Free Legal Help in Washington

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016)

The Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless BREATH test incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving, but does NOT permit a warrantless BLOOD test on that basis, because a blood draw is significantly more intrusive. Absent a warrant, the driver's free and voluntary consent, or another recognized exception, a warrantless blood draw taken as part of a DUI stop is unconstitutional. It follows that a state may not impose criminal penalties on a driver's refusal to submit to a blood test, although implied-consent schemes imposing civil penalties and evidentiary consequences for refusal remain permissible.

Cited on: Late DUI Charge and a Warrantless Blood Draw in Washington

City of Seattle v. Pearson, 192 Wn. App. 802, 369 P.3d 194 (2016)

The natural dissipation of THC from the bloodstream is a relevant consideration in an exigent-circumstances analysis but is not a per se exigent circumstance justifying an exception to the warrant requirement for a nonconsensual blood draw in a DUI case. On the facts — a blood draw roughly two hours after the collision, with testimony that a warrant could be obtained by email in about an hour to an hour and a half and telephonically as well — the City failed to prove that a warrant could not have been obtained in a reasonable time, so admission of the blood test result was prejudicial error and the conviction was reversed.

Cited on: Late DUI Charge and a Warrantless Blood Draw in Washington

City of Walla Walla v. Greene, 154 Wn.2d 722, 116 P.3d 1008 (2005)

The court upheld the constitutionality of the statutory definition of 'prior offense' that counts a first-degree negligent driving conviction resulting from a charge originally filed as DUI. Greene had pleaded guilty in 2000 to first-degree negligent driving on an amended DUI charge, and when convicted of DUI in 2004 argued that counting the earlier plea as a 'prior offense' for mandatory minimum sentencing violated due process because the elements of DUI were never proved. The court rejected that argument, overruled State v. Shaffer, 113 Wn. App. 812, 55 P.3d 668 (2002), reversed the district court, and remanded — meaning the reduced negligent-driving plea does count as a prior offense enhancing the sentence on a later DUI conviction.

Cited on: Reducing a Washington DUI to Negligent Driving

Faircloth v. Old National Bank, 541 P.2d 362 (1976) — Washington Supreme Court

This appeal raises for the first time in Washington the question whether the Uniform Commercial Code provision authorizing self-help repossession of collateral without notice or hearing (RCW 62A.9-503) 1 violates due process. In our view it does not.

Cited on: Does a Vehicle Title With No Lienholder Protect Against Repossession on a Defaulted Loan?