A Seattle mother was recently arrested for DUI and spent the night in jail when she was stopped by a police officer for DUI and her child was in the vehicle. According to the police report the mother backed her vehicle into parked van in a 7-11 parking lot. Apparently there was extensive damage caused to the parked vehicle. When officers arrived on scene the mother was so unsteady on her feet she was unable to perform the field sobriety tests.

Last year Washington State added additional penalties for getting arrested for DUI with a child in the vehicle. Under RCW 46.61.5055 and RCW 9.94A.533 if a driver is arrested for DUI with a passenger under 16 then they face additional penalties on top of the regular DUI penalties. First an ignition interlock device will be imposed for an additional 6 months on top of the regular 1, 5, or 10 year increments. Secondly a higher fine is imposed for a first offense. And lastly for each passenger under 16 an additional 12 months shall be added to a sentence for vehicular homicide.

So how does this compare to other States. In all honesty it is pretty comparable to other States, and if anything the Washington State laws are less strict. For example in North Carolina if you get a DUI with a passenger under 16 then you automatically face a minimum sentence of 7 days to 12 months with mitigating circumstances adding a minimum sentence of 30 days to 24 months in custody. In Pennsylvania there is an automatic 100 community service hours that get imposed. But the cake is taken by Texas. If you get a DUI with a passenger under 15 then you face a minimum sentence of 180 days. Now that is tough.

Like I said Washington State recently enacted these laws. Surprisingly there are still States out there without any additional penalties for DUI with a child passenger. Vermont, New Mexico, Missouri, Indiana, Connecticut, and Alaska are the only ones I can find without additional penalties.

So back to the Seattle mother. She will probably face the additional penalties listed above per the RCW’s. Also knowing the Prosecutor’s office like I do she will most likely face harsher treatment from them as well.

About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA. He is listed as a Top Rated Seattle DUI Attorney by Avvo, and a was recently named a Rising Star in the field of DUI Defense by Seattle Met Magazine. An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.

A recent article in the Seattle Times came out this weekend about King County DUI cases and how long they take to get filed.  The article compared cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the King County Prosecutors Office and several other Prosecutor offices in and around Western Washington, specifically the Seattle City Attorneys office.  In comparing the King County DUI cases and DUI cases from other jurisdictions, King County takes much much longer to file DUI charges.  And the article asks why?

The article went on and on about the delay in King County DUI cases, and used an example of a gentlemen who was arrested for a DUI in King County but was not charged until 95 days after his DUI arrest.  In between his arrest and arraignment in King County he got arrested for a DUI in the City of Seattle and was charged within a day or two of the arrest.  The columnist then went on to blame the County for the delay and not locking this guy up sooner.

As a DUI Attorney in Seattle, I have to say I really don’t have an opinion on when a DUI case gets filed.  Yes, I can see from the community safety point of view of charging someone as soon as they are arrested.  But I also see the number of DUI cases that come through King County every year.  There is absolutely no way the County can file cases like many small Prosecutor offices with much fewer cases.  For example, the City of Seattle roughly handles a 1/4 of what King County handles and that is why there is such a quick turnaround.

Additionally, I tend to think that DUI cases in King County get handled and resolved much much quicker than say Seattle Municipal Court.  The reason is that when the DUI charge is not filed for several months, it gives the defendant and the defense attorney a head start on the investigation.

For example, in Seattle Municipal Court if you are arrested for a DUI in the City of Seattle then you will have an arraignment within 2-3 business days.  After your arraignment, the next court date is typically a month’s way.  Most Judges will not allow a DUI case to be continued after 2 pretrial hearings.  So basically a Defense Attorney has 60 days to interview all witnesses, find any legal issues, negotiate with the Prosecutor, and draft and file any motions.  This time frame would be extremely fast for a theft of a candy bar case let along with a crime as complicated as a DUI.  So most times in my experience DUI cases are needlessly set for trial in Seattle Municipal Court just to give the Defense more time to work on the case.  This costs money to do from a taxpayer standpoint when you consider the added court time for the Judge, clerks, bailiffs, and Prosecutors, but the article didn’t seem to recognize this issue.

Now compare that to a King County DUI case.  If it is filed 2 months after the date of the arrest.  Then the Defense Attorney has probably already litigated the DOL hearing.  Probably interviewed any witnesses including the arresting officer, and researched any legal issues.  So by the time the DUI case is filed the Defense has thoroughly had enough time to investigate and prepare the case.  So it is not uncommon for a DUI case to be resolved at that first pretrial, or at the latest the second pretrial.  There is no needless trial date set, and the taxpayers save money.

Obviously this is just one man’s opinion.  But it is a point of view that was not raised in the Seattle Times article.  So before you go bashing Dan Satterberg and the King County Prosecutor’s office consider what I wrote above.  Additionally from what I hear, nowadays the King County Prosecutors Office is filing cases much much quicker now.  Not as fast as the Seattle City Attorneys, but usually within one month.  Which I think is quite impressive, considering the number of cases that come through that office.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle.  He is currently rated a 10 out of 10 by Avvo and listed as a Superb DUI Attorney.  Additionally, he was recently named a Rising Star in the field of DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine and the Seattle Met Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.

One of the questions I am most often asked while I’m meeting with someone arrested for a DUI in Washington State is why did my vehicle have to get impounded?  This wasn’t always the case.  I used to represent people all the time who were arrested for DUI and the police officer left their car where it was.  Or sometimes I had cases where the police officer would even move the vehicle so it was lawfully parked and wouldn’t get towed in the morning.  However this all changed July 22, 2011 when Hailey’s law became effective.

What is Hailey’s law you ask?  Well back in 2007, Hailey French of Whatcom County was seriously injured in a head on collision when she was struck by a drunk driver.  The driver who had been arrested earlier was not booked and was actually taken back to her residence.  The arresting officer who did her this favor warned her about going back to her vehicle and driving.  The driver ignored this warning and went back to get her vehicle.  Unfortunately she was still affected by the alcohol consumed earlier and she got into an accident with Hailey French.  An interesting side note French sued Whatcom County and the Washington State Patrol and a jury awarded her $5.5 million.

So if you have been arrested for a DUI in Seattle or any other place in our State then your vehicle has a mandatory 12 hour hold before it will be released.  However there are certain exceptions when the vehicle can be picked up prior to the hold.  For example if two registered owners are on the vehicle, and one of the registered owners was not a passenger in the vehicle then that person can get the vehicle prior to the 12 hours.  Otherwise the vehicle has to stay in the impound lot for the mandatory 12 hours before it will be released.

Although I’m a Seattle DUI Attorney I must say that I was in favor of this bill.  I do believe that it will create a safer community for citizens of our State.  In addition there is the well crafted exception that would allow the vehicle to get released prior to the 12 hour hold.  What I’m not in favor of is the lack of any oversight on how much these two companies can charge.  If you get arrested for a DUI in Seattle for example and one of the major two companies gets your vehicle expect to pay $500-$750 to get the vehicle out of the tow yard.  To me that is a ridiculous price that is only benefiting the tow companies.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle.  He has been named a Rising Star in DUI Defense by both the Super Lawyers Magazine and the Seattle Metropolitan Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.  Additionally he is recognized as one of the best Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo and was awarded their 2013 client’s choice award for excellence.

I read an article this week in USA today about a New Mexico man who was arrested for DUI. So what is so interesting about that you ask? Well there is an allegation that he was having sex with a female as he was driving. Yes, you read that correct. Apparently Luis Briones was having sex while he was driving. He got into a car accident. The female was ejected through the windshield, and was found naked without serious injury thankfully. Mr. Briones was apparently found some time later hiding from the police behind a cactus.

So that got me thinking. What is the weirdest, oddest DUI case I have ever head of. Personally I have never represented someone with that weird of a fact pattern. Even when I worked as a public defender and I was getting a lot more cases I never had a set of odd facts. But I have heard of some cases either from other DUI Attorneys, or just sitting in Court and hearing about the facts during a motion, trial, or plea. So here are the top 5 weirdest cases I have heard of.

5. Man arrested for DUI in Snohomish County who was naked. I remember this case was a few years ago. I was in Court waiting for my case to be called. There was a plea going on, and when the Judge read the police report to determine whether there were facts sufficient he started chuckling. Asked the defendant what happened, and he said, “I was driving drunk, and I was naked.” The entire courtroom started to laugh, I will never forget it.

4. Woman arrested for DUI after allegedly flipping off Cop car. This case was a colleagues of mine. The reason the Cop pulled the defendant over was because she flipped him off. But odd thing about this case was the woman was pretty old. I guess when you hear something like that you expect it to be some young kid, not a grandma.

3. Man arrested for DUI after passenger mooned crowd. Again this was a colleagues case. Not the same one as above. It involved a young kid. He was driving in downtown Seattle and his passenger thought it was a good idea to pull down his pants and moon a group of people in Belltown. Unfortunately there was a Cop car right by that saw the whole thing. I bet the driver of that car was pretty upset for getting him busted for DUI.

2. Woman arrested for DUI for getting car high centered at Jack in the Box. This was a friend of a fried situation. But apparently after a night of drinking this woman thought it was a good idea to get some food from Jack in the Box. But was so drunk she got her car stuck in the drive thru.

1. Blind man arrested for DUI. Yes that is right a blind man was arrested for DUI after getting into a car accident. My wife told me about this one. I guess a blind man was driving his friend around. The friend was extremely intoxicated and he was giving the blind man who was also impaired directions on where to turn, how to drive, etc.

Well there you have it. My top 5 oddest DUI cases I have heard of as a Seattle DUI Attorney. Im sure I have probably forget a few, and the man arrested in New Mexico would easily top my list. Although the blind driver would be tough to beat. Any fellow DUI Attorneys out there feel free to comment on the oddest fact patterns you have had or heard of in a DUI case.

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

One of the most controversial issues that comes up among Seattle DUI Attorneys is whether it is ethical to send solicitation letters in the mail to individuals charged with a DUI. In case you’re not familiar with this practice. There are a growing number of DUI Attorneys in Washington State, mostly King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties that will get the list of people that have an arraignment for a DUI and send them a letter soliciting their business.

Recently one of these Attorneys sent a letter to my house. Now I’m not charged with a DUI nor is my wife, but somehow I received one. So it got me thinking why those Attorneys do and why I do not. When I first started practicing law there was only one DUI attorney I was aware of who did this. But recently it seems like more and more DUI Attorneys are resorting to this practice. From what I gather many of these DUI Attorneys are younger ones, recent law school graduates, or attorneys who were recently laid off and are trying to start their criminal law practice and generate business. Personally, for my practice, I choose not to send these letters for a variety of reasons.

First, as I noted above it is extremely controversial among the Defense Attorney bar and some even view it as poor form. My reputation as a Defense Attorney is very important to me and my practice. Obviously, it is important when it comes to Prosecutors, Judges, and law enforcement but it is especially important with the Defense bar as well. Many Attorneys take it personally when a client receives one of these solicitation letters and hold a grudge or find the Attorney is acting in bad taste. The last thing I want to do is make enemies within the community I work. To me that is just stupid business.

Secondly, I personally believe it is an invasion of privacy that I would rather not cross. I don’t know what it is like to be charged with a crime, but I imagine it is not a pleasant feeling. The last thing I want to do as an Attorney is send someone a letter reminding them of this mistake and oh by they way hire me to represent you on it.

And lastly this kind of goes along with the privacy issue but I don’t want to be the cause of any family discourse. A few years ago I represented a client charged with a DUI. He was having some marital problems he and his wife were working through and did not tell the wife of his DUI arrest. When his DUI case was filed, I tried to file my notice of appearance as soon as possible in an effort to thwart these Attorneys from sending their solicitation letters. Unfortunately, they did not seem to care or maybe didn’t verify the client already had counsel because he received some letters and his wife found out. Obviously, that didn’t go over well and the idea he had of telling his wife once their relationship was more stable didn’t work. Now me as a DUI Attorney I would rather not be responsible for such issues, but that is just me.

Now you’re probably wondering if this practice is so controversial than why do these Attorneys do it and how do they get away wit it. Well first of all it is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct. I believe there State Bar had a hearing way back when and has determined this is not direct solicitation and therefore is not a violation of the ethics rules. Secondly this is a competitive market we DUI Attorneys practice in. There are lots of competitors out there and you have to figure out a way to put food on the table. For younger attorneys especially or those that do not get referrals from former clients, other Defense Attorneys, Prosecutors, Judges, or even law enforcement they need to find a way to make money. Fortunately for me my practice is about 90% referral based and the other 10% come from clients who find me through my website or this blog so I don’t have to resort to such tactics.

Now I know many DUI Attorneys who get really heated when it comes to this issue. But as long as the State Bar feels it is an okay practice than there is not much that can be done regardless of how unprofessional it is.

About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA. His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses. He is currently rated as one of the best Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo, and named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine in DUI Defense. An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.

Over the weekend an interesting article came out from the Seattle Times discussing the role ignition interlock companies play following a DUI arrest here in Washington State. In case you didn’t get a chance to read it you might take a look it’s pretty interesting. What I took away from the article is investing in an ignition interlock company is worth its weight in gold. I’m semi-kidding but it does appear to be a very lucrative business. And like all businesses that make loads of money with little legislative oversight it raises the questions do these IID companies have an unfair monopoly in Washington State.

The article discussed how lawmakers and owners of these IID companies appear to be in lockstep. Meaning the stiffer the DUI penalties become the more money these ignition interlock companies are set to make. I got the sense from the article that some of these companies or at least the owners contribute heavily to campaign funds where the legislator is anti DUI and pro stiffer penalties. Additionally the article paints a picture where the companies themselves play an integral role in helping write the ignition interlock laws that we have here in Washington State following a DUI arrest or DUI conviction. I mean guess who created the idea to have the ignition interlock license following a drivers license suspension.

And as both a DUI Attorney in Seattle, and a resident of the State this all seems very shady and unfair to me. So it got me thinking how much money are these ignition interlock companies making and how. Obviously I have no idea what their profits are but you can get a general idea over how profitable they are by looking no further than the laws here in Washington when it comes to DUI arrests and ignition interlock device requirements.

Remember there are several times an individual faces an ignition interlock requirement following a DUI arrest. After a drivers license suspension at the DOL administrative hearing level (assuming they want to continue driving). After an arraignment following charging of the DUI. Lastly after a conviction for a DUI or an amendment down to reckless driving when there was no suspension credit. So on the surface they are making money just when those conditions come into play. But they are also making boatloads of money on administrative stuff. Things people don’t think about.

First they make it with the installation of the device. Based on what former and current clients have told me this can range anywhere from $50 to $100.

Secondly the monthly cost itself of the device is around $100. So that is quite a substantial sum right there. Depending on whether a defendant has had a prior ignition interlock requirement this time frame can range from 1 to 5 to 10 years.

But lastly there are some hidden costs that always seem to add up that don’t appear to have any oversight or regulation. For example lets say an individual has an IID in their vehicle following a Seattle DUI arrest. They are running late for work. In their haste they rise their mouth with mouthwash and run out to their car. They blow into the device and register a reading and the car won’t start. Well they now have to pay an additional fee to have the device recalibrated. Additionally if this occurred within the last 4 months the device was supposed to be on, then they will be required to have it on for an additional 4 months. That is an extra $400-$500 plus the recalibration fee and removal fee at the end of the period.

Currently there aren’t any laws in place to regulate these type of additional fees and that is why I say there appears to be an unfair monopoly in our State when it comes to IID companies and what and how they charge. It’s eerily similiar to what tow companies are charging to get a vehicle out of impound following a DUI arrest. Like the IID companies they can pretty much charge what they want and nobody is ever going to say anything because it is anti-DUI. Hopefully some kind of regulation occurs with these IID companies when it comes to costs and this unfair monopoly is put down.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Attorney. His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses. He is currently rated by Avvo as one of the best Seattle DUI Attorneys, and was named a Rising Star in Seattle DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine. An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.