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.
St. Patrick’s Day Brings Irish Luck And DUI Emphasis Patrols
Starting March 11, 2011 through March 20, 2011 law enforcement agencies will join forces throughout Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and almost every other county in Washington for a St. Pat’s DUI emphasis patrol. During these calendar days there will be extra police officers on patrol targeting 1 single crime – DUI.
This local emphasis will not bring any luck to those who drink and drive to the point of being over the .08 limit. Those who over consume, will possibly be unlucky if they come in contact with specially trained officers who are focused on finding a reason to stop and arrest those suspected of DUI. If a driver is suspected to be over the limit, the officer will likely request Voluntary Sobriety tests. These tests take the form of following a pen with the eyes (HGN), Walking 9 steps, turning around, and walking back (Walk and Turn), and Standing on one leg for 30 seconds (One Leg Stand). A driver who declines these tests, or a Portable Breath Test (PBT) will NOT lose their license for refusing, nor will they make their worse. In fact, it makes the case more defensible. Cooperation in the form of performing these tests will likely only lead the same result as politely declining the tests: a DUI arrest.
In order to stay lucky this St. Patrick’s day, Don’t Drink and Drive. If you choose to down a few pints of Guinness, Irish Car Bombs, or just plain old green beer, plan ahead and arrange a ride. While it is legal to drink and then drive, the low limit of .08 makes it easy to cross even for the most responsible drinker.
During this emphasis, there will be more troopers, officers and deputies out looking for drunken drivers in Whatcom County. With this coordinated effort driver’s will likely see officer’s from Blaine on patrol in Bellingham, and vice versa and any combination of local cities law enforcement. This is because the agencies execute an agreement that permits all police agencies to patrol each others jurisdictions during. Normally, only State Patrol or County Sheriff Officer’s have jurisdiction any within the four corners of the county, but with an emphasis comes cooperation. For the month of march, these extra patrols coincide with St. Patrick’s Day celebrations and festivities.
Similar extra patrols last year during this same period arrested 33 suspected DUI’s in the county, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. During this emphasis, the Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office, along with Bellingham, Lynden, Ferndale and Western Washington University police departments are participating this year. The next likely emphasis is the days leading up to and after May 5th.
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’s Tracy Ellis every other Sunday on the Legal Docket.
Washington Supreme Court Settles Question Of Jurisdiction In Whatcom County DUI Case.
Last week the Washington Supreme court issued their ruling in State v. Eriksen, what appears to many to be a a simple case of DUI. However, given the location of the stop and arrest, the case contained an important issue and created a question as to whether a Tribal Officer had the authority to go beyond the tribal lands in making the stop and arrest? This precise issue has not yet been determined until now. Previously, a similar issue that has been resolved was presented in State v. Schmuck, a 1993 case. In that case it was determined by the Supreme Court that a tribal officer has the authority to stop and detain non-Indian offenders on-reservation land until state authorities could arrive and assume custody. That Court case however, failed to address the current issue of Tribal Officers traveling “off-reservation” in continued pursuit. Instead, that Court only alluded to the issues of a prolonged detention while “on-reservation” and also refused to embrace the more implicit question of pursuit “off-reservation.” In the Whatcom County DUI case of Eriksen, the Washington Supreme Court finally answered the issue and extended the prior rule. In doing this, the Court ruled that “tribal officers have authority to continue fresh pursuit of motorists who break traffic laws on the reservation and then drive beyond the reservation boundaries.” There is abundant Federal caselaw, however, that may serve to prove them wrong if this ruling is appealed. This is due to the historical separation between the government and the Indian Nations.
In rendering the decision the Court appears mindful of the practicality of rules, regulations, and treaties as well as the intent of the Lummi tribe as evidenced by the following language: ” the Lummi Nation does not assert authority to arrest and prosecute Eriksen for DUI but merely claims the power to stop and detain her until she could be turned over to Whatcom County officials.”
However, the Courts ruling also serves as an example of an end-result opinion and the continued maintenance of what we called the DUI exception to the constitution when the Courts closing comments are evaluated: “Our decision today harmonizes with common sense and sound policy. To allow drunk drivers to escape the law by crossing a reservation boundary would unnecessarily endanger lives by incentivizing high-speed dashes for the border. We decline to embrace such a ludicrous result.”
The Courts agenda is obvious when you look to the same Courts decisions one year earlier in the matter of State v. King. King’s case of reckless driving was dismissed when seized by a city offcier acting outside of his jurisdiction. In King, the Court held that “the defendant’s actions while driving a motorcycle did not reach the level of erratic driving that constituted an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property, and thus, police officer, who was outside of his territorial jurisdiction, was not authorized to arrest defendant.”
In King, the only difference between his case and Eriksen’s case, was the fact that the crime of reckless driving was at issue, rather than the crime of DUI. In fact, Eriksen’s driving was far less dangerous than those said to have been committed by King. In the King case, this very same court concluded that a peace officer who had gone through Washington State Law Enforcement Academy but outside of his jurisdiction lacked the authority to make a stop King for the crime of Reckless Driving. However, in Eriksen’s case the Court justified the stop despite Tribal Officer’s lack of graduation from the State’s “official” law enforcement program and justified the stop also absent compliance with a valid agreement between the State and the Lummi Nation. As evidenced by the Court’s closing comments, the driving force of the ruling appears to me the fact that the crime is DUI.
While no one is in favor of DUI, the crime is one that deserves equal treatment in our justice system, rather than finding ways to achieve a particular result, and make excuses for intellectual dishonesty. This “ends justifies the meas approach” may be tolerated simply because DUI is a misdemeanor, but the practice is a slippery slope and should not be engaged in by any tribunal, but especially our State’s high Court.
As evidenced by this, and other end result decisions, DUI is not a simple charge. 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. 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 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’s Tracy Ellis every other Sunday on the Legal Docket.
