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.
Experienced legal counsel to cannabis businesses, entrepreneurs, and patients.
Seattle, Washington (206) 728-0200
Friday, October 19, 2007
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 DefenseSaturday, September 29, 2007
SHAPE UP - CA Bar Tells its Lawyers
SACRAMENTO - Did you hear the joke about the two opposing lawyers who were really nice to each other?
No? Don't worry, neither has anyone else.
Concerned that the practice of law has simply gotten too darned mean, the California State Bar this summer authored new "California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism."
The rules are a sort of Miss Manners guide to legal etiquette, instructing lawyers to use appropriate language, not exaggerate about their cases to the media, and try to show some common courtesy when scheduling depositions or serving papers.
State Bar President Sheldon Sloan said he saw the need for the guidelines because of increasing nastiness in the profession.
"I've been practicing a long time and over the years I've noticed a decline in the civility accorded between lawyers in a profession where traditionally the lawyers on opposite sides have gotten along pretty well," Sloan said.
"I really noticed it, frankly, in the large urban areas more than the smaller areas. The truth of the matter is, you can win a case without having to be uncivil to your opponent."
Among the guidelines?
Attorneys should avoid hostile, demeaning or humiliating words.
Attorneys also should be punctual for court appearances, should not disparage the intelligence or ethics of others when they're not relevant to the case, and should not produce disorganized or unintelligible documents during the discovery process.
Sloan said some attorneys play games - such as intentionally scheduling a deposition on an inconvenient day for opposing counsel, such as the Friday after Thanksgiving, or a child's school graduation day.
When asked to reschedule as a courtesy, they refuse. The other attorney then has to complain to the judge, wasting valuable court time to resolve a petty matter.
While the guidelines are nonbinding, Sloan hopes encouraging attorneys to sign a pledge to follow the rules can help rein in bad behavior.
And, he added, judges could decide to use the rules as guidance to impose sanctions when faced with nasty or petty bickering among lawyers in court.
Still, naturally, when many lawyers are involved in an issue of rules, there is plenty of debate. California has more than 210,000 lawyers, more than 156,000 of them actively practicing.
Some attorneys feel that the guidelines are unnecessary, simply because the legal profession already has plenty of rules governing conduct. And with the new guidelines being nonbinding, some think they aren't likely to make rude lawyers suddenly start playing nice.
Within the Los Angeles County Bar Association, two subgroups - the litigation section and the Professional Responsibility & Ethics Committee - opposed the new rules.
"To the extent that there's a civility issue that needs to be addressed - and there always will be and has been since the beginning of the practice of law - we didn't think we needed another set of rules," said Los Angeles attorney Richard J. Burdge Jr. Instead, Burdge, chairman of the County Bar Association's litigation section, suggested that the State Bar should press for more courses on the issues of civility in law schools.
Some experts believe there has always been a lack of courtesy among some elements in the legal profession.
UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who specializes in legal ethics, said the lack of professional courtesy has been a problem for decades, but that the growing size of the profession might be pushing attorneys to be more competitive and aggressive. The larger number of attorneys also makes it less likely for repeat interactions, making it less likely for attorneys to feel obligated to be polite to one another.
Winkler also said the perception of rudeness can sometimes be fed by the proliferation of television shows featuring attorneys - though often real life is worse.
"The public perception of lawyers has been bad for a long time. Television shows don't do anything to make lawyers' reputations better," Winkler said.
"Maybe that enhances the public perception of lawyers lacking civility. But I think people watching those shows might get a better impression than if they saw actual lawyers in practice. Any lawyer who's worked in litigation has seen his share of unprofessional and uncivil conduct."
harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com
Seattle Criminal Defense
No? Don't worry, neither has anyone else.
Concerned that the practice of law has simply gotten too darned mean, the California State Bar this summer authored new "California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism."
The rules are a sort of Miss Manners guide to legal etiquette, instructing lawyers to use appropriate language, not exaggerate about their cases to the media, and try to show some common courtesy when scheduling depositions or serving papers.
State Bar President Sheldon Sloan said he saw the need for the guidelines because of increasing nastiness in the profession.
"I've been practicing a long time and over the years I've noticed a decline in the civility accorded between lawyers in a profession where traditionally the lawyers on opposite sides have gotten along pretty well," Sloan said.
"I really noticed it, frankly, in the large urban areas more than the smaller areas. The truth of the matter is, you can win a case without having to be uncivil to your opponent."
Among the guidelines?
Attorneys should avoid hostile, demeaning or humiliating words.
Attorneys also should be punctual for court appearances, should not disparage the intelligence or ethics of others when they're not relevant to the case, and should not produce disorganized or unintelligible documents during the discovery process.
Sloan said some attorneys play games - such as intentionally scheduling a deposition on an inconvenient day for opposing counsel, such as the Friday after Thanksgiving, or a child's school graduation day.
When asked to reschedule as a courtesy, they refuse. The other attorney then has to complain to the judge, wasting valuable court time to resolve a petty matter.
While the guidelines are nonbinding, Sloan hopes encouraging attorneys to sign a pledge to follow the rules can help rein in bad behavior.
And, he added, judges could decide to use the rules as guidance to impose sanctions when faced with nasty or petty bickering among lawyers in court.
Still, naturally, when many lawyers are involved in an issue of rules, there is plenty of debate. California has more than 210,000 lawyers, more than 156,000 of them actively practicing.
Some attorneys feel that the guidelines are unnecessary, simply because the legal profession already has plenty of rules governing conduct. And with the new guidelines being nonbinding, some think they aren't likely to make rude lawyers suddenly start playing nice.
Within the Los Angeles County Bar Association, two subgroups - the litigation section and the Professional Responsibility & Ethics Committee - opposed the new rules.
"To the extent that there's a civility issue that needs to be addressed - and there always will be and has been since the beginning of the practice of law - we didn't think we needed another set of rules," said Los Angeles attorney Richard J. Burdge Jr. Instead, Burdge, chairman of the County Bar Association's litigation section, suggested that the State Bar should press for more courses on the issues of civility in law schools.
Some experts believe there has always been a lack of courtesy among some elements in the legal profession.
UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who specializes in legal ethics, said the lack of professional courtesy has been a problem for decades, but that the growing size of the profession might be pushing attorneys to be more competitive and aggressive. The larger number of attorneys also makes it less likely for repeat interactions, making it less likely for attorneys to feel obligated to be polite to one another.
Winkler also said the perception of rudeness can sometimes be fed by the proliferation of television shows featuring attorneys - though often real life is worse.
"The public perception of lawyers has been bad for a long time. Television shows don't do anything to make lawyers' reputations better," Winkler said.
"Maybe that enhances the public perception of lawyers lacking civility. But I think people watching those shows might get a better impression than if they saw actual lawyers in practice. Any lawyer who's worked in litigation has seen his share of unprofessional and uncivil conduct."
harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com
Seattle Criminal Defense
Two Shot in Burien
Two people were rushed to Harborview Medical Center on Friday night after being shot in Burien. Police responded to the 1800 block of Southwest 116th Street about 10:20 p.m. after an argument escalated into a shooting, authorities said. Police believe they have identified the gunman, and were trying to locate him. The suspect is believed to have fled in a blue sedan. The victims' conditions were not immediately known.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
State's new felony DUI law put to use
Man looks at 5th conviction in 10 years
A Bothell man with a long history of drunken driving is the first person in King County to be charged under a new state law that makes a fifth DUI conviction a felony.
On Wednesday, prosecutors charged Karl Solid, 44, with one count of felony driving under the influence. A Washington State Patrol trooper reported seeing Solid's car drift off state Route 522 near Bothell and swerve into other lanes Saturday night.
Solid's blood-alcohol level was measured at 0.28 percent, according to charging papers. That is more than three times the legal limit.
If convicted as charged, Solid will face six to eight years in prison. Interim Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg said Solid's latest arrest is the kind of case the Legislature had in mind when it passed the new law, which makes a fifth DUI in 10 years a class C felony. The law took effect in July.
"By the time a driver has five DUI convictions, they are a clear and present danger to public safety," Satterberg said in a statement.
According to charging documents, Trooper Brian Dixon watched Solid's Honda Accord swerving and drifting off the road near Interstate 405.
When Dixon tried to pull Solid over, he continued driving, then stalled and drifted backward until he almost collided with the trooper's car.
The trooper saw that Dixon's face, shirt and arms were covered in blood. Solid said he had fallen going from his house to his car, "because he had been drinking," according to the trooper's account in charging papers. Dixon said Solid was so impaired that he had to hold him upright.
King County prosecutors said Solid has eight DUI-related convictions in Western Washington dating back to 1991. Five occurred in the past 10 years.
When arrested Saturday, Solid was driving on a revoked license. He also was on probation from a deferred DUI prosecution last year.
Solid, who also has theft and forgery convictions, remained in the King County Jail on Wednesday on $250,000 bail.
He is scheduled for arraignment Oct. 3.
Judge violated regulations in keeping teen out of prison
By showing mercy to a teenager and keeping him out of state prison, a King County judge has flummoxed Department of Corrections officials who say the decision to sentence the youth to home detention was improper -- and, in fact, against the law.
Friday, Superior Court Judge Harry McCarthy listened to an hour of tearful testimony from the family of Jordan Jantoc, 17, who accidentally shot his stepbrother to death in their basement bedroom a year ago and pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter.
The teen's mother, stepfather and siblings pleaded for leniency, pointing out that the boy had no criminal record and that the shooting was unintentional. Time in prison, they said, would only harden the impressionable youth.
McCarthy agreed, ruling that Jantoc should spend 24 months on electronic home-monitoring. For the last year, the teen has been doing just that, living under his parents' supervision and not setting foot outside of their Boulevard Park home, except for school.
But according to the King County Prosecutor's Office, Corrections said no. Under state law, home detention is not available to offenders convicted of a violent offense. And it is also not to be levied for more than one year.
"This is an unusual case, and the judge was trying to do something creative," said Mark Larson, chief deputy prosecutor. "That creative sentence was not something the DOC was comfortable implementing. They are not the Department of Creative Alternatives, and they have very strict guidelines by which they handle offenders."
Deputy Prosecutor Don Raz had initially recommended a three-year sentence for Jantoc. And Larson noted that it is up to Corrections -- not the judge -- to determine exactly where that time should be served.
But McCarthy appears to have made the decision himself. The judge did not return a call seeking comment.
For Jantoc's family -- whipsawed between joy at the initial home-detention decision and fear at the sudden roadblock -- the latest wrinkle comes as a shock.
"Can you believe this?" said Lena Jantoc, the teen's mother. "Isn't the judge the one who's supposed to make these decisions? When I found out, I was trying not to cry. Are they going to put my son in jail now? We're all so worried."
Matthew King, the boy's lawyer, said he wasn't surprised at the glitch.
"We were hoping, frankly, that this would fly under the radar," King said. "There have been cases at DOC where they don't pick up on an error and let it slide."
He plans to meet with Raz and offer a proposal to McCarthy that would achieve the same end, keeping the youth at home but through alternate means. One method might be to set a new sentencing date far enough into the future that credit for time served -- at home and under his parents' supervision -- would take care of the two-year problem.
Larson seemed to concur.
"This is an unusual case," he said. "We were not advocates of this particular outcome, but we're not going to stamp our feet and be sore losers."
A hearing with McCarthy has been set for Oct. 5.
Friday, September 21, 2007
TVW excerpt on Tox declarations
Washington State Supreme Court held on September 11, 2007 9:00amOral Arguments: Paul D. Ingram & Bryan L. Delong vs. WA Dept. of Licensing (consolidated case) -- The State Toxicologist declares that all WA breathalyzers have approved thermometers - is his declaration admissible at a license suspension hearing?)
Please click here to watch video or paste this url into your browser address bar: http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?EvId=2007090080C
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Audit: WSP toxicology lab 'severely deficient'
An audit of the Washington State Patrol crime lab a month after it lost the blood samples in the Fred Russell case disclosed that lab workers had lost or broken hundreds of blood vials during a transfer between freezers.
The audit also identified problems with record-keeping that former lab manager Ann Marie Gordon – who resigned in July amid a criminal investigation – told auditors she didn’t have time to perform properly.
“WSP policies and required procedures appear to be of secondary concern to lab personnel,” the audit report of Aug. 20, 2004, concludes. “Achievement in top priority areas is commendable. Accurate record-keeping and quarterly auditing as required by Patrol policies and CALEA standards is severely deficient.”
The audit is part of a court filing by defense attorneys for Russell, who is charged in a car crash on the Moscow-Pullman Highway in 2001 that left three dead. Shortly before his trial was to begin in October of that year, Russell fled the country and wasn’t caught again until last October.
Russell is asking a judge to dismiss the charges based on the fact that he can’t conduct independent tests of his blood, which was apparently accidentally destroyed in July 2004.
Russell will be back in Whitman County Superior Court today for a hearing on motions before Judge David Frazier.
An expanding scandal around Gordon in recent months has added ammunition to the defense case. After a state investigation, King County prosecutors are now deciding whether Gordon should face criminal charges for falsely asserting – in sworn documents and court testimony -- that she had tested blood samples that she hadn’t.
“Evidence suggesting that Ms. Gordon has routinely provided false testimony under the penalty of perjury is not only relevant to the issues in Mr. Russell’s case, but establishes misconduct by the State that is so deeply rooted and systemic that it taints the entire proceedings,” defense attorneys argued in court filings Sept. 13.
Prosecutors contend the results of Russell’s blood test should be admitted into evidence, saying the destruction of the samples was a mistake and that the test is corroborated by a hospital blood test.
Russell is charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and three counts of vehicular assault. The blood evidence is a key piece in the prosecution’s case, but he could still be convicted without it, if the state can prove he was negligent or reckless.
Attempts to reach attorneys in the case were unsuccessful Wednesday.
Russell’s attorneys have also asked the judge to move the trial out of Whitman County, where they say overwhelming publicity has made it impossible to seat an impartial jury. But Frazier ruled in July that he’d try to seat a jury first in Whitman County before deciding whether to move the trial. If he becomes convinced that it’s impossible, he said at the time, he’d have a backup plan to go to a nearby county and begin forming a jury pool.
In court filings earlier this month, Russell’s attorney, Francisco Duarte, argues that problems at the WSP lab have been confounded by difficulties getting records in discovery from prosecutors. He says that all the problems add up to misconduct that threatens Russell’s right to a fair trial.
He said Gordon’s destruction of two vials of Russell’s blood is only part of the problem. In the court filings, he said the state failed to promptly and thoroughly investigate what happened – officials say the blood was accidentally destroyed along with a batch of outdated samples, but the only probe of the destruction was conducted by Gordon herself.
Duarte raises several concerns about her account of the missing vials, noting that a WSP sergeant had questioned whether the proper procedures were followed and that log sheets on the vials offer different “notations as to its status.” Given the questionable information surrounding the matter, Duarte writes, it’s impossible to say for sure that the samples were destroyed.
Meanwhile, Gordon was being investigated for allegedly signing affidavits repeatedly claiming that she had performed blood tests in hundreds of cases where that testing was actually done by someone else. She resigned and has been unavailable as a witness because of those questions – which means that Duarte can’t question her.
Russell’s blood was apparently destroyed in July 2004, and it was discovered missing in February 2005.
In August 2004, an audit of the lab noted problems that occurred when samples where moved from an old freezer to a new one. After the move, 121 tubes were unaccounted for. Gordon told auditors the vials had been destroyed, but there was no record of that.
Another 122 tubes were destroyed and recorded, but no date of the destruction was marked down. And 295 vials were broken during the move.
Gordon told auditors that it wasn’t a problem because the samples were older than the nine months that samples are typically saved.
Auditors also noted that Gordon had not filed the proper forms for the destruction of blood evidence and was failing to track public records requests. In both cases, Gordon told auditors she didn’t have time to follow the procedures.
“Lab manager is resistant to change,” the audit says. “States that she is too busy to do things the way the Patrol wants them done.”
Friday, September 14, 2007
Circuit Judges Define Moral Turpitude
Justin Scheck
The Recorder
September 14, 2007 Critics pan the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for any number of reasons, from its size to its politics, but if there's one thing above reproach, it's the court's nuanced view of moral turpitude. The court has been known to engage in long, esoteric debates on what Merriam-Webster defines as "inherent baseness" or "depravity." On Wednesday, the evolving definition settled here: Drunken driving isn't turpitude. Drunken driving without a license is. That's the stark message resident aliens will have to keep in mind, because moral turpitude is grounds for deportation. Writing for the majority in Marmolejo-Campos v. Gonzales, 07 C.D.O.S. 10982, Judge Consuelo Callahan found that, when combined, the two factors sink to the level of turpitude. "Driving while intoxicated is despicable, and when coupled with the knowledge that one has been specifically forbidden to drive, it becomes 'an act of baseness, violence or depravity in the private and social duties which a person shows to a fellowman or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty,'" Callahan wrote, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court definition of turpitude. She was joined by Senior Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California, who was sitting by designation. Senior Judge Dorothy Nelson disagreed, with vehemence, going so far as to accuse her colleagues of sophistry. She said that despite the fact that the definition of turpitude is "nebulous," it's clear to her that driving drunk without a license doesn't qualify. "It is well settled that driving while intoxicated is not a morally turpitudinous act," she wrote. "Nonetheless, the majority concludes that Campos's act of drunk driving was transformed into a turpitudinous offense because he was not legally licensed to drive." Nelson pointed out that certain crimes -- such as fraud, murder and child abuse -- always entail turpitude. "On the other hand," she continued, "burglary, assault and battery, malicious mischief, alien smuggling, assault with a deadly weapon, indecency, rioting, and money laundering have all been found not to involve moral turpitude." In the case of Armando Marmolejo-Campos -- who had a history of drunken-driving offenses preceding the one at issue -- Nelson said the most serious of his offenses was driving while drunk. And since the 9th Circuit has previously ruled that multiple instances of intoxicated motoring didn't amount to turpitude, the less serious violation of driving without a license shouldn't change the depravity level of the crime. "In sum," she concluded, "while I certainly recognize that driving while intoxicated can have serious and harmful consequences, I am unable to concur in an opinion that contravenes well-established law and is belied by logic." For its vocal dissent and majority opinion that includes a non-circuit judge, the Marmolejo-Campos case could be ripe for en banc review. If so, it would be the second time in the last year that an expanded panel has taken on questions of turpitude: In December, an en banc panel heard arguments on whether being an accessory to a crime involves turpitude after a three-judge panel had split on the issue. The judges haven't ruled on that case yet.
The Recorder
September 14, 2007 Critics pan the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for any number of reasons, from its size to its politics, but if there's one thing above reproach, it's the court's nuanced view of moral turpitude. The court has been known to engage in long, esoteric debates on what Merriam-Webster defines as "inherent baseness" or "depravity." On Wednesday, the evolving definition settled here: Drunken driving isn't turpitude. Drunken driving without a license is. That's the stark message resident aliens will have to keep in mind, because moral turpitude is grounds for deportation. Writing for the majority in Marmolejo-Campos v. Gonzales, 07 C.D.O.S. 10982, Judge Consuelo Callahan found that, when combined, the two factors sink to the level of turpitude. "Driving while intoxicated is despicable, and when coupled with the knowledge that one has been specifically forbidden to drive, it becomes 'an act of baseness, violence or depravity in the private and social duties which a person shows to a fellowman or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty,'" Callahan wrote, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court definition of turpitude. She was joined by Senior Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California, who was sitting by designation. Senior Judge Dorothy Nelson disagreed, with vehemence, going so far as to accuse her colleagues of sophistry. She said that despite the fact that the definition of turpitude is "nebulous," it's clear to her that driving drunk without a license doesn't qualify. "It is well settled that driving while intoxicated is not a morally turpitudinous act," she wrote. "Nonetheless, the majority concludes that Campos's act of drunk driving was transformed into a turpitudinous offense because he was not legally licensed to drive." Nelson pointed out that certain crimes -- such as fraud, murder and child abuse -- always entail turpitude. "On the other hand," she continued, "burglary, assault and battery, malicious mischief, alien smuggling, assault with a deadly weapon, indecency, rioting, and money laundering have all been found not to involve moral turpitude." In the case of Armando Marmolejo-Campos -- who had a history of drunken-driving offenses preceding the one at issue -- Nelson said the most serious of his offenses was driving while drunk. And since the 9th Circuit has previously ruled that multiple instances of intoxicated motoring didn't amount to turpitude, the less serious violation of driving without a license shouldn't change the depravity level of the crime. "In sum," she concluded, "while I certainly recognize that driving while intoxicated can have serious and harmful consequences, I am unable to concur in an opinion that contravenes well-established law and is belied by logic." For its vocal dissent and majority opinion that includes a non-circuit judge, the Marmolejo-Campos case could be ripe for en banc review. If so, it would be the second time in the last year that an expanded panel has taken on questions of turpitude: In December, an en banc panel heard arguments on whether being an accessory to a crime involves turpitude after a three-judge panel had split on the issue. The judges haven't ruled on that case yet.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
WA - 60 Day MJ Supply Workshops
Nathan Miller, MPP legislative analyst
Yesterday, the Washington state Department of Health wrapped up the second of four workshops to determine what constitutes a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
The workshops have gone well so far, with many people pointing out issues and submitting their thoughts on what they believe should constitute a 60-day supply of medicine. Visit http://www3.doh.wa.gov/policyreview/ViewAllComments.asp?ID=416&DocumentTitle=WAC%20246-XXX%2060-Day%20Supply%20of%20Medical%20Marijuana to read the comments that have been posted so far.
Next week's workshops will be held September 17 and 19, in Vancouver and Yakima respectively. If you attend, please dress professionally and be courteous to everyone in attendance, including any opposition. Visit http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/MtgLoc.htm for more information.
If you cannot attend, you may submit comments by going to the Department of Health's Web site at http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/ and clicking on "post comment," located on the right-hand side of the page. You may submit your comments anonymously.
To sign up for updates from the Department of Health on this issue, send an e-mail to medicalmarijuana@doh.wa.gov and ask to be put on their mailing list. You can also visit https://ssl.capwiz.com/mpp/issues/alert/?alertid=10298521 to send your comments about the 60-day supply issue directly to the Department of Health.
Please visit our Web site at http://wa.mpp.org to stay up-to-date on the status of marijuana policy reform in Washington. You may also send an e-mail to Nathan@mpp.org if you have any questions. Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project and all of our allies.
Yesterday, the Washington state Department of Health wrapped up the second of four workshops to determine what constitutes a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
The workshops have gone well so far, with many people pointing out issues and submitting their thoughts on what they believe should constitute a 60-day supply of medicine. Visit http://www3.doh.wa.gov/policyreview/ViewAllComments.asp?ID=416&DocumentTitle=WAC%20246-XXX%2060-Day%20Supply%20of%20Medical%20Marijuana to read the comments that have been posted so far.
Next week's workshops will be held September 17 and 19, in Vancouver and Yakima respectively. If you attend, please dress professionally and be courteous to everyone in attendance, including any opposition. Visit http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/MtgLoc.htm for more information.
If you cannot attend, you may submit comments by going to the Department of Health's Web site at http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/ and clicking on "post comment," located on the right-hand side of the page. You may submit your comments anonymously.
To sign up for updates from the Department of Health on this issue, send an e-mail to medicalmarijuana@doh.wa.gov and ask to be put on their mailing list. You can also visit https://ssl.capwiz.com/mpp/issues/alert/?alertid=10298521 to send your comments about the 60-day supply issue directly to the Department of Health.
Please visit our Web site at http://wa.mpp.org to stay up-to-date on the status of marijuana policy reform in Washington. You may also send an e-mail to Nathan@mpp.org if you have any questions. Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project and all of our allies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)