Last weekend Oscar-winning actress Reese Witherspoon and her husband were arrested in Atlanta by a Georgia State Trooper.Apparently the Trooper pulled over a silver Ford Fusion for weaving in and out of lanes ( am I the only one who thinks it’s awesome that Reese Witherspoon is in a Ford Fusion by the way.But I digress).So the Trooper pulls over this vehicle.

Jim Toth who is Reese’s husband is driving.He starts to get investigated for possible DUI.The usual stuff, field sobriety tests, etc.But during the investigation while the Trooper and Toth are outside the vehicle Reese starts to hang out of her passenger window making comments to the Trooper.At one point even getting out of the vehicle and pulling the celebrity card saying, “Do you know who I am.”After her husband was arrested for DUI she was warned by the Trooper to stay in her car, she got out and was arrested for disorderly conduct.There was some more colorful language used by her but that is the gist of it.

So this got my thinking.What are your rights as a passenger in a vehicle if your driver is being investigated for a crime?Obviously Reese was not within her right to get out of the vehicle, harass the Trooper, and disobey his orders.So what can you do and what can’t you do.

First passengers are not required to show a drivers license or any other form of picture identification to a police officer in a vehicle stopped for an infraction.See generally State v. Rankin, 108 Wn.App. 948 (2001), and State v. Barwick, 66 Wn.App. 706 (1992).So in this case if you’re in Reese’s position and your driver is being contacted by law enforcement for weaving or allegedly committing a traffic infraction and the police ask for your license or identification you do not have to provide it.

Secondly passengers are also free to not respond to a police officer’s question.See Rankin.In other words if your driver is being investigated for something.The police come to you to ask you questions.You don’t have to respond or you can politely decline to answer.

Thirdly a passenger can leave the vehicle or scene and walk away provided there are no Officer safety concerns.See State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208 (1999).For example if you’re a passenger in a vehicle and your driver gets arrested for a minor vehicle offense you can get out of the vehicle and walk away.In this Mendez case that is exactly what the passenger did.He got out of the vehicle began to run away.Police chased after him, detained him, and searched and found a marijuana pipe.The Washington Supreme Court held that without any concerns for Officer safety, without any articulable and reasonable suspicion he was committing a crime there was insufficient PC to arrest.

Now this is a little bit different than what happened to Reese Witherspoon.If she was in Washington State should would have been within her right to get out of the vehicle.However when she approached the Trooper, disobeyed his requests to get back in the vehicle then obviously that is an Officer safety issue and the Trooper was within his right to control the scene and place her under arrest.

Additionally I have represented clients on a DUI where their passenger became unruly, disruptive of the investigation, and disobeyed Officer orders.In my opinion as a Seattle DUI Attorney this is the stupidest thing you can do for your driver.There is nothing that you can say or do that will change the arresting Officers mind.But you can make things worse for both the driver and yourself by acting like an idiot.Hey I get it.Your significant other, relative, or friend is getting arrested for DUI.You’re upset, you’ve had a little too much to drink and you’re not thinking clearly.But under no circumstances should you approach the Officer and tell them to, “let the driver go,” or “were only a few blocks from home,” or question their evidence.That is not the time or place and you’re actually making it look worse for the driver by making excuses for them, or questioning the Officers job.

_
About the Author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer in Washington State.His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses.He is currently ranked as a Superb DUI Attorney in Seattle by Avvo, and rated as a Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by both Super Lawyers Magazine and the Seattle Met Magazine.An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.

In case you’re a first time visitor this category of post is where I write about interesting things that happen in court. Usually it is things or people I observe and today is no different. The other day I was in King County District Court for an arraignment.

If you’re not familiar with that after you’re arrested for a DUI in King County the first appearance you have to make in Court is called an arraignment. This is a pretty informal hearing. Basically the Prosecutor will read the charge out loud against the defendant, and ask them to enter a plea. The defendant enters a plea of not guilty and then the Judge sets any conditions that need to be followed while the case is going on.

Now one of the procedural matters a defense attorney needs to do when appearing at an arraignment in King County or most courts for that matter is have their client sign an advisement of rights form. This form is a one page document where at the top you write the case number, the clients name, the date of the violation, and the type of crime charged. Then the middle of the document is several paragraphs that explain the constitutional rights that an individual has now that the are charged with a crime. At the end of the document the defendant signs their name, and includes their address, and phone number.

So what happened you ask? Well there was this young defense attorney there. I have never seen her before. I don’t think she was a public defender because her case was called before mine, and typically Judge’s call the private attorneys first since we expedite the matter since we know what we are doing, plus we typically have to go to other courts. So sometimes the Judges understand that and try to get us out of their court.

Now out in the hall I overheard this defense attorney talking with her client. She was telling him to sign the advise of rights form. She phrased it like, “I need you to sign this.” The defendant then said I’m not signing anything. That is all heard since I was walking into the Court and I only stopped to speak with my client briefly.

King County District Court arraignments are kind of like a cattle call. Meaning the courtroom is entirely fool. There are more attorneys there than I care to associate with. And each is called one by one. If it is an extremely busy calendar then it can be quite boring waiting for your case to be called.

So I was sitting down with my client waiting for our case to be called. When I saw this young defense attorney with her client. The Judge asked if the client had signed the advisement of rights form, and the defense attorney said no. The Judge then asked why not, and the defendant said because I’m not signing anything. The Judge asked the defense attorney if she explained what it was to her client, and she said she tried to but the client didn’t want to sign anything. The Judge was very cool about this and said well why don’t you step aside and read the document or explain it to your client and then the Judge went onto the next case.

It ended up not being a big deal. But I thought to myself. Why wouldn’t this guy sign it. It just explains all the rights you have as a defendant in a criminal case. Things like the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to be presumed innocent, the right to a jury trial. Etc. Nothing serious. Oh well it offered some amusement on a boring arraignment calendar in King County.

According to a recent Seattle Times article, Governor Inslee is about to get his way when it comes to toughening up DUI laws here in Washington State. Now for those of you that don’t read this blog that often I’m all for community safety and protecting the residents of Washington State. But what Governor Inslee and the State Legislature is attempting to pass as legislation is in my opinion is excessive and borderline Draconian.

All of this has become very political since the two horrific DUI crashes we have had here in Seattle. Those incidents have basically become a rallying cry for organizations like MADD and other individuals lobbying for tougher DUI laws. It’s eerily similar to what we are seeing with Federal gun legislation and what President Obama and other advocates of gun control are doing.

Here are some of the highlights of HB 2030, and SB5902

After a DUI arrest a mandatory ignition interlock must be placed on any vehicle before it is released from impound.
Anybody arrested for DUI, or Physical Control will get booked into custody
The mandatory penalties for a second offense DUI increase to 6 months in jail
The mandatory penalties for a third offense DUI increase to 1 year in jail
Three or more DUI’s in 10 years is a felony
If you get convicted of a DUI you will be given a special license which would not allow you to purchase or be served alcohol for 10 years

As stated before I understand the need to protect residents of our State. But much of what is being proposed is too excessive. For example when a person is arrested for a DUI. If it is their first offense and generally if they are cooperative with the arresting officer they are released on their own recognizance instead of being booked into custody. In fact I have had cases before where my clients were taken home by the arresting officer instead of going to jail.

Aside of the cost of housing someone in custody most DUI’s in King County are not even filed for 3-6 months. So what would be the point of booking someone in jail if the King County Prosecutors Office doesn’t feel it is important to even file the DUI charge right away. If they are now proposing this change because of community safety concerns, they why is the charge not filed right away. Besides there are measures in place to prevent someone from getting behind the wheel of their car after a DUI arrest with the passage of Haileys law (a 12 hour mandatory impound for all vehicles after a DUI arrest).

Secondly the proposal that anybody arrested for a DUI needs to get an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle before it would get released. Again why does someone who has never been in trouble before, who possibly had a breath test under the legal limit be required to get an ignition interlock device when their DUI case is not even going to get filed for a few months. I’m willing to be there were some lobbyists for these ignition interlock companies putting their two cents in on this one and offering some sweet backdoor deals to these legislators.

To read the comments from the Seattle Times article is just plain scary. A bunch of people who hide behind monikers ranting and raving about DUI cases. Yes drinking and driving is a problem. Yes these two cases recently in King County were horrific tragedies. But some of these comments say a person that gets a first DUI should spend a year in jail, or I saw someone say they should pay a $30000 fine. Or someone wrote a no alcohol for life sentence. The scary thing about these comments are these nut jobs are residents of Washington State and potentially could be a juror on a DUI case. Frightening thought. How in the heck is anyone going to get a fair trial on a DUI case now in King County. It is not going to happen, and that is worrisome.

For those people. Let me just leave you with this. 99% of my clients have never been in trouble before. They are Mothers, Fathers, Brothers, and Sisters. They are professionals. They are Doctors, Lawyers, Athletes, employees at Microsoft and Boeing. In other words they are good hard working professionals who have never been in trouble before and they will never get in trouble again. They made a simple mistake, nobody was injured, there was no car accident, this was not the crime of the century. Yet under this new legislation they will receive more severe penalties than a person charged with a felony. What is wrong with that picture?

Surprise, surprise another article recently came out in the Seattle Times describing another DUI arrest in King County. However unlike the previous dozen or so articles, this one dealt with a Marijuana DUI case. The reason I bring up this article and the Marijuana DUI Case is involved was something that the driver said to the arresting officer. I guess when the arresting officer was contacting the driver, the driver said he had smoked marijuana, and it was no big deal because he could smoke as much as he wanted because it is legal now. Well unfortunately for this guy that is not true when it comes to driving with Marijuana in your system.

So this got me thinking. How many people actually are aware of how long Marijuana stays in your system. Probably not a lot. I can’t tell you how many people have asked me in the past few months about Marijuana use and DUIs. Especially with the legal limit for Marijuana being so low in my opinion.

When it comes to Marijuana staying in your system there is a general consensus that the effects of it will fade relatively quickly, but it will actually stay in your system for quite some time. To put it simply the more you smoke, the longer it will stay in your system. Additionally the more fat build up you have in your body, the longer it will stay in your system.

Now there are generally two types of ways to test for Marijuana in your system. Urine, and by a blood test. For the purposes of DUI arrests blood tests are used. The good thing about a blood test is the active ingredient of marijuana, THC only stays in your blood for a short time. If Marijuana is smoked then it will rapidly enter into the blood stream. If it is ingested it can take some time. Possibly 1/2 hour or so.

Now the metabolites for the THC which is the form Marijuana takes when it becomes metabolized get stored in fat cells, and is gradually eliminated from feces and urine. That is why urine tests are more effective in testing for Marijuana, because metabolized THC will stay in your system for quite some time.

If have seen some studies that show some THC metabolites have a half life of 20 hours, while some can stay in the body for two weeks. Additionally some studies have shown the regular Marijuana users can still test positive for the THC metabolite 45-90 days after. Depending on the body type, and how much was smoked or ingested.

So what is the bottom line. If you’re under arrest for a Marijuana DUI and a blood test is administered it really is going to depend on how much Marijuana was smoked or ingested, and whether there are any active ingredients still in the system. Since the metabolites are generally not considered to affect a persons ability to drive you probably should be too worried about testing positive for those. Unless your testing for an employer in which case most employers have zero tolerance, and they will see the metabolite.

About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA. He is rated as a Top DUI Attorney in Seattle by Avvo, and was recently named a Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine. An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys in Washington State receive.