Experienced legal counsel to cannabis businesses, entrepreneurs, and patients.
Seattle, Washington (206) 728-0200
Friday, November 9, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Driver chooses jail over speeding ticket
By KATHY MULADY
P-I REPORTER
A 45-year-old man from North Bend who refused to participate in a round-up of speeders by Washington State Patrol troopers on Interstate 90 near Preston was arrested Wednesday.
Troopers, assisted by a state patrol airplane, had stopped 28 drivers for speeding, according to a report, when a Toyota Camry zipped by. Officers clocked the Camry at 83 mph in a 70 mph zone.
When officers caught up to the driver, Kerry Bailey, he refused to show his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. He was arrested on charges including obstructing and failing to provide information to a police officer.
He was booked into the King County Jail.
P-I REPORTER
A 45-year-old man from North Bend who refused to participate in a round-up of speeders by Washington State Patrol troopers on Interstate 90 near Preston was arrested Wednesday.
Troopers, assisted by a state patrol airplane, had stopped 28 drivers for speeding, according to a report, when a Toyota Camry zipped by. Officers clocked the Camry at 83 mph in a 70 mph zone.
When officers caught up to the driver, Kerry Bailey, he refused to show his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. He was arrested on charges including obstructing and failing to provide information to a police officer.
He was booked into the King County Jail.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Jury convicts Russell in car crash that killed three students
KELSO, Wash. - Frederick Russell, who fled to Ireland after being accused of causing a car wreck that killed three college students, was convicted Tuesday of vehicular homicide.
Russell, 28, was convicted of three counts of vehicular homicide and three counts of vehicular assault in the 2001 crash that killed three Washington State University students and injured three others.
He was accused of being drunk, speeding, and trying to pass in a no-passing zone when his vehicle slammed head-on into another car on State Route 270, the highway between the two college towns of Pullman, Wash. and Moscow, Idaho.
After his arrest and release on bail in 2001, Russell fled to Ireland, where he was found in 2005 after making the U.S. Marshals Service's "Most Wanted" list. He was extradited to the United States in 2006, the first time in 20 tries that the Irish government granted a request to extradite someone to the U.S.
The verdict came a day after Russell's lawyer, Francisco Duarte, urged Superior Court jurors not to consider the flight to Ireland in making their judgment. He also compared his client's ordeal to the 1993 movie "The Fugitive" and spent much of his argument trying to discredit a key prosecution witness.
Prosecutor Lana Weinmann responded that "this isn't Hollywood. This is the real world."
Killed in the crash were Brandon Clements, 22, of Wapato, a Washington State University senior; and fellow WSU students Stacy Morrow, 21, of Milton, and Ryan Sorensen, 21, of Westport. Three others were badly injured.
Duarte said that death threats and the fear he wouldn't receive a fair trial were the only reasons Russell fled.
"What is a 21-year-old man who becomes public enemy No. 1 overnight supposed to do when he knows he's not going to get a fair trial?" Duarte asked the jury during closing arguments Monday. "In Eastern Washington, he is the devil."
Jurors rejected the defense's claim that Russell's blood alcohol level results were not credible, or that the accident was caused instead by another driver.
Prosecutors said Russell had been drinking vodka at a party earlier on the night of the crash, and then went to a bar where he continued to drink and play pool.
At a hospital after the crash, Russell's blood-alcohol level measured .128 percent, well above Washington state's intoxication threshold of 0.08.
The trial was moved to southwest Washington's Cowlitz County from Whitman County in southeast Washington because of extensive news coverage.
Russell, 28, was convicted of three counts of vehicular homicide and three counts of vehicular assault in the 2001 crash that killed three Washington State University students and injured three others.
He was accused of being drunk, speeding, and trying to pass in a no-passing zone when his vehicle slammed head-on into another car on State Route 270, the highway between the two college towns of Pullman, Wash. and Moscow, Idaho.
After his arrest and release on bail in 2001, Russell fled to Ireland, where he was found in 2005 after making the U.S. Marshals Service's "Most Wanted" list. He was extradited to the United States in 2006, the first time in 20 tries that the Irish government granted a request to extradite someone to the U.S.
The verdict came a day after Russell's lawyer, Francisco Duarte, urged Superior Court jurors not to consider the flight to Ireland in making their judgment. He also compared his client's ordeal to the 1993 movie "The Fugitive" and spent much of his argument trying to discredit a key prosecution witness.
Prosecutor Lana Weinmann responded that "this isn't Hollywood. This is the real world."
Killed in the crash were Brandon Clements, 22, of Wapato, a Washington State University senior; and fellow WSU students Stacy Morrow, 21, of Milton, and Ryan Sorensen, 21, of Westport. Three others were badly injured.
Duarte said that death threats and the fear he wouldn't receive a fair trial were the only reasons Russell fled.
"What is a 21-year-old man who becomes public enemy No. 1 overnight supposed to do when he knows he's not going to get a fair trial?" Duarte asked the jury during closing arguments Monday. "In Eastern Washington, he is the devil."
Jurors rejected the defense's claim that Russell's blood alcohol level results were not credible, or that the accident was caused instead by another driver.
Prosecutors said Russell had been drinking vodka at a party earlier on the night of the crash, and then went to a bar where he continued to drink and play pool.
At a hospital after the crash, Russell's blood-alcohol level measured .128 percent, well above Washington state's intoxication threshold of 0.08.
The trial was moved to southwest Washington's Cowlitz County from Whitman County in southeast Washington because of extensive news coverage.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Teen dead after being shot in head in Kent
By BERNARD CHOI / KING 5 News and KING5.com Staff
KENT, Wash. – Police are investigating the suspicious death of a 16-year-old boy who was shot in the head inside an apartment.
Kent Police say it happened about 10:30 Monday morning at an apartment in the East Hill neighborhood along Kent Kangley Road.
A 17-year-old friend of the boy was inside the apartment and called 911.
A resident of this gated community says while police have responded to disturbances at the house before she did not hear anything out of the ordinary this morning.
Kent Police say the 16-year-old who was shot was not a resident of the home, though he may have been staying there. His 17-year-old friend who called 911 did live here with his mom. Neither were enrolled in the local school district.
Detectives say it's being treated as a suspicious death while they determine whether it was criminal, negligent or accidental.
"I just feel for the mom. Oh man, it's hard to raise kids these days. You try to do your best and hope they don't do anything stupid," said neighbor Liz Reed.
The victim's identity has not been released.
KENT, Wash. – Police are investigating the suspicious death of a 16-year-old boy who was shot in the head inside an apartment.
Kent Police say it happened about 10:30 Monday morning at an apartment in the East Hill neighborhood along Kent Kangley Road.
A 17-year-old friend of the boy was inside the apartment and called 911.
A resident of this gated community says while police have responded to disturbances at the house before she did not hear anything out of the ordinary this morning.
Kent Police say the 16-year-old who was shot was not a resident of the home, though he may have been staying there. His 17-year-old friend who called 911 did live here with his mom. Neither were enrolled in the local school district.
Detectives say it's being treated as a suspicious death while they determine whether it was criminal, negligent or accidental.
"I just feel for the mom. Oh man, it's hard to raise kids these days. You try to do your best and hope they don't do anything stupid," said neighbor Liz Reed.
The victim's identity has not been released.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Everett police arrest one of two suspects in Aug. 21 shooting
By CASEY MCNERTHNEY
P-I REPORTER
Everett police arrested 25-year-old Steven Lavene Lee on Tuesday in connection with the Aug. 21 shooting death of Forrest Starrett in an Everett apartment complex.
Detectives are still searching for Tsegazeab Zerahaimanot, the other suspect wanted for investigation into the killing of Starrett.
Everett police detectives received a tip Wednesday morning saying Lee was living in SeaTac. Police spokesman Robert Goetz said Lee was arrested without incident and booked into the Snohomish County Jail and held on $1 million bail.
Police believe the two suspects thought Starrett was a police officer when he was killed after encountering the two men at an Everett apartment in the 8700 block of Holly Drive. Detectives say the men held guns to Starrett's head, forced him to empty his pockets and later killed him in the passenger seat of his vehicle.
Goetz said Zerahaimanot is considered armed and dangerous. Anyone with information about the case is asked to call the Everett police tip line at 425-257-8450.
P-I REPORTER
Everett police arrested 25-year-old Steven Lavene Lee on Tuesday in connection with the Aug. 21 shooting death of Forrest Starrett in an Everett apartment complex.
Detectives are still searching for Tsegazeab Zerahaimanot, the other suspect wanted for investigation into the killing of Starrett.
Everett police detectives received a tip Wednesday morning saying Lee was living in SeaTac. Police spokesman Robert Goetz said Lee was arrested without incident and booked into the Snohomish County Jail and held on $1 million bail.
Police believe the two suspects thought Starrett was a police officer when he was killed after encountering the two men at an Everett apartment in the 8700 block of Holly Drive. Detectives say the men held guns to Starrett's head, forced him to empty his pockets and later killed him in the passenger seat of his vehicle.
Goetz said Zerahaimanot is considered armed and dangerous. Anyone with information about the case is asked to call the Everett police tip line at 425-257-8450.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Trial set for councilman accused of assault
TRACY JOHNSON
P-I REPORTER
Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver is now expected to face trial in December for an allegation that he assaulted his wife in their South Seattle home.
In a King County District Court hearing on Tuesday, Judge Linda Thompson set a hearing for Nov. 27 and the trial for the week of Dec. 10.
She will also consider whether police documents about the councilman's arrest should be released to the Seattle P-I, as the newspaper has requested, or whether a Superior Court judge should make that decision.
McIver, who did not attend Tuesday's hearing, has pleaded not guilty to fourth-degree assault. He is accused of grabbing his wife by the throat and arm in a drunken dispute Oct. 10. He spent two nights in jail but now remains free without bail.
P-I REPORTER
Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver is now expected to face trial in December for an allegation that he assaulted his wife in their South Seattle home.
In a King County District Court hearing on Tuesday, Judge Linda Thompson set a hearing for Nov. 27 and the trial for the week of Dec. 10.
She will also consider whether police documents about the councilman's arrest should be released to the Seattle P-I, as the newspaper has requested, or whether a Superior Court judge should make that decision.
McIver, who did not attend Tuesday's hearing, has pleaded not guilty to fourth-degree assault. He is accused of grabbing his wife by the throat and arm in a drunken dispute Oct. 10. He spent two nights in jail but now remains free without bail.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
WA. STATE DUI SENTENCING GUIDE
WASHINGTON COURT - DUI Sentencing Grid (RCW 46.61.5055 as amended through June 10, 2004)
“Prior Offense” includes the following: (as defined in RCW 46.61.5055)Original Convictions for the following:
(1) DUI (RCW 46.61.502) (or an equivalent local ordinance)
(2) Phys. Cont. (RCW 46.61.504) (or an equivalent local ordinance)
(3) Veh. Homicide (RCW 46.61.520) or Veh. Assault (RCW 46.61.522) if either committed while under the influence
(4) Equiv. out-of-state statute for any of the above offenses
Amended Convictions for the following: If the person was originally charged with
DUI or Phys. Cont. or an equivalent local ordinance, or Veh. Homicide (RCW 46.61.520) or Veh. Assault (RCW 46.61.522)♦
(1) Neg. Driving 1st (RCW 46.61.5249)
(2) Reckless Driving (RCW 46.61.500)
(3) Reckless Endangerment (RCW 9A.36.050)
(4) Equiv. out-of-state or local ordinance for the above offenses
Deferred Prosecution Granted for the following:
(1) DUI (RCW 46.61.502) (or equivalent local ordinance)
(2) Phys. Cont. (RCW 46.61.504) (or equiv. local ordinance)
(3) Neg. Driving 1st (RCW 46.61.5249, or equiv. local ord.), if the person was originally charged with DUI or Phys. Cont. (or an equiv. local ord.), or Veh. Hom. (RCW 46.61.520) or Veh. Assault (RCW 46.61.522)
“Within seven years” means that the arrest for a prior offense(s) occurred within seven years of the arrest for the current offense. (as defined in RCW 46.61.5055)
Alcohol Concentration Less Than .15 or No Test ResultNo Prior Offenses Within Past Seven YearsOne Prior Offense Within PastSeven YearsTwo or More Prior Offenses Within Past Seven Years
Jail Time/EHM Time
First Offense: 1-365 Days (24 consecutive hours non-suspendable)
Second Offense: 30-365 Days (30 days non-suspendable); 60 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Third Offense: 90-365 Days (90 days non-suspendable); 120 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Fines
First Offense: $350-$5,000 ($823 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Second Offense: $500-$5,000 ($1,078 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Third Offense: $1,000-$5,000 ($1,928 total minimum fine w/statutory assessment****)
Driver's License Suspension: Per DOL
First Offense: 90 Day Suspension
Second Offense: Two Year Revocation
Third Offense: Three Year Revocation
Additionally:
Ignition Interlock Device may be ordered;
Alcohol/Drug Ed. or Treatment As Determined by the Court
Alcohol Concentration at Least .15 or Greater or Test RefusalNo Prior Offenses Within Past Seven YearsOne Prior Offense Within Past Seven YearsTwo or More Prior Offenses Within Past Seven Years
Jail Time/EHM Time
First Offense: 2-365 Days (2 consecutive mandatory); 30 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Second Offense: 45-365 Days (45 days mandatory); 90 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Tird Offense: 120-365 Days (120 days mandatory); 150 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Fines
First Offense: $500-$5,000 ($1,078 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Second Offense: $750-$5,000 ($1,503 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Third Offense: $1,500-$5,000 ($2,778 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Driver's License Suspension: Per DOL
First Offense: One Year Revocation (2 Years if BAC refused; Chapter 95, Laws 2004)
Second Offense: Two Year Revocation (3 Years if BAC refused)
Third Offense: Four Year Revocation
Additionally:
Ignition Interlock Device may be ordered;
Alcohol/Drug Ed. or Treatment As Determined by the Court
If you or someone you know is currently facing DUI charges in Washington call; the Law Office of Kurt E. Boehl at 206-728-0200
“Prior Offense” includes the following: (as defined in RCW 46.61.5055)Original Convictions for the following:
(1) DUI (RCW 46.61.502) (or an equivalent local ordinance)
(2) Phys. Cont. (RCW 46.61.504) (or an equivalent local ordinance)
(3) Veh. Homicide (RCW 46.61.520) or Veh. Assault (RCW 46.61.522) if either committed while under the influence
(4) Equiv. out-of-state statute for any of the above offenses
Amended Convictions for the following: If the person was originally charged with
DUI or Phys. Cont. or an equivalent local ordinance, or Veh. Homicide (RCW 46.61.520) or Veh. Assault (RCW 46.61.522)♦
(1) Neg. Driving 1st (RCW 46.61.5249)
(2) Reckless Driving (RCW 46.61.500)
(3) Reckless Endangerment (RCW 9A.36.050)
(4) Equiv. out-of-state or local ordinance for the above offenses
Deferred Prosecution Granted for the following:
(1) DUI (RCW 46.61.502) (or equivalent local ordinance)
(2) Phys. Cont. (RCW 46.61.504) (or equiv. local ordinance)
(3) Neg. Driving 1st (RCW 46.61.5249, or equiv. local ord.), if the person was originally charged with DUI or Phys. Cont. (or an equiv. local ord.), or Veh. Hom. (RCW 46.61.520) or Veh. Assault (RCW 46.61.522)
“Within seven years” means that the arrest for a prior offense(s) occurred within seven years of the arrest for the current offense. (as defined in RCW 46.61.5055)
Alcohol Concentration Less Than .15 or No Test ResultNo Prior Offenses Within Past Seven YearsOne Prior Offense Within PastSeven YearsTwo or More Prior Offenses Within Past Seven Years
Jail Time/EHM Time
First Offense: 1-365 Days (24 consecutive hours non-suspendable)
Second Offense: 30-365 Days (30 days non-suspendable); 60 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Third Offense: 90-365 Days (90 days non-suspendable); 120 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Fines
First Offense: $350-$5,000 ($823 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Second Offense: $500-$5,000 ($1,078 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Third Offense: $1,000-$5,000 ($1,928 total minimum fine w/statutory assessment****)
Driver's License Suspension: Per DOL
First Offense: 90 Day Suspension
Second Offense: Two Year Revocation
Third Offense: Three Year Revocation
Additionally:
Ignition Interlock Device may be ordered;
Alcohol/Drug Ed. or Treatment As Determined by the Court
Alcohol Concentration at Least .15 or Greater or Test RefusalNo Prior Offenses Within Past Seven YearsOne Prior Offense Within Past Seven YearsTwo or More Prior Offenses Within Past Seven Years
Jail Time/EHM Time
First Offense: 2-365 Days (2 consecutive mandatory); 30 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Second Offense: 45-365 Days (45 days mandatory); 90 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Tird Offense: 120-365 Days (120 days mandatory); 150 Days Electronic Home Monitoring
Fines
First Offense: $500-$5,000 ($1,078 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Second Offense: $750-$5,000 ($1,503 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Third Offense: $1,500-$5,000 ($2,778 total minimum fine w/statutory assessments****)
Driver's License Suspension: Per DOL
First Offense: One Year Revocation (2 Years if BAC refused; Chapter 95, Laws 2004)
Second Offense: Two Year Revocation (3 Years if BAC refused)
Third Offense: Four Year Revocation
Additionally:
Ignition Interlock Device may be ordered;
Alcohol/Drug Ed. or Treatment As Determined by the Court
If you or someone you know is currently facing DUI charges in Washington call; the Law Office of Kurt E. Boehl at 206-728-0200
Your Rights If You are Stopped for a DUI in Washington
1. You have a right to decline to answer any questions. You may be required to identify yourself but you are not required to make statements or answer questions. You should remember that whatever you say to the officer will likely be used against you if charges are filed.
2. Field sobriety tests are "VOLUNTARY," and you have a right to decline. You also have the right to decline to take a portable or preliminary breath test at the roadside.
3. You have a right to refuse to consent to any search of your person, property, or vehicle. However, the police may search you or your vehicle without a warrant in the following circumstances:
* After a lawful arrest police may search you, and if you were in a vehicle immediately prior to your arrest, the police may search your vehicle.
* Police may search you for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion you are armed and dangerous.
* Police may search the area immediately around you.
* In certain emergency situations, the police may search if they have probable cause to believe evidence will be found, but it would be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained.
* Police may search your vehicle if they are placing it in impound.
4. You have a right to speak with an attorney before making any decision about a breath or blood test. The police must advise you of that right as soon as practical after you are arrested. In addition, before you decide to take a breath test, the police must provide you with an opportunity to talk to a lawyer. In most cases, you can be put immediately in touch with an on-call attorney at no cost to you, no matter what the time.
5. After being taken into custody, you have the right to an additional breath test performed by a qualified person of your choosing. If you obtain a second test, immediately after your release from custody, this test may be used to challenge the accuracy of the test administered by the police.
2. Field sobriety tests are "VOLUNTARY," and you have a right to decline. You also have the right to decline to take a portable or preliminary breath test at the roadside.
3. You have a right to refuse to consent to any search of your person, property, or vehicle. However, the police may search you or your vehicle without a warrant in the following circumstances:
* After a lawful arrest police may search you, and if you were in a vehicle immediately prior to your arrest, the police may search your vehicle.
* Police may search you for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion you are armed and dangerous.
* Police may search the area immediately around you.
* In certain emergency situations, the police may search if they have probable cause to believe evidence will be found, but it would be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained.
* Police may search your vehicle if they are placing it in impound.
4. You have a right to speak with an attorney before making any decision about a breath or blood test. The police must advise you of that right as soon as practical after you are arrested. In addition, before you decide to take a breath test, the police must provide you with an opportunity to talk to a lawyer. In most cases, you can be put immediately in touch with an on-call attorney at no cost to you, no matter what the time.
5. After being taken into custody, you have the right to an additional breath test performed by a qualified person of your choosing. If you obtain a second test, immediately after your release from custody, this test may be used to challenge the accuracy of the test administered by the police.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Promising teen sentenced for brutal Tacoma murder
By BERNARD CHOI / KING 5 News
TACOMA – A young man who had a promising future in medicine was sentenced Friday for bludgeoning a man to death outside his Tacoma home last year.
Cyril Walrond, 19, should have been starting his sophomore year at the University of Washington, studying pre-med with a full scholarship. Instead, he was sentenced to 35 years in prison for first degree murder.
As Cyril's pastor attests, the former Mount Tahoma High School standout was, by all accounts, a pillar of his community, responsible and hard working.
"That's one of our good kids. This is one of our examples. This is someone we're all very proud of," said Pastor Terry Harris, Tacoma Christian Center.
That all changed on April 22, 2006. Prosecutors say Walrond and two classmates brutally attacked Dien Huynh outside his Tacoma home, seemingly for no reason, but just for the thrill of it.
"Mr. Huynh was fleeing for his life. Losing his glasses. The defendant chased him down. To chase him down like Mr. Huynh was an animal," said Pierce Co. deputy prosecutor Terry Lane.
Authorities say Walrond used a hammer and bludgeoned Huynh in the head multiple times. The 65-year-old, who fled Vietnam to find a better life in the U.S., died two days later.
"I stand here today acknowledging my transgressions and accepting full responsibility for my actions and the role I played in this case," said Walrond in court. "I wake up each morning with innocent blood on my hands and the pain and guilt in my past stupid decisions lay heavy on my heart."
Walrond didn't explain why he attacked an innocent man, just saying he made some horrible decisions.
The judge said in more than 20 years, he has never received so many letters supporting a defendant, but in light of the horrific crime, he sentenced Walrond to 35 years.
The victim's family had little to say except that they trusted what the judge and prosecutor did in the case.
Cyril's pastor apologized to the victim's family, saying he can't help but think the system somehow failed in this case.
The two other students who pled guilty for their roles in the killing will be sentenced next month.
TACOMA – A young man who had a promising future in medicine was sentenced Friday for bludgeoning a man to death outside his Tacoma home last year.
Cyril Walrond, 19, should have been starting his sophomore year at the University of Washington, studying pre-med with a full scholarship. Instead, he was sentenced to 35 years in prison for first degree murder.
As Cyril's pastor attests, the former Mount Tahoma High School standout was, by all accounts, a pillar of his community, responsible and hard working.
"That's one of our good kids. This is one of our examples. This is someone we're all very proud of," said Pastor Terry Harris, Tacoma Christian Center.
That all changed on April 22, 2006. Prosecutors say Walrond and two classmates brutally attacked Dien Huynh outside his Tacoma home, seemingly for no reason, but just for the thrill of it.
"Mr. Huynh was fleeing for his life. Losing his glasses. The defendant chased him down. To chase him down like Mr. Huynh was an animal," said Pierce Co. deputy prosecutor Terry Lane.
Authorities say Walrond used a hammer and bludgeoned Huynh in the head multiple times. The 65-year-old, who fled Vietnam to find a better life in the U.S., died two days later.
"I stand here today acknowledging my transgressions and accepting full responsibility for my actions and the role I played in this case," said Walrond in court. "I wake up each morning with innocent blood on my hands and the pain and guilt in my past stupid decisions lay heavy on my heart."
Walrond didn't explain why he attacked an innocent man, just saying he made some horrible decisions.
The judge said in more than 20 years, he has never received so many letters supporting a defendant, but in light of the horrific crime, he sentenced Walrond to 35 years.
The victim's family had little to say except that they trusted what the judge and prosecutor did in the case.
Cyril's pastor apologized to the victim's family, saying he can't help but think the system somehow failed in this case.
The two other students who pled guilty for their roles in the killing will be sentenced next month.
Friday, October 19, 2007
YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS?
The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states:
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.
The Fifth Amendment reads, in part, "No person shall be...compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide the foundation for the rights that protect all U.S. citizens from intrusive law enforcement practices.
If an officer violates your rights, any evidence discovered as a result of that violation should be suppressed, and removed from the evidence presented to the factfinder during trial.. An attorney removes this evidence by filing a motion to suppress with the trial judge. As a result, even if an officer obtained a warrant prior to searching, if that warrant is defective or not supported by probable cause, then the evidence discovered during the search can not be used in determining your guilt on the matter. Often times, after the fruits of an illegal detention, interrogation or search are suppressed, the government is left with very little incriminating evidence and the charges are dismissed...
1. Don't Leave Contraband in Plain View
Although law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before they can conduct a privacy-invading search, any illicit material, plainly seen from a non-intrusive vantage point, is subject to confiscation. Furthermore, with illicit material sitting in the plain sight of police officers, an arrest and valid seach warrant will likely ensue.
2. Do Not Consent to a Search
Many individuals arrested on drug charges could have avoided an arrest by exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. If a law enforcement officer asks for your permission to search, it is usually because: (1) there is not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant; or (2) the officer does not feel like going through the hassle of obtaining a warrant.
Remember, law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. If you consent to a search, officers may search and seize items without further authorization, and if they find contraband, you will be arrested. If you do not consent to a search, the officer must attempt to get a warrant, and during that process, there is a chance you will be released from custody. Refusing to consent to a search does not give the officer legal grounds to obtain a warrant or detain you.
Only a judge or magistrate can provide law enforcement with a search warrant, and only upon a showing of "probable cause." Probable cause requires an officer to articulate information that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has or is being committed, and evidence of that crime is within the object of the search. There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement which permit an officer to search an area without a warrant or consent under certain circumstances. However, the important thing for you to remember is to never consent to a search, or talk with an officer without an attorney present.
If an officer asks to search you, an area belonging to you, or an area which you are authorized to control, you should respond in the following manner:
"I do not consent to a search of my [person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, blood, etc.] I do not consent to this contact and do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone)."
3. Don't Answer Questions Without Your Attorney Present
You should always exercise the right to remain silent, whether or not your are merely under investigation or arrested. Anything you say to law enforcement officers, reporters, cellmates, or even your friends, can be used as evidence against you. Remember, you have the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
4. Determining if You Can Leave
Unless you are being detained, in custody, or under arrest, you may terminate an encounter with law enforcement. If you cannot determine if it is appropriate to leave, ask, "Am I under arrest or otherwise detained?" If the answer is no, you are free to leave.
An officer can temporarily detain you, without arresting you, if he has "reasonable suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. Therefore, in order for the detention to be legal, the officer must be able to later articulate to a judge objective facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that you were involved in criminal activity at the time you were detained. In addition, the officer may perform a "pat down" or "frisk" on you during the detention if he has reasonable suspicion that you are armed. During a pat down, an officer may only reach into your pockets if he pats something that feels like a weapon. If an officer attempts to contact or question you, you should politely say: "I do not consent to this contact and I do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest I would like to go now (or be left alone)." Thereafter, if you are arrested, you should again refuse a search of any kind and refuse to answer any questions. At this point, you should insist on speaking to an attorney as soon as possible.
5. Do Not Be Hostile; Do Not Physically Resist
There are times when individuals politely assert their rights and refuse to consent to a search but the officers nonetheless proceed to detain, search, or arrest them. In such cases, it is important not to physically resist. Rather, you should reassert your rights.
6. Informing on Others
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors often try to pressure individuals into providing information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of others. Threats and promises by police and prosecutors should be viewed with caution and skepticism. A decision to provide incriminating information against someone else should only be made after consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney and examining one’s own conscience.
The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states:
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.
The Fifth Amendment reads, in part, "No person shall be...compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide the foundation for the rights that protect all U.S. citizens from intrusive law enforcement practices.
If an officer violates your rights, any evidence discovered as a result of that violation should be suppressed, and removed from the evidence presented to the factfinder during trial.. An attorney removes this evidence by filing a motion to suppress with the trial judge. As a result, even if an officer obtained a warrant prior to searching, if that warrant is defective or not supported by probable cause, then the evidence discovered during the search can not be used in determining your guilt on the matter. Often times, after the fruits of an illegal detention, interrogation or search are suppressed, the government is left with very little incriminating evidence and the charges are dismissed...
1. Don't Leave Contraband in Plain View
Although law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before they can conduct a privacy-invading search, any illicit material, plainly seen from a non-intrusive vantage point, is subject to confiscation. Furthermore, with illicit material sitting in the plain sight of police officers, an arrest and valid seach warrant will likely ensue.
2. Do Not Consent to a Search
Many individuals arrested on drug charges could have avoided an arrest by exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. If a law enforcement officer asks for your permission to search, it is usually because: (1) there is not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant; or (2) the officer does not feel like going through the hassle of obtaining a warrant.
Remember, law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. If you consent to a search, officers may search and seize items without further authorization, and if they find contraband, you will be arrested. If you do not consent to a search, the officer must attempt to get a warrant, and during that process, there is a chance you will be released from custody. Refusing to consent to a search does not give the officer legal grounds to obtain a warrant or detain you.
Only a judge or magistrate can provide law enforcement with a search warrant, and only upon a showing of "probable cause." Probable cause requires an officer to articulate information that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has or is being committed, and evidence of that crime is within the object of the search. There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement which permit an officer to search an area without a warrant or consent under certain circumstances. However, the important thing for you to remember is to never consent to a search, or talk with an officer without an attorney present.
If an officer asks to search you, an area belonging to you, or an area which you are authorized to control, you should respond in the following manner:
"I do not consent to a search of my [person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, blood, etc.] I do not consent to this contact and do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone)."
3. Don't Answer Questions Without Your Attorney Present
You should always exercise the right to remain silent, whether or not your are merely under investigation or arrested. Anything you say to law enforcement officers, reporters, cellmates, or even your friends, can be used as evidence against you. Remember, you have the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
4. Determining if You Can Leave
Unless you are being detained, in custody, or under arrest, you may terminate an encounter with law enforcement. If you cannot determine if it is appropriate to leave, ask, "Am I under arrest or otherwise detained?" If the answer is no, you are free to leave.
An officer can temporarily detain you, without arresting you, if he has "reasonable suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. Therefore, in order for the detention to be legal, the officer must be able to later articulate to a judge objective facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that you were involved in criminal activity at the time you were detained. In addition, the officer may perform a "pat down" or "frisk" on you during the detention if he has reasonable suspicion that you are armed. During a pat down, an officer may only reach into your pockets if he pats something that feels like a weapon. If an officer attempts to contact or question you, you should politely say: "I do not consent to this contact and I do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest I would like to go now (or be left alone)." Thereafter, if you are arrested, you should again refuse a search of any kind and refuse to answer any questions. At this point, you should insist on speaking to an attorney as soon as possible.
5. Do Not Be Hostile; Do Not Physically Resist
There are times when individuals politely assert their rights and refuse to consent to a search but the officers nonetheless proceed to detain, search, or arrest them. In such cases, it is important not to physically resist. Rather, you should reassert your rights.
6. Informing on Others
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors often try to pressure individuals into providing information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of others. Threats and promises by police and prosecutors should be viewed with caution and skepticism. A decision to provide incriminating information against someone else should only be made after consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney and examining one’s own conscience.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Satterberg, Sherman spar in King Co. prosecutor debate
By NEIL MODIE
P-I REPORTER
BELLEVUE -- Interim King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, taking the offensive, dismissed as "grandstanding" Wednesday his election opponent's often-repeated promise to try one criminal case a year if he becomes prosecutor.
In a Bellevue debate with Bill Sherman, a deputy prosecutor and a Democrat, Satterberg said Sherman "wants to be, as the elected prosecutor, going into court, pointing the finger at the bad guy and impressing the jury and hoping the media is there to cover his one case a year. To me, that's grandstanding ... It becomes a political event."
A Republican and career prosecutor, Satterberg criticized Sherman more aggressively than he has in their previous public appearances, including a debate last week. He labeled Sherman's tenure in the prosecutor's office "a journeyman's experience, three years in the office, only in the criminal division."
Before now, Satterberg mostly has listened to Sherman criticize decisions and policies of the prosecutor's office and has stressed his own experience as its chief of staff for 17 years under Prosecutor Norm Maleng, who died May 24. Satterberg was appointed to succeed him.
When the candidates were asked the main differences between them, Sherman said it is their attitude toward governing. He said the prosecutor should "not just rest on his laurels" but be an innovative leader who looks to other criminal justice jurisdictions for new initiatives that have proven themselves.
Sherman said he would place greater emphasis and prosecution resources on elder abuse and drug-related crimes. He said King County has one of the few major prosecutor's offices in the country that lacks an environmental crimes section.
The Democrat said he would be more aggressive about prosecuting gun-law violations. And as he has before, he criticized the prosecutor's office for not aggressively prosecuting offenses by King County sheriff's officers that the Post-Intelligencer exposed in 2005 and 2006.
The office, Satterberg retorted, "is not the cesspool of corruption and mismanagement that Bill thinks it is, but you have to say something when you want to throw the bum out of office."
"I think this election is about qualifications," he said, noting that he has been in the prosecutor's office for 22 years and, with Maleng, has seen 180,000 felony cases go through the office in his 17 years as chief of staff.
"Bill has been in the office for three years," Satterberg said. "He has never managed another person during that time. He's never tried a homicide case. He's never been promoted." He said he himself has tried more cases than Sherman has.
Sherman claims a greater breadth of experience, having worked during the Clinton Administration in the offices of the vice president and the secretary of the interior, and in Interior having helped develop a management plan to improve efficiency and reduce costs. He also worked as a civil litigator in a law firm before becoming a deputy prosecutor.
A Republican running in a Democratic county, Satterberg has emphasized his and Maleng's nonpartisan management of the office. "I think this office ought to be a nonpartisan office, quite frankly, and if I'm elected I'm going to work to make this a nonpartisan office" by changing state law and the County Charter, Satterberg said.
P-I REPORTER
BELLEVUE -- Interim King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, taking the offensive, dismissed as "grandstanding" Wednesday his election opponent's often-repeated promise to try one criminal case a year if he becomes prosecutor.
In a Bellevue debate with Bill Sherman, a deputy prosecutor and a Democrat, Satterberg said Sherman "wants to be, as the elected prosecutor, going into court, pointing the finger at the bad guy and impressing the jury and hoping the media is there to cover his one case a year. To me, that's grandstanding ... It becomes a political event."
A Republican and career prosecutor, Satterberg criticized Sherman more aggressively than he has in their previous public appearances, including a debate last week. He labeled Sherman's tenure in the prosecutor's office "a journeyman's experience, three years in the office, only in the criminal division."
Before now, Satterberg mostly has listened to Sherman criticize decisions and policies of the prosecutor's office and has stressed his own experience as its chief of staff for 17 years under Prosecutor Norm Maleng, who died May 24. Satterberg was appointed to succeed him.
When the candidates were asked the main differences between them, Sherman said it is their attitude toward governing. He said the prosecutor should "not just rest on his laurels" but be an innovative leader who looks to other criminal justice jurisdictions for new initiatives that have proven themselves.
Sherman said he would place greater emphasis and prosecution resources on elder abuse and drug-related crimes. He said King County has one of the few major prosecutor's offices in the country that lacks an environmental crimes section.
The Democrat said he would be more aggressive about prosecuting gun-law violations. And as he has before, he criticized the prosecutor's office for not aggressively prosecuting offenses by King County sheriff's officers that the Post-Intelligencer exposed in 2005 and 2006.
The office, Satterberg retorted, "is not the cesspool of corruption and mismanagement that Bill thinks it is, but you have to say something when you want to throw the bum out of office."
"I think this election is about qualifications," he said, noting that he has been in the prosecutor's office for 22 years and, with Maleng, has seen 180,000 felony cases go through the office in his 17 years as chief of staff.
"Bill has been in the office for three years," Satterberg said. "He has never managed another person during that time. He's never tried a homicide case. He's never been promoted." He said he himself has tried more cases than Sherman has.
Sherman claims a greater breadth of experience, having worked during the Clinton Administration in the offices of the vice president and the secretary of the interior, and in Interior having helped develop a management plan to improve efficiency and reduce costs. He also worked as a civil litigator in a law firm before becoming a deputy prosecutor.
A Republican running in a Democratic county, Satterberg has emphasized his and Maleng's nonpartisan management of the office. "I think this office ought to be a nonpartisan office, quite frankly, and if I'm elected I'm going to work to make this a nonpartisan office" by changing state law and the County Charter, Satterberg said.
City Councilman Richard McIver arrested
By Christina Siderius and Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporters
Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver was arrested and was booked into jail early today for investigation of domestic violence assault.
Seattle police went to McIver's address after receiving a 911 call shortly after midnight. Officers who responded to the Southeast Seattle home determined a physical assault had occurred, said Seattle police Sgt. Deanna Nollette.
McIver's wife, Marlaina Kiner-McIver told an officer that her husband had grabbed her by the throat and arm repeatedly before going on a "profane tirade," according to a Seattle police report. She told police she tried to push him off her at least three times, the report said.
Officers reported that she did not have visible injuries.
Police say McIver admitted that he had been drinking, and was probably drunk, and confirmed he had been in an argument with his wife. He denied making any physical contact during the argument, according to the police report.
King County Jail records show that McIver, 66, was booked shortly after the arrest and was being held without bail.
Anytime police respond to domestic violence calls, officers are required by state law to arrest the person they determine is the primary aggressor, said Seattle Police spokeswoman Reneè Witt. There are no exceptions to that, she said.
The Seattle City Attorney's Office has requested that the King County Prosecutor's Office handle McIver's case "because of a potential conflict of interest," said Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office.
Domestic violence offenses in Seattle Municipal Court are either misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, or gross misdemeanors, punishable by up to 365 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Dawn Mason, a former state representative speaking on Kiner-McIver's behalf, said Kiner-McIver is doing as well as can be expected.
"The best response is to have a strong circle of women around her right now," she said.
"If this is, in fact, alcohol involved, Councilmember McIver will go into treatment because that's a disease," said Mason.
In 1997, McIver was appointed to the council to complete the term of John Manning, a former cop who resigned after pleading guilty to domestic violence.
McIver was elected to a full four-year term later in 1997, then re-elected in 2001 and again in 2005.
McIver is currently chair of the finance and budget committee.
Seattle City Council president Nick Licata said the council "will continue working on items at hand. We will await statements from all parties involved."
Licata said he has not spoken with McIver.
Seattle Times staff reporters
Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver was arrested and was booked into jail early today for investigation of domestic violence assault.
Seattle police went to McIver's address after receiving a 911 call shortly after midnight. Officers who responded to the Southeast Seattle home determined a physical assault had occurred, said Seattle police Sgt. Deanna Nollette.
McIver's wife, Marlaina Kiner-McIver told an officer that her husband had grabbed her by the throat and arm repeatedly before going on a "profane tirade," according to a Seattle police report. She told police she tried to push him off her at least three times, the report said.
Officers reported that she did not have visible injuries.
Police say McIver admitted that he had been drinking, and was probably drunk, and confirmed he had been in an argument with his wife. He denied making any physical contact during the argument, according to the police report.
King County Jail records show that McIver, 66, was booked shortly after the arrest and was being held without bail.
Anytime police respond to domestic violence calls, officers are required by state law to arrest the person they determine is the primary aggressor, said Seattle Police spokeswoman Reneè Witt. There are no exceptions to that, she said.
The Seattle City Attorney's Office has requested that the King County Prosecutor's Office handle McIver's case "because of a potential conflict of interest," said Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office.
Domestic violence offenses in Seattle Municipal Court are either misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, or gross misdemeanors, punishable by up to 365 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Dawn Mason, a former state representative speaking on Kiner-McIver's behalf, said Kiner-McIver is doing as well as can be expected.
"The best response is to have a strong circle of women around her right now," she said.
"If this is, in fact, alcohol involved, Councilmember McIver will go into treatment because that's a disease," said Mason.
In 1997, McIver was appointed to the council to complete the term of John Manning, a former cop who resigned after pleading guilty to domestic violence.
McIver was elected to a full four-year term later in 1997, then re-elected in 2001 and again in 2005.
McIver is currently chair of the finance and budget committee.
Seattle City Council president Nick Licata said the council "will continue working on items at hand. We will await statements from all parties involved."
Licata said he has not spoken with McIver.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Judges asked to reject breath tests from state's troubled toxicology lab
By TRACY JOHNSON
P-I REPORTER
Two Skagit County judges began hearing testimony Monday about problems at the State Patrol toxicology lab that could affect drunken-driving cases across the state.
Defense attorneys are asking the judges to either dismiss the drunken-driving charges against more than 50 people or keep the results of the suspects' breath tests out of court.
The attorneys have begun questioning scientists at the lab, and judges around Washington are expected to rely on the testimony in deciding hundreds or thousands of similar cases in the coming months.
The District Court hearing centers on how the lab makes and tests an ethanol-water solution that's used to make sure the state's breath-test machines are working properly.
The lab's former manager, Ann Marie Gordon, is accused of repeatedly signing statements certifying that she tested the solution when, in fact, she hadn't.
Gordon, who abruptly resigned in July, will be called to testify this week and is expected to take the Fifth Amendment, invoking her right against self-incrimination. King County prosecutors are deciding whether to charge her with perjury.
Defense attorneys say there have been other problems at the lab, including a computer glitch that led to inaccurate data for the solution, which must be mixed in a precise ratio to make sure breath-test machines are giving accurate readings.
The State Patrol, however, has maintained that nothing has affected the accuracy of breath-test results.
A Skagit County deputy prosecutor and an assistant Seattle city attorney will urge the judges to allow the breath-test readings to be used against the suspects.
P-I REPORTER
Two Skagit County judges began hearing testimony Monday about problems at the State Patrol toxicology lab that could affect drunken-driving cases across the state.
Defense attorneys are asking the judges to either dismiss the drunken-driving charges against more than 50 people or keep the results of the suspects' breath tests out of court.
The attorneys have begun questioning scientists at the lab, and judges around Washington are expected to rely on the testimony in deciding hundreds or thousands of similar cases in the coming months.
The District Court hearing centers on how the lab makes and tests an ethanol-water solution that's used to make sure the state's breath-test machines are working properly.
The lab's former manager, Ann Marie Gordon, is accused of repeatedly signing statements certifying that she tested the solution when, in fact, she hadn't.
Gordon, who abruptly resigned in July, will be called to testify this week and is expected to take the Fifth Amendment, invoking her right against self-incrimination. King County prosecutors are deciding whether to charge her with perjury.
Defense attorneys say there have been other problems at the lab, including a computer glitch that led to inaccurate data for the solution, which must be mixed in a precise ratio to make sure breath-test machines are giving accurate readings.
The State Patrol, however, has maintained that nothing has affected the accuracy of breath-test results.
A Skagit County deputy prosecutor and an assistant Seattle city attorney will urge the judges to allow the breath-test readings to be used against the suspects.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Police release Seattle man, 84, saying he may have shot son in self-defense
Seattle Times staff
An 84-year-old man arrested Saturday for fatally shooting his 50-year-old son has been released from the King County Jail because Seattle police believe he was acting in self-defense.
When police arrived at the house in the 4600 block of South Cooper Street about 7:30 p.m., the man walked into the front yard with a phone in his hand. Officers found his son dead in a bedroom, police said.
Police spokeswoman Reneé Witt said that the elderly man "complained to some of his family members that this son had been abusive to him and it was becoming more aggressive," Witt said, adding that detectives are still investigating.
The names of the father and his son were not released today.
An 84-year-old man arrested Saturday for fatally shooting his 50-year-old son has been released from the King County Jail because Seattle police believe he was acting in self-defense.
When police arrived at the house in the 4600 block of South Cooper Street about 7:30 p.m., the man walked into the front yard with a phone in his hand. Officers found his son dead in a bedroom, police said.
Police spokeswoman Reneé Witt said that the elderly man "complained to some of his family members that this son had been abusive to him and it was becoming more aggressive," Witt said, adding that detectives are still investigating.
The names of the father and his son were not released today.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Jones confirmed as Seattle judge
Washington, D.C.
The Senate has confirmed Richard A. Jones as a federal court judge in Seattle.
A King County Superior Court judge since 1994, he was nominated by President Bush in March at the recommendation of a bipartisan panel.
Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said Jones has handled some very difficult cases — including that of Green River Killer Gary L. Ridgway — and that he has won universal respect.
Jones is the half-brother of music producer Quincy Jones, and was born and raised in Seattle. He graduated from the University of Washington School of Law. He has also worked as a King County deputy prosecutor and an assistant U.S. attorney.
Jones fills the seat of Judge John C. Coughenour, who took senior status last year.
The Senate has confirmed Richard A. Jones as a federal court judge in Seattle.
A King County Superior Court judge since 1994, he was nominated by President Bush in March at the recommendation of a bipartisan panel.
Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said Jones has handled some very difficult cases — including that of Green River Killer Gary L. Ridgway — and that he has won universal respect.
Jones is the half-brother of music producer Quincy Jones, and was born and raised in Seattle. He graduated from the University of Washington School of Law. He has also worked as a King County deputy prosecutor and an assistant U.S. attorney.
Jones fills the seat of Judge John C. Coughenour, who took senior status last year.
That 'bear sticker' on the window signals, 'Hey, I'm a cop'
By ERIC NALDER AND LEWIS KAMB
P-I INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS
King County sheriff's Deputy Michael Behm asked the cop who nabbed him drinking and driving three years ago whether he'd seen the "bear sticker" on the back window of his truck, according to the Buckley police arrest report.
Related content
The bear sticker is one way cops try to get "professional courtesy" from other officers. Marcus Mann, who worked as a police officer for 23 years, explains other ways cops who are stopped try to use their job to influence other police officers.
- Some cops get free passes when stopped for DUI
- From the Case Files: Officers stopped for DUI
More in this special report
During an internal investigation of the DUI, Behm denied referring to the sticker and said he was not seeking special treatment.
Pointing to the little sticker -- a drawing of a striding bear -- could be considered a request from one cop to another for special treatment during a stop.
It's "a suggestion that law enforcement people should get special consideration," said Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor, a 27- year veteran who hates the stickers.
You'll see them on the back windows of private cars at police hangouts, a symbol for "Hey, I'm a cop." They show up, as well, in a few DUI reports when cops are nabbed. Cops in interviews and on chat lines question the value of them, note anyone can buy one and warn that they might attract unwanted attention from savvy criminals.
Pastor would love to ban them. Personally, he is so careful not to tempt favors at a traffic stop that he has two wallets, one containing his civilian ID, including his driver's license, and another with police ID.
He started doing that two decades ago when a trooper gave him a warning after seeing his police department business card, he said.
P-I INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS
King County sheriff's Deputy Michael Behm asked the cop who nabbed him drinking and driving three years ago whether he'd seen the "bear sticker" on the back window of his truck, according to the Buckley police arrest report.
Related content
The bear sticker is one way cops try to get "professional courtesy" from other officers. Marcus Mann, who worked as a police officer for 23 years, explains other ways cops who are stopped try to use their job to influence other police officers.
- Some cops get free passes when stopped for DUI
- From the Case Files: Officers stopped for DUI
More in this special report
During an internal investigation of the DUI, Behm denied referring to the sticker and said he was not seeking special treatment.
Pointing to the little sticker -- a drawing of a striding bear -- could be considered a request from one cop to another for special treatment during a stop.
It's "a suggestion that law enforcement people should get special consideration," said Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor, a 27- year veteran who hates the stickers.
You'll see them on the back windows of private cars at police hangouts, a symbol for "Hey, I'm a cop." They show up, as well, in a few DUI reports when cops are nabbed. Cops in interviews and on chat lines question the value of them, note anyone can buy one and warn that they might attract unwanted attention from savvy criminals.
Pastor would love to ban them. Personally, he is so careful not to tempt favors at a traffic stop that he has two wallets, one containing his civilian ID, including his driver's license, and another with police ID.
He started doing that two decades ago when a trooper gave him a warning after seeing his police department business card, he said.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Man pleads guilty in Kenmore crash
A man whose blood-alcohol level was nearly four times the legal limit when he drove his truck into an off-duty sheriff's deputy on a motorcycle pleaded guilty Tuesday in King County Superior Court to vehicular assault.
King County prosecutors expect to recommend an 18-month prison term for Robert Cedeno, a roofer from Arizona.
King County sheriff's Deputy Donn Potteiger was off-duty and driving his personal motorcycle home to Snohomish County after working at the Seattle Seafair Torchlight Parade when he was struck by Cedeno's truck. The accident occurred as Cedeno drove out of a Kenmore tavern's parking lot onto Highway 522 about 1:35 a.m. July 29.
Potteiger, 56, was severely injured; his right leg was amputated below the knee, and he suffered a torn aorta as well as other internal injuries.
At the time of his arrest, Cedeno had a 0.31 percent blood-alcohol level. The state's measure for intoxication is 0.08 percent.
The standard range for vehicular assault is three to nine months, but prosecutors planned to recommend an exceptional sentence of 18 months because Potteiger was severely injured. The sentencing is scheduled Nov. 2.
Seattle Criminal DefenseMonday, October 1, 2007
Blood-alcohol tests sought as evidence in Hague DUI case
A special prosecutor has asked that blood-alcohol readings recorded by King County Councilmember Jane Hague after her June DUI arrest be readmitted as evidence.
The issue is likely to be considered at a pretrial hearing scheduled Monday afternoon in King County District Court in Redmond.
The special deputy prosecuting attorney, Lynn Moberly, argued in a motion filed last week that an order suppressing the breath samples was improperly granted.
Hague, R-Bellevue, is running for re-election. Her campaign has been troubled by the DUI arrest, a claim in a 1993 candidate's biography claiming a college degree she didn't have and by campaign-finance violations.
The state Public Disclosure Commission voted Thursday to accept an $8,000 fine from Hague to settle a complaint of campaign-finance violations.
As part of the settlement agreement, Hague admitted her campaign missed filing deadlines, accepted eight contributions over the $700 limit per election, failed to adequately disclose information about many donors and committed several other offenses.
Most of the violations occurred during Hague's 2007 re-election campaign.
The PDC action settled complaints brought by Hague's Democratic challenger, attorney Richard Pope.
In the DUI case, Moberly described how oral arguments were made to suppress the blood-alcohol results at Hague's July 30 arraignment, Moberly wrote in the motion.
Judge Peter Nault "signed an order suppressing the blood-alcohol readings on the grounds that the implied-consent warnings were confusing," Moberly wrote.
Moberly argued that Hague, who was charged under the name of Jane Hague Springman, was given an implied-consent warning the night of her arrest, and that she verbally acknowledged the warning and signed a document verifying that she had been warned about the implications of taking the blood-alcohol tests.
Moberly contended several errors were made in allowing the breath-test results to be kept out of court proceedings, including that state law requires a written affidavit from Hague's attorney be filed to support such a decision. The affidavit was not filed, Moberly wrote.
Hague was stopped by a King County deputy June 2 along Highway 520 after he saw her car swerving. She was later administered a breath test by a state trooper at the Clyde Hill police station.
According to the results, Hague provided two samples that resulted in readings of 0.135 and 0.141 percent, higher than the state level of intoxication of 0.08 percent. She was charged with driving under the influence July 16 and has pleaded not guilty.
Moberly was named a special deputy prosecuting attorney in the case Aug. 28 because of possible conflicts of interest involving the King County Prosecutor's Office.
Moberly also asked for a new judge, replacing Nault, although Moberly gave no reason for the request other than to say she didn't believe Nault would be fair and impartial.
The motion for a new judge was denied at a Tuesday hearing, according to court records. No trial date has been set.
Neither Moberly nor Doug Cowan, Hague's attorney, was available for comment.
Peyton Whitely: 206-464-2259
Seattle Times staff reporter Jim Brunner contributed to this story.
Seattle Criminal Defense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)