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.
Jonathan Rands Completes Annual DUI Defense Advanced Training To Ensure Fair Trial And Use Of Best Evidence.
Late this past summer as well as last month I attended 2 annual 3 day seminars and conference dedicated to trial skills and techniques, as well as advanced understanding and challenging various types of advanced evidence issues in DUI cases.
The first of these two was presented by The National College Of DUI Defense, an organization I have been a General Member of since 2005. The conference was held at Harvard Law School and keynote speaker was F.Lee. Bailey. College General Members represent the most experienced DUI defense attorneys in the country and are the backbone of the college—capable, experienced attorneys who dedicate a portion of their practice to the defense of DUI cases throughout the country. Training always embraces the most innovative and creative methods of DUI defense as well as polishing the corner stone of trial work like cross examination.
The second seminar was and advance evidence seminar. The previous year I attended this same conference, but also lead a specialized breakout session on roadside sobriety tests. These training session are important because as a DUI defense attorney, my clients freedom and driving privilege (to name only 2) depends on my skills and knowledge that are accumulated and practiced to the point where they are instinct and second nature. Spending time with other attorneys from around the nation who have likewise dedicated their legal careers and practices to the defense of citizens accused of DUI creates a scholastic environment where we are all dedicated to the same cause, and share our success and failure in the courtroom. Believe it or not, defense attorneys, secure less Not Guilty verdicts than Guilty verdicts, but it is usually the cases we fight hard and lose that are our best teaching aids.
This annual conference allows a lawyer student to choose their own schedule of lectures and breakout sessions so that the lawyer can sharpen their skills, or gain a greater understanding of procedures, protocols, and highly technical areas of science that DUI prosecutions are steeped in. The program is also designed to allow DUI defense lawyers to practice in front of other lawyers and thereby receive constructive criticism and share ideas and concepts that enhance the lawyers skill set.
At this years program I choose to revisit blood testing and the Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) protocol for Drug based DUI prosecutions.
The science of blood testing is “regulated” by national scientific standards, but even so, one should never under estimate the power of human error and the fallibility of machines that are programmed by the human hand. Blood testing uses Headspace Gas Chromatography. This is a type of testing where a vial of blood is shaken and mixed for a period of time and then the blood itself is NOT actually tested. Rather, what is tested is the airspace above the blood level (the “Headspace”) as it is sealed in a “vacutainer” tube. The tube is a vacuum sealed space with suction helping to fill the tube from the subjects body when blood is drawn. To analyze and test the head space above the blood after it has been shaken, the machine doing the analysis injects a small needle into the top of the soft rubber tube (stopper) and a small bit of gas is sucked out and then ran through a machine. The gas substance is injected into another know gas and then forced to travel through a tubular line where at the end of this journey the substance is quickly burned up in a actual flame. It is this end process that results in the analysis of the substance and the alcohol concentration.
This is a very rudimentary description of the process, but suffice it say, most do not understand that the blood content itself is NEVER actually tested. Furthermore, many do not realize that the machine is used to test all sorts of other fluids and compounds and the cross contamination potential is huge. Add to that fact that the machine is an automated one and most times the analysis is done without human oversight. As a result of these and other issues, a complete understanding of the process is necessary to adequately challenge, not only the end result, but the process itself, because what is generated is a number. What is presented is nothing more than a number to which the prosecution points to as guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in Washington State, and most other States, the accuracy and the reliability of that final number is always a critical issues that must be addressed in arriving at a final decision.
While this overview is not intended to be comprehensive, but instead an brief review of a complicated process fraught with potential error and to show that the net result of spending time learning from other attorney’s who excel in this and other scientific areas where it intersects with the law, benefits not only future clients, but helps a defense attorney explain to a jury the limitations of the testing utilized in any given case.
The difference between exposing error by pulling back the curtain on pseudo-scientific, and unreliable evidence can mean the difference between lockup or liberty. While this may seem dramatic, consider how many recent cases there have been where legitimate science has exonerated previously convicted persons who were convicted by the use of evidence that was of poor quality, and was either misunderstood, or presented as infallible, and was not challenged by an advocate with adequate knowledge? The fact that the charge of DUI is “unpopular” is no reason to allow less than adequate evidence to untested, unscrutinized, and unchallenged if it fails to be collected and analyzed properly.
The other practice area i choose to spend more time on was the Drug Recognition Program, or DRE. This is an area of law that is NOT based upon science, NOR supported by rigorous peer reviewed research, NOR endorsed by any agencies other than the those law enforcement agencies that promote the circular reasoning of: “the program works because we say it works.”
While I have previously completed a 16 hour course on the DRE program overview, it had been a while since I represented a citizen accused of a Drug-DUI, so a close review of the materials presented, and the companion workshops where a critique of courtroom skills was done was a welcome review and challenge.
The DRE program is a book unto itself and a short blog will not adequately capture the program, but from a brief overview perspective, the program starts with ruling out alcohol suspected impairment and then runs a subject through a series of “sobriety” tests that are not related to drug impairment. This entails, a physical examination that requires monitoring of blood pressure, physical inspection of the subjects arms, a dark room examination, and a custodial interrogation of the person that usually leads to a disclosure of a substance the person previously ingested. Final steps are the rendering and recording of an officer’s opinion of what category of drug the person ingested as well as the actual drug the officer suspects. For example, category could be “Cannabis,” and actual drug being “Marijuana.” Guess what?- The officer’s typically render an opinion that the suspected substance ingested is the same as that confessed to! Brilliant detective work! The final step in the process is the drawing of a subjects blood and an analysis of the blood as described above.
This is not the whole procedure, but the suffice it to say, it is the “meat and potatoes” of the program. Pulling back the curtain on false assumptions, coercive procedures, and the close examination of the blood analysis itself is critical and exactly why rigorous training and experiences in these cases is paramount to be a successful DUI defense attorney.
Recently, two newsworthy and related events have come to pass; First – Amanda Knox verdict was over turned due to a showing that the investigation was less than adequate, in fact scientific evidence was processed incorrectly and failed to support the allegations; Second- the Seattle Times reported on unlawful and abusive Police Behavior, with respect to preservation of exculpatory evidence, failure to turn over such evidence, destruction of this evidence,and a denial that it even exits!
These may be extreme examples, the fact of the matter remains that they gained notoriety because the evidence was challenged, because the defense lawyers dared to pull back the curtain and say, “look at this with a critical eye!” We live in a country where proof beyond a reasonable doubt means something, but all to often jurors, judges, and prosecutors settle for what they think is simply “good enough” as a result of the type of charge the accused person is facing. If defense attorneys fail to to educate and then use that education to examine the evidence with the legal tools provided by the Constitution and State Court rules then they have failed their client, the system which requires them to be critical, and their oath as a defense attorney.
Jonathan Rands is an experienced, dedicated, and tenacious DUI lawyer with proven DUI defense success. Confronting all witness and exposing the limitations 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, or simply based on officer observations. 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.
Washington D.U.I Arrest Now Gets Mandatory Vehicle “Lock-Up!”
Unlike your driver’s license, which may not be suspended, revoked, or otherwise “lost” when you are arrested for a DUI, your car is not so lucky as of July 22, 2011.
An Arrest for DUI (RCW 46.61.506) or Physical Control (RCW 46.61.504) now require a mandatory 12 hour impound at the owner’s expense. The discretion formerly held by the arresting officer has been removed with only 2 exceptions: the vehicle is a commercial vehicle or is a farm transport vehicle and the registered owner was not a occupant of the vehicle when the stop occurred.
Many commercial vehicles are not owned by the driver’s who are hired to drive them so the law seems to respect their ownership interest in the vehicle as well as the trailer or load it may be carrying. The statute commands the officer that he or she SHALL provide and invest a reasonable amount of time and energy to arrange for the owner of the vehicle to take possession of the vehicle. The problem, however, is that the statute uses the specific language of owner and there is no authority to permit the owner to send or arrange a suitable driver. Consider the owner who cannot get from his residence in New Jersey to retrieve a fleet vehicle of his. He is not permitted to have anyone else take possession of the vehicle. The same may be said for farm equipment, except they are also in addition likely hard to find proper transport for so an exception can be made.
The mandatory impound is for 12 hours from the time the vehicle arrives at the tow storage yard, unless there are 2 or more registered owners of the vehicle OR there is a legal owner of the vehicle that was not the arrested driver. Under these circumstances, one of these persons may retrieve the vehicle after it arrives at the impound yard. This means a tow operator must take possession of the vehicle. As a result, contacting the registered owner prior to vehicle being seized by the arresting officer and transported by a tow company while the vehicle is still on the roadside, is no longer possible. As a result, charges for the hook-up, tow, and time in the tow yard in the form of storage will be accrued.
Given this financial gain by every tow company state-wide, it is no surprise that they were a very vocal special interest group and fought hard for this law. While many supporters of the law cite to the case of “Hailey” and the community safety concern, it is important to remember and highlight the fact that the arresting officer previously ALWAYS had the ability to impound the vehicle previously driven by a DUI arrestee. The officer in “Hailey’s” case choose not to. He choose not to even though that arrestee (who later returned to her car after her DUI processing) had a pending DUI,had a suspended license, and did not have the ignition interlock that was required due to her restricted driver’s license. This now mandatory law was always a possibility but it was the negligence of one arresting officer (as determined by a jury) and the multimillion dollar verdict that was the spark of this legislation.
While the community safety justification is one that cannot be disagreed with, there is no such practical problem in Whatcom County for DUI arrests. This is because the Whatcom county jail has a policy of mandatory booking of DUI arrestees. The arrested driver will not be released until a sober driver can be arranged to pick them up who must meet face to face with that driver and the arrested person proves a breath sample on a portable device that is .04 or lower. As a result of this, justification of this new impound law is less persuasive and the apparent influence of the tow truck lobby is in fact a reality.
While many other jails have a similar policy, many do not. In a Mount Vernon DUI, or Anacortes DUI, or any Skagit County DUI arrest, the jail will accept a DUI arrested driver, but only when space allows as the dangers of overcrowding have to be considered. In those counties, the officer can call the jail and see if the person will be accepted. If not, then the impound can move forward. Nevertheless, while the spirit of the law is a good intention, the practical effect of the law can be unforeseen and undesired such that the law requires an amendment.
It should be kept in mind that vehicle impound is not a seizure and forfeiture of the vehicle forever, unless the vehicle becomes abandoned, but rather, the law only permits a hold for a 12 hour period unless one of the previously described circumstances exists.
The law also removes liability for any damage or loss the vehicle sustains post-arrest of the driver, even if the officer departs the scene before a tow truck driver arrives to take possession of the vehicle. The statute permits the officer to simply lock the vehicle with the notice of tow and impound form inside the vehicle and leave the scene if, or when: the officer has waited 30 minutes since requesting the tow truck/impound; the officer is presented with “exigent” circumstances that are defined in the statute as “being called to another incident or due to limited available resources being required to return to patrol.”
To the average citizen who is unfamiliar with the nightly occupation of a officer conducting “emphasis” patrols the statute is essentially the officers to not remain with the vehicle because they are always short handed such that they are operating under “limited resources.” Sure it is just a car, but we tend to keep many valuable and important items in our vehicles and this opens them up to loss or destruction and the driver has no recourse. In a county where the driver will not be returning to the vehicle anyways due to mandatory booking, the complete waiver of liability may serve as a extra punishment for the DUI arrestee who happens to use their vehicle as a mobile office.
Finally, this statute may also punish an owner, who never really uses the vehicle as it is typically in possession of an employee for work. However, only a registered owner(s)s or legal owner(s)s may retrieve the vehicle from the impound lot, either early or post-12 hour hold. As a result, the only person who can practically get the vehicle, after the 12 hour hold or longer, is the former driver/arrestee, but has no ability to do so. This could be another extra expense in the form of longer storage time, therefore longer fees and travel expenses for an absentee properly owner.
This is not intended to suggest that this law should not have been passed, but rather, it is an example of good intentions affecting various unintended citizens and is the result of rushing legislation to appease the lobbying party at the expense of logical and measured thoughtfulness before stamping an effective date on a bill.
Jonathan Rands is an experienced, responsive, and dedicated DUI trial lawyer with proven DUI defense success. The impound of a driver’s car will also trigger a hearing to contest the impound legality and fees but this is a time sensitive matter and you must act within 10 days. 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.
