Bellingham DUI Attorney, Jonathan Rands Honored With Community Service Award From The Association Of Washington Business
The Association of Washington Business today recognized 16 Washington employers that have made volunteerism and community service a priority for their businesses and their employees.
Association of Washington Business, formed in 1904, the Association of Washington Business is Washington’s oldest and largest statewide business association, and includes more than 7,400 members representing 650,000 employees. AWB serves as both the state’s chamber of commerce and the manufacturing and technology association. While its membership includes major employers like Boeing, Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser, 90 percent of AWB members employ fewer than 100 people. More than half of AWB’s members employ fewer than 10. For more about AWB, visit www.awb.org
This year’s recipients include small, medium and large employers from every part of the state investing in their communities by funding school programs and fighting hunger, providing medical and dental care for children and military veterans and giving countless hours of their employees’ time to volunteer activities. The awards were presented Tuesday May 10, 2011 at the Davenport Hotel in Spokane during AWB’s annual Spring Meeting.
The AWB Community Service Awards are presented annually for projects that support education, youth organizations, community beautification projects, community organizations that help people in need or programs recognizing volunteerism. Special recognition is also awarded for projects that mobilize communities into action. Representatives from AWB member companies and organizations review all applications and select the final award winners.
The winners of the 2011 AWB Community Service Awards for each category are:
EDUCATION
- First Fruits Marketing, Yakima
- Inland Northwest Health Services, Spokane
HELPING PEOPLE IN NEED
- Autumnwood Dental, Artlington
- Rushforth Construction Co. Inc., Tacoma
- Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Tacoma
- Holland Partners Group, Seattle
PROJECTS THAT MOBILIZE PEOPLE INTO ACTION
- MacKay & Sposito, Inc., Vancouver
- The Daily News with Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging, Inc, Longview
RECOGNIZING VOLUNTEERISM
- Haskins Steel Co., Inc., Spokane
- Landau Associates, Inc., Edmonds
- Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way
YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS
- Jonathan Rands, Attorney at Law, Bellingham
- National Frozen Foods Corp., Seattle
CONTINUOUS COMMITMENT
- Brown & Brown, Tacoma
- Dick’s Drive-In, Seattle
Jonathan Rands, Attorney At Law is a Bellingham DUI lawyer. Or depending on your word preference I am a Bellingham DUI attorney. I am a lawyer who focuses my practice almost exclusively to representing those citizens charged with the crime of DUI. The phrase DUI Lawyer or DUI Attorney is frequently met with disdain, or a grimace, or a scowl. I have seen them all when I meet someone new. I am not offended by people reactions, rather I like to spend time educating the person and remind them that it is right that everyone has to be represented when charged. This country is founded upon this idea. The ability to play a role in this is my privileged. Those who are shocked by what i do, are frequently surprised at what it means to be a defense lawyer. They do not always agree, but that is there is right. At least when we part company, if they still feel the same way they do so with full knowledge. As a result of this reaction it became my goal to change the way people think about lawyers in general, but at least criminal lawyers.
When I started my own firm, the dedication to community giving was simply a general idea and commitment. It was not well thought out nor well planned. I only knew that we wanted giving to be a part of my firm culture and something we were committed to doing each and every month. In doing so, I hoped that I could perhaps be apart of helping change the association that people have with the “word” and profession of “lawyers.” You may not like how i earn a living, but at least it allows me to give back. It was with this commitment to monthly giving that it came to our attention the need for both, youth and community giving, was great, and the opportunities to do so were very diverse.
As a result we earmarked funds every month last year to various Washington State non-profits but with a heavy concentration in Whatcom County. Supporting youth sports programs, fundraising for youth services by sponsoring auctions, and providing tuition by donation to summer camps for underprivileged children. This was our focus this year. In 2011, our goal is to double our giving efforts of last year. My hope for our future is to continue providing excellent legal services those charged with DUI and as a result continue to provide employment for my staff and have a continued positive impact upon those in our community who need it the most; Whatcom County youth.
Jonathan Rands is an experienced, dedicated, and tenacious DUI lawyer with proven DUI defense success. The right to a defense, no matter what the charge is an important right that effects each and every DUI arrest and charge. 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. | Serving Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and San Juan Counties. | Jonathan Rands regularly discusses DUI issues with (AM 790 ) KGMI every other Sunday on the Legal Docket.
Another Legislative Session, Another Set Of Changes To The DUI Laws
It seems like every year, the previous year’s DUI law changes were simply not enough, so there is more “tinkering” with the DUI statutory landscape. Changes that fix prior legislative oversights,or legislation that becomes is impossible or impractical to actually implement is understandable. Inevitably, however, when the legislature revisits these, it seems to that other changes just have to be made. In fact this past legislative session, some of the most useless and ridiculous bills were proposed and thankfully died at some legislative stage (Roadblocks and Scarlett Letter License plates).
With these proposals and actual changes comes some useful amendments (Felony amendments bringing the laws up to other felony standards), but also sensational headlines that grab the public readers attention. After all what better way to increase readership, hits on a website, or encourage online comments? Advertise the sensational headlines. Headlines like “New, tougher steps on DUI sentencing,” or “Legislature OKs bill closing DUI fatality sentence loopholes.” While these headlines are not totally inaccurate, they are misleading and only provide a reader with a partial picture. As a result, I write today to simply inform. To inform you of the changes and how they change the law. Weather the changes are good or bad, I leave up to you to decide, but at least it can be done with full knowledge. The following legislative changes are all on their way to the Governor’s Desk and expected to be signed into law effective September 2011.
The bill that has passed through with dozens of changes (amendments and deletions) is 1789. The changes are as follows:
RCW 46.20.385(1)(c )(iii) now reads that: “Beginning with incidents occurring on or after the effective date of this section, when calculating the period of time for the restriction under RCW 46.20.720(3), the department must also give the person a day-for-day credit for the time period, beginning from the date of the incident, during which the person kept an ignition interlock device installed on all vehicles the person operates. For the purposes of this subsection (1)(c)(iii), the term “all vehicles” does not include vehicles that would be subject to the employer exception under RCW 46.20.720(3).” Asa result, there is still no need for an IID on employer owned vehicles driven for work purposes.
This also means that people who voluntarily place an ignition interlock device on their car after being arrested for DUI, will get credit against against the mandatory time it would be required of convicted. Voluntary means that any time it is not required as a condition of a driver’s license. For instance if a Judge orders the device as a condition of release due to a DUI arrest, the fact that DoL has not required it yet renders the installation voluntary. While many may disagree with the credit,it is hard to argue that the credit for time is bad if it provides some public protection.
RCW 46.61.502(6)(b)(iv) was amended to make DUI a regular DUI a class C felony if previously been convicted of a violation of any felony DUI or Physical Control. Previous to this amendment, a person was a Felony DUI if they were previously convicted of Vehicular Homicide, or Vehicular Assault by DUI, or of the person had 4 prior DUI charges within 10 years of a 5th DUI. This law eliminates the need for 4 priors that could have washed out by the passage of time. Previously, a 5th DUI in 10 years was a felony and if another 10 years went by and then a new DUI arrest the person would NOT be a felon, but this amendment put Felony DUI (by way of 4 priors) on par with the DUI-Homicide or Assault level. In other words, like those DUIs, there is no “washout” by the passage of time. Any subsequent DUI regardless of time, is a felony if you previously were convicted of DUI Homicide, Assault, and now Felony DUI by priors. While some consider this a loophole closed, it more accurately described as placing the felony DUI on par with every other felony crime and since felony DUI is a relatively new crime some tinkering was required.
RCW 46.61.504(6)(b)(iv) was also amendede due to it being the DUI "sister" charge. This is called Physicial Control. These are cases where the person is not actually seen driving but found in a parked car that they are in control of. It is a DUI by another name. As a result since the Physical Control statute is a different section of the code, it needed to be changed to reflect the changes described to the Felony DUI described above.
The Reckless Driving Statute (RCW 46.61.500(3)(a) & (b)) was changed to require mandatory Ignition Interlock Device (IID) for 6 month required on conviction for Reckless Driving if Reckless Driving is a reduction from DUI or Physical Control; and driver has prior DUI offense within seven (7) years. Furthermore, if the reduction is down from a case originally charged as Vehicular Homicide or Vehicular Assault by way of DUI. In other words, a second offense DUI reduced, or a case where there is insufficient evidence to convict on a DUI homicide or DUI Assault charge.
Likewise, the Negligent Driving Statute (RCW 46.61.5249(4)) was changed to reflect a reduction from DUI if a prior DUI within seven years (7),also requires a IID for 6 months.
RCW 46.20.720(2) was changed to make it mandatory for a Court to order IID for any person participating in a Deferred Prosecution due ot a DUI or Physical control charge. Previously, a mental health based Deferred did not require an IID, whereas a alcohol based Deferred Prosecution always required it. With this change, a person who has no alcohol dependency issues will be required to have an IID, for better or worse.
RCW 46.20.720(3) is the enabling statute that requires DoL to ensure the court order for IIDs on Negligent Driving and Reckless Driving Second offense convictions are enforced.
RCW 46.20.720(5) sets for the time period for the IID on the above reductions from DUI to Reckless / Negligent to six (6) months.
RCW 10.05.140 was amended to clarify that that IID period for Deferred Prosecutions be not less than the periods required for convictions. This means that is a person has a prior DUI conviction they were ordered to have an IID for 1 year. If they enter a Deferred Prosecution for a second DUI, the conviction would have required a IID for 5 years, so the Deferred Prosecution must now also require a IID for that same length of time they would have had to have the IID if convicted. While this makes sense, the jurisdiction of a Deferred Prosecution is 5 years, so a 3rd offense DUI would require a 10 year IID, but that is impossible to enforce, however, it remains to be seen if DoL will require the IID for 5 years after the completion of the Deferred.
RCW 9.94A.533(7) now requires that the 2 year enhancements on Vehicular Homicide conviction by DUI, in recognition of prior DUIs are mandatory and must be served in total confinement and run consecutive (in addition to) other sentencing provisions.
The remaining amendments were changes that permits Counties to establish special DUI courts, add a DUI court to mental health and drug courts, increases Breath testing fee from 125.00 to $200.00and designates where some of the funds must go. Furthermore, alcohol evaluations must now be sent to court AND DOL, and finally, the legislature has now set minimum requirements for the Victim Impact Panel’s that are run throughout the state.
Regardless of the rhetoric that is offered to support these changes, the changes reflect a growing legislative concern for DUI on a Washington State-wide level. As a result, a DUI in Bellingham, or Spokane, the laws will be present and less discretionary than before. The changes, particularly for a repeat DUI arrest are significant and require knowledgeable, aggressive, and uncompromising defense.
Jonathan Rands is an experienced, dedicated, and tenacious DUI lawyer with proven DUI defense success. The right to remain silent is an important right that effects each and every DUI case, and a right that exists from the moment a driver is stopped, or seized by law enforcement. If you are stopped during this emphasis, do not forget that roadside tests are voluntary, and if arrested make sure you speak with a lawyer before a breath test is provided. 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. | Serving Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and San Juan Counties. | Jonathan Rands regularly discusses DUI issues with (AM 790 ) KGMI every other Sunday on the Legal Docket.
Bellingham DUI Statistics Misleading.
This past weekend the Western Front and local News Radio, reported the following story:
The Washington State Liquor Control Board recently released a list saying 38 people who were arrested for a DUI in 2010 told police they had their last drink at Rumors.
Just behind Rumors, 30 people said they had their last drink at The Royal Inn.
While this might not surprise some Western students familiar with the Bellingham nightlife, Sheriff Bill Elfo says most DUI problems actually come from casinos in Whatcom County.
Behind The Royal Inn, 19 people said they had their last drink before getting a DUI at the Silver Reef Casino, in Whatcom County.
To the average reader or listener, who is likely to be uneducated in the realm of DUI, this may be taken at face value, but, like all things DUI, information relayed to the general public is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst. As a defense attorney, I see the reports filled out with this “admission” frequently. The information comes from question 28 of the WSP DUI Interview that is included in every DUI arrest regardless of the agency that made the arrest, as they all use this same pre-printed form. The officer generally asks the questions from the form. If the person answers, it is recorded here. After this “interview” the breath test machine is prepared and one of the prompts from the machine asks the officer for the “drinking code.” Every establishment licensed to serve alcohol in the county and state, has been assigned a code. These liquor service codes are maintained in a book close to every breath test machine in the State. If the officer is so inclined, s/he will look up the code that corresponds to the answer on question 28 and enter it into the machine. The database of the machine records this information and stores it. The information is available to anyone who knows how to look up these databases online.
It is from this source that reports in the form of the above come from. However, they are misleading because, not everyone answers the questions due to invoking their right to silence, or by speaking to an attorney upon being taken for a breath sample, which automatically invokes the right to silence and therefore an officer is prohibited from asking any questions. Also, as mentioned above, not every officer records the drinking code even if they have the information as it is not mandatory.
Furthermore, an arrested person may have had their last drink at the disclosed location, but by no means became impaired at the disclosed location. Consider a person who has a drink at a location and then heads to a friends house for a few more, but this is not disclosed to the officer. Sometimes a person does not even drink at the location, but admits to have left that location and it is assumed by the officer that consumption took place there when it really was not. While it was likely designed to be a way of tracking the locations that may be guilty of chronic over-service, it is by no means an accurate measure due to these issues outlined here. Nor should it be relied upon to sanction the most “popular” establishments found in the database. This is an excellent example of how, in a DUI charge a client who testifies on their own behalf is considered to be unworthy of trust, or as having to much of an interest in the outcome of the case, unless of course the information provided such as this, tends to be trustworthy to find an accused guilty.
As with any news, information, or media, it is also good to research the information for yourself before making any conclusions. Especially when it comes to crimes like DUI. An allegation of DUI is always sensationalized and while it may be considered news worthy, in my experience, DUI stories as more likely “stories” that grab viewers attention than accurate facts. As potential members of a DUI jury in the future, it is a good practice to not jump to conclusions.
A DUI charge is full of complex evidence that is easily manipulated and presented in the worst possible light. As a result only the most experienced DUI lawyer can demystify and expose its limitations and “secrets.” A successful outcome 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.
