Long lines at the mall and Grandma’s fruitcake are no longer the only things to worry about during the holiday season. With the Drive Hammered, Get Nailed campaign in place, holiday drivers ran an increased chance of being stopped and arrested for a DUI in the State of Washington.
The winter Drive Hammered, Get Nailed campaign began on November 25, 2010 (Thanksgiving Day), and ran through January 2, 2011. During this time, state and local law enforcement conducted extra DUI patrols throughout King County in attempts to keep impaired drivers off the roads during the holiday season.
This campaign was a joint effort, funded by both the King County Target Zero Task Forces and a grant from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. Within King County, the following Police Departments participated in extra DUI patrols over the holidays: Algona, Auburn, Bellevue, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Clyde Hill, Des Moines, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland, Maple Valley, Mercer Island, Newcastle, Normandy Park, North Bend, Pacific, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, Seatac, Seattle, Snoqualmie, and Tukwila. In addition to the local Police Departments, the Washington State Patrol also participated in extra DUI emphasis patrols.
The winter campaign resulted in a total of 3,577 statewide DUI arrest. In King County alone, 876 drivers were stopped and arrested for a DUI within this roughly 38 day period.
This wasn’t the first time the Washington Safety Traffic Commission organized a DUI enforcement campaign. This past summer, from August 12 through September 6, 2010, the Drive Hammered, Get Nailed campaign was implemented as the largest ever summer DUI enforcement campaign. Over 178 police agencies participated in the campaign statewide.
Given the number of arrests made during the winter campaign and the existence of a previous summer Drive Hammered, Get Nailed campaign, it would not be surprising to find that state and local law enforcement may decide implement the campaign again during the summer months. Remember, these campaigns mean that even the casual, non-impaired drivers could be caught up in a DUI task force event when there is more pressure than usual to make DUI related arrests.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Who, Me? How Diabetes and Diet Restrictions Can Lead to a Wrongful DUI Accusation
In reality, police officers have very little training in detecting accurate levels of intoxication; there is no “inherent skill” to detect when someone is intoxicated. In fact, police officers are predisposed in a drunk driving investigation to "see" what they expect to see, disregarding any alternative explanations. Because of this, police officers have been known to mistakenly assume a driver is intoxicated, when in fact they suffer from diabetes or hypoglycemia.
How can diabetes and hypoglycemia affect field sobriety tests?
Diabetics experience hypoglycemia when their blood sugar levels are low. The symptoms of this condition include inability to balance, staggering, slurred speech, drowsiness, flushed face, disorientation, and impaired motor control. These symptoms are easy to confuse with that of a drunk driver. Since these symptoms are so similar to intoxication, a person experiencing them will most likely fail his/her field sobriety tests. This leads to diabetics experiencing hypoglycemia to be wrongfully arrested for drunk driving on countless occasions.
If an individual suffering from diabetes or hypoglycemia enters a state of ketoacidosis he/she may also exhibit what appear to be signs of intoxication. Ketoacidosis occurs when too many ketones are produced in the body. Similar to diabetes and hypoglycemia, the symptoms of ketoacidosis can appear similar to signs of alcohol or drug impairment. The symptoms include a flushed face, drowsiness, loss of energy, poor coordination, and stale breath which can be mistaken for the odor of an alcoholic beverage.
How can diabetes and hypoglycemia affect my BAC?
Breath tests are designed to measure Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) to show the amount of alcohol present in a person’s bloodstream. The BAC device uses infrared beams of light that are absorbed by chemical compounds in the breath. These tests look specifically for ethyl alcohol, which is found in alcoholic beverages.
Since these tests measure chemical compounds in the breath (and not actual alcohol) the machines are programmed to assume that chemical compounds similar to ethyl alcohol are probably the result of consuming alcohol. There are actually thousands of compounds that can register as the type of alcohol consumed from drinking an alcoholic beverage.
Isopropyl alcohol commonly registers as ethyl alcohol on a breath test. Ketones cause the body to create isopropyl alcohol. A diabetic who has developed ketoacidosis or has ketones on his/her breath may give a high BAC reading even if they have not been drinking. This is because the breath testing device mistakes the isopropyl alcohol produced by the ketones for the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages.
How can my low-carb diet affect my BAC?
There are also self-imposed diets, such as high-protien/low-carbohydrate diets, that can adversely affect a breath test. When people significantly reduce their carbohydrate intake, their bodies will look to stored fat for energy. This causes the body to produce ketones for energy.
Like diabetics, individuals on low-carb diets will have ketones on their breath. When ketones are in the breath, the isopropyl alcohol detected by a breath test shows up the same as ethyl alcohol (what is actually found in alcoholic beverages).
Further, if an individual on a low-carb diet were to actually consume even a small amount of alcohol, then the BAC would be falsely elevated even more simply because of the keteones that are naturally produced by the body.
What does this mean for my DUI defense?
Until police become more aware of how medical conditions and diet restrictions can mimic intoxication and driving impairment, innocent people will likely face wrongful DUI charges. Judges have ruled that low blood sugar may not be a defense against negligent driving. However, it is still imperative to tell a DUI defense attorney if any of these situations may explain your unjust drunk driving charges, as it could help grant a dismissal of a DUI charge.
References:
Lawrence Taylor "Drunk Driving Defense" 3d Edition.
"Hypoglycemia: Driving Under the Influence" in 8(1) Medical and Toxicological Information Review Sept. 2003.
Brick, "Diabetes, Breath Acetone and Breathalyzer Accuracy: A Case Study", 9(1) Alcohol, Drugs and Driving (1993).
How can diabetes and hypoglycemia affect field sobriety tests?
Diabetics experience hypoglycemia when their blood sugar levels are low. The symptoms of this condition include inability to balance, staggering, slurred speech, drowsiness, flushed face, disorientation, and impaired motor control. These symptoms are easy to confuse with that of a drunk driver. Since these symptoms are so similar to intoxication, a person experiencing them will most likely fail his/her field sobriety tests. This leads to diabetics experiencing hypoglycemia to be wrongfully arrested for drunk driving on countless occasions.
If an individual suffering from diabetes or hypoglycemia enters a state of ketoacidosis he/she may also exhibit what appear to be signs of intoxication. Ketoacidosis occurs when too many ketones are produced in the body. Similar to diabetes and hypoglycemia, the symptoms of ketoacidosis can appear similar to signs of alcohol or drug impairment. The symptoms include a flushed face, drowsiness, loss of energy, poor coordination, and stale breath which can be mistaken for the odor of an alcoholic beverage.
How can diabetes and hypoglycemia affect my BAC?
Breath tests are designed to measure Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) to show the amount of alcohol present in a person’s bloodstream. The BAC device uses infrared beams of light that are absorbed by chemical compounds in the breath. These tests look specifically for ethyl alcohol, which is found in alcoholic beverages.
Since these tests measure chemical compounds in the breath (and not actual alcohol) the machines are programmed to assume that chemical compounds similar to ethyl alcohol are probably the result of consuming alcohol. There are actually thousands of compounds that can register as the type of alcohol consumed from drinking an alcoholic beverage.
Isopropyl alcohol commonly registers as ethyl alcohol on a breath test. Ketones cause the body to create isopropyl alcohol. A diabetic who has developed ketoacidosis or has ketones on his/her breath may give a high BAC reading even if they have not been drinking. This is because the breath testing device mistakes the isopropyl alcohol produced by the ketones for the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages.
How can my low-carb diet affect my BAC?
There are also self-imposed diets, such as high-protien/low-carbohydrate diets, that can adversely affect a breath test. When people significantly reduce their carbohydrate intake, their bodies will look to stored fat for energy. This causes the body to produce ketones for energy.
Like diabetics, individuals on low-carb diets will have ketones on their breath. When ketones are in the breath, the isopropyl alcohol detected by a breath test shows up the same as ethyl alcohol (what is actually found in alcoholic beverages).
Further, if an individual on a low-carb diet were to actually consume even a small amount of alcohol, then the BAC would be falsely elevated even more simply because of the keteones that are naturally produced by the body.
What does this mean for my DUI defense?
Until police become more aware of how medical conditions and diet restrictions can mimic intoxication and driving impairment, innocent people will likely face wrongful DUI charges. Judges have ruled that low blood sugar may not be a defense against negligent driving. However, it is still imperative to tell a DUI defense attorney if any of these situations may explain your unjust drunk driving charges, as it could help grant a dismissal of a DUI charge.
References:
Lawrence Taylor "Drunk Driving Defense" 3d Edition.
"Hypoglycemia: Driving Under the Influence" in 8(1) Medical and Toxicological Information Review Sept. 2003.
Brick, "Diabetes, Breath Acetone and Breathalyzer Accuracy: A Case Study", 9(1) Alcohol, Drugs and Driving (1993).
Monday, June 21, 2010
You Got a DUI, Eh? The Canadian Take on Drinking and Driving.
Unfortunately, the rumors are true. It seems our friends to the North are fair-weathered when it comes to those charged with drinking and driving in the States. This may seem strange with the hyped news stories tauting flippancy to marijuana possession and legalized escort services. Certainly one would think that Canada is a forested land of parties. However, the Canadian Government prevents certain non-Canadian citizens from entering Canada under their restrictive immigration laws. These laws create inadmissible classes for those who have been charged with offenses that translate into felonies when placed into the Canadian mentality.
Canada regards DUI/DWI offenses as very serious in nature, therefore placing those non-Canadian citizens charged with these offenses (and even those granted reductions by the US Courts) into their discretion to be turned away at the border. A DUI is an indictable offense in Canada that may be punished by imprisonment for up to a five year term. Therefore, U.S. convictions that equate to a felony or indictable offense in Canada is excludable from Canada and even if the offense is not a felony or indictable in Canada, Customs and Immigration Officers have ultimate authority to permit and deny entry into Canada under the rationale of immigration protection.
This means if you want to visit the land of fish, water, moose and mosquitoes--you'll have to go to some extra measures if you have a DUI conviction or charge on your record, especially if it is less than 5 years old. A temporary pass to the country can be applied for, as well as an application for "criminal rehabilitation approval" but both take time and are within the Canadian government's discretion to grant.
So remember, these applications are not guaranteed and should be done well in advance to a planned visit. Save yourself some time by educating yourself in deportable offenses...or head South, Cabo is just as nice.
Canada regards DUI/DWI offenses as very serious in nature, therefore placing those non-Canadian citizens charged with these offenses (and even those granted reductions by the US Courts) into their discretion to be turned away at the border. A DUI is an indictable offense in Canada that may be punished by imprisonment for up to a five year term. Therefore, U.S. convictions that equate to a felony or indictable offense in Canada is excludable from Canada and even if the offense is not a felony or indictable in Canada, Customs and Immigration Officers have ultimate authority to permit and deny entry into Canada under the rationale of immigration protection.
This means if you want to visit the land of fish, water, moose and mosquitoes--you'll have to go to some extra measures if you have a DUI conviction or charge on your record, especially if it is less than 5 years old. A temporary pass to the country can be applied for, as well as an application for "criminal rehabilitation approval" but both take time and are within the Canadian government's discretion to grant.
So remember, these applications are not guaranteed and should be done well in advance to a planned visit. Save yourself some time by educating yourself in deportable offenses...or head South, Cabo is just as nice.
Friday, June 18, 2010
"But I Only Had One Drink..." Testing the Limits of Our DUI Laws
Did you know in Washington State that you can be charged with a DUI even with a BAC under the legal limit of 0.08? This may seem counter intuitive but it is an unfortunate truth and one to educate yourself on. How can this be, I imagine you're asking--well, friend, it is due to the statutory language capsuled under RCW 46.61.502 which states:
A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:
(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or
(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or
(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.
Upon reading this law, you will notice that it is a two pronged device. The first prong being that a person meets the elements of this charge if he/she has an alcohol level of above 0.08 while behind the wheel and the second being that a person may merely be be "affected by" intoxicating liquor while operating their vehicle. It is the secondary portion that enables the State/City to go forth with a DUI charge that is under the legal limit.
In these instances, the prosecuting body relies on the observations of the officer and his or her testimony that the driver appeared "affected" by a substance. Examples of observations would be veering, smell of intoxicants, lack of coordination, and statements made by a suspect.
Although bureaucracy is a staunch adversary in the legal realm you can protect yourself first and foremost by remaining silent. Be cooperative but notify the officer that you would like to speak to an attorney before you answer any questions. If the officer responds to you that you are not under arrest and have not reached the point to invoke this right, ask if you are free to leave. If you are, then do so--if not, stick to your guns and re-request your attorney. Be firm with your rights but not condescending or uncooperative.
Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar... These responses/repartee give you a better chance for a fairer resolution to any allegation or stop. Your conduct will show the Court you are respectful of the law and expect respectfulness to your rights. Don't be "affected by" someone stifling your guaranteed liberties...there is no second prong that ever allows that.
A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:
(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or
(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or
(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.
Upon reading this law, you will notice that it is a two pronged device. The first prong being that a person meets the elements of this charge if he/she has an alcohol level of above 0.08 while behind the wheel and the second being that a person may merely be be "affected by" intoxicating liquor while operating their vehicle. It is the secondary portion that enables the State/City to go forth with a DUI charge that is under the legal limit.
In these instances, the prosecuting body relies on the observations of the officer and his or her testimony that the driver appeared "affected" by a substance. Examples of observations would be veering, smell of intoxicants, lack of coordination, and statements made by a suspect.
Although bureaucracy is a staunch adversary in the legal realm you can protect yourself first and foremost by remaining silent. Be cooperative but notify the officer that you would like to speak to an attorney before you answer any questions. If the officer responds to you that you are not under arrest and have not reached the point to invoke this right, ask if you are free to leave. If you are, then do so--if not, stick to your guns and re-request your attorney. Be firm with your rights but not condescending or uncooperative.
Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar... These responses/repartee give you a better chance for a fairer resolution to any allegation or stop. Your conduct will show the Court you are respectful of the law and expect respectfulness to your rights. Don't be "affected by" someone stifling your guaranteed liberties...there is no second prong that ever allows that.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Overhearing Your Constitutional Rights Being Violated.
You've had it happen. On the bus, in a restaurant, by that mustached voyeur in a bar--the eavesdropping epidemic. This affliction occurs every time a person sits a little bit too close and listens a little bit to hard to a conversation that is none of their concern. The prevalence of officious inter meddling gives it the aura that its just another one of those life circumstances that must be tolerated--and most times it's easiest to do just that. Most times, but not all. A DUI allegation or any criminal situation are exceptions to the 'tolerance rule' and one that a defendant should not take lightly. While it is hard to be polite and tell someone to go away, it is possible, recommended and supported by law.
If you are ever arrested for a DUI/Criminal offense, you are guaranteed the right to counsel and the conversations you have with your attorney should be private. This means that if a police officer is standing a bit too close for comfort, you have every rights to politely ask for privacy. If they refuse, they have refused a right afforded to you by the Sixth Amendment.
A defendant will be denied the statutory right to counsel when the police officer denies him private communication and the desire for private communication was either expressed to the officer and/or the defendant alleges that prejudice resulted. Koch, 53 Wn.App. at 357-58. For example, in Koch, a consolidated case, the two defendants had argued that they were denied access to counsel. The court rejected the defendant, Koch’s, argument based on the fact that there was no evidence that the attorney or Koch asked the officer to move further away. Similarly, the court found that the defendant, Hanson, also failed to show that she requested additional privacy. See also, State v. Holland, 147 Ariz. 453, 711 P.2d 592 (Ariz.1985) (holding that the defendant was denied access to counsel when he asked the officer to step out of ear shot and the officer denied his request).
Learn from precedent and turn mistakes into legal defenses. If you wish to have a private conversation with your attorney, let an officer know. As the law dictates: "innocent until proven guilty." No one is a second class citizen when they enter a police precinct and although law enforcement can inventory your cell phone, wallet, clothes and keys--they cannot inventory your rights. Exercise them.
If you are ever arrested for a DUI/Criminal offense, you are guaranteed the right to counsel and the conversations you have with your attorney should be private. This means that if a police officer is standing a bit too close for comfort, you have every rights to politely ask for privacy. If they refuse, they have refused a right afforded to you by the Sixth Amendment.
A defendant will be denied the statutory right to counsel when the police officer denies him private communication and the desire for private communication was either expressed to the officer and/or the defendant alleges that prejudice resulted. Koch, 53 Wn.App. at 357-58. For example, in Koch, a consolidated case, the two defendants had argued that they were denied access to counsel. The court rejected the defendant, Koch’s, argument based on the fact that there was no evidence that the attorney or Koch asked the officer to move further away. Similarly, the court found that the defendant, Hanson, also failed to show that she requested additional privacy. See also, State v. Holland, 147 Ariz. 453, 711 P.2d 592 (Ariz.1985) (holding that the defendant was denied access to counsel when he asked the officer to step out of ear shot and the officer denied his request).
Learn from precedent and turn mistakes into legal defenses. If you wish to have a private conversation with your attorney, let an officer know. As the law dictates: "innocent until proven guilty." No one is a second class citizen when they enter a police precinct and although law enforcement can inventory your cell phone, wallet, clothes and keys--they cannot inventory your rights. Exercise them.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Your Phone is Ringing...Don't Pick Up, It Could Be a DUI
Starting June 10, 2010, Washington State law will restrict driving while talking on the phone, texting or checking a quick email without a hands free device. A violation of this law will be considered a primary offense. Therefore, this legislative action will be working against your social life and for the proposition that police will have an advantage in investigating drunk drivers.
Any criminal defense case requires a showing of probable cause or extenuating circumstance to detain a suspect. Probable cause in the realm of a DUI requires a catalyst before the vehicle stop. Elements such as a traffic infraction, excessive weaving, broken vehicle equiptment or lack of a seat belt would all support the ability for an officer to stop your car. Once the officer has the vehicle stopped, it's open season. Documentation that the smell of intoxicants are overpowering and a driver's eyes are 'red and watery' are generally staples leading up to a DUI arrest. With this factual situation,viola, the State has a nice argument for probable cause all wrapped up with a bow. Starting June 10th, talking on your cellular will become the ribbon for the State/City's DUI gift box.
Therefore, we leave you with these easy to remember cautionary messages:
1. While driving, ten and two is not a synonym for T9,
2. A smartphone is one with a handsfree device.
3. Life happens. Keep our number in your ICE category--its 206.621.1554--just be certain to make that call safely off the roadway...
Extra time???--check out the Seattle Times for more news on cellular phones and driving (see link below): http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011865286_apwacellphoneenforcement.html
Any criminal defense case requires a showing of probable cause or extenuating circumstance to detain a suspect. Probable cause in the realm of a DUI requires a catalyst before the vehicle stop. Elements such as a traffic infraction, excessive weaving, broken vehicle equiptment or lack of a seat belt would all support the ability for an officer to stop your car. Once the officer has the vehicle stopped, it's open season. Documentation that the smell of intoxicants are overpowering and a driver's eyes are 'red and watery' are generally staples leading up to a DUI arrest. With this factual situation,viola, the State has a nice argument for probable cause all wrapped up with a bow. Starting June 10th, talking on your cellular will become the ribbon for the State/City's DUI gift box.
Therefore, we leave you with these easy to remember cautionary messages:
1. While driving, ten and two is not a synonym for T9,
2. A smartphone is one with a handsfree device.
3. Life happens. Keep our number in your ICE category--its 206.621.1554--just be certain to make that call safely off the roadway...
Extra time???--check out the Seattle Times for more news on cellular phones and driving (see link below): http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011865286_apwacellphoneenforcement.html
Friday, June 4, 2010
Does Seattle Turn a Blind Eye to Marijuana Possession?
Below is a story published in The Stranger detailing the large amount of first-time nonviolent marijuana possession defendants who are taken into custody. Many believe that Seattle's recent move to make possession of marijuana (under 40 grams) a civil infraction, which was struck down, indicates that Courts' are lenient to those in this cohort of offenders. However, this is not always the case. Statutorily in the State of Washington, a possession of marijuana offense mandates at least 24 hours in custody. This can be mitigated by exploring potential search and seizure issues, substantive legal issues and communications pertaining to extenuating circumstances with the State/City attorney. We are experienced in defending this type of case and are leading the fight to defend those 'unicorns' for a story ending of 'happily ever after...'
Tracking Down Those Unicorns
posted by Dominic Holden (See story in original format at www.thestranger.com)
Last week White House appointee John Walters claimed on C-SPAN that finding people in jail for “first-time nonviolent possession of marijuana… is like finding a unicorn … because it doesn’t exist.” I had a hunch that some of the 775,138 people arrested for pot possession last year were actually unicorns…
But the drug czar probably assumed that it’s a freebie to call people with criminal convictions anything he wants, because they’re likely to be too ashamed to defend themselves. That’s certainly true, but it didn’t take me long to find credible people willing to vouch for the existence of first-time, non-violent marijuana offenders—excuse me, unicorns.
In just one hour, I’ve found five people who have seen the Drug Czar’s unicorns with their own eyes. Here are Slog’s exclusive unicorn reports:
Andy Robertson, criminal defense attorney for 10 years at the Rosen Law Firm in Seattle.
I have had it happen where [my client] goes to jail where they have one joint on them, and they have never gone to jail before. This is their first and only brush with the law. I don’t think that I have ever had a case where the person charged for marijuana is anything but the most peaceful person you can imagine.
A judge who I spoke to recently said that about every afternoon, he’ll put at least one person a day in jail for possession of marijuana or paraphernalia. He’s bee pro tem-ing for at least five years.
Sunil Abraham, public defender for the King County Defender Association. When asked how many people he has personally encountered with no prior record who have served time in jail for a nonviolent marijuana-possession charge, here’s what he said:
I’d say 50 people and they have all done time in jail. I’d guess that if you obtained the booking history for the last 100 marijuana arrests for somebody who has no criminal history, 80 percent of them do time in jail. It may be one day, but they serve time in jail. [Police] don’t commonly arrest for marijuana and release; you are going to go to jail. Alison Holcomb, drug policy director of the ACLU of Washington.
According to data compiled by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and requested by the ACLU of Washington, Washington police agencies reported 11,553 arrests for possession of marijuana in 2007. Misdemeanor possession of marijuana carries a mandatory day in jail, and up to ninety. Data obtained from the Washington State Patrol’s Identification and Criminal History Section reveals that 3,588 convictions for misdemeanor marijuana possession were entered in Washington courts in 2007.Muraco Kyashana-tocha, works in the law offices of Jeffrey Steinborn and Douglas Hiatt, the city’s leading marijuana-defense attorneys.
I know of two cases that were handled … in the last year. They were both over in Redmond. I know both of them by name. One gram [possessed] by one of them, and 12 grams by the other one. They were squeaky clean: no record no juvenile record. I know a lot of people who went to jail while their case was processing. They may be in jail over the weekend for three days. A lot of the people charged with misdemeanor [possession] cannot afford $3000-5000 for legal representation, so they are doing time.Jeffrey Steinborn, the city’s leading marijuana defense attorney.
Walters is either shamefully ignorant, or intentionally lying to us. Sometimes we get lucky because a big shot in white shirt shows up. Sometimes the prosecutor will say the statute is mandatory, so they say, “Fuck you, your client’s going to jail.” Sometimes the judge will convert that to community service but the law says they can’t. To avoid that day in jail is the exception rather than the rule.
Tracking Down Those Unicorns
posted by Dominic Holden (See story in original format at www.thestranger.com)
Last week White House appointee John Walters claimed on C-SPAN that finding people in jail for “first-time nonviolent possession of marijuana… is like finding a unicorn … because it doesn’t exist.” I had a hunch that some of the 775,138 people arrested for pot possession last year were actually unicorns…
But the drug czar probably assumed that it’s a freebie to call people with criminal convictions anything he wants, because they’re likely to be too ashamed to defend themselves. That’s certainly true, but it didn’t take me long to find credible people willing to vouch for the existence of first-time, non-violent marijuana offenders—excuse me, unicorns.
In just one hour, I’ve found five people who have seen the Drug Czar’s unicorns with their own eyes. Here are Slog’s exclusive unicorn reports:
Andy Robertson, criminal defense attorney for 10 years at the Rosen Law Firm in Seattle.
I have had it happen where [my client] goes to jail where they have one joint on them, and they have never gone to jail before. This is their first and only brush with the law. I don’t think that I have ever had a case where the person charged for marijuana is anything but the most peaceful person you can imagine.
A judge who I spoke to recently said that about every afternoon, he’ll put at least one person a day in jail for possession of marijuana or paraphernalia. He’s bee pro tem-ing for at least five years.
Sunil Abraham, public defender for the King County Defender Association. When asked how many people he has personally encountered with no prior record who have served time in jail for a nonviolent marijuana-possession charge, here’s what he said:
I’d say 50 people and they have all done time in jail. I’d guess that if you obtained the booking history for the last 100 marijuana arrests for somebody who has no criminal history, 80 percent of them do time in jail. It may be one day, but they serve time in jail. [Police] don’t commonly arrest for marijuana and release; you are going to go to jail. Alison Holcomb, drug policy director of the ACLU of Washington.
According to data compiled by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and requested by the ACLU of Washington, Washington police agencies reported 11,553 arrests for possession of marijuana in 2007. Misdemeanor possession of marijuana carries a mandatory day in jail, and up to ninety. Data obtained from the Washington State Patrol’s Identification and Criminal History Section reveals that 3,588 convictions for misdemeanor marijuana possession were entered in Washington courts in 2007.Muraco Kyashana-tocha, works in the law offices of Jeffrey Steinborn and Douglas Hiatt, the city’s leading marijuana-defense attorneys.
I know of two cases that were handled … in the last year. They were both over in Redmond. I know both of them by name. One gram [possessed] by one of them, and 12 grams by the other one. They were squeaky clean: no record no juvenile record. I know a lot of people who went to jail while their case was processing. They may be in jail over the weekend for three days. A lot of the people charged with misdemeanor [possession] cannot afford $3000-5000 for legal representation, so they are doing time.Jeffrey Steinborn, the city’s leading marijuana defense attorney.
Walters is either shamefully ignorant, or intentionally lying to us. Sometimes we get lucky because a big shot in white shirt shows up. Sometimes the prosecutor will say the statute is mandatory, so they say, “Fuck you, your client’s going to jail.” Sometimes the judge will convert that to community service but the law says they can’t. To avoid that day in jail is the exception rather than the rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
