DUI Defender

Following the conclusion of the 3 judge panel regarding the “culture of compromise,” Barry Logan the director of the Washington State Patrol Laboratory announced his resignation. At the conclusion of the investigation and the ultimate decision rendered by the panel relating to the failures of the crime lab to protect the rights of the accused and the integrity of the laboratory procedures. While the Director will stay on until March to oversee the changes in procedures to ensure that the problems raised by the old regime are cleaned up.

Earlier this week a three judge panel finally concluded the drama in King County regarding the Washington State Patrol’s Toxicology Laboratory and oversight of breath testing program. The 29 page indictment found that many of the safeguards employed in proper laboratory protocols were not followed and in fact ignored by the Lab Manager, Anne Marie Gordon.

The panel found that Ms. Gordon authenticated test solutions that were prepared by other laboratory personnel without independent validation. The laboratory protocols called for calibration/accuracy testing solutions to be prepared and independently tested by the lab personnel. The importance of these solutions rests in that the entire breath testing program relies on the accuracy of the solutions to validate the measurements taken by breath testing equipment. The solutions are heated and the vapor is used to simulate human breath, that vapor is measured by the breath testing equipment and the result is compared to the “known” value. Of course, the problem arises when the “known” value isn’t actually “known” and the machines are calibrated to the unknown value. Without knowing what the machine is actually measuring it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the accused citizen’s breath test.

The panel found that other procedures were employed by the lab that resulted in a “culture of compromise.”

A couple of weeks ago, Matt Roloff, one of stars of the television show, Little People Big World went to trial on charges that he drove his car while he was under the influence of alcohol and failed to maintain his lane. He was arrested in 2006 however it took until earlier this month for his case to actually go to trial. He stated that he was driving his wife’s car that was outfitted with pedals custom fit for her, therefore her car couldn’t accomdate his stature, the arresting officer indicated that he could detect a moderate odor of alcohol and Mr. Roloff declined to provide a chemical test.

While the Jury was deliberating, one of the jurors searched the internet for additional information, this is forbidden as a Jury may only properly consider evidence and argument provided during the trial. Instead of requesting a mistrial for juror misconduct, Mr. Roloff’s attorney waived the jury and requested the Judge to make a decision based on the evidence, that decision was “not guilty.”

As law enforcement steps up its efforts to investigate and subsequently arrest more drivers for driving under the influence we are beginning to see an increase in driving under the influence of drugs cases, or more commonly called, “drugged driving.” We continue to see cases with Ambien and other sleep aids more commonly that those involving marijuana but we are seeing an increase in marijuana as well.

Marijuana cases cause specific problems for law enforcement as there are no standards for quantifying the blood or urine concentration that will result in impaired driving. It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. The parent drug is the actual drug consumed while the metabolyte is the processed, but still measurable residue from the drug. Unfortunately, many involved in law enforcement are unaware that the metabolyte is not active and is not currently affecting/impairing the test subject.

In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concedes, “It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method. Mathematical models have been developed to estimate the time of marijuana exposure within a 95% confidence interval. Knowing the elapsed time from marijuana exposure can then be used to predict impairment in concurrent cognitive and psychomotor effects based on data in the published literature.”

While more studies need to be conducted on the effects of marijuana on driving, NHTSA, itself states that “some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment.” For information see the NHTSA article about Marijuana and human performance.

An Oklahoma legislator has introduced legislation to require DUI convictions to appear on a persons driver’s license. The imputus is to put bars, nightclubs and liquor stores on notice that the person patronizing their establishment on notice that the person has a history of drinking and driving. This “scarlet letter” seems appealing in the sense that a person with a special notation on their driving license might be embarrassed into not drinking or driving after drinking, it seems highly unlikely that a bar, nightclub or liquor store will refuse service to the potential patron. Further, it seems even less likely that a busy bartender or other server of alcoholic beverages will have the time or inclination to moderate the drinking of the patron.

In June I wrote about a cop in Florida who was fired by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department for fabricating police reports, generating tons of overtime by working late writing reports on his arrests and had a reputation among prosecutors for handing them weak cases. Over the past few days the Florida State Attorney’s office declined to prosecute the case, allowed the Officer to keep his law enforcement certification and passed the case to the United States Attorney’s office for further investigation and review.

As I wrote on October 14 of this year, the requirements for people on probation for DUI or alcohol related driving charges will change to a zero tolerance on January 1, 2009. However, in reading the draft legislation, I didn’t notice that the Legislature added a requirement to provide a breath sample in the field, so while non-probationers have the legal right to refuse the Premininary Alcohol Screen (PAS), a person on probation for an alcohol related driving offense will not.

In changing the law to require persons on probation for drinking related driving offenses to provide PAS tests the Legislature did not change the standards relating to how such evidence is acquired, meaning that the same lax standards that apply to it as an optional test will also apply to it as a mandatory test. What this means is that the standards that California has set in place for evidientiary breath testing will not apply, if the State can demonstrate that the machine was in working order, that the person operating the test was trained and that the proper procedures were follwed the test will be admited. More and more we see tests, that weren’t required under the law, fail to meet the lowest level of scientific protocols and yet, increasingly, we see Judges shirk their role as “gate keeper” and let the test in. Even clear violations of California’s rules relating to chemical testing will be tolerated in some jurisdictions. In these Jurisdictions a person may have their probation violated by a number that was generated by a machine that has a margin of error of .02, that may have been operated by an untrained or improperly trained officer (see, CCR 1221.4(a)(3)(A-E); 1221.4(a)(4)), that may not have been calibrated or maintained in accordance with California State law or that may have been adminstered in a manner that is not scientifically valid (See, CCR1219.3; 1221.1). Unfortunately, the probationer will not have the luxury of a jury to try and convince of the injustice, the decision rests with the Gatekeeper, the Judge.

It may seem weird for a DUI lawyer to be a proponent of a .00 legal limit but I’m one. Let me explain how I determined that I supported a .00 legal limit. Since our government is intent upon criminalizing conduct that may only cause harm it seems unfair that people “breaking” the law should know when it happens. When a person is out drinking with friends, family, co-workers or others socializing they have no idea when their blood alcohol concentration crosses from being legal to illegal. Each person metabolizes alcohol at their own rate, a rate that depends upon the time of day, the amount of sleep that they got the night before, stomach contents, alcohol level of drink, mixer and many other factors. When people go out they have no idea how much liquor is in their drink and frequently as they cross from below the legal limit to the legal limit, they can’t tell nor can the people they are drinking with. Rarely, does a person exhibit the commonly accepted symptoms of being intoxicated, they aren’t slurring their words or staggering, in fact they look just like you and me, but they are violating the law. They may be stopped by law enforcement for having an equipment violation, or possibly departing their lane while they fumbled for something they dropped, something that isn’t obviously driving under the influence. The simple fact is that most people don’t know when they go from legal to drive to illegal to drive a legal, if the legal limit was zero, we would all know that if we had a drink and chose to drive we were in violation of the law.

For persons looking for a less extreme approach, Stephen J. Dubner wrote a column relating to breath testing technology that other countries employ to help remove the “guess work” from guessing whether its safe to drive.

A professional athlete in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to 80 lashes after being convicted of DUI causing an accident. The only aspect of the crime and sentence is that the defendant/convict retains his privacy

The Salinas Police Department will be setting up checkpoints over the holiday weekend in various locations. Persons successfully passing through the checkpoint will be given a turkey, the Department hopes in convenience 150 to 300 persons, um, I guess I mean they hope to give out 150 to 300 turkeys. The Police Department cites many of the MADD statistics to support its efforts, especially the statistic relating to “alcohol-related” accidents, which as we have commented on earlier include accidents when sober people caused accidents involving a driver who had been drinking (not necessarily at or above the legal limit).