Criminal Law

Washington Court of Appeals Reviews Conviction of No-Contact Order Violation

December 17, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Court of Appeals recently reviewed a defendant’s conviction for violating a no-contact order, evaluating whether evidence should have been suppressed. In State v. Burks (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2015), the police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle for speeding. The police officer obtained the driver’s information and entered it into a search, which indicated that the driver was a protected party in a no-contact order. The police officer noticed that the description of the respondent in the no-contact order matched the defendant, who was riding as a passenger in the driver’s vehicle. The officer requested identification from the defendant, which he did not have on him. The police officer returned to the computer in his vehicle and located a photograph of the respondent in the no-contact order, which matched the defendant. The officer then arrested the defendant for violating the no-contact order.

The defendant was charged with one count of a felony violation of a court order with a special allegation of domestic violence. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that it was an illegal invasion of privacy pursuant to the Washington Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was violating the no-contact order, there was an independent reason to request the defendant’s identification, and the traffic stop was lawful. The trial court convicted the defendant as charged, and the defendant appealed on the basis that the trial court erred in allowing the evidence of the traffic stop.

Court Finds Constitutional Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent in Washington DUI Case

November 11, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington Court of Appeals recently reviewed a DUI felony conviction in the case of State v. Diaz, No. 46016-5-II (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2015), after a jury found the defendant guilty of felony driving under the influence. The defendant’s primary argument on appeal was that his constitutional right to be free from self-incrimination was violated when a police officer testified at trial regarding his post-arrest right to silence. Ultimately, the court agreed that the comments were a constitutional violation but harmless error.

In Diaz, the defendant’s vehicle was found heavily damaged against a telephone pole with the engine still running, late at night. The defendant was observed crawling out of a ditch nearby, missing a shoe, and bearing marks on his body allegedly consistent with injuries caused by a seatbelt and airbag. The shoe was later found on the driver’s side floorboard. When the defendant refused a breath test, the police transported him to a hospital where, pursuant to a search warrant, a blood sample was taken, indicating that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. The only element in dispute at the trial was whether the defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This provision is applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Washington State Constitution also shares an equivalent right. In Washington, a defendant’s constitutional right to silence applies in both pre- and post-arrest situations. In the post-arrest context, it is a violation of due process for the State to comment upon or otherwise exploit a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. In addition, it is constitutional error for a police witness to testify that a defendant refused to speak to him or her, since the State may not use a defendant’s constitutionally permitted silence as substantive evidence of guilt.

Washington Supreme Court Holding Limits Protection of Rule 3.1 in DUI Case

October 9, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Supreme Court recently published an opinion in the case of State v. Fedorov, addressing the issue of whether a police officer’s presence in the room where the defendant was speaking with his attorney violated CrR 3.1, the rule-based right to counsel. The defendant moved to suppress the results of a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) test based on an alleged violation of CrR 3.1. The lower courts denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant appealed his subsequent conviction.

Under Washington law, when a person is taken into custody, he must be immediately advised of his right to a lawyer and the opportunity to consult with a lawyer without charge if he cannot pay for one. CrR 3.1(c)(1). At the earliest opportunity, a person in custody who desires a lawyer shall be provided access to a telephone, the number of the public defender or official responsible for assigning a lawyer, and any other means necessary to put the person in communication with a lawyer. CrR 3.1(c)(2). The Fedorov court further explained that unlike the Sixth Amendment right to counsel under the United States Constitution, CrR 3.1 is more limited and provides only the opportunity to speak to counsel, rather than requiring actual communication with an attorney.

Three Issues to Consider When Choosing an Attorney

September 22, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When confronted with a legal issue, many people have to go through the process of choosing an attorney for the first time. Choosing the right attorney for the legal issue you face is an important decision. As attorneys, we understand the importance of choosing the right attorney for you and your case, and with that we provide these issues to consider when choosing an attorney: Continue reading

Washington Court Holds That Defendant’s Previous Conviction Elevates DUI to Felony Charge

September 15, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recently published opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a defendant’s prior Alford plea could elevate a subsequent driving under the influence (DUI) offense to a felony charge. In State v. Bird, 352 P.3d 215 (Wash. App. 2015), the state appealed the trial court’s decision dismissing the felony DUI charge against the defendant. The Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution and reversed the trial court, holding that the defendant’s previous conviction for vehicular assault served as a predicate offense enabling the state to charge him with a felony DUI.

In 2009, the defendant entered an Alford plea to vehicular assault under all alternatives, which was accepted by the court. The defendant’s statement on the guilty plea acknowledged that he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and caused substantial bodily harm to another individual. The court subsequently entered a felony judgment and sentence, finding the defendant guilty on a plea of “Vehicular Assault—All Alternatives,” with “DUI” handwritten over the charge. In 2013, the defendant was arrested after being stopped by police for erratic driving. The officers stated that the defendant was slurring his speech, had red eyes, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. The defendant also blew a .138 on a portable breath test administered by the officers. Due to his 2009 vehicular assault conviction, the DUI was elevated to a felony offense.

Preparing for your DUI Arraignment

April 26, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

What happens when you are pulled over for driving under the influence? what if you didn’t go to jail, and you aren’t sure if you were even arrested? How do you know if you will be charged and when? Continue reading

When a co-defendant is charged with the same offense: State v. Downs

April 21, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

For starters, let’s say that John Doe is charged with possession of a firearm when he is pulled over by police late one night. At the time he was charged, he was in a car with a friend who is indisputably the one who possessed the gun and concealed it under the seat of the car prior to the traffic stop. All reports from the law enforcement officers indicate that the weapon was possessed by the friend of your client. The officers searched the vehicle and found the gun under the friend’s seat. The State charged the friend with and is now trying to make an example of Doe. So what do you do?

Neighbors and No Contact Orders

April 15, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington State courts can issue an No Contact Order (NCO) as condition of sentence, but can they require a distance requirement that results in a hypothetical client being prohibited from living in his residence which is next door to the alleged victim? The statute authorizing a no contact order states that such a order must clearly be read to prohibit conduct as the principal legislative intent. See e.g. RCW 10.99.040(2)(a)(“contact” mentioned 4 times before the single mention of “distance”). Continue reading

The Fellow Officer Rule

April 10, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Hypothetically, you have a police officer who while driving her car past a intersection observes a individual selling crack on the street corner, he directs another patrol car following directly behind him to arrest the individual. Can he do this? how is this legal?

NHTSA: Drugged Drivers no more likely to crash than Drunk Drivers

March 25, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION — A new federal study shows that drivers who have used pot are just as likely to get into a crash as sober drivers. The study was performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Virginia and compared more than 3,000 drivers in the area who were involved in an accident with over 6,000 control drivers who were not in an accident.