Jeff Goldman Law

2SHB 2742 has been signed into law. This bill changes the law that governs DUI offenses and the ignition interlock requirements — For example:

1) More people are able to apply for the ignition interlock license

2) The employer exception to an ignition interlock license is expanded

3) Finally, even those who have an Ignition Interlock License, that is revoked for one reason or another, generally may re-apply for a new ignition interlock license under this new law.

Seattle’s legendary organized crime figure, Frank Colacurcio Sr., died July 2, 2010 at the Univesity of Washington Medical Center. At the time of his death, he was under indictment facing allegations of racketeering and promoting prostitution. His death occurred roughly one week after his strip clubs were shut down by federal prosecutors and his son along with four close associates pled guilty to racketeering and prostitution related charges. He had been in declining health for some time, and suffered from congestive heart failure.

For the full article, see article titled “Frank Colacurcio Sr., Seattle’s legendary organized-crime figure, dies at 93″ by Steve Miletich.

Washington State is tough on DUIs.

1) Why is a guy with 9 DUIs out on bail, and you’ve been pulled over once for DUI and you’re facing jail time and 1 year of an ignition interlock device on your vehicle?

- You may contest the Department of Licensing Hearing. Some attorneys charge additional fees to handle this hearing, but it’s often worth it.

- A good result at a DOL hearing will often allow you to keep your license and have minimal consequences. (for example, you don’t want increased insurance, an ignition interlock device on your vehicle, or the loss of your license for a period of 30 days up to many years).

2) I’ve been charge with Driving Under the Influence, is that what I’m stuck with?

- You are now in negotiations. The state has offered you a DUI as part of deal. This does not mean they can prove DUI, and it does not necessarily mean you should take the deal. There are many lesser pleas than a plea to DUI. (For example, reckless driving and negligent driving). Or you can take it to trial.

Not every case is going to get dismissed. And not every DUI charge is going to become a Negligent Driving. But, there are a serious of consequences that you need to be aware of before taking any deal from the state. Make sure you understand them all.

As always, and for any legal matter, I suggest you hire an attorney. General information regarding DUIs on a blog does not create an attorney client relationship.

A man was arrested for his 9th DUI. He was originally released on $250,000 bail after being arraigned. He did not come to court as scheduled.

A trooper, who happened to be in court for an unrelated matter, offered to drive to the man’s home and pick him up. According to police, he was intoxicated when booked into custody.

For full article, see “North Bend man arrested on 9th DUI offense” published in the Seattle Times.

DUI law is changing in 2011. Currently, a first offense carries a mandatory minimum of 1-2 days. A second offense carries a mandatory minimum of 30-45 days.

What does this mean to someone facing a second DUI? It means, on your second DUI, the Judge has to sentence you to 30 days if you blew under .15, or 45 if you blew over .15. In other words, short of getting a reckless driving, or negligent driving, the Judge has no choice and must impose 30-45 days minimum.

But wait. Right now, if you are charged with two DUIs. You could avoid the mandatory 30 – 45 days. You would have to plea to the second in time DUI first, and the first in time DUI second.

Does it sound like a puzzle that allows those accused of DUIs to avoid jail time…. it is possible that the legislature thinks so, because they have recently changed the law.

House Bill 2742 redefines ‘prior offense.’  Starting 2011, those charged and/or convicted of multiple DUIs will not be able to arrange there DUIs to avoid mandatory minimum jail time.

The full bill can be seen at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/

The existing law allowed Physicians to prescribe Marijuana, but a new law will go into effect in June 10, 2010 that will allow others to prescribe marijuana as well.

Senate Bill 5798 give permission to health care providers. The word ‘physician’ has been replaced by ‘health care provider.’  ‘Health care provider’ includes physicians assistants, naturopaths, and advanced registered nurses.

This law will change the accessibility of marijuana for those with trouble obtaining it from a physician, or others, giving them the power to prescribe marijuana if the patient suffers from a terminal or debilitating illness.  In 1998, Initiative 692 passed by a margin of 59 percent, but since then, there have been some difficulties obtaining marijuana for those who need it.

In some cases, individuals have been prosecuted for possession of marijuana, and have had to provide medical marijuana information in their defense. Often, by the time the defense is argued, a patient has been required to appear at countless court dates, and deal with the stress of defending a criminal charge.

Hopefully, this bill will provide medical marijuana to those in need.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote, held that Defense Counsel must explain to a client that there is a risk of deportation when pleading guilty to a criminal charge.

In 2002, Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, pled guilty to transporting marijuana. After pleading guilty, he discovered that his guilty plea exposed him to deportation proceedings.

Mr. Padilla maintains that his attorneys told him not to worry about immigration consequences prior to entering the plea.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky considered deportation as merely a collateral consequence of the plea. However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, treated the risk of deportation as a far more serious consequence.

Mr. Padilla’s case will now return to lower courts to determine whether or not he was prejudiced by the entering of a guilty plea without being informed of the deportation consequences. Essentially, this means, the lower court must ask, would the outcome have been different if Mr. Padilla did not plea guilty.

Seattle Times reporter John de Leon reports about four drivers arrested during a Mid-March Wednesday morning commute in an article titled “Troopers make four DUI arrests during Wednesday morning commute.”

The article reports that one arrest involved an accident and alcohol. The other three arrests were DRE related, meaning that they involved a drug recognition expert. Many argue, that according to caselaw, a Drug Recognition Expert must complete all twelve steps of the exam for the exam to be accurate. And defense attorneys constantly question the accuracy of the exam. All DREs must keep a log, which determines how many accurate determinations a DRE has made.

Sometimes, when a car is pulled over, the officer smells marijuana, searches the car, and marijuana is found. Then, the officer calls the DRE, says here’s what I smelled in the car, here’s what I’ve found in the car, please come here and make a scientific determination as to whether this person is under the influence of marijuana. If the twelve steps are completed, and the DRE concludes that marijuana is in the car, this is considered an accurate determination.

However, sometimes DREs are called when there is no smell of marijuana or marijuana found in the car, and the DRE subsequently determine that the driver was under the influence of marijuana. The person submits to a blood test, and THC (the kind that arguably means you’ve been smoking very recently) is found in the driver’s blood.

When the Seattle Times reported that Troopers made four DUI arrests, three of which were drug related, keep in mind that they are only arrests, not convictions, and that the protocol and accuracy of a DRE must be closely examined.

How can an officer tell the difference between a driver reaching into the seat next to them for directions, typing a name into a cell phone keypad, and writing a text message while driving?

Missouri’s State Highway Patrol has “nabbed” just eight text offenders in five months, reports Sarah Kliff, of Newsweek, in an article titled “Why a texting ban failed in Missouri.”

Washington State has its own version of the texting ban, RCW 46.61.668, which became effective January 1, 2008.  In 2009 many states began the process for implementing a similar law, and over 20 are expected to pass a texting ban in 2010.

Washington’s law, similar to many others, permits a driver to type numbers or letters into the keypad for the purpose of making a call.  The law may be an excellent idea, but its enforcement is a challenge for police and highway patrol.

On Wednesday, the Wyoming Governor signed into law an ethics code. There will be no criminal penalties for a violation, but this code is now on the books in Wyoming. Think of it as a company mission statement – it sets forth principles to follow and goals.

1. Live each day with courage.
2. Take pride in your work.
3. Always finish what you start.
4. Do what has to be done.
5. Be tough, but fair.
6. When you make a promise, keep it.
7. Ride for the brand. (‘Go for the gold’ in cowboy speak).
8. Talk less and say more.
9. Remember that some things aren’t for sale.
10. Know where to draw the line.