In Washington, a person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state while under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or while the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 46.61.502(1)(a)-(b)(West 2010).
Affirmative Defense
The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.
Id. § 46.61.502(2).
Implied Consent
- Any person who operates a motor vehicle within Washington is deemed to have given consent to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or presence of any drug in his or her breath or blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. Neither consent nor this section precludes a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood. Id. § 46.20.308(1).
- If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year. Id. § 46.20.308(2)(a).
- If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's refusal to take the test may be used in a criminal trial. Id. § 46.20.308(2)(b).
- The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer one or more tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The test will be admissible if the person establishes the general acceptability of the testing technique or method. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer. Id. § 46.61.506(6).
- Accused has a limited window to contact attorney before deciding whether or not to submit to chemical testing. extended delay may significantly affect test results and will be considered a refusal. State v. Staeheli, 685 P.2d 591 (1984).
Sobriety Checkpoints
In Washington, law enforcement officials are not entitled to set up sobriety checkpoints.
- Washington courts require legislative authority to allow law enforcement to set up checkpoints. No statutory authority exists in Washington. City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 755 P.2d 775 (1988).
State v. Wilhelm, 896 P.2d 105 (1995) -- In order to convict for DUI, evidence must be sufficient to prove that ability to handle automobile was lessened in appreciable degree by consumption of drugs.
In
re Gleason, Bkrtcy.W.D.Wash, 139 B.R. 249 (1992) -- It takes more than the mere confession of defendant in order to convict.
Per Se Drugged Driving Laws
Washington has a per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis.
At this point in WA there is no test that gives an accurate reading of cannabis intoxication. I would imagine a good lawyer could do wonders with a test that doesn't really determine accurate info. The problem is having to pay the money for a lawyer which would cost thousands of dollars.
.
