Category Archives: Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals

1. Warrantless Vehicle Search During DUI Stop Leads to Charge Dismissal (Tamblyn)

   Apr 9, 2012 —

   There is an old saying: “Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.” This generally references a sports event where a person or team pulls out a win despite overwhelming odds which indicated that a loss would be the outcome. Similarly, a counterpart to this adage has evolved in more recent years. Today, “Snatching defeat from … [More]

2. Police May Not Search Car Incident To DUI Arrest

   Mar 26, 2012 —

   In State v. Tamblyn, Division Three of the Washington State Court of Appeals, affirms the idea laid out in the now infamous Gant decision,  that the police may not search a drivers car after he or she is arrested for the crime of DUI unless they take the time to get a warrant. The relevant … [More]

3. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Russell (April 2011) – Adversarial System?

   Dec 27, 2011 —

   My measuring stick for justice isn’t anything I learned from fancy professors at the University of Washington.  It comes from my brothers and my struggle over dessert.  The rule – one person cuts and the other chooses.  That’s it.  Everything was out in the open and we both got a chance to apply our powers … [More]

4. Pulling Over Defense Fails For DUI Offender

   Nov 19, 2011 —

   I’m often asked, “what do I do if I’m driving home and I suddenly come to the realization that I should not be driving?”  Pull over and stop is the obvious morale choice,  right?  The problem is that while legislative policy supports that choice, the courts and prosecutors don’t.  To understand their reasoning we need … [More]

5. Washington DUI Caselaw Update – State v. Daily (November 2011)

   Nov 18, 2011 —

   Its timeless and  flawless.  ”If you feel you can’t drive because of too many drinks then pull over and don’t drive.”  Ever heard that before?  Apparently the Court of Appeals from Division III still has a lingering question or two about this.  Its recent decision in State v. Daily is the kind of decision that … [More]

6. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Weber (February 2011)

   Oct 21, 2011 —

   Division III of the Court of Appeals goes on record to narrow the definition of pretext stops by law enforcement.  Pretext stops occur when a police officer stops a car in order to investigate criminal activity and not for the falsely stated purpose of enforcing the traffic code.  Courts suppress all evidence following a stop … [More]

7. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Berger (March 2011)

   Oct 20, 2011 —

   The Third Division of the Court of Appeals, in this unpublished opinion, shows questionable English interpretation when ruling against Mr. Berger’s argument that he asked for counsel at the time he refused the breath test.  I’m glad they weren’t my English teachers in school. Typically, DUI suspects are arrested and taken to the police precinct … [More]

8. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Yallup (March 2011)

   Oct 17, 2011 —

   The question presented by Elon Yallup in this felony driving under the influence (DUI) case was, can the state enforce the implied consent laws against an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation driving on state highways on the reservation?  The  conclusion is that the implied consent statute is primarily a criminal statute rather than a … [More]

9. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Arreola (September 2011)

   Oct 16, 2011 —

   In this Division III case we are reminded that police officers may not use false pretenses to stop a driver for a sniff test (obtain an odor of alcohol).  Typically an officers observation of odor leads the way to field tests, eventually a breath test at the station, and then a DUI charge. The Court … [More]

10. 2011 Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Santos (September 2011)

    Oct 12, 2011 —

    In Washington, felony driving under the influence (DUI) requires a showing that the defendant in the courtroom has been convicted of previous DUIs within ten years. The State has the burden to show that the person named in earlier judgments or court documents and the defendant presently sitting in the courtroom is the same person … [More]