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

The Draeger Alcotest 9510 Breath Machines are Coming!

Posted Saturday, October 14, 2017 by Andrew Charles Huff

The Washington State Patrol has been slowly replacing the old DataMaster Breath test Machines with the new German-manufactured Draeger Alcotest 9510, a device primarily based on the same flawed fundamentals as the old machines. At this point, King County has not begun using these machines but that point will be here soon. The Draeger Alcotest machines have been installed in Snohomish County. However, due to some courageous litigation challenging the manufactures’ reluctance to disclose basic documents about its technology, prosecutors so far have decided not to use breath results.

The main concern with the Draeger is with the software and how it manipulates the reported results. Questions are being raised whether some of the algorithms used are based on science at all. Further, Draeger, an old German company, sells their machines exclusively to governments and has refused to disclose the source codes and technical information to the public, thereby concealing the information from the public.

I have recently filed a challenge to the Draeger Alcotest results currently being used in Island County and will post updates as litigation progresses.

Permalink to this entry

Study: Eyewitness Testimony is Unreliable.

Posted Friday, October 13, 2017 by Andrew Charles Huff

A recent Australian study has concluded that when too many eyewitnesses are in unanimous agreement with one another then their testimony is more likely to be unreliable. The fascinating and counterintuitive results could have serious implications for the criminal justice system, where unanimous agreement is usually seen as a sign that the testimony is more reliable.

The study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, researchers looked at how reliable unanimity among eyewitnesses identifying a suspect in a police lineup actually is. The study found that if up to three eyewitnesses identified the same suspect then their testimony could be considered reliable, but unanimity among more than three eyewitnesses made it less reliable. That’s because human memory is innately imperfect and there will always be a risk of misidentification, so if a dozen eyewitnesses are identifying the same suspect then that is less a sign that their testimony is correct and more an indication of systemic bias, such as an officer in the room giving each eyewitness subtle hints about which person in the lineup they believe to be the culprit.

This study should serve as a reminder to anybody who is being charged with a criminal offense that evidence against them can always be challenged and that no outcome is ever guaranteed. For those who have been charged with a crime, it is important to talk to a criminal defense attorney immediately. An experienced attorney can help clients build their case and fight to minimize the damage that a charge or conviction may carry.

Permalink to this entry

Search Warrant Needed for Homeless Camper’s Tent?

Posted Wednesday, October 11, 2017 by Andrew Charles Huff

Do police need a warrant to search a homeless man’s tent even if camping illegally? Pippin was a homeless man, living in a tent on public land in Vancouver. Police officers approached his tent and requested that he come out. When he didn’t and officers heard noise inside, they lifted a flap of the tent to look inside and observed a bag of methamphetamine. He was charged with drug possession.

The Court debated three factors—the historical protections, the intimate details revealed from a search, and the implications of recognizing this privacy interest. The Court found that Pippin’s tent functioned as part of his private affairs worthy of protection from unreasonable intrusions. His tent and its contents fell among those “privacy interests which citizens of this state should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant, according to the Court. Therefore, Pippin’s tent and contents are protected under the Washington Constitution.

State v. Pippin, 48540-1-II

Permalink to this entry

Washington’s DUI Laws Toughest in Nation

Posted Friday, September 29, 2017 by Andrew Charles Huff

Washington State’s DUI laws are among the toughest in the nation and every couple of years the State Legislature makes them tougher in some way. The DUI statute RCW 46.61.506 criminalizes those under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, driving with a breath test reading of .08 or higher and driving with a THC level of 5 nanograms.

The penalties for a DUI conviction are administrative and criminal. The Department of Licensing will seek to suspend a person’s license if they are driving with a breath test reading of .08 or higher and driving with a THC level of 5 nanograms, or they refuse to provide a breath sample. The normal suspension period is 90 days unless a person refuses a breath test, wherein they face a minimum of a one year loss of their license. The driver has the opportunity to challenge the Department’s action with an administrative hearing, usually conducted over the phone.

The criminal penalties are stiff. A court must impose mandatory jail time of either one or two days for a first-time offense with maximum time reaching a year. The financial penalties for a DUI conviction can reach up to $5,000.00. Upon conviction, a court will impose five years of jurisdiction or probation, require an alcohol evaluation and other requirements during this probationary period.
A DUI arrest also carries potential damage to a person’s career. Those with a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and pilots can be affected. Also, it’s very difficult entering into Canada with a DUI conviction.

For more information, go to

Permalink to this entry

Traffic Ticket Challenge Reaches Iowa Supreme Court

Posted Friday, September 29, 2017 by Andrew Charles Huff

A dispute over a $75 speeding ticket has climbed through the levels of Iowa’s court system, reaching the lofty heights of the Iowa Supreme Court for oral arguments.

Ms Marla Leaf received a speeding ticket when a traffic camera allegedly caught her driving 68 mph in a 55-mph zone in Cedar Rapids. Although not the typical case for a state’s high court, Leaf argued that her constitutional rights and state law were violated because the City of Cedar Rapids delegated police powers to the private company that maintains the speed cameras.

Her attorney argued to justices that such cameras are “unduly intrusive, unfair and simply amounting to sophisticated speed traps designed to raise funds for cash-strapped municipalities by ensnaring unsuspected car owners in a municipal bureaucracy under the circumstances where most busy people find it preferable to shut up and pay rather than to scream and to fight.”

Leaf further argues that it is unlawful to give the authority to assess speeding — something it says is police work — to the private camera company, Gatso. Also, the cameras don’t issue tickets to semitrailers and government vehicles, calling the discrepancy arbitrary and a violation of equal protection.

The Court is expected to issue a decision in a couple of weeks.

Permalink to this entry

Contact Andrew Today…

47.6057080 -122.3302060