Seattle Traffic, DUI and Criminal Defense Attorney

Available 24/7 – (206) 729-3477
The Best in Traffic, DUI and Criminal Defense

The Seattle DUI and Criminal Defense Blog

2019 Changes to DUI and DOL Laws

Posted Monday, January 21, 2019 by Andrew Charles Huff

There are new changes beginning in 2019 for rules effecting challenges to license suspensions by the Department of Licensing. If you have been arrested for DUI the following new laws will now affect you:

  1. You must request a DUI hearing within 7 days of the arrest.
  2. Your license will be suspended within 30 days of the arrest if you do not request a hearing.
  3. The Department of Licensing will only give you five days’ notice of the hearing’s ate and time.


No Hearing Requested:

If no hearing is requested, license or permit will be a temporary license for 30 days from either the date of arrest or from date of notice if notice was given by DOL.

Requesting a DUI Hearing:

A person has 7 days after they have been served written notice to request in writing a formal hearing. If mailing in the request, the postmark must be within 7 days of the receipt of notification.

Application fee remains $375.00

DOL Hearing Timeline

The DOL hearing shall be held within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) following the date of timely receipt of the formal request for hearing.“Timely receipt” is not defined specifically in the RCW or WAC so it will be unclear when the 30-day count will start.

If the DOL gave notice following a blood test, the DOL hearing shall be held within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the date of notice given.Notice is deemed to be given on the third day after the notice is deposited into the state mailing service (WAC 308-101-030).

Notice of DOL Hearing:

DOL must give 5 days’ notice of the hearing to the person unless otherwise agreed to by the department and the person. The 5 days’ notice required for hearings should mean 5 business days’ notice of the hearing (WAC 308-101-030)

Permalink to this entry

Court Finds “Turn Signal” Not Always Required

Posted Thursday, January 17, 2019 by Andrew Charles Huff

Must a driver always use a turn signal when making a turn from a designated turn lane? “No, you do not” says Washington Appeals Court-Division III in a recent decision involving a traffic stop due to failing to signal.

The case involved a driver who properly signaled when moving from the middle lane into a designated turn lane. Once he entered the turn lane, this driver did not “reactivate” his turn signal when turning from the designated turn lane. A police officer then conducted a traffic stop for failing to signal.

At issue is RCW 46.61.305(2), which declares that a driver must, “when required,” continuously signal an intention to turn or cross lanes during at least the last one hundred feet traveled before turning or moving lanes.

But in his appeal, Joseph Brown asks if this statute compels a driver, who properly signaled when moving into dedicated left turn lane to then reactivate his turn signal before turning left from the reserved turn lane.

The Court ruled that this statute only requires use of a signal in circumstances that implicate public safety. Because the circumstances surrounding Mr. Brown’s lefthand turn from a left-turn-only lane did not jeopardize public safety, the Court found that he did not commit a traffic violation and the stop was unlawful.

Jan. 17, 2019 - 35304-4 - State of Washington v. David Joseph Brown

Permalink to this entry

Client Passed Out BUT Not Impaired

Posted Friday, January 4, 2019 by Andrew Charles Huff

A great outcome in a DUI case that initially looked pretty challenging at first but resulted in a full dismissal. My client was found passed out in a drive through coffee line. The barista called police, who tried and were able to wake my client up. Suspecting impairment, officers asked my client if he had been drinking alcohol. Client answered “No” but was soon arrested for Driving Under the Influence.

I challenged the arrest on grounds that officers did not have reason to believe client was impaired. Here is why: Officers never once smelled alcohol during the entire encounter; client denied drinking any alcohol when questioned; no field sobriety tests were administered due to client’s condition. I argued that officer simply assumed he was impaired but he could have been suffering a medical emergency such as a stroke or heart attack. In other words, responding officers concluded he was impaired when in reality there was no reason to believe this was the case. The judge agreed with this argument and case dismissed.

Permalink to this entry

Traffic Tickets Can Be Beaten

Posted Friday, January 4, 2019 by Andrew Charles Huff

It’s a very common situation these days to become distracted while driving due in part to the multiple traffic signage, other vehicles around you, cell phone…Let’s face it…driving is a multi-functional task that requires your attention and focus. But sometimes mistakes are made and tickets are handed out.

Like any legal situation, retaining an attorney to fight your ticket will increase the likelihood of beating this ticket. This is important in part because most tickets will appear on your driving record if found committed and cause a raise in insurance rates. Too many traffic tickets can result in a license suspension. If you are under 18 years old and have an intermediate driver’s license, 2 tickets will lead to a license suspension. If you have a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), certain tickets will cause you to lose your commercial driving privileges and potentially a job loss. In other words, traffic tickets can cause havoc on your job, finances and ability to drive.

There are many way to beat a ticket. For example, tickets must be filed with the court by the police officer within a specific period of time; jurisdiction must be shown; a foundation presented for all radar cases; proper procedure must be followed. There are literally countless issues I look for in order to beat your ticket.

If you are cited for an infraction, you do not need to appear in court. I will appear for you and also request the officer’s report and other evidence on your behalf. The court will schedule the court date and I will then appear for you.

Permalink to this entry

When is a dwelling a "dwelling" for burglary conviction?

Posted Thursday, December 13, 2018 by Andrew Charles Huff

To commit the crime of Residential Burglary, you must have burglarized a “dwelling.” So when is a “dwelling” truly a “dwelling?”

Mr. Nathan J. Hall argued to the Court of Appeals-Division II that the unoccupied house he broke into was not actually a “dwelling” for purposes of burglary. The house at issue had been standing empty for some time and others had broken windows and doors to gain entry. Mr. Hall pointed out that no one had lived at the house for over 15 months with no indication anyone was planning to move in soon.

The Appeals Court admitted that no prior cases had ever discussed in detail whether a building is a “dwelling” for purposes of this law. But the Court found no indication the house had been used for anything else but a dwelling and it was still partially furnished. Further, the previous owner left a number of her possessions in the home while it stood empty. Finally, the Court held that although the house stood empty, the prior owner never actually abandoned the house and had taken steps to keep others out.

Therefore, the Court found that although standing empty, the house was a “dwelling” for purposes of the burglary statute and upheld Mr. Hall’s conviction.

State of Washington v. Nathaniel J. Hall, No. 50543-6-II

Permalink to this entry

Contact Andrew Today…

47.6057080 -122.3302060