Washington State Driving Under the Influence Law Update - The Police Can’t Detain You in Your Home Without a Warrant

On December 31, 2009 in Uncategorized

Every once in a while a set of circumstances comes through from the Washington State Supreme Court that makes you exceedingly assume they comprehend what they are doing. In this instance, the high court issued a edict on the topic of a driving under the influence (drunk driving) accusation in which the police entered the defendant’s domicile with no authorization, with no a warrant, and with no exigent circumstances, a enormous no-no in law enforcement process. Outlined beneath is a slightly more in-depth rundown of the specifics, a brief overview of the decision, and a little analysis about what it all connotes.

The title of the situation is State v. Hinshaw, and you can look at the entire text, if you want, here. As was alluded to, the end result of this case was an detention in Moses Lake Washington, about 180 miles east of Seattle, for drunk driving. But how the officers ended up seizing Hinshaw is sort of interesting. The instance began with a phone call from a resident who reported that a person was driving a vehicle on a neighborhood bicycle path. When the officers spoke with the individual who made the call, they declared they thought they heard a tire blow out as the coup? drove away.

As police are apt to do, particularly in little towns, after talking with the individual who made the telephone call, they started investigating the information to locate the sedan and find out what was going on. While checking things out they viewed a guy on a bicycle, who turned out to be Hinshaw, and asked him if he knew or had seen anything. Hinshaw stated he was a passenger inside the car, but had not been driving. The cops let him go with no additional incident and kept looking around.

Shortly after letting Hinshaw go, they located the sedan. It was in front of Hinshaw’s house and had a blown out tire. They approached Hinshaw’s residence and knocked on the door. Hinshaw answered it but a screen door remained between the police and Hinshaw. At this moment in time the officers said they smelled beer on Hinshaw’s breath and he admitted to drinking at a saloon that night. After this data was obtained, the officer opened the door and apprehended Hinshaw for driving under the influence.

As he should have done, Hinshaw’s Seattle drunk driving lawyer challenged the detention as being improper. The Seattle DUI attorney knew that in Washington it is against the law to seizure a person in their domicile with no a warrant, exigent conditions, or authorization (to go into the house). In this set of circumstances, the DUI lawyer in Seattle argued that no warrant existed and no exigent state of affairs existed. The prosecutor’s countered by arguing that exigent state of affairs did exist, as the cops were concerned the data of Hinshaw’s drunkeness - his breath analysis results - would be lost if they tried to get a warrant. The trial court decided in favor of the prosecutor (surprise) and the occurrence in the end made its way up to the Washington State Supreme Court.

Upon examination, the court sided with Mr. Hinshaw’s Seattle driving under the influence defense attorney, finding it irrational that the police didn’t even make an effort to acquire a warrant, especially in light of the fact that a warrant like this would have been easily attainable (the police officers are used to needing late night warrants), and so long as they got to Hinshaw before two hours had elapsed, the test would still be legitimate and could be backdated to the moment of the alleged driving. The court more commented on the inviolability of the residence both in common law and as outlined in the Constitution, and was remiss to take away protections specially provided for in the Constitution.

So what does this signify for you, the Seattle, Washington resident who, after a long week at work decided to have a few drinks? It doesn’t mean much, unless you somehow make it house and are then confronted with a drunk driving allegation. This does not mean that you ought to leave the scene of any accident that happens while you are driving a vehicle, even if you are impaired. The police officers will come with a warrant, take you out of your domicile, and in addition to a drunk driving allegation you’ll be facing a hit and run, among other things.

What it does do however is call back the age old lesson: you do not have to and should not under most situations consent to any request by the law enforcement to do anything. Not to a search, not to come into your home, not to answer questions, not anything. And for sure you ought to never do it with no your criminal defense lawyer present. So, if you ever unearth the officers at your entrance questioning you and they ask to come in or ask you to come out, politely decline, come up with an excuse, and say good night. If they want you and can obtain you they will. There is no reason you should help them out.

This artcle is written by a person interested in DUI Law in Washington state, and in particular Kent, Washington, who reminds you that if you are ever stopped for driving under the influence, don’t hesitate to call your Seattle driving under the influence lawyer to make sure your rights preserved.

Comments (0)