4-29-13 Lawmakers slow down on DUI proposal

Supporters of a proposal to overhaul the state’s DUI laws said Wednesday they are focusing on a narrower set of changes and hoping to tackle the issue in an expected special legislative session.

By Brian M. Rosenthal

Seattle Times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA — Lawmakers are tapping the brakes on a proposal to overhaul the state’s drunken-driving laws.

The legislation, a priority for Gov. Jay Inslee and lawmakers in both parties, had appeared on a fast track for approval before the regular legislative session ends Sunday.

But with a special session looking likely, supporters said Wednesday they plan to take the extra time as well as focus on a narrower set of proposals.

“We’re trying to change the law, and we have to be very deliberate,” said state Rep. Roger Goodman, who chairs the House Public Safety Committee. “This is complicated stuff.”

Senate Law & Justice Committee Chairman Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, said the bill is alive and will be considered during the special session, assuming lawmakers don’t wrap up their work by Sunday.

Inslee suggested Wednesday that a special session may be needed to finish state budget negotiations and address other bills.

Both Goodman and Padden said the bill, whenever it gets a vote, will focus on repeat DUI offenders and will not include one of the centerpieces of the original proposal: a 10-year ban on alcohol purchasing by three-time offenders.

The original proposal, crafted in the aftermath of two fatal Seattle crashes that authorities have tied to alcohol, was rolled out by Inslee last week as “the most aggressive, the most effective, the most ambitious” DUI bill in state history.

But in the days since, officials from law enforcement and local governments have said much of it is unworkable or too expensive.

Goodman unveiled a scaled-back version Wednesday that did not include the alcohol ban, a statewide “24/7 sobriety program” as an alternative to imprisonment or a requirement that all cars impounded during DUI arrests be outfitted with ignition-interlock devices before being returned to the driver.

The new version would require that an interlock device be installed within 10 days of an arrest, but only for those who have been convicted of a previous DUI.

Currently, all people convicted of DUI are required to install the devices before they drive again. An ignition interlock prevents the car from starting while the driver is drunk.

The amended bill would also increase jail sentences, but not by as much as the original version. It would still expand DUI courts and restrict deferred sentencing.

Inslee spokeswoman Jaime Smith said the governor was aware of the changes and is OK with them.

On Wednesday, Inslee reiterated his desire to get the bill passed by Sunday. But that appeared increasingly unlikely after a state House Public Safety Committee meeting.

Goodman opened the meeting by saying he did not “want to give the members of the committee some impression that we’re trying to jam something through without adequate deliberation.”

State Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, immediately chimed in: “I really think we’re jamming this through. I mean, I don’t like to do a bill that’s only 5 days old.”

Several other lawmakers also complained.

After closed-door deliberations, Goodman announced he was delaying a scheduled vote.

“It does feel like we’re rushing this too much,” said Goodman, who did not announce a time for the next committee meeting.

State senators working on their own version of DUI legislation announced they, too, were slowing down, as the Law & Justice Committee rescheduled a Thursday meeting for Friday.

Padden said his proposal will still include a provision to make DUI a felony on the fourth offense instead of the fifth.

But he said he still has to figure out how to pay for the additional incarceration costs.

Brian M. Rosenthal: 360-236-8267 or brosenthal@seattletimes.com.

On Twitter @brianmrosenthal

Supreme Court Backs Warrants For Blood Tests In DUI Cases

April 17, 2013 by Nina Totenberg NPR

The Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test. The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter.

A photographic screen hangs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is undergoing renovations. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in a case that asks whether police without a warrant can administer a blood test to a suspected drunken driver.

Tyler McNeely was pulled over late at night after a state trooper observed him driving erratically. When McNeely refused to take a Breathalyzer test, the officer drove him to a local hospital and ordered blood drawn for an alcohol test. The officer did not seek a warrant, even though he had done so in previous cases. The state of Missouri contended that because alcohol naturally dissipates in the bloodstream, each passing moment means valuable evidence is being lost, and so a warrant is never required for a blood draw.

The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that in most circumstances there is adequate time to get a warrant. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said that in the modern world of technology, police can often obtain a warrant quickly by using their cellphones or by email, and that in most jurisdictions a magistrate is available at all hours to grant a warrant request.

If an emergency requires officers to dispense with the warrant requirement, Sotomayor said, that determination must be made on a “case-by-case” basis and later justified in court. In addition, she noted, because officers must typically take a suspect to a hospital for the blood draw, some delay and some dissipation of alcohol is “inevitable.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito, wrote separately, agreeing in part with the majority but taking a different approach. They said that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not necessarily justify forgoing a warrant, but said that law enforcement officials need clearer rules and guidelines for when they are out in the field. They would have given the law enforcement officer greater discretion.

In dissent, Justice Thomas agreed with Missouri that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol constitutes an emergency that exempts law enforcement officers from the general requirement of a warrant.

No April Fool’s here: wins for my clients

I just received two letters from the Washington Department of Licensing (“DOL”) that I won administrative hearings for two clients.

Few people realize drivers arrested for DUI face both criminal charges AND an administrative action before the DOL.  Statutes give DOL authority to suspend or revoke a driver’s license for 90 days to two years if, after being arrested for DUI.  The arresting police officer submits a report to DOL saying the driver either refused a breath or blood test or tested above the legal limit.  Even if the driver wins their criminal case, has a judge throw out the state’s case, or pleads guilty to a lesser charge, DOL still suspends the driver’s license if the driver loses the DOL hearing.

Losing a DOL hearing means the driver has to drive for at least 90 days with a breath test machine in their car, has to get expensive SR-22 insurance for at least three years, and has his or her driver’s license suspended or revoked for anywhere from 90 days to 2 years.

In the first case, I successfully argued a Seattle Police Department DUI squad officer illegally stopped my client after seeing my client drive briefly at night without his lights on.  After the client turned his lights on, and drove another 1/3 of a mile, the officer stopped him and immediately started a DUI investigation.  The DOL hearing examiner ruled this “was an unlawful stop.”

In the second case, I successfully argued that the DOL shouldn’t consider a driver’s breath test results because they were invalid after police stopped a driver on the WSU campus, arrested him for DUI, and had him complete a series of breath tests.  The police officer charged the driver with a DUI and reported him to DOL for having test results of .08 or more.  I argued the driver’s series of breath tests didn’t meet statutory standards for courts or a hearing examiner to consider the breath tests valid.  The DOL hearing examiner agreed, and ruled there was insufficient proof the driver was at or above a .08.

In many cases, figuring out a way to win the DOL hearing is more challenging than solving a criminal DUI charge.  This is because the DOL administrative hearing process is relaxed and designed to favor the Department of Licensing.  These cases show how thorough preparation, advanced teaching/training, and determined advocacy — collectively hallmarks of successful DUI defense — generate positive client results.