DUI Category Archives — Seattle Attorneys Blog Published by Family and Injury Law, Criminal Defense Lawyers

Washington Appeals Court Concludes Physical Control Statute Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague

December 26, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Generally, a Washington criminal law must be sufficiently specific to notify an ordinary person of what conduct it prohibits and provide ascertainable standards of guilt to prevent arbitrary enforcement. In a recent case, a defendant challenged the statute prohibiting being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence after she was found sleeping in the passenger seat of her parked vehicle.

The defendant was charged with being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence. According to the appeals court’s opinion, an officer found her sleeping in the passenger seat of her vehicle while parked with the engine running. She moved to dismiss, arguing the law was unconstitutionally vague.

The city argued the statute was constitutional and that “actual physical control” can include someone in the passenger seat of a non-moving vehicle.

Washington Breath Test Admissible Despite “Strands” of Tobacco in Defendant’s Mouth

August 30, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

To admit evidence of a breath test in a Washington criminal case, the state must produce prima facie evidence of certain facts, including that the tested person did not have any foreign substances in their mouth in the fifteen minutes before the test. RCW 46.61.506. The state can make this showing with evidence a check of the person’s mouth found no foreign substances or evidence that the person denied having anything in their mouth.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant was involved in a dirt bike collision. He told the deputy on the scene that he had consumed alcohol a few hours earlier. The deputy said the defendant had chewing tobacco in his mouth but removed it at the scene. The deputy arrested the defendant for driving under the influence and took him to jail.

At the jail, the deputy prepared to give the defendant a breath alcohol test. He asked if the defendant had anything in his mouth and the defendant answered no. The deputy observed strands of tobacco in the defendant’s teeth that were not taken out before the test.

Merger Doctrine in Washington DUI Case

February 8, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

During a Washington criminal sentencing proceeding, an offender generally cannot challenge the constitutional validity of a previous conviction. If, however, a conviction that is “constitutionally invalid on its face,” the court cannot consider it during sentencing. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a defendant’s prior conviction was facially invalid under the merger doctrine.

The merger doctrine applies when the state has to prove the occurrence of an act that is defined as a separate crime to prove a particular degree of the charged crime. In such circumstances, the crimes “merge.” The merger doctrine does not apply if the legislature intended to allow multiple punishments.

If the legislature did not clearly intend to allow multiple punishment for the same act under different laws, the court determines its intent through application of the same evidence test, merger, and the independent purpose test.

Proposed Changes to Washington DUI Laws

January 29, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Two bills in the Washington legislature propose significant changes to Washington’s impaired driving laws. SB 5002 proposes to lower the legal limit for a driver’s alcohol concentration. SB 5032 would extend the felony DUI lookback period and create a sentencing alternative for certain impaired driving convictions.

If passed, SB 5002 would lower the legal alcohol concentration from .08 to .05. The change would apply to the DUI statute at RCW 46.61.502 and to the physical control statute at RCW 46.61.504. According to SB 5002, there were 540 fatal crashes in Washington in 2021, killing more than 600 people. The bill states that there was a 31.3% increase in crashes resulting from an impaired driver between 2020 and 2021. The bill points to a Utah law that lowered the legal alcohol concentration limit from .08 to .05 and a subsequent 19.89% drop in fatal crashes and an 18.3% drop in the fatality rate. The bill estimates such a change in Washington would result in an 11.1% decrease in alcohol-related fatalities and between 538 and 1,790 lives saved annually.

If SB 5032 passes, a person could be convicted of felony DUI or felony physical control instead of a gross misdemeanor if they have three or more previous convictions within the past 10 years. The current law has a lookback period of 15 years. Similar bills proposing to expand the lookback period over the past few years have failed.

Washington Supreme Court Clarifies Elements of Felony DUI

January 9, 2020 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A DUI in Washington is generally a gross misdemeanor, but it can be elevated to a felony if the defendant has three prior offenses, as defined under the statutes within the past 10 years. RCW 46.61.502. RCW 46.61.5055 sets out which convictions qualify as prior offenses, including reckless driving if it resulted from a charge that was originally filed as a DUI. A Seattle DUI attorney can explain whether a conviction may be considered a prior offense.

The Supreme Court of Washington recently reviewed a felony DUI conviction. At the time of the offense, the statute required four prior offenses for elevation to a felony, but it has subsequently been amended to require only three. The defendant had a previous DUI conviction, a first-degree negligent driving conviction, and two convictions for reckless driving. At trial and on appeal, the defendant argued that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the reckless driving convictions “involved alcohol.”

The trial court assessed the prior convictions on the record and found that there was sufficient evidence for the case to move forward. The court did not instruct the jury that it had to find that each prior offense involved alcohol to find the defendant guilty of felony DUI.

Washington Supreme Court Holds Impound Statute Unconstitutional

November 9, 2019 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington State Constitution recognizes a privacy right and prohibits disturbance of that privacy without authority of law. When a driver is arrested for driving under the influence, the vehicle must be impounded pursuant to RCW 46.55.360. A defendant recently challenged the impound statute as a violation of the Washington State Constitution.

The defendant was stopped for speeding. According to the court opinion, the officer smelled alcohol on the defendant’s breath. The defendant declined a field sobriety test and the officer arrested him for suspicion of driving while under the influence of intoxicants. The officer impounded the defendant’s jeep without considering any reasonable alternatives.

The officer performed an inventory search of the vehicle and found items he believed were associated with drug dealing. Cocaine was found on the defendant in a search incident to arrest. The defendant was charged with DUI and possession with intent to deliver controlled substances.

Washington Supreme Court Finds Second Collision Is Not Superseding Cause in Vehicular Homicide Case

July 22, 2019 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

To convict a defendant of vehicular homicide in a Washington criminal case, the state must prove that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the victim’s death. In Washington law, the term “proximate cause” includes both actual cause and legal cause. In a recent case, a defendant challenged his vehicular homicide conviction, alleging that there was an intervening superseding cause of the victim’s death.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was intoxicated when he rear-ended a vehicle at 85 m.p.h. The defendant did not stop to assist the other driver, whose vehicle was disabled across the left and middle lanes.

A witness to the collision stopped to help. The Good Samaritan pulled onto the right shoulder and engaged his flashers. He crossed the freeway to help the driver and was on the phone with the 911 dispatchers when another vehicle struck the disabled vehicle. The impact caused the disabled vehicle to strike the Good Samaritan, causing injuries that resulted in his death 12 days later.

Officer Does Not Have to Provide Specific Basis for Knowledge of Facts in Washington Search Warrant Declaration

April 19, 2019 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Defendants in Washington criminal cases often challenge the evidence used against them. One way to challenge evidence is to challenge the validity of the search warrant used to obtain it. When a court issues a search warrant, it must determine there is probable cause based on the facts presented to it. This determination is the court’s responsibility and cannot be made by police officers, so there must be more than conclusory statements supporting the warrant. The court is permitted, however, to draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented.

The defendant in a recent case challenged a search warrant. According to the appellate court opinion, the defendant was convicted of vehicular assault after losing control of her vehicle and crashing into two other vehicles. Subsequent blood tests found a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.13 and 4.0 nanograms of THC. The defendant appealed her conviction, arguing a lack of probable cause to support the warrant authorizing the blood draw.

The firefighter paramedic who responded to the scene saw a female driver who was barely conscious. He transported her to the hospital. He identified the defendant as the driver.

Felony Enhancement in Washington DUI Cases

August 31, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: Paul Biryukov / Shutterstock.com

A misdemeanor Washington DUI can be elevated to a felony under some circumstances, including a prior conviction for “[v]ehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.” To elevate a charge, the state must prove the existence of the conviction and that it relates to the defendant. Vehicular assault is an alternative means offense, with three alternatives, but not all of the alternatives qualify for the enhancement. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether the state had proved a defendant’s prior conviction for vehicular assault qualified for the enhancement.

The defendant was charged with a DUI in 2016. The state alleged the defendant’s prior conviction for vehicular assault while under the influence made the current offense a felony. After finding the defendant had committed DUI, the jury was then asked to determine whether the defendant had a qualifying prior vehicular assault conviction. The state introduced the court records from the previous conviction as well as testimony from a police officer. The jury found the defendant had a prior vehicular assault while under the influence of alcohol conviction.

The defendant appealed, arguing the state did not produce sufficient evidence to elevate the offense to a felony. He argued the evidence only established a generic conviction for vehicular assault, rather than showing that he was convicted of vehicular assault while under the influence pursuant to RCW 46.61.522(1)(b).

Washington Supreme Court Rules on State Delay in Disclosing Toxicology Witness

November 22, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington DUI defense attorneys often have to fight vigorously to ensure they get information from the State. In DUI cases, the State sometimes fails to name the toxicologist who will testify until very close to the trial. In one particularly egregious case, the prosecution provided a list of potential witnesses and waited until the morning of the trial to identify the actual witness. We discussed this case following the Court of Appeals decision, and the Washington Supreme Court has recently reviewed it.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Five months before the trial, the State disclosed a list of nine toxicologists, indicating one of them would testify. Two weeks before trial, the defendant filed a supplemental discovery request, seeking identification of the testifying witness. Three days before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss or suppress the testimony. On the day before the trial, the State narrowed the list to three names. It finally identified which toxicologist would testify on the morning of the trial.

The defendant moved to suppress the testimony based on the late disclosure. The trial court denied the motion, finding no actual prejudice to the defense. The court also noted that the practice of providing a list rather than disclosing a specific name was caused by underfunding of crime labs rather than mismanagement.