A new trend has been occurring in the Seattle Municipal Court at their DUI arraignment calendar. Several Judges have been imposing bail at $1000 on any first offense DUI if the breath test allegation is above a 0.10. These Judges have determined that since the statutory minimum bail amount on gross misdemeanors is $1000 that is their cue to set this condition. As a practicing DUI lawyer in Seattle Municipal Court, I strongly feel this is a misinterpretation of the law.

When determining release conditions for a defendant in a DUI case in Seattle Municipal Court you need to really look at one court rule. That is Criminal Rule 3.2. This rule discusses when a Judge can set release conditions on a defendant. The gist of the rule says there are three occasions when this can happen. 1. If there is a substantial likelihood the defendant will commit a violent crime. 2. There is a substantial likelihood the defendant will fail to appear at future hearings. 3. There is a substantial likelihood the defendant will intimidate witnesses.

Usually if you’re facing a first offense DUI in Seattle Municipal Court. Number 2 and 3 doesn’t apply. So what the Judge is to consider in deciding whether to impose bail at a DUI arraignment is whether there is a substantial likelihood the defendant will drink and drive again. And it’s important to keep in mind that Criminal Rule 3.2 states there is a presumption the defendant is to be released, and only upon a showing of a substantial likelihood can the Judge set any conditions the defendant has to follow. And even then the conditions set by the Judge have to be the least restrictive means possible.

Typically in a first offense DUI the defendant has no prior history. This means there is absolutely no evidence the defendant has a history with alcohol related crimes. Which in turn means there is no evidence because the Court that the defendant suffers from substance abuse or substance dependence and therefore will continue to drink and drive.

Additionally the least restrictive means is imply to tell the defendant that they cannot drink. But for some reason several of these Judges in Seattle Municipal Court are misinterpretation the rule. They believe they have to consider whether the defendant is a community safety risk. Nowhere in Criminal Rule 3.2 does it say anything about “community safety risk.” This is a common misconception and quite frankly very frustrating when a Judge doesn’t even understand that.

So how do you stop a Judge from imposing bail at a DUI arraignment? Well first thing is you want to go through the analysis I just laid out. But if the Judge continues to set bail then the defendant will have to pay it. I guess the defendant can appeal to the King County Superior Court and file a writ against the Judge. But most times a $1000 is not that big of a deal to people and they just let it slide, rather than going through an lengthy appeal process.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba of Leyba Defense PLLC, a Seattle DUI Firm located in downtown Seattle is a highly rated DUI Attorney in Seattle. He is ranked as a 10/10 by Avvo.com, and was named a Rising Star among other Seattle DUI lawyers by the Seattle Met Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.

Lets say that you get arrested for a DUI in Seattle. You’re out with some friends at a bar in the Fremont neighborhood (incidentally called the kill zone for the number of DUI arrests coming out of there). You have two drinks over the course of several hours. You decline to answer any questions, perform the field sobriety tests, and take the breath test. However the Officer wrote some stuff in the police report that you dispute and offering an alternative explanation to your DUI case would most likely help you. So do you testify or not?

If your a DUI lawyer having your client testify in a DUI case is a difficult decision. Obviously it is their call, but as a DUI lawyer you can gently nudge them one direction or another, unless you have a very adamant client. So when do you pull the trigger and have a client testify.

First you want to consider how will they come across on the stand. Remember a Prosecutor will get the opportunity to cross examine the client in the DUI criminal trial. And even though Prosecutors have a reputation as not knowing how to cross examine, I think that is unfounded and most I have encountered do a good job. So if the client is not going to come across believable, or if they are going to get upset easily and lose their cool then it might not be a good idea to testify.

Secondly what will the client add to the trial. You always have to weigh the cost of the testimony. If the client can explain certain things that the Prosecutor is trying to use against them then it might be beneficial. For example lets say that the cop testified the defendant weaved within their own lane. Well if the client was text message on their phone and you can show that through the phone records than that would offer an alternative explanation for the driving.

Lastly you want to consider whether the client’s testimony would be credible. Believe it or not when facing a Seattle DUI arrest and possible conviction people will say and do anything to try to beat the charge. And this includes committing perjury on the stand and flat out lying about things. As a DUI Attorney it’s your job to know if this is happening and do what you can to try and prevent it. Knowingly allowing a client to perjure themselves to the Court is not a good thing. In some cases as the DUI lawyer it might be best just to go your separate ways then continue on with the charade.

So in answer to my question I posed in the first paragraph. I might be on board with the client testifying in their DUI case with those set of facts. Assuming they would be able to stand up to the pressure of cross examination, the cost of them testify was outweighed by the benefit, and they weren’t going to perjure themselves and make up some elaborate story that was not believable. Why not, especially if there were no other witnesses other than the cop to the DUI arrest in that Fremont neighborhood hypo I posed.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle. He has been nominated as a Rising Star among Seattle DUI Lawyers by the Seattle Met Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. He is also rated a 10/10 Suburb Seattle DUI lawyer by Avvo.com

New statistics released by the Washington State Toxicologist Lab this week show that more people in Washington State are driving under the influence of marijuana when compared to previous years. As a DUI Attorney Seattle and someone who was not in favor of creating this per se limit this comes as no surprise, and frankly I would have thought the number of Marijuana DUI arrests would have been much higher.

I recently saw an article in KIRO news which offered the following statistics. In 2011 there was approximately 1,036 Marijuana DUI arrests. In 2012, the number dropped to 988. But in the first six months of 2013, there was 745 cases, which would project to nearly 1500 for the year. Of those 745 Marijuana DUI arrests this year, 506 of those were higher than the Marijuana DUI legal limit of 5 nanograms.

Now this is not the first time I have blogged about Seattle Marijuana DUI cases in relation to the new Marijuana laws. But beside the obvious reason of the legalization of marijuana why have the number of Marijuana DUI arrests increased. In my opinion look no further than the recent Supreme Court ruling which changed the law when it comes to blood tests, which is the primary piece of evidence used in a Marijuana DUI case.

No longer are law enforcement reading an implied consent warning for a blood test, which gives a person a choice to take the test or not. Now in blood test cases law enforcement simply requests a warrant from a Judge and as long as the officer can establish probable cause to justify the warrant a Judge will sign off on it.

Welcome to 2013 and the new world of Seattle DUI cases. No longer are there going to be refusals since most Judges are suppressing refusal evidence. Instead the cop will just get a warrant and force a blood test. My advice as a Seattle DUI lawyer used to be to consider refusing a breath or blood test. Yes you would possibly face a longer license suspension and an increase in the mandatory sentence a Washington State DUI carries. But you would be depriving the Prosecution of the one piece of evidence they hang their hat on.

However nowadays with most refusal evidence being suppressed and cops knowing that it might not be best to refuse because the cop will just end up getting a blood test and that evidence in the blood will come out.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba, the owner of Leyba Defense PLLC is a DUI lawyer practicing in Seattle, WA. He represents people charged with DUI and other related offenses. He has been named a Rising Star among Seattle DUI Lawyers by Seattle Met Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. He is also rated as a 10/10 and Suburb DUI lawyer by Avvo.com

The 2013 Washington State legislative session will be known as the year the State decided to get tough on DUIs, specifically when it came to repeat offenders. However due to budget constraints and other financial issues proponents of strengthening DUI laws might view the 2013 legislative session as what could have been. A recent article came out in the Seattle Times providing a glimpse of what changes the 2014 legislative session might look like to when it comes to more DUI laws, and those changes come in the form of DUI sobriety checkpoints.

Currently Washington State is one of the few States in the Country that forbids DUI checkpoints. They have been found to be unconstitutional and an unlawful infringement on one’s fourth amendment rights. However if some legislators get their way a new bill will be proposed in 2014. The Seattle Times provided the following:

Get help with your DUI case by contacting Leyba Defense PLLC today.

A legislative work group appears poised to recommend the state adopt random sobriety checkpoints to reduce drunken driving, a controversial idea that would likely require a constitutional amendment. Rep. Brad Klippert, R-Kennewick, said this week that his staff is drafting language for a new bill to authorize the checkpoints, which would stop drivers even if they have done nothing wrong. Kirkland Democrat Roger Goodman, the chairman of the state House Public Safety Committee, said he plans to hold a hearing on the proposal.

Now this is not the first time someone has proposed this idea. In fact as a DUI Lawyer in Seattle I often hear of the need for sobriety checkpoints. Proponents often cite a 2005 study by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program which found they may reduce alcohol-related crashes by between 15 and 30 percent. However in my opinion this study simply cherry picked some statistics and didn’t really offer any sort of tangible evidence of this reduction.

The ACLU has gone on record stating they would vehemently object this change in law as would many other civil libertarians. Imagine you’re driving in Seattle you run across one of these DUI sobriety checkpoints. You get detained, questioned, and possibly investigated for a Seattle DUI arrest and you have done nothing wrong and not had a drop of alcohol or taken any other drugs. Now multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of residents that would be victim to this unlawful detention and you get the problems these DUI sobriety checkpoints cause in a nutshell.

Here is the Seattle Times article if you want to check it out. The 2014 should be an interesting legislative session especially considering the view point many have that the 2013 legislative session was a failure because not all the DUI laws that were proposed were feasible.

About the author: If you need a DUI lawyer in Seattle then contact Matthew Leyba of Leyba Defense PLLC, a Seattle DUI Law firm located in the heart of downtown Seattle. Mr. Leyba exclusively represents those charge with DUI and has been rated as a Top DUI Lawyer in Seattle by Avvo.com and several other notable publications.