As I have previously written, there are three types of Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) crimes in Washington State: DWLS in the 1st degree, DWLS in the 2nd degree, and DWLS in the 3rd degree. 1st degree DWLS is the crime you will be charged with if you are driving while your license is revoked under the Habitual Traffic Offender Act. 2nd degree DWLS is what you'll be charged with if you drive while your license is suspended and you are ineligible for reinstatement due to a mandatory license suspension for a specified period of time (such a 1 year suspension for refusing to take a breath test). 3rd degree DWLS is where your license is suspended, and you are eligible for reinstatement.
It's this last type of DWLS that I'd like to focus on in this posting because legislation was passed in May that will hopefully reduce the number of people who are convicted of this crime. People who are charged with 3rd degree DWLS usually have some sort of financial problem. They are all eligible for reinstatement as long as they pay money that they owe. This is often for unpaid traffic tickets, but it can also be for failure to pay child support or failure to pay a civil judgment when the defendant was found to be at fault in a traffic accident.
So people struggling financially and are simply unable to pay the money they owe have the license suspended and to earn a living or to get from place to place in order to get the money they to pay off their debts, they end up driving. Now they get charged with 3rd degree DWLS, which is a misdemeanor criminal charge.
I have had a client who could not get his license reinstated because, although he was slowly coming up with the money to pay off his traffic tickets, he was given the runaround when it came to trying to figure out exactly who to pay- The courts told him his fines went to collection and the collections agency told him to call the courts because they did not have an account for him.
In May of this year, Senate Bill 5732 became law. The new law will be added to chapter 46.20 of the RCW and authorizes cities and counties to establish licensing diversion programs for the purpose of helping suspended drivers get their licenses back. The new law also requires the courts in jurisdictions that do not have licensing diversion programs to issue the defendant a copy of his or her driving abstract and give the defendant all of the information regarding what money is owed and to whom. This law only applies to people whose licenses have been suspended due to failure to pay traffic tickets, failure to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, failure to appear at a requested hearing, or for violated a written promise to appear in court.
Under SB 5732 a driver is not be eligible for a diversion program if he or she has been convicted of DWLS more than 4 times in the last 10 years. The law also limits diversion eligibility for drivers who hold a commercial drivers license. For the many struggling people who are down on their luck, the new law may be of great benefit to get out of a hole. It will also free up the courts which have to deal with a large number of 3rd degree DWLS cases.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE
Today I’d like to discuss the crime of false reporting. Actually, I'll be referring to the crime of making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, which is commonly known as "false reporting." I recently represented another lawyer on this charge and thought that I should warn others about what the police may do to you if you are rude to them or are otherwise difficult. The lawyer I defended on the charge of false reporting was admittedly rude to the police and made sure they knew she was a lawyer. The cops weren’t happy with the way she talked to them, so they stacked up a few charges against her, one of which was false reporting.
The police claimed that the lawyer left out the last part of her last name when she was asked to identify herself. I am writing about this charge because the police frequently use it to punish someone who made them angry or irritated or to punish someone they just don’t like. So be careful when the police stop you for investigative purposes. You can assert your constitutional rights, but be polite about it. The police often make up false allegations of false reporting against people who mouth off to them.
The actual title of the crime appears as “Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant” in RCW 9A.76.175. That statute says:
"A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties."
Back in 1982, the Washington State Supreme Court found that the statute defining obstructing a law enforcement officer, which had similar wording to our current statute defining false reporting , was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the term, “public servant” was too vague. So there may be a way to attack the statute on constitutional grounds if you are charged with this offense.
The public servant must be discharging official duties at the time you make a false or misleading statement. The courts have recognized the acts of making an arrest, stopping a suspect to investigate, and requesting ID while investigating a crime as official duties performed by the police.
Aside from attacks concerning the validity of the statute, you can also challenge the police claim that your statements were “material.” Also, if the police weren’t making an arrest, requesting ID, or investigating a crime at the time they cite you for false reporting, you can argue that they weren’t discharging official duties.
Again, one of the best ways to avoid this charge is to be polite to the cops. They have all of the power in many situations, even if you’re a lawyer. They often make up facts to support a charge of false reporting if you give them a hard time.
The police claimed that the lawyer left out the last part of her last name when she was asked to identify herself. I am writing about this charge because the police frequently use it to punish someone who made them angry or irritated or to punish someone they just don’t like. So be careful when the police stop you for investigative purposes. You can assert your constitutional rights, but be polite about it. The police often make up false allegations of false reporting against people who mouth off to them.
The actual title of the crime appears as “Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant” in RCW 9A.76.175. That statute says:
"A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties."
Back in 1982, the Washington State Supreme Court found that the statute defining obstructing a law enforcement officer, which had similar wording to our current statute defining false reporting , was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the term, “public servant” was too vague. So there may be a way to attack the statute on constitutional grounds if you are charged with this offense.
The public servant must be discharging official duties at the time you make a false or misleading statement. The courts have recognized the acts of making an arrest, stopping a suspect to investigate, and requesting ID while investigating a crime as official duties performed by the police.
Aside from attacks concerning the validity of the statute, you can also challenge the police claim that your statements were “material.” Also, if the police weren’t making an arrest, requesting ID, or investigating a crime at the time they cite you for false reporting, you can argue that they weren’t discharging official duties.
Again, one of the best ways to avoid this charge is to be polite to the cops. They have all of the power in many situations, even if you’re a lawyer. They often make up facts to support a charge of false reporting if you give them a hard time.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
CONSEQUENSES OF RECEIVING AN OUT-OF-STATE TRAFFIC TICKET
Although traffic infractions are no longer considered to be criminal offenses in Washington State, I am making this posting in a criminal defense blog because many criminal defense lawyers, myself included, also handle traffic tickets. In addition, the consequences of receiving a traffic ticket that remains unpaid can result in criminal charges, as I will explain below. Just to clarify if anyone is confused, states share information regarding traffic tickets. That includes California and Oregon. If you get a traffic ticket in California or Oregon, Washington will know about it.
People sometimes ask me what will happen if they ignore a ticket they received while visiting another state. The answer is you will almost certainly have your driver's license suspended. Under the interstate Driver's License Compact (DLC), states share information with other member states so that drivers essentially have just one driving record which includes all traffic violations committed in every state.
Under the DLC, if you are cited with a traffic violation in another state while you're visiting and the state in which you live permanently has a similar statute prohibiting the same action for which you were cited in the other state, your home state will file an action against you as if the violation had occurred in your home state and your state will apply it's own law. If you disregard the citation and fail to pay the fine or request a hearing, your license will be suspended until the ticket is payed off.
But what if while you're visiting another state, you get a ticket for something that is illegal in that state, but is not considered to be a traffic violation in your home state? That's where the Non-Resident Violator's Compact comes in. 45 states in the U.S. are members of the Non-Resident Violator's Compact. If your state is a member of the Compact and you receive a traffic ticket (for something that would not be illegal had you done it in your home state) in another member state, that state will inform your home state of the traffic ticket. If you do not take care of the ticket, the state in which you received your ticket will inform the state in which you reside and your driver's license will be suspended until the ticket is payed.
If your address of record filed with the Depatment of Licensing (DOL) is not current, then you will not receive notice of the suspension. This is how many people get charged with Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) in the 3rd degree- they were unaware that an out-of-state ticket would have any affect on the status of their driver's license and did not receive notice because their address of record was not current.
If you were issued a traffic ticket in another state, in order to keep your driver's license, you will need to either (1) pay the ticket, (2)request a contested hearing or a mitigation hearing and return to the state where you received the ticket and fight the ticket yourself, or (3) hire a traffic lawyer who is licensed in that state to fight the ticket for you. Your safest bet is option (3).
All states are members of the Non-Resident Violator's Compact except for Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Montana, Oregon,and Alaska.
A newer law called the Driver's License Agreement (DLA) has been written to take the place of both the Driver's License Compact and the non-Resident Violator's Compact. As of the date of this posting, only Connecticut, Arkansas, and Massachusetts are members of this agreement. I will write more about the DLA in a future posting.
People sometimes ask me what will happen if they ignore a ticket they received while visiting another state. The answer is you will almost certainly have your driver's license suspended. Under the interstate Driver's License Compact (DLC), states share information with other member states so that drivers essentially have just one driving record which includes all traffic violations committed in every state.
Under the DLC, if you are cited with a traffic violation in another state while you're visiting and the state in which you live permanently has a similar statute prohibiting the same action for which you were cited in the other state, your home state will file an action against you as if the violation had occurred in your home state and your state will apply it's own law. If you disregard the citation and fail to pay the fine or request a hearing, your license will be suspended until the ticket is payed off.
But what if while you're visiting another state, you get a ticket for something that is illegal in that state, but is not considered to be a traffic violation in your home state? That's where the Non-Resident Violator's Compact comes in. 45 states in the U.S. are members of the Non-Resident Violator's Compact. If your state is a member of the Compact and you receive a traffic ticket (for something that would not be illegal had you done it in your home state) in another member state, that state will inform your home state of the traffic ticket. If you do not take care of the ticket, the state in which you received your ticket will inform the state in which you reside and your driver's license will be suspended until the ticket is payed.
If your address of record filed with the Depatment of Licensing (DOL) is not current, then you will not receive notice of the suspension. This is how many people get charged with Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) in the 3rd degree- they were unaware that an out-of-state ticket would have any affect on the status of their driver's license and did not receive notice because their address of record was not current.
If you were issued a traffic ticket in another state, in order to keep your driver's license, you will need to either (1) pay the ticket, (2)request a contested hearing or a mitigation hearing and return to the state where you received the ticket and fight the ticket yourself, or (3) hire a traffic lawyer who is licensed in that state to fight the ticket for you. Your safest bet is option (3).
All states are members of the Non-Resident Violator's Compact except for Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Montana, Oregon,and Alaska.
A newer law called the Driver's License Agreement (DLA) has been written to take the place of both the Driver's License Compact and the non-Resident Violator's Compact. As of the date of this posting, only Connecticut, Arkansas, and Massachusetts are members of this agreement. I will write more about the DLA in a future posting.
Monday, November 2, 2009
CAN YOU REFUSE TO GIVE POLICE INFORMATION WHEN QUESTIONED?
I read an article recently about Seattle City Attorney, Tom Carr making the announcement that police in Capitol Hill will be stopping people on the street who appear to be intoxicated, ask them where they have been drinking, and try to close down the bars that people name. The author of the article I read urged people to not provide the police with any information regarding where they had been drinking.
That bit of advice prompted me write this posting about your legal rights and consequences of refusing to provide information to the police if you find yourself in the type of situation described above. The statute we have in Washington that defines “Obstructing a law enforcement officer” used to say that you are guilty of this offense if you, without lawful excuse, refuse to furnish or knowingly fail to furnish any information lawfully requested by a public servant. This statute has since been changed after the Washington State Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutionally vague.
Under the old statute, you would be guilty of obstruction of justice if you refused to tell a cop where you had been drinking if a cop asked you. The new statute now says that you are guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer when you do anything that hinders, obstructs, or delays a law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her powers or duties.
The courts have found certain things to qualify as acts that hinder, obstruct, or delay the police in performing official duties. These acts include refusing to produce a driver’s license when asked, refusing to stop talking to a person who is being arrested, and refusing to leave the scene of an investigation after being asked to do so.
In the case of State v. Turner, Washington State Court of Appeals said that merely refusing to answer questions asked by the police does not in and of itself constitute obstructing a law enforcement officer. So you can refuse to tell a cop where you have been drinking and not be charged with obstruction. Be careful, however. The cops are known to make false allegations of obstruction or false reporting if you are rude or obnoxious when stopped and questioned.
That bit of advice prompted me write this posting about your legal rights and consequences of refusing to provide information to the police if you find yourself in the type of situation described above. The statute we have in Washington that defines “Obstructing a law enforcement officer” used to say that you are guilty of this offense if you, without lawful excuse, refuse to furnish or knowingly fail to furnish any information lawfully requested by a public servant. This statute has since been changed after the Washington State Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutionally vague.
Under the old statute, you would be guilty of obstruction of justice if you refused to tell a cop where you had been drinking if a cop asked you. The new statute now says that you are guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer when you do anything that hinders, obstructs, or delays a law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her powers or duties.
The courts have found certain things to qualify as acts that hinder, obstruct, or delay the police in performing official duties. These acts include refusing to produce a driver’s license when asked, refusing to stop talking to a person who is being arrested, and refusing to leave the scene of an investigation after being asked to do so.
In the case of State v. Turner, Washington State Court of Appeals said that merely refusing to answer questions asked by the police does not in and of itself constitute obstructing a law enforcement officer. So you can refuse to tell a cop where you have been drinking and not be charged with obstruction. Be careful, however. The cops are known to make false allegations of obstruction or false reporting if you are rude or obnoxious when stopped and questioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
