Every once in a while a set of circumstances comes through from the Washington State Supreme Court that makes you truly believe they know what they are doing. In this instance, the high court provided a decision regarding a DUI (drunk driving) indictment in which the cops entered the defendant’s residence without authorization, with no a warrant, and with no exigent conditions, a large no-no in law enforcement practice. Summarized below is a somewhat more in-depth rundown of the specifics, a short summary of the edict, and a little study nearly what it all means.
The title of the case is State v. Hinshaw, and you can peruse the entire text, if you want, here. As was alluded to, the result of this situation was an detention in Moses Lake Washington, about 180 miles east of Seattle, for drunk driving. But how the police ended up apprehending Hinshaw is sort of fascinating. The situation began with a telephone call from a citizen who reported that a person was driving a automobile on a community bicycle trail. When the police conversed with the person who made the telephone call, they stated they thought they heard a tire blow out as the sedan drove away.
As police force are quick to do, specifically in small towns, after talking with the person who made the telephone call, they started investigating the description to locate the automobile and establish what was going on. While checking things out they saw a man on a bike, who turned out to be Hinshaw, and asked him if he knew or had seen anything. Hinshaw stated he was a passenger within the van, but had not been driving. The police let him go without further incident and continued looking around.
Shortly after letting Hinshaw go, they found the car. It was in front of Hinshaw’s residence and had a blown out tire. They approached Hinshaw’s house and knocked on the door. Hinshaw answered it but a screen door remained between the police and Hinshaw. At this point the cops said they smelled liquor on Hinshaw’s breath and he admitted to boozing at a pub that night. After this information was obtained, the police officer opened the entrance and captured Hinshaw for DUI.
As he should have done, Hinshaw’s Seattle driving under the influence lawyer challenged the arrest as being criminal. The Seattle DUI attorney knew that in Washington it is illegal to arrest someone in their abode without a warrant, exigent state of affairs, or consent (to go in the house). In this set of circumstances, the DUI attorney in Seattle argued that no warrant existed and no exigent circumstances existed. The prosecutor’s countered by arguing that exigent conditions did exist, as the police were afraid the proof of Hinshaw’s drunkeness – his breath analysis results – would be lost if they tried to obtain a warrant. The trial court decided in favor of the prosecutor (surprise) and the occurrence finally made its way up to the Washington State Supreme Court.
Upon analysis, the court sided with Mr. Hinshaw’s Seattle DUI defense lawyer, finding it unreasonable that the officers didn’t even try to get 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 point in time of the alleged driving. The court further commented on the inviolability of the domicile both in common law and as outlined in the Constitution, and was remiss to take away protections expressly provided for in the Constitution.
So what does this connote for you, the Seattle, Washington resident who, after a long week at work decided to have a few drinks? It doesn’t denote much, unless you somehow make it residence and are then confronted with a drunk driving indictment. This does not mean that you should depart the scene of any accident that occurs while you are driving a motor vehicle, even if you are impaired. The cops will come with a warrant, take you out of your dwelling, and in addition to a DUI charge you’ll be facing a hit and run, among other things.
What it does do though is recall the age old lesson: you do not have to and should not under most conditions consent to any request by the police 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 without your driving under the influence defense lawyer present. So, if you ever unearth the police at your door 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 desire you and can get you they will. There is no reason you should help them out.
This artcle is written by someone 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 telephone call your Seattle DUI lawyer to make sure your rights preserved.
Comments are closed.