Judge's DUI rulings eyed

By Peyton Whitely
Seattle Times Eastside bureau

There are enough questions about the rulings of the judge presiding in the drunken-driving case against King County Councilmember Jane Hague that failed challenges of his jurisdiction in three Woodinville cases may be appealed, a King County Superior Court judge ruled Friday.

In each of the cases before the court Friday, prosecutors had challenged King County District Court Judge Peter Nault and requested another judge. In each case, the challenge was denied, and Nault continued to handle the cases.

Prosecutors also challenged Nault in Hague's case, and Nault denied the challenge.

"There's a common thread running through them: the suppression of breath tests," said Mark Nelson, attorney for the city of Woodinville, which filed the three appeals heard Friday. Nault ruled Wednesday that the results of blood-alcohol tests administered to Hague in June should not be admitted at her trial, now set for February.

Nelson, whose firm Moberly & Roberts also has been assigned as a special prosecutor in the Hague case, said no decision has been made about whether to appeal Nault's decision to suppress Hague's breath-test results, but the appeals of the Woodinville cases raise similar issues.

The appeals seek to force Nault to explain his decisions, said Nelson.

"We want to know why, essentially," he said.

While similar, the cases are not identical, Nelson added. Hague was arrested by the State Patrol on Highway 520 after her car was seen swerving; the Woodinville cases involve arrests by Woodinville police.

The appeals heard Friday were filed Nov. 8, and underlying all three are Nault's record on breath-test decisions, Nelson said.

Rejections of challenges to Nault in the East Division of King County District Court have been occurring for months, Nelson said. The three Woodinville cases were selected for appeal from 10 disputed cases involving Nault.

While the specific reason for the appeals was the rejection of the affidavits of prejudice, Nelson added, the underlying purpose for originally filing the affidavits was Nault's continued denial of allowing breath-test results to be admitted in trials.

"We don't agree with his suppression of BAC [blood-alcohol content] evidence in implied-consent cases," Nelson said.

Implied-consent allows law-enforcement agencies to take breath or blood samples of drivers suspected in DUI cases without having to obtain a search warrant or court order.

State law provides that a driver, in effect, gives consent for such tests in return for the privilege of using public roadways.

The three Woodinville cases involve accusations of fourth-degree assault and of DUI.

In each case, prosecutors filed motions in October asking for another judge, and in each case, the motions were denied by Pro Tem Judge Norm Leopold, who was substituting for Nault, with the result that Nault continued to hear the cases.

Leopold and Nault "acted in excess of jurisdiction, illegally, and committed a clear error of law in denying the petitioner's timely motion for change of judge," argued Nelson in the appeals.

Superior Court Judge Helen Halpert said she would grant the appeal, allowing the matter to be heard in Superior Court, although she was not ruling on the merits of the cases. She set a Jan. 11 deadline for the parties to file responses to her ruling; a trial date will be set later.

Neither Nault nor Leopold appeared; they were represented by the civil division of the King County Prosecutor's Office because they're county employees.

Peyton Whitely: 206-464-2259 or pwhitely@seattletimes.com

Bogus cop tries to beat traffic

By HECTOR CASTRO
P-I REPORTER

For the third time in less than a month, Washington State Patrol troopers have arrested someone impersonating a law enforcement officer.

Thursday, drivers began calling 911 just before 4:30 p.m. when a man in a Ford Mustang was seen flashing blue emergency lights in an effort to push through traffic in the northbound lanes of Interstate 5 in Pierce County.

Troopers stopped the Mustang and found blue lights mounted on the grill and around the rear bumper. The driver also had a speaker near the front of the car that emitted sounds much like a police siren.

The driver, a 25-year-old Tacoma man, allegedly told troopers that the lights and siren were just for show. Troopers arrested him for impersonating a police officer and booked him into the Pierce County Jail.

Blue lights mounted in vehicles are legal for law enforcement only, the State Patrol reported.

In early November, troopers arrested two other Pierce County men, in separate cases, for impersonating police officers. One man was in a 1993 Ford Crown Victoria, with spotlight and push bars, when he tried to get traffic on Interstate 5 to move out of his way.

Judge tosses Hague's breath test in DUI case

By Peyton Whitely
Seattle Times Eastside bureau

The results of a breath test obtained from King County Councilwoman Jane Hague after she was pulled over for suspected drunken driving cannot be used in court because she was not properly warned of the implications of consenting to the test, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling will make it harder for prosecutors to win a conviction against Hague, who was arrested after a King County sheriff's deputy stopped her June 2 on Highway 520. Court records show Hague's blood-alcohol readings were 0.135 and 0.141 percent; the state's level of intoxication is 0.08.

But jurors in her trial will not be allowed to hear testimony on the readings after Wednesday's ruling by King County District Court Judge Peter Nault, which turns on the wording of the warning given to drunken-driving suspects before blood-alcohol tests are administered.

The portion of the warning that Nault found to be lacking pertains to what drivers are told can result once they submit to a blood or breath test. The warning indicates that drivers who are under 21 could lose their driving privileges if they are found to be in violation of two state laws pertaining to drunken driving but fails to provide the same specific warning for drivers 21 and older.

Defense attorney William Kirk argued Wednesday that the warnings would seem to apply only to drivers younger than 21. A properly worded warning would use language that made it clear that it pertained to all motorists, "regardless of age," he said.

"I have heard this argument quite a few times," said Nault, who said the warnings law-enforcement officers give in administering the breath tests are inadequate.

Lynn Moberly, special prosecutor in the case, said Nault's decision was "very disappointing." But she said it is possible to win a DUI case without using breath-test results.

"It makes it more difficult," she said, although officer statements and physical evidence still can be used at trial.

According to the charges, Hague was eastbound on 520 near the east end of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge at 11:03 p.m. June 2 when a deputy saw her car nearly hit the median divider twice. The deputy stopped the car and called the State Patrol for assistance. Hague was arrested and taken to the Clyde Hill Police Department, where the breath test was administered.

Hague, 61, had said she had attended a charity dinner in Seattle where she had "a couple glasses" of wine and was returning to her Bellevue home when she was stopped.

Hague was charged with DUI under her married name of Jane Hague Springman on July 16. She pleaded not guilty July 30.

The argument used by Hague's attorney in seeking to exclude the test results isn't new and is among many that attorneys use to fight DUI prosecution, defense attorneys say. In fact, the law was revised in 2004 after several years of successful challenges to the breath-testing process.

But even the 2004 revision opened the door to challenges, including one that threw out the breath test of former Seattle Sonic Rashard Lewis after he was stopped for suspected drunken driving in October 2005 on Mercer Island. His argument, like that used by hundreds of other defendants, was that legislators had overstepped their authority in writing the law and leaving judges with little discretion in accepting the tests. Lewis eventually pleaded guilty to reckless driving.

"In the last three or four years, [blood-alcohol] readings have been suppressed about 50 percent of the time for various reasons, including implied-consent warnings," said Kurt Boehl, a Seattle criminal-defense attorney.

The state's implied-consent law, which is at the center of the Hague ruling, requires that anyone holding a Washington state driver's license must consent to blood or breath tests if an officer suspects intoxicated driving. Failure to do so could result in the loss of the driver's license.

The effect is that when people drive, they give up a right that would be applied in other crimes. That right involves constitutional provisions that a defendant doesn't have to incriminate himself and is innocent until proved guilty.

In a theft case, for example, police would have to get a search warrant to get samples of someone's blood. In a DUI case, a driver, through the implied-consent agreement, has acknowledged that it's OK for police to take a blood sample.

But Kirk, Hague's attorney, argued Wednesday that application of the implied-consent law depends on drivers agreeing to the tests "knowingly and intelligently" and after "having been fully informed of the consequences."

As written, Kirk argued, the warning given to Hague was incomplete and failed to fully document the consequences of allowing the test to be administered.

"The blame doesn't lie with the State Patrol," said Kirk, but rather with the language the Legislature adopted in 2004.

Also Wednesday, Nault approved a tentative schedule in the Hague case that calls for jury selection to begin Jan. 31 and a trial to be held Feb. 5-8.

During Wednesday's hearing Nault asked that the blood-alcohol readings not be reported by the media in order to comply with guidelines relating to the discussion of evidence before trial. The results were made public in August, however, and have been reported previously.

Hague was present in the Redmond courtroom but said nothing during the proceedings and left without comment. Hague, a Republican, won re-election over challenger Richard Pope earlier this month. Her council district includes Mercer Island, Kirkland and most of Bellevue.

Moberly, who was named a special deputy prosecuting attorney in the case Aug. 28 because of a potential conflict of interest involving the King County Prosecutor's Office, had previously asked for a new judge. Initially, Moberly gave no reason for the request other than to say she didn't think Nault would be fair and impartial. But in a subsequent affidavit she cited alleged irregularities in arraignment proceedings and a failure by Nault to follow court rules.

Nault denied Moberly's request Wednesday, saying she had failed to file the affidavit in a timely fashion.

State Patrol spokesman Jeff Merrill said he was not surprised by Nault's ruling, which he said was consistent with rulings the judge has made in other drunken-driving cases.

"We will continue to arrest impaired drivers wherever and whenever we find them," Merrill said. "At some point society needs to conduct an analysis of the process and see where the breakdown is in the judicial process."

Peyton Whitely: 206-464-2259 or pwhitely@seattletimes.com

Seattle Times staff reporter Jennifer Sullivan contributed to this report.

Seattle police hunting serial groper

By SCOTT GUTIERREZ
P-I REPORTER

Seattle police are searching for man who has accosted several women in South Seattle the past few months.

The suspect sneaks up behind women near bus stops to grope them. The latest incident was reported Wednesday, police said.

Most of the attacks were reported on Beacon Avenue South, from South Columbia Way to South Cloverdale Street, and near 45th Avenue South. The man apparently is targeting Asian women.

The suspect was described as black, in his late teens to early 30s, and wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt with blue jeans, police said.

Hague DUI trial set for February; judge won't allow breath test results

By GREGORY ROBERTS
P-I REPORTER

The drunken driving trial of King County Councilwoman Jane Hague has been scheduled for February -- but breath test results from her arrest can't be used as evidence against her, a judge decided Wednesday.

Hague, 61, was arrested the night of June 2 while driving on State Route 520, police said. Hague has pleaded not guilty.

She failed two breath tests of blood alcohol level, police said. A Breathalyzer registered her breath-alcohol content in two readings at .135 and .141, according to the citation. The legal limit is .08.

But County District Judge Peter Nault ruled Wednesday that the breath tests can't be used in the trail because of defects in implying Hague's consent to them, her lawyer, William Kirk, and prosecutor Lynn Moberly said. The issue has been successfully raised by defendants in other drunk-driving cases.

Prosecutors could still use physical evidence and statements made by police officers.

The deputy who pulled Hague over said she told him she had consumed two glasses of wine that night. He described the councilwoman as "sarcastic and condescending" during her arrest.

Hague later issued a statement apologizing for her behavior during the arrest.

Hague, a Bellevue Republican, was re-elected Nov. 6, defeating Richard Pope, a perennial candidate who ran as a Democrat without the party's support.

Pope made an issue of Hague's arrest in the campaign and his complaints led to the suspension of an interim judge who presided over a hearing in the case.

Nault was scheduled to preside at the October hearing but was absent.

Pope e-mailed court officials and cited the interim judge' s conviction on criminal misdemeanor charges in 2001 and 2005 and questioned his fitness to serve as a pro tem judge.

County District Court Chief Presiding Judge Barbara Linde responded by directing the court to refrain from using the man as a pro tem judge pending further investigation.

Former Tacoma Police officer, girlfriend plead guilty to child rape

By RAY LANE / KING 5 News

TACOMA, Wash. – A man who vowed to protect the public with the Tacoma Police Department for three decades pleaded guilty Monday to charges of raping and molesting children.

Retired police officer Lee William Giles, Jr. and his girlfriend, Maureen Wear, agreed to plea deals that will send them to prison for at least 20 years.

Giles, 61, and Ware pleaded guilty to first- and second-degree child rape, first-degree child molestation and third-degree child assault.

From the very beginning, the allegations against Giles were stunning. Prosecutors say Giles repeatedly raped his own girlfriend's young son over a period of years, videotaped the crimes, and that Wear – the victim's own mother – was involved in the attacks.

Court papers indicated that other female family members were also victimized. It was Mounting, gut-wrenching evidence that would doom either defendant during a trial.

"There would have been a lot of graphic evidence if this case would have gone to trial," said prosecutor John Sheeran.

That was something Giles and Ware could not ignore.

"I think foremost in Mr. Giles mind, he did not want to put the children through a trial. There were clearly some issues that we thought could be contested during trial. We had pending motions to suppress evidence based on the search warrants, but I think this came down to he wanting to put this behind not only him, but members of his family also," said Giles' attorney, Michael Schwartz.

Sentencing for both Giles and Ware is set for about a month from now. Prosecutors say the victims themselves might be in court those days to watch the two people who terrorized them go to prison for a long time.

"Close to 20 years. Just short of 20 years to life. It's 236 months, and a lifetime sentence in the sense that the Department of Corrections has determined that it's safe to release them," said Sheeran.

Giles faced 17 different counts altogether, but because of the plea deal, that was knocked down to four counts.

Since Giles was a police officer, he most likely will not serve his prison time in a Washington state prison, but rather be sent out of state.

Jogger assaulted in West Seattle

By ELISA HAHN / KING 5 News

SEATTLE – The search is on for a man who assaulted a jogger Monday afternoon at Lincoln Park - a popular West Seattle park and a favorite for joggers.

Many assume it’s safe, at least in the daylight. But Monday at about 3:45 p.m., a woman in her 30’s was attacked by a man while jogging on a trail in the south end of the park.

The suspect jumped her and threw her down.

The woman fought back and the suspect fled into a nearby neighborhood.

“I hit him on the ankle. I wish I could have run a little faster, but I’m 41 years old,” said one witness who tried to chase the man down.

Seattle Police combed the neighborhood just east of Lincoln Park searching for the suspect.

The suspect is 25 to 35 years old, about 5-foot-7, with light brown hair, possibly balding. He was wearing a white, oversized sweatshirt with a pattern on it, and gray sweatpants.

Officers searched the neighborhood for at least 2 hours, but the suspect got away.

It was not clear if the suspect’s motive was sexual assault, abduction or robbery.

The victim suffered only minor injuries and did not need medical attention.

Man killed in SR 512 crash may have been street racing

By JANE McCARTHY / KING 5 News

PUYALLUP, Wash. - The Washington State Patrol is looking for two drivers who may have been involved in a fatal crash that troopers say was probably partly caused by street racing on SR 512 west of Puyallup early Monday.

Troopers say at about 1:45 a.m., 30-year-old Matthew Shipman was driving in the westbound direction, most likely racing another unidentified vehicle, when he lost control of his 2002 Volkswagen Golf, crossed the median under the barrier and slammed head-on into a semi truck.

"According to witnesses a second vehicle possibly racing the Volkswagen, cut the Volkswagen off. The Volkswagen had to make an erratic movement," said Brandy Kessler, Washington State Patrol.

Shipman's car blasted under the cable median and smashed into a semi-truck head-on.

Shipman was killed. The driver of the semi was okay, but very shaken up.

"He had no time to react or respond to this car it was just immediately was in front of him," said Kessler.

The drivers of the two other vehicles that may have been racing did not stop. Now, the state patrol wants to track them down.

If this is indeed an accident related to racing, it is one of several such deadly accidents in Pierce County as of late. State troopers say it should serve as a reminder of how quickly things can go wrong at high speeds.

"There's so many factors involved that can cause you to go off the road in a split second and be tragic and fatal," said Kessler.

A friend of Shipman says the young father was not the type that would be racing down the freeway.

The State Patrol wants to know if there is more to this story, that's why they want the drivers of those two other vehicles or anyone who witnessed the crash to step forward.

As for why Shipman's car crashed through the cable barriers, the Washington State Department of Transportation says it is waiting for results of the state patrol investigation to see if they need to make any changes with that cable barrier.

Police arrest 'hoodie bandit' suspec

KING5.com staff

SEATTLE – Police say they've arrested the "hoodie bandit," a man suspected of robbing nine businesses in King and Snohomish counties within two weeks.

The suspect, 19 years old, lives with his mother in the Woodinville area. He was booked into King County Jail at 8:45 p.m. Thursday on one count of robbery, which occured Wednesday at a Baskin Robbins in Kingsgate. Other counts of robbery are expected at the time charges are filed. He is due in court Friday afternoon.

Since November 5, police say the suspect, who always wears a hooded sweatshirt, has robbed the Baskin Robbins, two Subway shops, two Shell stations, a 76 station, an AM PM, a wine and cigar store and a shop called Save-On Bev.

"He does have a criminal record, he's not unknown to the sheriff's office and local police, but boy, the number of robberies he did was really escalating," said John Urquhart, of the King County Sheriff's Department.

The suspect always used a semi-automatic handgun and he wasn't afraid to jump over the counter and confront the clerk. Police say he carried a backpack for the money he stole.

He covered his face with a ski mask or bandana. Most robberies took place between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., but the Baskin Robbins robbery happened mid-day.

His gun had police worried.

"We're afraid this is going to escalate and either a clerk or a customer that is going to walk in on this robbery is going to get shot," Urquhart said earlier this week.

War protesters clash with police in Olympia

KING5.com staff

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Members of the Olympia Port Militarization Resistance planted themselves at the main gate of the Port of Olympia Friday night in an attempt to block military traffic.

The anti-war protesters remained there through the night, and say they succeeded in blocking at least two military vehicles.

By Saturday morning, the Olympian newspaper reported that police were able to clear the entrance to the port.

But protesters remained in the area, and have tried to block more military traffic again. Police in riot gear used pepper-spray and batons to break them up, and a KING 5 reporter saw two protesters being taken into custody this morning.

At one point protesters began throwing large debris into the roadway to block military traffic, but when they realized it was the wrong thing to do, they helped clear the debris.

According to a press release, OlyPMR was founded in 2006 when "Olympia peace activists attempted to block outgoing Strykers and other military equipment in advance of the deployment of the 3rd Brigade Stryker Team from Ft. Lewis."

This week, the group released this statement:

"We oppose Olympia's complicity in a war whose disastrous effects have been felt worldwide and we will actively resist the use of Olympia's port to further that war ... Through nonviolent actions we intend to stop the Port of Olympia from becoming a revolving door of military machinery furthering illegal war."

Michigan Police Officer Calls 911 After Eating Pot Brownies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.