12.29.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Theory of Corpus Delicti

No one desires to know or talk to a Seattle criminal attorney until they are in concern. There is a particular curse or hex that clients seem to sense pursue those seeking out criminal defense information before they need it. Nevertheless, once you are charged with a crime, you immediately appreciate how imperative a good criminal defense attorney is.

And part of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the need to explain all of the legal nonsense that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys (which is done very well at the Seattle DUI Attorney News Blog). Here are just a couple of terms you might hear at some point in your criminal process, some you may 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 understand what one of those legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you possibly will not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an important term for your defense attorney to know, specifically if you have confessed to a wrong and he or she desires to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better appreciate the word, I've broken it down for you below.

As I mentioned above, corpus delicti arises most frequently in the situation of confessions, and specifically in the situation of confessions where not a lot of supplementary evidence exists against the defendant. see, judges and courts, though more than willing 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 rationale is, we be acquainted with false confessions are given from time to time. And we know that juries place in exceptionally high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are tentative to allow confessions in unless there is some extra unconnected proof of the criminal act.

And that extra unconnected data of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or extra unrelated data of a wrong, the court will not agree to in a confession since there is the likelihood (whether sound or otherwise) that the confession was falsely given. Still a little bit mystified as to what it means? That's why the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog is here. How about an example.

Let's say there is a guy. He is standing out in a parking lot with some supplementary citizens around some trucks. Let's say the individuals in the auto and the people out of the sedan get into a yelling match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the guys in the automobile come to a decision to abscond. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a clatter on his van and turns around. He doesn't witness anybody touching his automobile or necessarily by his car, but there is only one person in the region. The man in the automobile doesn't check his auto out until later, when he glimpses a dent in the side of his vehicle. He surmises it was the man he saw around his automobile earlier.

The cops go and pick up the male they suspect of harming the auto and take him down to the cops station. Following some chatting and interrogating, they get the gentleman to admit to kicking the van. He is arrested and charged with malicious mischief.

In this case, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? With no the confession, all the police have for data is the man hearing something happen to his auto, turn around, and spot the chap near the van. What is omitted is any support that the man hit the vehicle, and that he did it with an intention to damage the vehicle. It is doable (hypothetically, if no confession had been given) that he was only in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a instance like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.

Corpus delicti, like most extra Latin legal terms, are not tricky to know once they are clarified. But getting that clarification 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 second you are placed under arrest or deem like you can't leave is the minute you should demand to have a word with a Seattle criminal attorney. A criminal lawyer can not solitarily facilitate you through the confusion of legal hogwash, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the cops off your back.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | 10/16/09 News

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Don't Hit People With Golf Clubs

12.22.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Confidentiality

Whether a Seattle criminal attorney, a civil lawyer, or only a ordinary self on the roadway, nearly every person has heard of and has a vague outline about what the attorney-client privilege is. If we haven't dealt with it straightforwardly in our private lives then we've virtually certainly had the occasion to see it in action on TV or in the movies.

But what is the attorney-client benefit in reality? Does it signify that when you tell a lawyer something that they can't tell anyone no matter what? And when does it start? Do you need to engage the criminal defense lawyer? And when does it finish? Will a criminal attorney in actuality take your secrets to their grave? Read on to have these inquiries answered.

Let's commence with what the benefit stands for. And, since I am a criminal attorney Seattle, we'll use it in the context of criminal law, even though it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The attorney-client benefit is the thought that everything you inform your attorney, in private (when simply the two of you are in attendance) is confidential.

This stands for the attorney cannot reveal to anyone what you have spoken concerning. They can't tell their wife, they can't inform their allies, they can't tell the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only instance they can disclose is if the information you've told them is to perpetrate the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of someone. It is a very powerful privilege.

And the most excellent thing is, the privilege starts right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have hired the attorney for the benefit to attach. It occurs involuntarily, and even if you don't employ that attorney, they nonetheless have to keep your secrets secure. Let me offer you an illustration to show you how strong it can be. Let's say you are looking for a divorce and you go chat to a attorney concerning it.

You reveal to him all concerning your situation and what has been going on, he quotes you a fee, and you reveal to him it's too costly and go get someone else. A week later your spouse comes in and desires to talk to a lawyer concerning a divorce. The attorney not only can't take the case since he's already spoken to you and representing the spouse would create a conflict, but he can't inform the wife why he can't represent her! The husband would basically be sent away. That's how authoritative the benefit is.

And the privilege 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 self is tried and convicted of the murder, and the attorney never told anyone 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 benefit - your criminal defense lawyer must know as much concerning your case as possible to present you the best defense possible. Without your information and candid conversation, that is nearly impossible. So, the next instance you are with your lawyer, don't be afraid to speak up. Your secrets are safe.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Search Incident to Arrest

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI Consequences

12.18.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause

Inside the world of DUI law, probable cause is what it's all about. It is compulsory for a official capture, and everything officers do, especially when it comes to criminal charges, is carried out to assemble sufficient proof to substantiate probable cause. But what is probable cause? It is a bit of an shapeless object, never having a clear line definitive state of being. As one famous Supreme Court Justice put "I comprehend it when I see it." Now hear it explained from a Seattle criminal attorney.

Before I start my explanation of probable cause, specifically as it relates to Seattle criminal charges, I want to emphasize that this article is for educational purposes. If you are charged with a Seattle DUI, please call a Seattle criminal attorney for discussion on your precise case. Do not rely on this as legal guidance, as each case is so factually diverse individual counsel is essential.

Probable cause is generally viewed as a mixed problem of law and fact. It requires extensive substantiation and a legal conclusion of probable cause. Significant support requires "a adequate quantity of facts in the record to influence a fair-minded, rational individual of the accuracy of the finding." It is the who, what, when, and where of the study.

For instance, let's pretend we have a guy driving around in Seattle subsequent to having consumed several cocktails. He is detained by a officer for speeding - 37 in a 25. He is otherwise driving normally, including pulling off to the side of the road in a sensible way. At this time there in all probability is no probable cause for criminal, despite the fact that there is probable cause for speeding. But what if when the police officer approaches the driver he smells a robust odor of beer and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. This may escalate to the level of substantial proof of DUI.

The second prong of probable cause is whether the evidence confirm a legal finding of probable cause. In essence, do the facts as recognized confirm a logical belief that a crime has been committed. In this set of circumstances, possibly so, perhaps not. Individuals are permitted to drink and then drive (just not when impaired by beer), and the watery eyes may be described away by something else.

So, what if the officer then asks the driver to complete field sobriety tests (which you can and ought to always 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 test? Is that sufficient for an cop to derive a practical finding that the driver was driving under the influence of liquor? In all probability. It is certainly a stronger set of circumstances for the officer (although not definitive - injuries and weather circumstances may have been a factor, for example).

Now, why is this critical for you, the normal Seattle resident? Because it is crucial to know that whenever a cop stops you and begins to question you he is not fretful with your safety (except in those apparent situations) and is ordinarily attempting to gather adequate data from you to establish probable cause. And it is even more essential to recognize it is within your Constitutional rights to refuse to give him data he will in the end exploit against you (despite the fact that you ought to give your license, registration, and act considerately to the police officer).

If you do discover yourself likely to be captured for criminal, speak to the police as little as possible by saying no respectfully ("I'd respectfully refuse to answer that problem") and if things continue to heat up ask to have a minute to get in touch with your Seattle criminal attorney. Even if they get you to say things your Seattle DUI lawyer will have a decent chance of getting it thrown out (you must never waive our rights, for your information).

Thank for your reading the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog. Come back soon.

Related Posts:
First Court Appearance on Your Criminal Charge - Arraignment

Seattle Criminal Attorney and Search Incident to Arrest

12.08.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining

The most awful state of affairs situation has happened. You went to that birthday bash last weekend in downtown Seattle that you knew was going to end up being outrageous (complimentary cocktails will do that to you). You considered securing a ride to and from the party, nevertheless in the end decided it was exceedingly annoying to pay for a taxi. On the route home to Seattle, it happened. A Seattle cop pulled you over and in the end arrested you for Seattle drunk driving. You've retained a Seattle criminal attorney however are anxious about how everything is going to turn out.

If you've been viewing Law and Order, Boston Legal, Murphy Brown, or several of the other legal programs on TV, or if you've spoken to anyone that has had legal difficulty before, then you grasp a little bit concerning how the process works. First, your Seattle criminal attorney is going to (or should) undertake an in-depth look at your situation, including the police reports, any videotape that exists, and interviewing any witnesses that may exist. Next, they are going to have you obtain an alcohol valuation, which, depending on what it says, will have an consequence on the path 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 appreciate that Washington driving under the influence laws (and drunk driving laws across the nation) are several of the most strict when it comes to plea bargaining. No legislator wants to be accountable for releasing a drunk driver who goes out and drives impaired yet again and causes harm (even though individuals can drive devoid of a license). This makes it decently difficult to plea bargain with the prosecutor, particularly to get a driving under the influence charge reduced to something lesser. But there are several choices. earlier I get going, it is imperative to bear in mind that the judge doesn't have to accept a plea bargain. The court can always impose their own punishment.

Initially, it may be possible to persuade the prosecutor to prosecute your drunk driving as a initially drunk driving even though you have a earlier infraction in the preceding 7 years. This allows your Seattle criminal lawyer to get a lower sentence, lower fines, and reduced license revocation (though this will frequently not affect the administrative license suspension as they work separately of the prosecutor's office).

Next, it may be probable to get some of the accompanying charges 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 accident, fleeing and alluding, or something similar, getting those dismissed can be a acceptable outcome.

Third, in several instances, when the prosecutor's state of affairs is reasonably flimsy, you might be able to plead down the drunk driving to reckless driving. This is advantageous for the reason that it reduces the driving suspension, there is no mandatory jail time, and there is no ignition interlock condition. It will require the high risk insurance, but if your license has already been suspended administratively, you have to have that anyway. 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 observe it at all.

In some occasion, if you desire to get the best deal, you've got to find a criminal lawyer in Seattle that is dependable, honest, and has a good quality reputation at the prosecutor's office (for being a straight shooter, not necessarily a person the prosecutor likes). If your driving under the influence attorney brags about pulling one over on the prosecutor's office, you can expect that either the prosecutor is going to see through it, or the DUI lawyer in Seattle has done it previously, and you are not going to be assisted because of it.

Lawyering is an art and a science, but if you don't possess reliability, you won't get that much needed benefit of the doubt. It could result in a much harsher sentence than was initially possible.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI Consequences

Seattle Criminal Attorney | You Need to Know One

12.01.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | The Traffic Stop

One of the most horrible feelings you can possibly experience is on that long drive home late at night after a couple of drinks at the pub. You feel okay, but recognize deep down that feeling good isn't what really matters. And then you observe them, flashing lights in your rear view mirror, and you know you are probably going to need a good Seattle criminal lawyer.

A drunk driving stop is one of the most terrifying experiences there are, if, for no other reason, there are so many unknowns. Will the cop suppose you are inebriated? Will you lose your driver's license? Will you have to go to jail? Could you possibly immediately have squandered thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines down the drain? All of these inquiries probably race through your head, and with good cause.

The Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog, with a bit of luck, will make you a little less frightened. While you shouldn't drink and drive, if you stumble on yourself in that place, at least in Washington State (Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Tacoma, Federal Way, Kent, etc.) this post is going to confirm you own the best opportunity of making it to your house safe. But bear in mind, this information is not legal guidance. Ahead of committing any decisions that may perhaps determine your legal rights or fate, please seek advice from a Seattle criminal lawyer. Every case is special, and you want a DUI defense attorney in Seattle to evaluate your individual circumstances to know precisely what to do.

There are some important things you should be aware of about your conventional criminal detention in Seattle. First, the majority of the time you are not being pulled over on suspicion of criminal (according to the police officer). Even though it is 1:00 a.m. and he's out pulling you over for failing to make use of a turn indication, a criminal is not the actual reason he's pulling you over (okay, so it probably is, but it is beside the point here - if they've got a explanation to pull you over, they can). Presuming you weren't swerving all over the place or doing something in addition to make the police officer suppose you were hammered, getting the stop over as rapidly as feasible is the ambition.

Getting it completed represents three things: (1) act respectfully; (2) say as little as possible; and (3) once it appears as though the preliminary detention is over, ask if you may go so you can get back home. Once the police officer pulls you over, he is looking for symbols that you are under the influence. We all are aware of what those are: glassy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech; the smell of booze. Try not to offer out those clues to the officer if possible (don't talk too much). The objective is to thwart the police officer from establishing probable cause that you are DUI. Lacking that he is going to have a hard time seizing you.

Next, if he asks you to step out of the vehicle, you can do so. But, if he asks if you'd mind taking a couple of field sobriety tests, now is where you have to take a route special than that of a good number Seattle drivers. Courteously decline. You don't even have to give an explanation. In Washington State, you have the right to stay silent, to abstain from providing incriminating evidence in contradiction of yourself, including field sobriety tests. It prevents a lot of facts from being obtained that can be used against you later on, and it is the correct thing to do. Nevertheless, be ready, for the reason that it may get you brought to the station for a breath test (if they take you, though, you were going besides).

Now, here is the essential part. The instant they say you are going to take a breath test, let the police realize you desire to converse with a Seattle DUI lawyer. Once you do this, numerous things take place. First, the cops cannot interview you any more. And subsequent, you get to talk to a criminal attorney in Seattle to figure out what you must do next. And, no matter what time of day, an attorney is available (many Seattle DUI attorneys make themselves accessible for exactly such phone calls). And any Seattle criminal defense attorney must be able to point you to a person who will answer the telephone. And if you don't know who to call, a public defender is frequently on call, so even at three in the morning you'll have a person to chat to.

From there on, you ought to really do what your Seattle criminal defense attorney says, as your individual situation, including any prior offenses, your profession, how much you've had to drink, and other things, can have an effect on what you need to do going forward.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Ignition Interlock Explained

11.24.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Search Incident to Arrest

Here we go yet again, a new run down of the criminal jurisprudence cases decided in the previous week in Washington State. As with preceding week, the amount of decisions out is mimimal - maybe it has a little to do with the holidays or something, so this post might not be that long (although I doubt it). And keep in mind, as always, that though I am a Bellevue criminal attorney, I would not suggest you receive my synopsis of these cases and my scrutiny of these cases as gospel as you saunter into court to speak to the judge.

If you truly need the benefit of one of these cases to aid you, do the intelligent thing and read the situation. That way you can be rest certain that what you are saying is right - or better yet, call up a criminal defense attorney in Seattle to aid - you’ll be pleased you did.

The initial driving under the influence case on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case 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 variety of situation a drunk driving defense attorney loves because the verification was slim. It is not the type of case a criminal defense attorney loves because the prosecutor employed some original theories of using the rules of proof that appeared to be suspicious upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to declare.

Facts - The victim was awakened in his abode by gunshots. He peered outside and saw a person firing out of a red sports car. The automobile was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one person. A unconnected victim heard the similar thing, and later located bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. later the police searched the abode of Hartzell’s friend, who admitted to shooting a pistol at a different time. According to ballistics, the firearm was that used in the firing described above.

The cops were then afterward called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The police showed up, spotted a bullet hole in a vehicle, and brought a search canine to attempt to locate the revolver that was used. The canine smelled inside the van, then went out and discovered the gun a few hundred yards away from the sports car. This revolver also matched the bullets shot at the first described location.

Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his truck as illegal and that previous incidents were wrongly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a tendency to execute gun crimes.

breakdown - First, on the subject of the search issue. The Washington State constitution protects people from gratuitous searches of their individual and their private things. This provision is not violated if no search occurs. A search occurs when the state interferes with a individual’s confidential dealings. Usually, a search does not arise if an police officer is able to reveal something utilizing one of his senses from a non-intrusive point of view.

With regard to canine sniffs, a search happens depending on the conditions. Prior decisions have held that a search does not occur if the sniff happens in a place the individual would not have a reasonable belief of privacy and the sniff was not invasive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the car when the sniff happened and the dog didn’t get into the vehicle. The search was logical.

Second, regarding the 404(b) facts question. ER 404(b) provides:
facts of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a individual in order to demonstrate 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 experiment for admitting verification under this rule is well recognized. The trial court must: (1) find by a preponderance of the proof that a crime happened; (2) distinguish the point for which the evidence is sought to be introduced; (3) conclude whether the verification is pertinent to determine the element of a offense charged; and (4) ponder the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

In this occurrence, there was a reasonable deduction that the gun discovered 100 yards from Hartzell’s sedan was owned by him, particularly since the dog found the firearm after sniffing Hartzell’s automobile. Bullets from the firearm was also discovered on Hartzell and in the van driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was trying to use that proof not to demonstrate that the crimes created an identity that may perhaps illustrate the first offense and the offense alleged were the similar, but that it was probable the defendants committed the crimes because they were discovered in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these particulars, the court found that evidence to be important. And to end with, the trial court’s examination of the admission of the evidence was sensible since it reasoned the lack of data about the occasion would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.

Seattle DUI attorney’s breakdown - This isn’t the most excellent case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their boundaries to try to get this in. Do I believe the fact that these guys are found with the guns later on have any impact on what occurred under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one viewed anything it is not possible to see who was utilizing those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing inference upon conclusion to achieve their preferred conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t notice in any of this scrutiny (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any evidence that they committed the crimes alleged. As a Bellevue criminal attorney, I can certainly see why this case was taken to trial - the facts just isn’t there.

Next we have State v. Bliss, a state of affairs on the subject of possession of methamphetamine, search and seizure, and car stops.

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

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

Bliss’s Seattle drunk driving defense attorney moved to suppress the verification on two grounds: (1) the cop didn’t have good reason to stop the van; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court located the officer was correct in the stop and the search was legal.

Just before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the premise that the search was not event to the arrest. The court located the search was simultaneous with the arrest.

Issues - Was the search legal?

scrutiny - 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 question here, is when an cop stops a person briefly to investigate a logical suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific individual stopped such that the stop and investigation is reasonable 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 state of affairs when the cop stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the individual driving the automobile at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.

As for the Gant analysis, 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 car. This question is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.

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

Gant has actually given a tool for criminal defense defense lawyer’s 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 occasion to arrest. I guess we’ll see…

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Corpus Delicti

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI Consequences

11.20.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Can't Talk Your Way Out of Trouble

I retain several of DUI defense clients in Seattle. A large amount are citizens just similar to you and me. Usual people. The single distinction is they as a rule have made merely one deficient mistake that they are at this moment facing reprimand for. For most it is a Seattle driving under the influence allegation or marijuana possession accusation. They need a Seattle criminal attorney that can help.

Nevertheless because my patrons have generally in no way been in dilemma previously outside the arbitrary speeding infraction here and there (and they don't regularly read the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog, they retain no plan how to interact with the police as soon as they arrive and are investigating you for a crime. This is for two major reasons: firstly, since of the media (counting promotion by the police) we inherently accept as true the cops are out there to aid us; and second, the cops recognize this and play to this, and make the most of their influence as frequently as feasible to persuade you to do things you don't desire to do.

If my consumers would have absolutely paid attention in social studies seminar in high school and government seminar in high school, or in fact observe those police officer shows that are all over TV, they would know that as soon as the police show up and are investigating a criminal act, they are not your pal. They are present for one aim only - to collect data not in favor of you. And the preeminent system the get a hold that information is you - that's correct, frequently you prepare your own bed when it comes to the Seattle DUI accusations you face.

Like I said, I'm a Seattle DUI attorney. There is nothing I like to see less than a police description that includes a bunch of my client's statements. They never lend a hand - they at all times impair. And they are regularly the primary basis for the accusations my client is facing.

So, what should you do if you are investigated for a misdemeanor? First, lock up your mouth. And don't open it unless you intend to express the expression "get me a attorney." Otherwise you are absolutely hurting yourself. Second, when you articulate those words, undertake to close yourself down as best you can. The cops aren't going to be keen on this and they are going to try everything they can to get you talking. This includes using your worries, your ethics, and the clothes you care about, counter to you. Just continue calm until you have a driving under the influence attorney in Seattle at hand to help you. It will make a giant modification.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Take the Breath Test?

Seattle Criminal Attorney | You Should Know One

11.10.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Firearms and Residential Burglary

Another week, a different column reviewing the significant criminal law case decisions from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Although last week there was an important determination that affects a lot of Kirkland DUI prosecutions, this week, the actual effect of the cases on the practice of law for your average Seattle criminal attorney is small.

To give you a short 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 make public any new cases of significance. The Division II case concerns something DUI attorneys in Kirkland will run into from time to time, or at least face inquiries on - the restoration of weapon rights after a dui conviction. The Division III case concerns the fundamentals of residential burglary and whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate transgression mandatory for a guilty verdict of residential burglary. Let’s get started!

Restoring Fire Arms Rights - State v. Mihali

Facts - State v. Mihali is a case about restoring fire arms rights to an human being convicted of a crime. Mihali, in 2000, was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (i.e. drugs - probably methamphetamine). In 2004 Mihali received a documentation from the Department of Corrections that she had fulfilled the terms of her punishment, was discharged from DOC supervision, and had all of her civil rights restored (right to vote, etc.) excepting the entitlement to possess 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, disagreeing that the necessary 10 years had not elapsed since her guilty verdict was finished, which is a requirement because she was found guilty of a class B felony. The court settled with Mihali and restored her firearms rights - the State appealed.

Issue - Was Mihali entitled to have her right to own a weapon restored?

Analysis - firearm restoration rights are governed by RCW 9.41.040(4). It states that a individual devoid of a conviction for a sex offense or a Class A felony may formally request the court to have their right to own a weapon if:

(b)(i) If the conviction 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 individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525

The state's argument that two conditions must be met before firearms will be restored is a sensible one: (1) five or more years in the area without being convicted or currently charged with a misdeed; and (2) no earlier felony convictions in her driving under the influence history that would be incorporated in her offender score computation that prohibit possessing a weapon. The matter in scrutiny here is the date from which the second prong of the scrutiny is measured from. The state contends the ten year look back period goes from the date of the petition for restoration of gun 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 prior case decisions. There we determined that the Legislature intended the look back era to be from the date of the petition for weapon restoration. Although the decisions in these cases were not exactly on point because they weren’t discussing this statute particularly, the examination is similar. Additionally, this is reflected in the Legislative history of the statute.

Holding - The trial court’s conclusion 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 gun right restoration.

Kirkland criminal attorney’s Analysis - In cases such as these, whether or not the law appears to be rational, 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 firearm rights restored. It was probably worth a shot from Mihali’s dui attorney because the subject 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 gun 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 essentials of residential burglary, namely whether or not obstructing a law enforcement officer counts as the predicate transgression mandatory for a guilty verdict of residential burglary. The case begins with the officers believing Devitt stole a car and was implicated in a hit and run. The cops witnessed him close to the accident and Devitt took off and ran from them. He ended up hiding in an apartment complex, ultimately finding himself in the apartment of a woman. While there Devitt spoke to the woman, had a goblet of iced tea, made a telephone call (with her acquiescence), and just hung out waiting for the cops to leave. The female said she wasn’t in concern for her safety. After a bit she went outside to take out the trash and let the officers know Devitt was in her apartment.

Devitt was charged with residential burglary (first degree criminal trespass as an alternative), obstructing a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. At the close of the state’s case, Devitt moved to dismiss the burglary charge for failing to demonstrate all of the fundamentals, namely that Devitt planned to commit a crime against the person or possessions in the residence. 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 adequate 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 house other than a automobile with intent to commit a offense against a individual or property therein. To hold up his posture that obstructing a law enforcement officer should not be significant as the underlying misdeed, Devitt pointed the court to the prosecutor’s standards for charging crimes. Obstructing a law enforcement officer is not characterized anywhere as a misdeed against a human being, much less anyone other than the officer.

The language of the residential burglary law requires a precise misdeed (against a person or belongings) in a specific place (inside a residence) and with a explicit intent (to enter the apartment to commit the misdeed). Because of this, more than just the intent to commit a misdeed usually is necessary.

The condition that the transgression intended to be committed be done “therein” or inside the home, is also main. 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 detailed misdeed.

Holding - the state failed to show the elements of the residential burglary law. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Seattle criminal 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 argue their completely unreasonable position to the court of appeals? And why would the trial court judge not read the law and realize the elements of the crime had not been met? I am a Seattle drunk driving defense 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 defense justice system, make everyone grumpy, and make a Seattle criminal attorney 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 requisite to get this determination right.

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

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Don't Smuggle Drugs

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Vice Stings

10.27.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorneys | Court Decisions 10/26/09

Another week, a new assessment of driving under the influence cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a Seattle criminal attorney, it is important to stay on top of this information so you can be fully ready to argue your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of interest: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the examination of a truck 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 exciting and worth noting, so I’ll go over, and as typical, supply a slight bit of my own DUI lawyer investigation.

Search Incident to seizure - State v. Patton

This is one of the foremost in a what will be a long string of cases dealing with searching trucks after an important person has been apprehended (also identified as search incident to apprehension). It is one of the exceptions to law enforcement needing a warrant for detention, and lately the United States Supreme Court clarified what we DUI defense attorneys in Seattle had recognized for a long while - the cops were abusing this law by searching automobiles incident to the arrest of someone when the detention formed no basis for the search.

Here is the typical illustration: somebody is captured for driving while their license is suspended. The individual is arrested and positioned into the cop car. After that the police search the automobile, “incident to the arrest.” Trouble is, there is no evidence to find for driving while license revoked. The verification 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 capture him on the warrant. It was night, and after a bit the cop saw the dome light come on in the car and someone matching the account of Patton out digging around in the car. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his cranium out of the van and ran into the motorhome. After support arrived, they went into the motorhome and seized Patton. After apprehending him, the cops searched Patton’s auto, locating meth and money.

Patton was charged with custody of methamphetamine. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the support for being illegally seized. The trial court approved 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 car that it was eligible to be searched incident to his apprehension.

Breakdown - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unwarranted. 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 circumstances that brought them into being. They shouldn’t be used to weaken the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant obligation is the auto search incident to detention.

That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s safety is at issue or there is the possibility that evidence connected to the wrong which predicated the arrest will be misplaced or destroyed.

In this case, Patton’s argument is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the restricted confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not detained in his car, but in his house, that he was never in his vehicle during the altercation, and that he was seized for an remaining warrant, for which no proof of the “crime” would exist in the car.

The Court first looked to decide when it was that Patton was under capture. The court noted that:
an arrest takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an objective to take a person into custody and actually seizes or detains the individual. The existence of arrest depends in each case upon an unbiased evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.
Here, the police officer had seized 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 seizure and not to move. It makes sense for several reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from cops to change the place of seizure and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that arrest. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under apprehension when he was at his automobile for purposes of the extra examination.

The next issue is whether or not the search incident to the seizure Patton was justifiable. foremost, a search incident to arrest is not legitimate just because the apprehension happened closely to the automobile. A more detailed examination is required. Case law has prescribed:
[a] warrantless search [incident to capture] is allowable only to get rid of any weaponry the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist capture or effect an escape and to evade destruction of support by the arrestee of the misdemeanor for which he or she is seized…
This directive has been freshly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court decided that a search incident to capture in a van occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the while of search.”

Study of these particulars under the set of laws establishes that this search was unreasonable and outside of the search incident to seizure exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the automobile when he was apprehended. There was no relationship between his capture, which was for the warrant for failing to appear in court, and a search of the van.

Also, there were no safety concerns for the officers related to anything in the car - Patton was never in the van, he was apprehended outside of the van, and when the vehicle was searched Patton was no where near the vehicle (officer safety in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the van and use it to damage the officers).

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

Driving under the influence attorneys point of view - Clearly I think they got this one right. The police unlawfully searched the car, found some drugs, and then tried to get the proof admitted by trying to create a state of affairs that allowed their illegal search. These are the types of situations the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog sees all the while that I am happy are now being handled properly. And, I must also include that I am happy to witness that someone has in fact acted properly when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his bus, which while and period again gets people in trouble.

It was also exciting to see the Washington Supreme Court in effect negate a lot of case law that had for years been dogging dui defense attorneys and making it extremely complicated to get support obtained illegitimately from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s declaration in Gant, the Washington courts had no alternative but to wipe out much of their case law, most likely much to their annoyance. This case, like Gant, is important for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what police can and can’t do when arresting you.

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

As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legislative plan set up by the governing body to allow, in specific circumstances, people that have committed a wrong to take care of the crime by paying damages to the victim. If the compensation is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received damages and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice. For dui defense attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with theft, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a smudge on their record. 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 someone was in the auto when it was hit, as opposed to a parked van).

Facts - Stalker was charged with driving under the influence and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the drunk driving but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court verification 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 permission to instruct restitution because it is not a direct product of the allegation (fleeing the location after an accident has occurred)?

Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal system is founded on precedent (using earlier decisions of law to shape examination of current legal questions) and precedent is not set aside nonchalantly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is eligible 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 created to: “grant reimbursement to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of trivial offenders.”

Since court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is qualified for compromise of misdemeanor, the government has had several opportunities to particularly exclude hit and run attended from eligibility. While the government has excluded an assortment of crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to eliminate hit and run attended. This shows the court that they do not feel like hit and run attended should be outside the compromise of misdemeanor statute.

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

drunk driving Lawyer’s Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The conclusion is pretty clear. One thing I find remarkable about this, and something I encounter from while 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 opportunity to move past a foolish choice without having to pay for it for a long while. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an settlement has been reached between defendant and sufferer?

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause

Seattle Criminal Attorney | You Should Know One

10.17.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | You Ought to Know One

This may well look a little bit self-serving, seeing as I myself am a Seattle criminal attorney, but hear me out ahead of you write me off. As a criminal lawyer I have a rare outlook on this matter, and the point of view is pretty harsh. I see time and time again people come into my office, and these are ordinary people like you and me, who, because they didn't have someone to converse to prior to or during their drunk driving occurrence, have dug themselves into a hole that will take a lot of energy to get out of. So, if you are a regular person, prior to you write this commentary off, take a look at it, and then make your own decisions.

Knowing a Seattle criminal attorney and being able to talk to them from time to time to get information from them is helpful. Although none of us ever expect to be implicated in any criminal activity, it can happen upon us from time to time.

For example, in Seattle every year is this enormous hydroplane contest called Seafair. Every year these hydroplane racers come to town to competition their boats and everyone takes out their own boats to view and celebrate. And partying often includes beer. The cops know this, and they are out on the water en mass to give out as many BUI citations as doable.

Now, this usually isn't a big deal, unless the cops are on your yacht checking you out. In that position don't you wish you had a Seattle BWI attorney to help you cross the waters, to know what you have to inform the police and what you don't, and what tests you have to carry out and those you don't? Hell yes you do.

And finding a criminal attorneys in Seattle to chat to isn't that hard. All you have to do is ask around and somebody will at one time or another have dealt with one. And once you acquire someone that was happy with their help, just call that guy or girl up and tell them you have some questions for them.

Guarantee them you will give out five of their cards to your associates if you will answer some inquiries for you and you pledge to use them for your services if you ever get in trouble. Then fire away. And when you are finished, put that attorney's card in your wallet and get it out if you ever get in trouble. Trust me when I say there is zero driving under the influence lawyers like more than informing their clients to inform the cops they aren't speaking a word and watching the cops squirm.

To sum it all up, you want to be familiar with a good Seattle driving under the influence defense attorney for one reason - it could aid save your butt one day when you are in conflict. So don't wait to pick up the phone. come across someone now you can depend on, get them in your rolodex, and go on with life knowing if you ever get in a sticky position you'll have someone to call.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Don't Hit People With Golf Clubs

9.06.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Arraignment

Your luck finally ran out. On our way home from wherever, doing whatever, whenever, you got pulled over for a minor traffic violation, investigated for Seattle DUI, and charged with Seattle DUI. But you did everything right, not telling the cops whether or not you had been drinking, refusing field sobriety tests, and talking to a Seattle criminal attorney before deciding whether or not to take the breathalyzer test. But even though you did everything right, you still got charged with Seattle DUI, and now you have a summons to appear in court at something called an arraignment. So what is that?

Arraignment is the first part of the court process, and is, for the most part, purely a procedural exercise to make sure you know your Constitutional rights and have the ability to exercise them if you choose to. At arraignment you are usually told you have the right to a Seattle criminal attorney, you have the right to a jury trial, you have the right to plead guilty or not guilty, and you have the right to make the state prove the charges against you. Additionally, at arraignment, the prosecutor is required to formally tell you what the charges are, you get to enter a plea on those charges, you get to enter a plea, and your next court date is set.

The formal charges part of an arraignment is a pretty straightforward process. At arraignment the prosecutor will usually give you a copy of the charges that have been filed against you. If you choose to hear it, the court will formally read the charges against you as laid out on the charging document. If you have a DUI defense attorney in Seattle you will often, if not always, waive the formal reading of the charges, since it is a procedural requirement only.

The plea is also a pretty straightforward process. If you don't have a Seattle DUI lawyer hired yet or assigned to you, the judge will suggest you plead not guilty until you can get someone to talk to. If you have hired a DUI attorney in Seattle before the arraignment, they will always plead not guilty. Word to the wise, if you are at arraignment without a lawyer, always plead not guilty. There will be time to work out a deal or try to get a dismissal later. This is not that time.

After all of the procedural stuff is done, the judge will discuss conditions of release (assuming you are not in custody). Conditions of release, by law, are supposed to be set to achieve two objectives: (1) get you to return for your next court date; and (2) to keep the public safe. Despite these rules, prosecutors will often ask for stringent conditions of release that have nothing to do with your appearing in court or keeping the public safe. It usually has everything to do with punishing you for being charged with Seattle DUI before you're even convicted.

If conditions of release come up, it is important to have a DUI lawyer in Seattle on your side to help you advocate for your release with minimal conditions imposed.

Up next on the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog - the pretrial conference.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Corpus Delicti

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI Consequences

8.17.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse?

Because I'm a Seattle criminal attorney, people will come to me and ask me some very strange questions. Sometimes I think the questions are a little weird, sometimes I wonder how the question even got into the person's mind. And then I read the news.

I've never thought of it happening before, and maybe that is just because I don't ride a lot of horses, living in Seattle and all. But, if you live in a little more rural area or have friends and family living in rural areas where horses are sometimes utilized for transportation, the thought of being arrested for DUI on a horse may have crossed your mind at some point. But it doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint, since you have to be operating a motor vehicle to be charged with Seattle DUI. But that doesn't stop some overzealous cops and overzealous prosecutor's from giving it a shot.

I came across this headline the other day and thought it was a misprint - "Charges Dropped in DUI on a Horse Case." Turns out the cops don't often think before they act, and figure arresting someone for something they think is a violation of the law is enough. Here is some of the story:
Two men charged in for driving under the influence on a horse have had their charges dropped.

Back in April, NewsChannel9 brought you the story of two men who were charges with driving under the influence on a horse. Greg Cooley and Jeff Owen were charged after police caught them riding the horses along Highway 201 in Tunnel Hill.
Eventually the charges were dropped by the District Attorney, who, as I would suspect any Seattle criminal attorney would do, after analyzing the facts against the law came to realize a horse is not in fact a motorized vehicle.

The sad thing is, if this were not picked up by the local news, it may have been prosecuted by the District Attorney, who may have just been hoping the guys would plead guilty before talking to a DUI attorney and realizing the arrest was erroneous. That is why whenever you are arrested for anything you need to speak with a lawyer as quickly as possible. In this case, talking to a DUI defense attorney at the outset may have gotten the situation resolved before it went as far as it did.

The great thing about criminal lawyers in general is that we love a winning case. If we'd known about this as it was going on, we would have been all over it, talking not only to those in charge at police headquarters, but also the District Attorney's office. Seattle cops are embarrassed enough by some of the things they do (did you hear about the jaywalking ticket the general manager of the Chicago White Sox received outside SafeCo Field last week?) that are technically legal. They don't need complete lapses of judgment like this to hit the news wire.

The lesson of the day here is that it is okay to drive your horse drunk. But, just be careful. There are no seatbelts, and a fall from a horse can really hurt!

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Vice Sting

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Don't Smuggle Drugs

7.26.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Crossing the Breath Test Expert

If you are a brand new Seattle criminal attorney or a seasoned veteran the same universal truth still remains - the DataMaster is a mysterious beast that is hard to get your hands around. Buzzwords like thermister, slope detector, and infrared spectroscopy. As a criminal defense attorney, how do you wrap your hands around that well enough to successfully cross examine an expert on the subject? The short answer - just like you do for everything else - prepare. The long answer? Read the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog below.

The first rule of examining an expert witness like this is not to forget that you are not an expert. Don't get in a battle of wits with them, for two reason. One, you will lose. And two, you will end up giving the expert a chance to talk theory, science, process, and mathematical formulas. This is stuff he is really interested in and stuff you may be interested in, but the jury doesn't want to hear it.

Second, start with the basics. While you have the guy on the stand, go through the history of the machine with him. If he doesn't know it it will hurt his credibility. If he does know it, it will give some good information to the jury. Take this opportunity to discuss the process of designing the machine, which has included many changes, and some interesting test results.

Third, go for the maintenance records of that particular machine. One of the actual beneficial things about this machine is the data it keeps about itself and stores just waiting for you to take a look at it. As a DUI attorney in Seattle, this is just the information you are looking to take advantage of. What you will see if you take a look is a set of problems occurring around your client's test that were not able to be recreated or "fixed" necessarily. If the cause of the malfunction is a mystery, how can the machine be accurate?

Fourth, and finally, attack the database, which houses all of the information about the DataMaster. You can see error codes on the database and other information related to the inaccuracy or malfunction of the machine. Do a little digging and you'll be surprised at what you can find.

If you are charged with Seattle DUI, don't settle for a criminal lawyer that will just go through the motions. Get someone who will do some digging, who will fight for your case. It can mean the difference in conviction and dismissal.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Can't Talk Your Way Out of Trouble

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse?

7.17.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Consequences of a DUI Conviction

Almost all of my focus, when dealing with clients, is on the criminal aspect of how their actions can affect their lives. For example, with a client, we might talk about the penalties associated with Washington DUI, or the penalties, both given by the court and imposed by your insurance company, for getting hit with a Seattle speeding ticket. But there is a side we really hardly ever discuss that can be a huge point of contention in some circumstances - civil lawsuits.

To explain what I'm talking about, an example might be more helpful. And there just so happens to be one in today's Seattle times. Although the story is less about the drunk driver and more about the bar and waitress that served him, it is a good indicator of what can happen to you if you aren't careful. The story is pretty straightforward (you don't even need a Seattle criminal attorney to comprehend it).

A guy was at a bar in Seattle drinking a lot. He left the bar, and while he was driving home he crossed the center line and hit another car. He died, and many other people were injured, including a small boy who was paralyzed. But the story doesn't stop there. The people in the vehicle sued the bar and the waitress and received a 14 million dollar verdict. In the worst circumstances, your Seattle DUI could turn out the same way.

The only reason the drunk driver wasn't sued was because he was dead. But, contrary to popular belief, insurance doesn't cover everything. It only covers up to a specific amount. If a judgment is levied against you for more than the insurance limits, you are on the hook for that. What I mean is, if you have a job, money could possibly be taken out of your paycheck (for a long long time) to make you pay off your debt.

If you end up with a DUI accusation you need a Seattle DUI attorney to help you. And many times the DUI charges against you are trumped up based on junk science and police officers looking to bust someone for DUI. But sometimes you are too drunk to drive. Don't be the bad guy in the next article that comes out like this. Be careful, and if you are arrested for DUI in Seattle, we can help.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Gun Rights

Seattle Criminal Attorney | IIDs

7.10.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Don't Hit People with Golf Clubs

Although this isn't really a Seattle criminal law story, it is still pretty interesting, so I thought I'd write about it here on the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog. Not only does it provide a good lesson about keeping your cool, it also provides a good lesson about the consequences of your actions.

This story comes out of the Seattle Times and is about a golf game gone awry. I'm sure you remember this story, but about a year ago a couple of groups of golfers were busy golfing away in Auburn when one group, which was behind the other, complained to the marshals (the guys that roam the course making sure people are behaving and playing fast enough) that the people in front of them were playing way to slow. When the marshal asked the front group to pick up the pace they weren't too happy about it, and at some point confronted the golf group behind them.

Now, any normal person would have probably just said sorry we were playing so slow or yelled a little and acted tough, but not the guy that is the subject of the story. This guy decided to hit one of the guys in the back group in the head with his six iron. And he hit him so hard the guy fell to the ground, bloody and convulsing.

Now, I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly what happened, but I can't think of many situations where a golf club to the head is the answer. And the jury didn't either, finding the guy guilty of second-degree assault, a class B felony (which is serious business). And the judge didn't either, sentencing the guy to 21 months in prison. Not a way the guy probably thought his golf game would end that day.

As you can see, this isn't necessarily a post about Seattle DUI at all, but there are some important lessons here that can apply. First, keep your wits about you at all times. If you are going to drink a lot, don't drive - don't take the chance of getting in trouble and needing to call me for help. Second, think before you act. Although it may sound cool to drive as fast as you can or shoot that gap, as your potential criminal attorney it is going to be hard for me to explain that away. And finally, be a nice person (this doesn't apply to DUI law at all, it's just good common sense).

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Crossing the Breath Test Expert

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause Defined

6.26.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Seahawk Owen Schmidt DUI

Another day, another Seattle athlete arrested for DUI. From the Seattle Times, it appears that Owen Schmidt (picture courtesy of Getty Images), fullback for the Seattle Seahawks, was pulled over by Black Diamond police this week and, after failing a field sobriety test and blowing a .15 on the breathalyzer was arrested and charged with Seattle DUI. He issued an apology stating how sorry he was, which is par for the course, but I'm more concerned about something else.

Every time I read a story like this I think about all of public relations resources wasted by professional sports teams and professional athletes for something that is 100% preventable. I find it strange that professional athletes get no information or training whatsoever in how to deal with a DUI stop or DUI investigation (at least none that they actually put into practice). Although, as I always say, I'm not for drunk driving, I am also not for wrapping up the police officer's case and putting a nice bow on it either. Maybe the team should have a Seattle criminal attorney come in and talk to them for an hour - it could save them a lot of time and money.

And this case is a perfect example. Schmidt should have known that he can refuse field sobriety tests, and should have refused them, and he should have a Seattle criminal attorney on speed dial to handle any problems he might have at any time. Why doesn't he have access to this information and these resources? It is a failure of his to realize this, but isn't it also a failure of the Seahawks not to do something to protect their investment?

As I see this more and more often, I am considering putting together a brief presentation on your rights if stopped for DUI to give to whomever will listen. Now, don't get angry, this isn't a how to beat a DUI presentation, but, like I said, we as Washington State citizens have no duty to make it easy for the prosecution to convict us of DUI.

It would outline what you should and shouldn't do if stopped for a Seattle DUI and promote people calling and establishing a relationship with a Seattle DUI attorney before they are stopped for DUI or any other criminal act, so they actually have someone to call if they get in trouble or have any questions.

Do you think you, as an average citizen, would be interested in something like that? If so, let me know. I'd love to come and talk to you and let you know how having a Seattle DUI defense attorney on speed dial can pay big dividends.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Guns and Burglary

Seattle Criminal Attorney | The DUI Investigation

6.12.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Vice Sting in Capitol Hill

Because I'm a Seattle criminal attorney I always find it interesting when I read stories like the one I read today. Published in the Seattle Times today, it sounds like Seattle police executed a search warrant on a couple of businesses on Capitol Hill in what the newspaper refers to as a "vice raid." This vice raid was apparently to break up a poker game, even though I though vice was limited to prostitution and patronizing a prostitute. But maybe not.

It is always a great feeling to help out a client, either getting them out of the jam they were involved in or getting them a slap on the wrist (if it is even remotely possible). Prostitution is simply engaging in sexual conduct with a person for a fee. Patronizing prostitution is: (1) under a prior agreement, paying a fee in return for engaging in sexual conduct; (2) pursuant to an understanding, paying or agreeing to pay for sexual conduct; or (3) asking someone or offering to engage in sexual conduct with someone for a fee.

These crimes, while misdemeanors, are far more damaging than most misdemeanors because of the moral implications carried with it. Often it isn't so much the cost of the fine or the amount of community service associated with a charge like this but the harm to reputation that occurs throughout the community.

For example, as a criminal attorney in Seattle I had the opportunity to help a guy out who was accused of soliciting a prostitute. He wasn't worried about anything except what other people would think of him if they found out or if he had to disclose this on a job application or other informational paper. Most times this charge can be negotiated down to disorderly conduct (so long as it isn't one in a long line of arrests for prostitution).

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Burien City Official in Trouble

Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI on a Horse

5.19.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Ignition Interlock Devices = More Accidents?

John Scott Fox, a Seattle criminal attorney like me, over at Fox, Bowman, Duarte, posted an interesting article to his website the other day that I thought I might discuss as well. The article, which you can read here, points out that the new law passed by the Washington Legislature regarding Washington DUI arrests allows for a "rolling" interlock ignition test, even requiring one within ten minutes of starting the vehicle.

Fox goes on to point out that this rule, promulgated in WAC 2-4-50-110 (7) requires:
Each device shall require the operator of the vehicle to submit to a retest within ten minutes of starting the vehicle. Retesting shall continue at intervals not to exceed sixty minutes after the first retest. The device shall be equipped with a method of immediately notifying peace officers if the required retest(s) above is not performed, or if the result of the retest exceeds the lower of .025 BAC or the alcohol concentration as prescribed by the originating court.

Examples of acceptable forms of notification are repeated honking of the vehicle’s horn, repeated flashing of the vehicle’s headlamps, or the wailing of a small siren. Such notification may be disabled only by switching the engine off, or by the achievement of a retest at a level the lower of .025 BAC or the maximum allowable alcohol concentration as set by the originating court.
This means that whether you get a DUI charge, or whether your breath test was .08 or .22, and whether this was your first arrest or your tenth, you are going to be forced to take a breath test while driving your vehicle!

As a citizen of the State of Washington I'm happy that the Legislature wants to keep drunk drivers off the road, but as a criminal attorneys Seattle I'm a little appalled that my clients are going to have to subject themselves to an extreme safety hazard before they are even convicted of a crime!

As Fox's article points out, taking these rolling interlock ignition device breath tests have an 84% higher probability of having an accident than those without an interlock ignition device. I don't quite see how increasing the probability of accidents by a substantial amount keeps people safe. Maybe there is another DUI attorney in Seattle that agrees with me?

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Capitol Hill Vice Sting

Seattle Criminal Attorney Advice | Don't Smuggle Drugs

4.23.2009

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Burien City Manager Gets DUI

It appears as though our city officials are just as irresponsible as we are. In the Seattle Times today I saw a story about Burien City Manager Mike Martin's arrest for DUI. According to the story, Mr. Martin wrecked his car when he was trying to turn around (as an aside, if you were drunk, wouldn't you take ever precaution to drive safely?) and was subsequently questioned by the police and arrested for DUI. If this isn't a great story for the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog, I don't know what is.

What is the lesson to be learned from this case? Well, Mr. Martin did do something right. The story goes on to state that Mr. Martin refused to do an field sobriety tests, refused to take a preliminary breath test (the little thing they ask you to blow into when you are still on the roadside - it usually doesn't give out a breath to alcohol number, it just says if you are over the limit), and finally refused to take the breathalyzer at the station.

In almost any story you read about public officials that care anything at all about their political careers, you will notice that they always refuse to do everything that is asked of them regarding a DUI. And they always call their DUI lawyer (in this case Martin called his Seattle criminal attorney).

Why do they do this? The reason is simple. They don't want to be convicted of DUI, and they are willing to pay the probable penalty of losing their license for a year.

In Seattle, if you refuse to take the breathalyzer test at the police station, you have automatically gotten your license suspended for one year. But refusing isn't too bad for Martin, because he knows two important pieces of information: first, under the new law passed in Washington, Martin is eligible for an interlock ignition device in his car immediately, making the revocation essentially non-existent (although he won't be able to drive after he's been drinking, which is a good thing); and second, the prosecution now has very little evidence to provide to a jury that Mr. Martin was driving drunk.

Think about what the prosecution's case looks like: (1) Mr. Martin wrecked his car; (2) he said he'd had a couple of drinks (these statements may be admissible, by the way - any good DUI attorney should file a motion to suppress these statements); and he refused to take the breathalyzer. Trust me when I say he can explain away the last element, and the others don't necessarily prove he was driving under the influence of alcohol.

Now, does this mean you should automatically decline to take the breathalyzer? Probably not. There are other considerations to be made before deciding to decline the breathalyzer (the most important of which is if you've had any previous DUIs). If you are arrested for DUI, before you decide if you should take the breathalyzer, ask to speak with a Seattle DUI attorney. The police must give you an opportunity to do so.

And don't necessarily hold out for the attorney you want. It can actually be better to speak with someone that won't be representing you going forward, because they may need to be a witness in your case to discuss your state of intoxication at the time. The public defender's office has people on the phone around the clock to help - they are good and you should ask to speak with them.

Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | No Talking Your Way Out of DUI

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Owen Schmidt DUI

4.20.2009

Free Criminal Attorney Advice - Don't Smuggle Drugs in Cattle Trailers

In the latest Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog edition of real world news as an example of what not to do if you are buying drugs, selling drugs, and certainly transporting drugs. Today a man pled guilty in the Seattle federal courthouse to trying to smuggle more than 1,700 pounds of marijuana into the United States in the floor of a cattle trailer. And his Seattle criminal attorney probably didn't have much of a chance.

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the creativity here. Particularly if it was loaded up with cattle. Talk about using something to mask the smell from dogs and people. A trailer full of cattle would certainly produce enough waste to prevent me from examining the floor too closely. But our duty bound federal border agents did a great job of checking out the trailer and finding a bunch of drugs.

If you read the story, out there on the internet, it looks as though the guy did have cattle in the trailer. And it wasn't any smell that tipped off the agents, but a discrepancy in the floor. Once alerted, and once they have probable cause to suspect drugs are being transported in Kent and in the surrounding Seattle area (or even the Washington border) the cops can pretty much strip down the entire car. You would think the smugglers would have taken a little bit more time to make sure everything looks right, since they stood to lose up to $5 million in marijuana if caught.

What does this teach you about finding and hiring a criminal attorney? Not much, but it does teach you not to try to drive across the border with a ton of marijuana packed in so recklessly that the floorboards look messed up enough that a border agent thinks something is wrong even though the trailer is loaded with cattle.

I guess an additional tip I could offer is don't do any of that while driving drunk either...

Related Posts:
More Free Criminal Attorney Advice - Don't Hit People with Golf Clubs

Owen Schmidt Arrested for DUI

4.14.2009

Overview of Seattle Criminal Law

If you are in need of a Seattle criminal attorney, you are likely suspected of commiting a crime. I figured that since you are accused of something, you might as well know your rights and what the proseuctor can and will do to you. Today I'm going to discuss Seattle DUI outlined in the RCW 46.61.502.

In layman's terms, DUI happens when you drink enough alcohol that it impairs your ability to drive a vehicle safely. As I'm sure you know, the amount of alcohol in your system is measured by a breathalyzer test, in Seattle called the DataMaster, and a measurement of .08 or greater presumes (accepts without question) that you are too drunk to drive. But, there is even more to the law than that.

There are actually 3 ways to be convicted of Seattle DUI under the law. If you, while driving a car in Seattle:

(1) have, 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;

(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 mean? Well, a couple of things. First, the cops don't need a breathalyzer to arrest you for DUI in Seattle. If, for example, a Seattle cop pulls you over and after talking to you and running field sobriety tests (which you should refuse) believes you are DUI he can arrest you and charge you even if your breath test comes back under .08. The cops can use their "training and experience" to form an opinion as to your sobriety (those are the kinds of cases Seattle criminal attorneys love to defend, by the way). Second, DUI is not limited to just alcohol. You can get a DUI for using drugs too.

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 just because you were prescribed Percoset 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 here is that if, for example, you've been driving, stop driving, and the cops are looking for you, and between the time you stopped driving and the cops find you you get drunk, you can use that as a defense to a Seattle DUI charge. There are two caveats to this defense, though. First, you 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 tell the court and the prosecutor that you plan to use this defense before 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 Seattle cops mess up with your original breathalyzer test. It says that Breathalyzer 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 Seattle DUI is a gross misdemeanor unless section 6 applies. Section 6 says a Seattle 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. If only it were that simple. Stay tuned for more Seattle DUI information.