A Failure To Respect Driver’s And Citizen Rights Is Unacceptable And A Serious Violation.
What ever Happened To Respect And Manners?
I have viewed this video on several different sights, and suffice it to say that it has gone viral. I have not been able to confirm the authenticity of the video, but it appears to be an officer’s dash camera and depending on the state laws in the Officer’s jurisdiction, would be subject to public disclosure. It sounds as though the officer mentions “Charleston” and so South Carolina might be a good guess.
Even if the video is a “dramatization” the point is well made – officers can get very offended when citizens exercise their rights. Think of the difficulty you might have in telling an officer, in full uniform with pepper spray, badge and sidearm, that he can only search your vehicle, house, backpack, etc. if he has a warrant. That would be uncomfortable, at best. But, why?
Isn’t an officer a civil servant who is to embody the “protect and serve” mantra of our civil police forces? These are public employees who literally, and philosophically, work for us, the people. Why are we afraid? Why can they exercise such unfettered authority and aggression? Why do we need a video before we actual believe this abuse of power and discretionary power exists?
As a practical matter, one might simply answer that people today, not just law enforcement officers, have lost their manners. We’ve certainly all experienced attitude and/or rude service from someone we are paying to provide a service or are buying merchandise from. Sure, people have bad days, but when it comes to police officers, a bad is simply not an excuse. That we have lost our manners is not an acceptable excuse either. We cannot simply choose to stop obeying the Sheriff or Washington State Patrol because they are not polite.
The Department of Justice just concluded an investigation into the Seattle Police Department’s use of force practices and policies. In short, the federal DOJ concluded that the Seattle Police engaged in a pattern of excessive force in more than half the time during arrests! Certainly the politics, methods used to make this determination, etc. could be argued for hours; however, it remains clear that something is amiss with those tasked with actually protecting our constitutions and individual rights. For everyone’s sake, I hope that Seattle is not an indicative of how other law enforcement agencies are operated – hopefully they are the exception and not the rule. But given this video, perhaps Seattle is the norm?
As a defense attorney defending those accused of alcohol and drug related driving crimes such as Driving Under the Influence Of Alcohol/Drugs (DUI), Physical Control, Minor Operating After Consuming Alcohol, Minor in Possession (MIP), or Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, I have reviewed a number of video and audio recordings like the one here. While I have never observed an officer as rude as the one in the video, I have certainly seen very aggressive and apparent adverse reactions when citizens have exercised their rights. I certainly understand the need for officers to make safety their number one priority, but retaliation for exercising one’s rights is unacceptable in a free society. Furthermore, employing the use of a Tazer because it is easier than using social skills or training to avoid the use of physical force, is also unacceptable.
Why Isn’t There Always A Video Recording Of A Traffic Stop And Arrest?
The video here captures an officer having a meltdown and verbally abusing a citizen who politely declines an invitation to search his constitutionally protected vehicle unless the officer provides a search warrant. The irony of the situation is that police guilds, sheriffs, and law enforcement in general tend to resist the transparency, and actual safety, that a camera affords. I believe this is because the risk of the above video being shown to the public outweighs the benefits of government transparency in the minds of law enforcement.
I have asked prosecutors and law enforcement officers why only a very select few Washington State Patrol DUI investigations are captured by video. The canned answer: it a budgetary problem. Is this true? Or is this a pre-textual excuse to avoid actual video and audio evidence of an event in order that a Trooper or Deputy or Officer’s testimony and report are the bulk of evidence of an event. I argue that it is certainly the latter and I believe this because of personal experience – in court, providing live sworn testimony an officer testified that he stopped a client of mine for failure to use a signal. When asked if he was “sure,” or if he wanted to modify his testimony he declined. So I played the video of the stop, a video that showed my clients car actually using a signal. Then the officer makes contact and does NOT tell the person why he stopped her. While the officer confirmed the video was authentic, he continued to state, under oath that the car was stopped for failure to signal! Why? Simply because that is what he wrote in his report. I am sad to say that this officer no longer has a video and has risen to the level in his agency of that of Trainer of new cadets. It is for these reasons, I wish every officer had a video.
Ask nearly any criminal defense attorney defending traffic related crimes such as Driving Under the Influence, Reckless Driving, or Negligent Driving if they would prefer that the investigation and arrest of their client to be captured on video and the overwhelming answer is YES!
Video evidence removes the guesswork from an incident – was the person actually weaving in their lane? Yes, here’s the video of such driving OR no, there is no evidence of the fact that the officer stopped for a actual violation and therefore, the driver was illegally and unlawfully seized - a serious and flagrant violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. The camera capturesmore than just visual as the technology employs a lapel microphone and bot officer and driver’s voices are clearly captures. So with respect to the questions of “Did driver really stutter and slur all of her words?” “Was there an admission during the roadside tests that “I cant do these sober?” Once again, here’s the audio or no, the officer seems to have difficulty with his hearing. The list of information goes on, and I am sure you get the picture. More importantly is the recorded administration and performance of roadside sobriety tests. A violation of National Standards that each officer swears s/he is trained under renders the tests invalid, but officer’s rarely say they do not do them correctly, when in fact, their recitation of the standards is rarely correct. Once again, the utility of the video cannot be overstated.
From a citizens perspective it is difficult to believe that budgetary constraints are really the problem. The police routinely photograph accident scenes, and unfortunately, I often see law enforcement officers talking on cellular phones while driving in disobedience of the law they swear to enforce. As we all know there are very few cell phones without video/audio recording capabilities. This technology is simply not very expensive any longer. Add to this that all police officers I have interacted with have in-car computers allowing them to remotely access a person’s criminal and driving histories – this technology is certainly more complex than a video camera.
The strength or weakness of cases would no longer hinge on the accuracy of Washington State Patrol Trooper or County Sheriff testimony of an event that often occurs more than year before the case can proceed to trial. A lawful stop would be evident – no motions hearings with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, clerks, bailiffs and judges getting paid and/or overtime. A lawful arrest? See video. Expensive trials? See the video. And so on.
Is Officer Grumpy The Canary In The Coal Mine?
Aside from the practical disappointment of the video, there are more fundamental philosophical problems evidenced here. Without boring the reader or disappointing my college professors, I will talk about this failure in the context of social contract theory.
The social contract is one of the fundamental ideas our great democracy was founded, and has succeeded, upon. The origins of the social contract can be found in Plato’s Republic and are described by the character Glaucon. Basically, the idea is that the people of a society must group together and create a government in order to keep the desire and interests of the individual in check. This idea was forwarded in western political thought by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan and later by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in their respective writings. Suffice it to say the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau were monumental in the creation of western republics, namely in the French and American revolutions.
Boiled down, the social contract provides the government may wield power, necessarily the monopoly of force, against its citizens in order to sustain and enforce order amongst the people. The people submit to this power, and give up some freedoms and agree to behave in certain ways (or face punishment). In our society we permit the police to patrol our streets, stop our vehicles when we fail to follow the rules, and to arrest us when we step out of line. We also submit to government presence in our lives in the name of safety and order, e.g. the T.S.A. Our government is also allowed to incarcerate us, or remove us from society, if it is proven that we broke the rules. However, and as we all know, these powers come with very strict rules the government must follow.
The Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, is a very clear example of the rules the government must follow as part of their obligation in the social contract. As a criminal defense attorney, the fourth amendment of the US Constitution is of the utmost importance:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As every officer knows, a warrant is required in order to search a person’s effects – in the case of the video a warrant is required to search the person’s car. Of course there are exceptions to the Warrant Requirement that have been created through the court system; however, it is clear that no exception applied here. Most recently, the United States Supreme Court reinforced the warrant requirement in a case where one was authorized but the police responsible for executing it failed to do so despite it being spelled out in black and white letters on the page.
In this video here, what we saw was a citizen who needed to exercise his rights because the officer did not respect his right to be secure from intrusion. Would this have happened without the officer knowing his dashboard camera was rolling? Would the officer have created his own exception and ordered the driver from the vehicle in order to search through the driver’s belongings? How many times does this scenario play out every day on our roads? Every month? Every year?
It is clear that your individual rights can be difficult to protect. If you need an advocate and a voice for your individual rights I am here to help. Standing up to a police officer who fails to abide by the social contract and to respect your rights can be a difficult task. It can often be met with force, rudeness, or worse, an arrest with very little and/or questionable proof. A DUI prosecution has serious punishment and consequences and in almost every case it comes down to the “word” of the officer. While many officer’s are honest and forthright, if even one officer bends the rules and an innocent person is sent to jail, lost their driver’s license and livelihood, a video would have prevent all that, then that is one instance to many. However, the crime DUI is “unpopular and thus, the need to expose the prosecutorial problems of this crime is a low priority.
We certainly do not want Big Brother to watch all of us all of the time, but perhaps Big Brother could at least mount a video/audio camera in all the police vehicles so that this scenario can be remedied each and every time it occurs.
Jonathan Rands is an experienced, dedicated, and tenacious DUI lawyer with proven DUI defense success due to specific and focused DUI training. Confronting all witness and having the knowledge and skill to expose the limitations and biases of their proffered evidence is an important right that effects each and every DUI case where there is a breath or blood test measuring alcohol concentration, and this is especially true when a DUI prosecution is based upon officer “observations” during unfair tests.
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.
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.
