New Year Brings Changes To DUI Laws.
The title is a little misleading, as the law on DUI in terms of the legal limit has not changed, but rather the laws related to a DUI arrest or conviction have changed. Some may say for the better, while others will strongly disagree. Regardless of the camp you may be in on this, what matters is that those who could not drive previously, now can, but with significant supervision and consequences. The changes relate to who is eligible for a Ignition Interlock Device (IID) as well as the fairly new Ignition Interlock License (IIL).
For the most part the changes create an “Extension of Eligibility” so that those previously unable to legally drive, regardless of whether they have an IID, now are able. Among the most important extensions is the ability of a those arrested or convicted of a drug related DUI and Physical Control convictions to obtain an IIs. Previously a alcohol based DUI was permitted an IIL while a drug based DUI was not. Both alcohol and drug based DUI conviction are NOW able to obtain an IIL.
Further extensions are to those who have had their licenses suspended or revoked due to a DUI related Vehicular Assault and Vehicular Homicide Arrest and Conviction. Where they were previously unable to obtain an ILL, they can now do so.
There is now and IID exception, meaning no IID is necessary on specific vehicles. So a person who ordinarily would be required to have a IID on their “personal vehicle” does not need one on vehicle “owned, leased, or rented by a person’s employer and on those vehicles whose care and/or maintenance is the temporary responsibility of the employer, and driven at the direction of a person’s employer as requirement of employment during working hours.”
This new exception allows people like mechanics to test drive vehicles they work on, or persons who job requires a rental car when they fly somewhere.
With respect to the IID and Convictions & Sentencing, the IID and requirement to obtain an IIL is now at the discretion of the Court and Judge for ALL drug and alcohol related convictions. This means that a DUI reduced to a lesser charge that is still alcohol related permits a Judge to order an IID or IIL even though there law does not specifically mandate it.
Alternatively, a Court may waive IIL application requirement if: (1) driver lives out of state with no reasonably available devices; (2) person does not operate a vehicle; or (3) not eligible for IIL. However, in such scenario’s the Court shall order other alcohol monitoring if no ILL and abstinence is ordered.
The meaning of priors within a seven and or ten year period is also now entrenched in statute, rather than the case law, although the statute is exactly the definition stated by the Supreme Court. “Within seven years” means that the arrest for a prior offense occurred within seven years before or after the arrest for the current offense; and “Within ten years” means that the arrest for a prior offense occurred within ten years before or after the arrest for the current offense.
Similarly a legislative fix from the same court case clarifies a “prior offense” in the form of a Deferred Prosecution when a second offense has been found to have been committed, yet the Deferred not yet revoked. This prevents “second offenses” as was the case previously. So as of now the legislature has again entrenched the Supreme Court ruling; the law is now that “ a deferred prosecution revoked based on a subsequent conviction for an offense, the subsequent conviction shall not be treated as a prior offense of the revoked deferred prosecution for purposes of sentencing.”
Also related to a Deferred Prosecution, it was previously the case where the person was forced to obtain an IIL and that required SR22 insurance, despite there being no license suspension. This years amendment, undoes that requirement and a IIL is no longer required for a deferred prosecution, HOWEVER an IID is STILL mandatory for at least 1 year as always.
Another legislative New Year’s resolution was to increase the penalty for an IID violation while participating in a Deferred prosecution to that of a gross misdemeanor. Previously if a person violated the IID requirement they were only at risk to have a Judge revoke the Deferred, but now face an additional sentence up to 1 year in jail and a $5,000.00 fine rather than a 90 day jail term and a $1,000.00 fine. Furthermore, the Department Of Licensing now has the authority to suspend a person license who is on a DP if they are non-compliance with IID. This does not require any order.
In addition to adding some requirments, what the legislature giveth, it taketh away. A person may remove an IID (post conviction of course) if they can 4 consecutive months without: (1) an attempt to start with a BAC of 0.04 or more; (2) failure to take or pass any retest; or (3) failure to appear at IID vendor.
Another change stems from a case closer to home. In April 2009, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Hailey French who was injured in a head-on collision with a drunk driver who had been released from a prior drunk driving arrest by a state trooper one hour and 39 minutes previously. The Whatcom County District Court Probation Department was a party in the suit due to the fact that the drunk driver had been under a court order to drive only a car equipped with an alcohol interlock device, but the probation department had failed to follow-up on the judge’s court-ordered requirement. As a result there are NOW Liability Limitations. The probation department as an agency of Government now has liability limited if probation verifies installation of IID via written documentation from IID vendor.
Additionally, violations of IIL or IIL requirements are now a gross misdemeanor, when they were previously NOT crimes.
While this is a fairly specific recitation of the changes, a person should always look up and read law with their own two eyes, or make sure that they obtain clear and concise information from an attorney well versed in the DUI laws of THIS state. As it can be seen from the above, numerous laws change and change frequently. Defense of a citizen charge with DUI is not to be taken lightly nor is it for the inexperienced, nor should a lawyer who has no DUI experience handle such a defense. Rather is requires a highly specialized level of understanding, skill, passion, and compassion. Jonathan Rands is an experienced, dedicated, and tenacious DUI lawyer with proven DUI defense success. If you or someone you know is facing a DUI or alcohol related arrest, contact Jonathan Rands | http://www.jrandslaw.com Email:jrands@jonathanrands.com | Phn. 360.306.8136 | Jonathan Rands is Focused On Your DUI Defense and provides legal services for cases in Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and San Juan Counties. | Jonathan Rands regularly discusses DUI issues with (AM 790 ) KGMI’s Tracy Ellis every other Sunday on the Legal Docket.
Rules, Regulations, & Repercussions Of The Ignition Interlock License.
In 2009 the legislature made a significant change to the laws regarding the ability to legally drive for those arrested for DUI. New legislation implemented a new type of license for those under suspension due to a DUI arrest or conviction. This new license is called an ignition interlock license (IIL). Previously a person suspended as a result of a DUI conviction or Department Of Licensing (DoL) administrative suspension/revocation had the ability to drive with an ignition interlock device but the license criteria was very restrictive and was really only feasible for those who had never been arrested for DUI before. The previous license was called a Occupational/Restricted License (ORL). For a first time arrestee who provided a breath test the driver was eligible to obtain this license but only after the first 30 days of the suspension had run. Also, the previous licensing scheme restricted when and where the driver could travel. For those who refused a breath sample and were under suspension (legally called a revocation) the driver was still eligible for the special license but only after waited the first 90 days of the 1 year revocation period had run. For those driver’s who were previously arrested and suspended for a DUI within 7 years, they faced a a 2 year revocation and the person was required to wait a full year before they could obtain the license. These 30 or 1 year waiting periods impacted a person’s ability to work, participate in treatment etc.
As a result of this very restrictive licensing scheme, many suspended and revoked persons simply could not wait the mandatory periods and to be quite honest many drove illegally. While some were stopped and arrested for Driving While license Suspended, Second Degree, I would guess that most violators were not caught. Fortunately the legislature recognized the dangers of the very restrictive ORL program given the large number of potentially unlicensed drivers who were on the road.
Consequently, the current IIL legislation was created and remains in place today with a few slight modifications followed by a few more tweaks in January 2011 . Those not eligible for the IIL because their suspension is not alcohol related, there is still an ORL program, but it now addresses those driver’s who are suspended/revoked for reasons other than DUI.
The IIL now makes almost everyone eligible for the special license regardless of whether the suspension/revocation was via the Departmental Administrative action pre-conviction, or for a actual conviction. To be eligible for this license the persons drive record must show: an arrested for, or conviction of, an alcohol-related DUI, Physical Control, or Minor Operating After Consuming Alcohol, (those convicted of Drug DUI are NOT eligible until January 2011), and the driver license was valid on the date of conviction or before the date of any suspension/revocation. At the time of IIL Application, the application fee of $100.00 must be paid, proof of financial responsibility (SR22 Insurance is the most common method) must be present, and proof of an ignition interlock device installation for every vehicle you drive.
Assuming the applicant meets the above criteria and presents all the required information they will be issued an Ignition Interlock License. The license itself is a standard sheet of paper and while the DoL will maintain electronic evidence of the status in their system. A holder of the IIL must make sure they have the license with them when they drive just like a regular license. The successful applicant will receive the license in the specified manner requested on the application (Email; Fax, or US mail). The I.I.L looks just like the image attached.
A person is NOT eligible for an IIL if the person has been convicted of vehicular assault or vehicular homicide within seven years of the suspension date or , if the person is under a suspension/revocation for a conviction for Minor In Possession (MIP), Reckless Driving amended from a DUI, or Habitual Traffic Offender.
While an IIL is not the only solution, and certainly not a cure for the disease of alcohol abuse or dependence the program is a way to allow a person to maintain their occupation, attend treatment, and minimize specific recidivism. The IIL is also required for those who enter a Deferred Prosecution as a means of enforcing abstinence for the first year of the 5 year program. Currently, however, the Department requires the IID/IIL for 2 years despite the Courts only ordering the IID for 1 year if first time the person was ordered to have a IID, but January 1. 2011 legislation will harmonize this discrepancy.
IILs and IIDs are by no means a perfect solution but on a short term basis they seem to be the best way to satisfy demands and concerns of the public at large and since many IILs are required via the Department of Licensing before any criminal punishment is imposed they strike a balance between punishment prior to conviction and public safety. As mentioned previously, those who are convicted of DUI will be required to have an IIL regardless of that the DoL requires and the requirement post-conviction will be for at least 1 year. Ironically, however, the technological limitations of the device may be more dangerous than an actual impaired driver but technology should catch up sooner than later.
An application for a IIL can have some unintended consequences that a driver MUST be aware of before requesting the license and only a lawyer or attorney who limits their practice to a DUI defense has the specialized knowledge to make sure there are no unintended consequences.
Jonathan Rands is experienced, dedicated, and a tenacious DUI lawyer with proven DUI defense success. For a more interactive discussion on IID’s on September 12, 2010 Jonathan spoke with Bellingham’s KGMI’s Tracy Ellis on the Legal Docket at http://www.kgmi.com/pages/7015350.php
If you or someone you know is facing a DUI or alcohol related arrest, contact Jonathan Rands via his web-page at http://www.jrandslaw.com | Email: jrands@jonathanrands.com| Phn. 360.306.8136| Jonathan Rands is Focused On Your DUI Defense. | Serving Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and San Juan Counties.
Did You Know That Every Driver Is Being Watched And Recorded?
RCW 46.52.120 states and requires that the director shall keep a case record on every motor vehicle driver licensed under the laws of this state, together with information on each driver, showing all the convictions and findings of traffic infractions certified by the courts. This is then kept together with an index cross-reference record of each accident reported relating to the same person with a brief statement of the cause of the accident and whether or not the accident resulted in any fatality.
The chief of the Washington state patrol shall furnish the index cross-reference record to the director, with reference to each driver involved in the reported accidents.
These records are said to be used exclusively for the director the chief of the Washington state patrol, the director of the Washington traffic safety commission and “shall be” for their confidential use of such police officers or other cognizant public officials as may be designated by law.
This is kinda creepy whey o think about it. Essentially every mistake you make during your driving career is being watched and recorded and if you think that they will not be used or leaked then I would think again. Consider the remaining part fo the statute:
After a review of your record, the director shall tabulate and analyze vehicle driver’s records and suspend, revoke, cancel, or refuse a vehicle driver’s license to a person when it is deemed from facts contained in the case record of such person that it is for the best interest of public safety that such person be denied the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. The director shall also suspend a person’s driver’s license if the person fails to attend or complete a driver improvement interview or fails to abide by conditions of probation under.
