Tough DUI laws take effect

By Sara Jean Green
Seattle Times Eastside bureau

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

While proponents hail the new laws as revolutionary and say the driving-under-the-influence legislation puts the state on par with countries such as Sweden and Australia, defense attorneys say the laws treat first-time and borderline offenders as drunks, erode judicial discretion and unfairly favor the prosecution at trial.

The first law, Substitute House Bill 2660, extends temporary licenses to more people — not just those who need to drive to work — but mandates that anyone who wants to drive after a DUI arrest, a DUI conviction or after opting for deferred prosecution must have an ignition-interlock device installed in his or her vehicle. The devices, which require a breath test before a car's engine can be turned on, as well as subsequent tests while driving, were once reserved for chronic drunks, repeat DUI offenders and drivers who refused to give breath samples.

The second law, Substitute House Bill 3055, is aimed at curtailing the frequency with which breath-test results are tossed out of court. Juries — instead of judges — will now decide what weight to place upon a test result and are to view that evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," the law says.

Both bills were passed unanimously by the state House of Representatives and state Senate during the winter session and were later signed into law by Gov. Gary Locke.

Pete Youngers, the Washington state public-policy director for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), was the lead author of Bill 2660 and solicited support from Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, whose office requested passage of the law.

Youngers convinced lawmakers that mandating ignition-interlock devices would reduce the number of people driving with suspended licenses as a result of DUI offenses. Installation costs run between $50 and $80, though many companies install them for free; once installed, ignition interlocks — which keep a record of breath-test results on a computer chip — cost the user $60 a month.

"This is a model law, a law that will put us right in front of the pack," making state DUI laws some of the strictest in the nation, said Owen spokesman Antonio Sanchez.

Before the bill's passage, anyone arrested on suspicion of DUI would receive an automatic 90-day license suspension and in some cases, even longer suspensions; after 30 days, drivers could apply to the state Department of Licensing for an occupational license to enable them to drive to and from work. A DUI conviction similarly resulted in a license revocation of usually between 90 days and 2-1/2 years.

With the new law, more people can apply for a Temporary Restricted License to drive to work, school, treatment programs, or to take a sick relative to the hospital or doctor's appointments. But to qualify for a temporary license, a driver must have an ignition-interlock device.

Though there have been problems with the devices malfunctioning, Youngers said the technology is constantly improving.
 
While praising the extension of temporary licenses to more people, the partners of the Bellevue law firm Fox, Bowman, Duarte, said requiring the devices for everyone is a one-size-fits-all solution.

"There is no therapeutic reason why an individual who is shown to have no problem with alcohol, no prior record and a low breath-test reading" — either below or just above the 0.08 legal limit — "should have to have the ignition interlock, other than it helps the ignition interlock providers," said defense attorney Jon Fox.

Fox and his partners, Bill Bowman and Francisco Duarte, said 99 percent of their cases are DUIs. Their firm represents approximately 500 people a year and their client list includes professional athletes, as well as judges, teachers, police officers and nurses.

"People should be held responsible but they should not lose their careers or have their lives destroyed for one mistake," Bowman said.

Every year, 35,000 to 40,000 people are arrested on suspicion of DUI statewide. More than 90 percent of DUI arrests end in conviction.

With Bill 3055, the attorneys said their jobs defending their clients will get even tougher. The new law was enacted because defense attorneys were so successful in challenging the admissibility of breath-test evidence when the tests weren't performed to standards established by Washington State Patrol toxicologists, they said. As a result, judges refused to allow the test results as evidence in thousands of DUI cases.

"We brought it to their attention three years ago that the State Patrol failed to maintain the (breath-test) machines according to their own procedures," Duarte said. "They got caught, they lost (in court), they got upset and now the Legislature has heeded their cry."

Duarte and his partners say the law not only erodes judicial discretion but makes the justice system biased.

"We see it as our duty to challenge this law," Fox said. "A fair-minded person is going to be troubled by a law that is telling a judge to be biased" toward the prosecution.

Tom McBride, executive secretary of the Washington state Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said he expects defense attorneys to challenge Bill 3055. The law, written by the association's staff attorney, is aimed at stopping courts from suppressing test results because of technicalities, McBride said.

"We've had thousands of suppressions over the years ... and the courts were suppressing this evidence not based on (whether test results) were credible and accurate but (based on whether) the State Patrol dotted its 'I's and crossed its 'T's," he said.

"Now (defense attorneys) will have to convince a jury of six people instead of just having to convince a judge" that a breath test was improperly given or that the results were inaccurate.

Sara Jean Green: 206-515-5654