattle DUI attorney. If only it were that simple. Stay tuned for more DUI information.

Related Posts:

Speak to a Seattle DUI Attorney Before Taking a Breath Test

Get to Know a Seattle DUI Attorney Before You Get Pulled Over by the Cops