Seattle DUI lawyer Matthew Leyba discusses the different stages of a DUI jury trial in his latest you tube video blog
Yearly Archives: 2015
Should there be alternatives for pretrial ignition interlock conditions in DUI cases?
If you have been arrested for a DUI in the Seattle area then you face the possibility of a Judge imposing pretrial conditions at your arraignment. This means the Judge has the authority to require a defendant to follow certain conditions while the case is pending. Typically on DUI cases this involves no drinking and driving, no driving without a valid license and insurance, and no refusal of a breath test. However in some cases a Judge can require a defendant to post bail or install an ignition interlock device until there is a resolution in the DUI.
In Seattle for example if you have a DUI arraignment in the Seattle Municipal Court then there is probably a very good chance you might be required to install an ignition interlock device even on a first offense DUI. This is just how they roll down there nowadays. If you don’t have a car, or the means to get an ignition interlock device installed then you can sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that you will not drive a motor vehicle. If you get caught driving a motor vehicle after you have signed this declaration then chances are you will go to jail unless you can come up with a significant bail amount.
I recently read an article in the Seattle Times about this very issue. The gist of the article was how Washington State lawmakers are proposing a bill that would allow drivers facing DUI charges to avoid a mandatory pretrial condition of ignition interlock by swearing they won’t drive. It sounds like this is modeled after what the Seattle Municipal Court has been doing for years.
To be honest I’m surprised something like this is being proposed, however I think it is an excellent idea and I hope it passes. Often times people cannot come up with the money for an ignition interlock device or they don’t own a car. In those situations Prosecutors will ask the Judge to have the driver sit in jail while the case is going on or make them come up with the money for electronic home monitoring. As a practicing Seattle DUI Attorney I think these current alternative options are just ludicrous.
Look I get it. There really is no way to ensure a person is not going to drive again by signing a declaration. In today’s day and age it is fairly easy to get your hands on a car. Either from a friend, family member, etc. But there has to be an alternative options for those individuals that cannot get an ignition interlock device. Jail is too expensive for the tax payers, and too over populated with more serious offenses. I hope this bill is considered to provide alternative options for individuals in this situation.
If you’re interested in reading the article and checking out the proposed bill, here you go.
_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA. He is the firm owner of Leyba Defense PLLC, a criminal defense law firm focusing on DUI defense in the Puget Sound area.
New WA state case expands on reasonable suspicion to stop based on lane travel
One of the most common reasons drivers get pulled over and ultimately arrested for DUI in Seattle is based on violations of the lane travel statute. In 2008 the case of State v. Prado elaborated on what constitutes a violation of the lane travel statute. Last week the Division One Court of Appeals in Washington state finally ruled on another case that sort of expanded on the Prado case in State v. Jones.
So here is the typical situation where these cases apply. A driver is on Interstate 5 here in Seattle. A Washington State Patrol officer is behind the driver. As the vehicle is driving along it brief crosses into another lane and then corrects itself. Based on this a Trooper will conduct a traffic stop and say based on their training and experience when a vehicle drifts into another lane that is a sign of a possible DUI.
In the Prado case the police stopped a car that had crossed a lane divider line in an exit lane by approximately two tire widths for one second ultimately arrested the driver for DUI. The Officer relied on the lane travel statute which states, “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made safely.” RCW 46.61.140(1).
On appeal, the Court concluded that the language “as nearly as practicable” required an analysis of the totality of the circumstances, which did not justify a stop based on merely a “brief incursion across the white lane line with no erratic driving or safety problems.”
In the State v. Jones case which was decided last week. That driver was observed by the police crossing over the fog line approximately an inch three times, each time correcting its position with a slow drift. Ultimately that driver was stopped and found in possession of a firearm when he was unlawfully allowed to possess one. As in the Prado decision, the Court of Appeals once again found there was insufficient evidence a lane violation had occurred based on the testimony and evidence before the Court.
As a Seattle DUI Attorney, I found this decision interesting in a couple of ways. First the driving in the Jones case was arguably more in violation of the lane travel statute than in the Prado case. Remember in Prado that driver crossed a lane of travel by two tire widths for less than a second. In the Jones case that driver crossed the fog line by an inch 3 times and then slowly drifted back into the lane of travel.
From a reading of the Courts opinion it sounds like the Prosecutor may have dropped the ball during the initial testimonial motion to suppress. During the appeal of the Jones case the Prosecutor relied on a case named State v. McLean. In that case a Trooper stopped a driver after observing him cross the fog line three times. Sounds familiar, right?
Well as the Court pointed out in the Jones case. The McLean case is different because in the case testimony was elicited from the Trooper about his training and experience. How drivers that he typically contacts based on similar behavior end up being a DUI. In the Jones case, the Prosecution never elicited such testimony. All they had to elicit from the Trooper was based on her training and experience she has seen this type of driving before and the majority of drivers she pulls over for this infraction have been drinking.
Anyway so in my opinion as a DUI Attorney this is a favorable case for the Defense.
_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle. He is the firm owner of Leyba Defense PLLC, a boutique DUI firm located in downtown Seattle. He has been repeatedly recognized as one of the best DUI Lawyers in Seattle by the Seattle Met Magazine’s Annual “Best of” Edition. He is also the highest rated DUI lawyer by Avvo.com
Do law enforcement agencies have a DUI arrest quota system?
One question I have always wondered as a Seattle DUI Attorney is whether law enforcement agencies have a DUI arrest quota system in place. I recently came across an article apparently confirming they do in Tennessee which makes you wonder. Is it really that far fetched to think other law enforcement agencies around the Country have similar policies in place?
When I was 16 years old I was pulled over for speeding. Back in Utah they used to have this program where if you attended a traffic course the ticket wouldn’t be forwarded to your insurance company and wouldn’t even be filed. I never told my parents about the ticket and just paid for the class and nobody was the wiser.
Basically the class was just a police officer talking to a bunch of people. It was pretty informal and I assumed was just a way for the City to make more money by charging people for this class in exchange for the traffic ticket going away. The only thing I remember from that class was the police officer basically confirmed there was a ticket quota in place when somebody asked him.
When I got into DUI Defense as an Attorney in Seattle I always wondered if there was a similar quota in place for DUI arrests. I imagine all the programs throughout the Country like what we have called Target Zero here in Seattle are based on funding. And the legislature is not going to fund a program if they don’t see results, that is just common sense.
The article I came across about Tennessee had several anonymous troopers and one retired trooper basically say an unwritten policy on DUI quotas was in place. If you didn’t have a certain number of DUI arrests you were punished. From being forced to work night shifts to losing out on overtime opportunities to even being transferred to other districts.
Now I’m not in law enforcement but I would think something like this would be pretty easy to enforce from the higher ups. An unwritten policy has no paper trail. And other than transferring a cop to another district all these “punishments” seem like there could be other explanations given that would all seem legit.
Anyway here is the article if you’re interested. Linky. Just some food for thought on a cloudy Monday morning here in the beautiful Pacific Northwest.
_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA. He has been repeatedly recognized as one of the best DUI Attorneys in Seattle by the Seattle Met Magazine. He is also the highest possible rated DUI Lawyer in Seattle according to Avvo.com, a lawyer rating service, which a 10 out of 10 rating.
What is an alcohol and drug evaluation in a DUI case?
If you have been arrested or charged with a DUI then undoubtedly you have probably heard of a alcohol and drug evaluation. Most likely you have heard about it either from someone who has gone through that process before or from a DUI Attorney and how important it is for you to get it. So what is an alcohol and drug evaluation and what happens takes place at it?
To put it simply an alcohol and drug evaluation is exactly how it sounds. It is an evaluation that is done by a State certified treatment agency to determine whether there are any substance abuse or dependence issues.
So how does the evaluation work? Well it is pretty basic. First you contact a treatment provider or counselor to schedule the evaluation. Most Seattle DUI Attorneys have the specific places they prefer so make sure to ask your attorney if you have retained one and where they recommend you go.
Once you show up for your appointment you will be asked to provide a urinalysis sample. A word of advice it is always better if it comes back negative for all substances. And yes that includes marijuana even though it is legal now in Washington State.
After the urinalysis the interview portion of the evaluation will take place. This has to be done in person face to face with the counselor. During the interview portion the counselor will ask some background questions about alcohol and/or drug usage. When it began, how often, etc. The counselor will also ask about family history of substance abuse or dependence. After the background questions then the counselor will ask about the referring incident. If you were arrested for a DUI or DUI related offense then this is what you would talk about.
Once the interview portion of the evaluation is done and before writing it. The counselor will usually contact the DUI Attorney for additional information and to get the police report, breath test or blood test results, 5 year drivers abstract, and criminal history for review.
After the counselor has reviewed all the relevant documents and considered all the information before them they will write summary or diagnosis on whether there is insufficient evidence to document addiction, evidence of substance abuse, or evidence of substance dependence. Depending on the outcome there will be a recommended level of follow up treatment ranging from a 1 day class to a 2 year alcohol and drug treatment program.
If you’re facing a DUI then it is of vital importance you get this evaluation done as soon as possible. Not only will it help your case but it will also help you understand what causes substance abuse and/or dependence.
_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle. He is the owner of Leyba Defense PLLC, a boutique criminal defense in Seattle, WA focuses on DUI and DUI related offenses.
DUI lawyer in hot water over controversial DUI checkpoint advice
I recently read about a DUI lawyer facing a little heat this year over some controversial advice he provided in Florida over DUI checkpoints. In Florida, where DUI checkpoints are legal, this DUI lawyer blogged that motorists should put their license, registration, proof of insurance, and a flyer in a plastic baggie attached to the exterior of their vehicle and then roll up the driver’s window as they approach the checkpoint. The flyer would state things such as, “I remain silent,” “no searches,” and “I want my lawyer.”
The thinking behind this idea is the law enforcement officer would see the flyer, perhaps review the license and registration and then waive the driver through the DUI checkpoint. Because the flyer essential would state the driver is not going answer any questions, then arguably, the police officer shouldn’t ask the driver to exit absent any specific or articulable observations of impairment made by the police officer.
I personally think this idea might cause the opposite of what this DUI lawyer was thinking. By employing this tactic, aren’t you drawing attention to yourself? Let’s be honest here if a police officer wants to get someone out of their vehicle, it doesn’t take a whole lot. Any little traffic infraction, any little possible sign of impairment, and the cop is just going to use that as an excuse to see what is really going on with the driver using this flyer tactic. Even though under Florida law, something like this would be legal, it is my opinion that it would be stupid to do, especially if you have been drinking. Unless you’re completely sober and you want to just mess with the police, I wouldn’t advise a driver would do this.
If you’re interested, here is the link to the article from the ABA journal where is saw it.
_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is the owner of Leyba Defense PLLC, the premier DUI law firm in Seattle. Matthew has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star in the area of DUI defense by the Seattle Met Magazine. Additionally, he was recently named a Top 40 under 40 criminal defense lawyer in Washington State.