Criminal Defense Lawyers
Criminal Defense Lawyers Home Criminal Defense Lawyers Lawyers Criminal Defense Lawyers Membership Criminal Defense Lawyers Contact

Law Firm of David N. Jolly
Counties served:
 
Law Firm of David N. Jolly
David Jolly

9800 Harbour Place, Suite 204
Mukilteo WA 98275
(425) 493-1115

 Send Email
  Visit Website


Law Firm of David N. Jolly

Please Call : 425-493-1115


We are an experienced DUI defense law firm with over 20 years of combined DUI law experience. As a former prosecuting attorney I understand the "system" from all perspectives.  I have had published two DUI books with "DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence" winning First Place in a National Literary Competition.  I am also proud that we are the first law practice to have published an iphone DUI App that actually helps those charged with this crime.  To that end, our practice is focused on defending those accused of DUI by using our experience, tenaciousness, hard work, and creativity to give our clients the best opportunity of defending and protecting themselves.

 

Finally, my office provides payment plans to made it affordable for you and we are also very competitively priced.  We provide a free case analysis for anyone who calls.  We have offices in Snohomish and Skagit Counties and our DUI attorneys are active in Snohomish, King, Skagit, and Island Counties.

We believe that representing clients is a great responsibility and privilege. We take a personal approach to each client and to each case. Our practice is based on our extensive experience in DUI law and our well developed relationships with prosecuting attorneys in Snohomish, Island, Skagit and King Counties. In order to serve our clients personally, we have an office in Snohomish County (Mukilteo) and in Skagit County (Anacortes).

Our exclusive focus is  the practice of DUI law.  We are DUI attorneys first and foremost and don't try to be all things to all people, we simply focus on this area of law with the very firm belief that we represent those accused of this crime better than any other practice.  Our knowledge is not only based on our extensive experience as DUI attorneys (20 years of combined DUI practice) but also on the fact that David Jolly is an award winning author and has had published two highly acclaimed DUI books, "DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence," and "The DUI Handbook for the Accused."  No other author in the country has written a book that has outlined the history of all of the elements of the history of DUI and no other DUI attorney in Washington State has authored a DUI book for those accused of the crime. Our novel and progressive approach to representing those accused of DUI has served our clients well in the past and will continue to do so in the years to come. If there is an issue that can be used to your advantage, we'll find it and exploit it.

Finally, if you have been stopped, arrested, or charged with a DUI, please contact us for a free consultation.  There is never any pressure to hire us and the consultation is free of charge.  At the very least we will counsel you on the process, what you should be aware of, and can discuss your case prior to you proceeding. Our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, Skagit County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, and Island County DUI attorneys can and will help defend and protect you.

 

Please call my office at:  425-493-1115; 360-293-2275; or toll free at 1-877-293-2275.  Also, please review my DUI website at:  http://www.washdui.com/.  Finally, you may email me with any questions you may have at:  david@davidjollylaw.com

Please Call : 425-493-1115

Attorney Profile

 

David N. Jolly

Bar Admission:
Washington; 1997

Education:
Northern Illinois University College of Law (1997): DeKalb, Illinois
Degree: J.D.
Honors: Graduating Class Speaker [Valedictorian]; Represented Law School at Regional Moot Court Competition

University of Calgary (1989): Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Degree: B.A.

Fraternities / Sororities:
Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity

Professional Accomplishments:
Author of "DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Infuence" (2009)  Outskirts Press
Author of "The DUI Handbook For the Accused" (2007) Outskirts Press
Author of "The History of DUI Field Sobriety Tests" (coming 2010) Outskirts Press

Past Positions:
Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan + McKenzie, Mill Creek, WA; 2001 - 2004
City of Lynnwood - Assistant City Attorney; 1998 - 2001
Kitsap County; Deputy Prosecuting Attorney; 1997 - 1998

Professional Memberships & Associations:
Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Member
Snohomish County Bar Association (SCBA) Member
Skagit County Bar Association (SCBA) Member
Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL) Member
DUI College of Defense - Harvard Law School
NHTSA-Certified Instructor DUI Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

NHTSA - Certified DUI Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

South Everett / Mukilteo Rotary Club Member
Mill Creek Business Association Member, 2001-2004
Snohomish County Big Brothers Member , 2001 - 2002
Seattle Australian Football Club,   Former Board Member and General Counsel

Pro Bono:
King County Estate Planning    1997 - 2003
Unemployment Law Project   1997 – 1998

Practice Areas:
DUI Defense

Miscellaneous:
I was born in Melbourne, Australia and lived there until the age of 12.  I then moved with my family to Calgary, Canada, where I lived for 15 years.  I have lived in the U.S.A. since 1994 and I now call Mukilteo, Washington, home.  I am married, have a young son, and live in Mukilteo, Washington.

Interests:
Australian Rules Football-player (now retired) with Seattle Australian Football Club in the United States Australian Football League. I have also represented Seattle at the National tournament 5 times and was selected to play international for Canada in the World Cup in 2002. I also have a genuine concern about the health and welfare of the community. I am actively involved in Rotary as a member of the South Everett Mukilteo Rotary, local business clubs and have also volunteered on the Executive Board for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Snohomish County.

Other interests are Golf, Sports, Travel & Automobiles.

Please Call : 425-493-1115

Attorneys

David N. Jolly
Attorney at Law
Bar Admission:
Washington; 1997

Education:
Northern Illinois University College of Law (1997): DeKalb, Illinois
Degree: J.D.
Honors: Graduating Class Speaker [Valedictorian]; Represented Law School at Regional Moot Court Competition

University of Calgary (1989): Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Degree: B.A.

Fraternities / Sororities:
Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity

Professional Accomplishments:
Author of "DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Infuence" (2009)  Outskirts Press
Author of "The DUI Handbook For the Accused" (2007) Outskirts Press
Author of "The History of DUI Field Sobriety Tests" (coming 2010) Outskirts Press

Past Positions:
Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan + McKenzie, Mill Creek, WA; 2001 - 2004
City of Lynnwood - Assistant City Attorney; 1998 - 2001
Kitsap County; Deputy Prosecuting Attorney; 1997 - 1998

Professional Memberships & Associations:
Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Member
Snohomish County Bar Association (SCBA) Member
Skagit County Bar Association (SCBA) Member
Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL) Member
DUI College of Defense - Harvard Law School
NHTSA-Certified Instructor DUI Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

NHTSA - Certified DUI Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

South Everett / Mukilteo Rotary Club Member
Mill Creek Business Association Member, 2001-2004
Snohomish County Big Brothers Member , 2001 - 2002
Seattle Australian Football Club,   Former Board Member and General Counsel

Pro Bono:
King County Estate Planning    1997 - 2003
Unemployment Law Project   1997 – 1998

Practice Areas:
DUI Defense

Miscellaneous:
I was born in Melbourne, Australia and lived there until the age of 12.  I then moved with my family to Calgary, Canada, where I lived for 15 years.  I have lived in the U.S.A. since 1994 and I now call Mukilteo, Washington, home.  I am married, have a young son, and live in Mukilteo, Washington.

Interests:
Australian Rules Football-player (now retired) with Seattle Australian Football Club in the United States Australian Football League. I have also represented Seattle at the National tournament 5 times and was selected to play international for Canada in the World Cup in 2002. I also have a genuine concern about the health and welfare of the community. I am actively involved in Rotary as a member of the South Everett Mukilteo Rotary, local business clubs and have also volunteered on the Executive Board for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Snohomish County.

Other interests are Golf, Sports, Travel & Automobiles.


  
Stephanie Hartung
Attorney at Law
Bar Admission
Washington; 2006

Education
Seattle University College of Law (2006): Seattle, Washington
Degree: J.D.

Central Washington University (2002): Ellensburg, Washington
Degree: 2 B.A.’s
Major: Psychology and Law & Justice

Past Positions
Yakima County Department of Assigned Counsel, Yakima, WA; 2007 - 2008
City of Yakima – Rule 9 Prosecutor; summer of 2005
Kittitas County; Legal Intern; summer of 2004

Professional Memberships/Certifications
Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Member

Practice Area
Criminal Law
DUI Defense
Expungements

Interests
I enjoy outdoor activities including: biking, hiking, running, camping, tennis and golf. I am an avid sports fan and participate in intramural volleyball and softball.  I am a huge college football enthusiast and love supporting the Washington State Cougars, through the good and the bad.  I had the honor of representing the United States in the World Miss University Pageant in Seoul Korea in 2002, a pageant focused on educational achievements and leadership. I was also selected as a delegate for the International Mission of Diplomacy that same year.  I am thankful for the opportunity and ability to represent those charged with criminal offenses.  I take great pride and honor in my work and eagerly utilize my skills to serve the community.

Miscellanous
I grew up on a farm in the small town of Selah Wa.  I moved to the Seattle area to pursue my legal career and I am privileged to now call Snohomish County home.


  
Janean Jolly
Law Firm Manager
Janean is the Office Manager for both the Mukilteo and Anacortes offices. Additionally, she works extensively with the Department of Licensing (DOL) on behalf of clients, ensuring that the DOL Hearings are properly scheduled, subpoena's are properly obtained and served, and that clients are properly notified of the issues with the DOL.  Janean is also Certified in Field Sobriety Test (FST) administration, which means she has as much training in FSTs as the majority of police officers and Troopers. 

Janean provides the office with professional and courteous service. Janean was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, and raised in Jackson, Wyoming. She attended The University of Wyoming and Washington State University, graduating from Washington State University with a Bachelor of Arts Degree. She later earned her Masters Degree from City University, graduating with Honors. Additionally, Janean has attended Edmonds Community College Paralegal Program.

Outside of the office, Janean enjoys traveling, staying active, playing golf, including fly-fishing, volunteering at N.O.A.H. and dog rescue organizations, and raising her young son with her husband.

Janean brings her history of excellence to the Law Firm and is dedicated to client services and to ensuring that the office runs efficiently and professionally. Feel free to contact Janean, by email, at janean@davidjollylaw.com.

 


  
Riley S. Lovejoy
Attorney at law
Bar Admission

Washington; 2009

 

Education

University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law (2008): Sacramento, California

Degree: Juris Doctorate

University of Portland (2004): Portland, Oregon

Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Minor in Social Justice

 

Past Positions

Public Employment Relations Board- Judicial Intern, Sacramento, CA; 2007-2008

California Department of Parks and Recreation- Legal Clerk, Sacramento, CA; 2007

 

Pro Bono

Seattle Community Law Center- Volunteer Attorney, Seattle, WA; 2009-2010

 

Professional Membership

Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Member

 

Practice Area

DUI Defense

 

Interests

I am an ardent sports enthusiast; I like downhill skiing, running cross country, playing golf, disc golf, and am also a member of a men’s league soccer team.  In college I was a member of the University’s debate team and also did some acting, which I still enjoy, creating short films with my friends.  I also enjoy reading books, mostly historical non-fiction, and take pleasure in completing crossword puzzles.  I always root for the underdog, and am honored and passionate about representing those accused of crimes.  I am very proud of our law firm as we continue to serve those in our community who are in need of assistance.

 

Miscellaneous

I grew up in Seattle and ran cross country for Seattle Prep.  I am a volunteer coach for the cross country team at Seattle Prep, and have a large extended family in Seattle.  I attended college in Portland, Oregon, and moved to Sacramento, California for law school, but I have always called Seattle my home.

Attorney Fees

 

 
What do attorneys cost?

Although we do not to publish our fees, we are more than happy to tell you how much we charge on the phone or in person.  Like the majority of DUI attorneys, we charge a "flat fee" which is one set fee and includes all of our work for court (all court dates, all preparation for court, all written motions, all meetings with clients, and all negotiation with prosecuting attorneys) and the Department of Licensing representation (preparation for the hearing, the written motion, and the attendance at the hearing).

If you contact different attorneys (and we do not discourage this) you will find that there is little consistency when it comes to fees.  Depending on the County, fees will range from $2,500 for smaller Counties up to $10,000 for King County.  However, it is fair to say that the majority of DUI attorneys charge between $3,000 (smaller Counties) and $6,000 (King County).  It is our objective to be competitively priced and affordable for most of our prospective clients - in every County.  As such, we price our services at the average price range and offer payment plans and different forms of payments (ie. check, credit and debit cards).  While by no means are we the cheapest criminal defense firm, we do believe we are one of the most affordable DUI speciality firms. We further believe that no other firm in Western Washington can offer the same services, success, and experience for a similar cost.

Additionally, we also give our clients another option when it comes to representation.  We charge different fees depending on which attorney represents you.  This option gives more individuals charged with a DUI an affordable option at thorough, aggressive, and top of the line representation.

Due to the financial turbulence of 2008/2009 we have not raised of fees.

Contact Us

Phone:
425-493-1115 (Snohomish County Office)
360-293-2275 (Skagit County Office)
877-293-2275 (Toll Free)
425-343-2915 (Cell)

Introduction to DUI

Experience:  Our office has over 20 years of combined legal experience in criminal law and DUI defense and representing drunk driving defendants in Washington State including Snohomish County (Everett, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Mill Creek, Marysville, Monroe, Edmonds and Lake Stevens), King County (Seattle, Redmond, Kirkland, Bellevue, Shoreline, and Burien), Skagit County (Anacortes, Mt. Vernon and Burlington) and Island County (Oak Harbor and Coupeville).  This legal experience and specifically DUI experience has translated into handling many thousands of criminal cases.  In fact, David Jolly has handled more than 15,000 criminal cases, has gone to trial hundreds of times, and has conducted hundreds of Department of Licensing hearings for DUI clients. David Jolly is also a certified instructor for Standardized Field Sobriety Testing which is a critical element of the DUI process.

Knowledge:  In addition to our DUI and drunk driving defense experience, our Washington State DUI attorneys are well versed and knowledgeable in every area of misdemeanor law.  Furthermore, David Jolly is the author of The DUI Handbook for the Accused (Vol. I and II), the only DUI book in Washington written specifically for those accused of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  His last book, DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence  was published in 2009 and won First Place at the Reader View Literary Award. Importantly it is the only comprehensive DUI history ever written. David Jolly was also the first DUI attorney to publish a DUI App (application) for iTunes.  In fact David's DUI App for the Accused was the first DUI App in the United States.  His next book, the 2nd Edition of The DUI Handbook for the Accused will be published in early 2011. Additionally, David has written The DUI Investigation Handbook (2011), The Drug DUI Handbook (2011), The Ultimate Washington State DUI Handbook (2011), The Washington State DUI Pocket Handbook (2011) and the Traffic Ticket Handbook (2012). 

Reputation:  We have a reputation amongst the DUI courts and DUI prosecuting attorneys for being aggressive, persistent, knowledgeable, professional, and well prepared DUI defense attorneys.  Reputation in the DUI business is an invaluable tool when negotiating DUI cases with prosecuting attorneys and dealing with Judges.

Service:  Not only are we diligent and aggressive advocates for our DUI clients, but we also provide the following services most DUI defense law practices do not:

  • A copy of The Washington State DUI Handbook (for DUI clients) which thoroughly details the entire DUI process.  No other DUI Law practice in Washington provides this service.
  • Every DUI case is reviewed by two attorneys.  This thoroughness eliminates the potential for errors created by over burdened DUI attorneys.  Two trained eyes are better than one.
  • At the conclusion of each DUI case clients receive a letter summarizing their DUI case and detailing any conditions that may be imposed on them.  This seems like a minor detail, but most DUI law practices fail to do this thereby leaving their clients to fend for themselves once they leave court. 

Cost:  We offer affordable attorney fees and flexible payment plans. You can afford us!

There is no denying that DUI / Drunk Driving attorneys can be expensive.  However, we are very competitively priced and we are convinced, without hesitation, that we offer far more services than most every DUI law practice of a similar cost.  We offer two distinct options for DUI defense for our clients.  Please discuss our different set of fees, depending on attorney representation.  We strongly encourage potential DUI clients to compare our costs with other DUI attorneys, that is how confident we are that the services we provide are good value compared with most every other DUI attorney or DUI law firm.  We also offer flexible payment plans and accept credit and debit cards, in addition to cash and checks.  Importantly, and as a reflection of our times, we have not raised our fees for three consequetive years, when other competing DUI attorneys or DUI law firm's have.

For information on your Washington State DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving case or your Snohomish County DUI, King County DUI, Skagit County DUI, Island County DUI or Whatcom County DUI  please contact our Washington State DUI attorneys for a free consultation at 425-493-1115, email us at david@davidjollylaw.com, or check out our main website at http://www.washdui.com or www.mukilteodui.com, www.everett-dui.co, www.marysville-dui.com, www.dui-bothell.com, or www.anacortesdui.com.  We represent DUI clients in every court in Western Washington including Seattle DUI cases, Kirkland DUI cases, Redmond DUI cases, Shoreline DUI cases, Lynnwood DUI cases, Everett DUI cases, Mukilteo DUI cases, Marysville DUI cases, Mt. Vernon DUI cases, Anacortes DUI cases, and Bellingham DUI cases. 

David N. Jolly

David Jolly has more than 15 years of legal experience in the DUI and traffic ticket realm.  He has successfully defended thousands of cases and is the author of 8 DUI | Traffic books.  He prides himself in aggressive advocacy and superior results.  His creative approach to defending those accused of driving under the influence is well known and respected.  He also deals with his clients in a compassionate and honest manner.

Bar Admission:
Washington; 1997

Education:
Northern Illinois University College of Law (1997): DeKalb, Illinois
Degree: J.D.
Honors: Graduating Class Speaker [Valedictorian]; Represented Law School at Regional Moot Court Competition

University of Calgary (1989): Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Degree: B.A.

Fraternities:

Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity

Professional Accomplishments:

Author of  The Washington State DUI Pocket Handbook (2012) Outskirts Press

Author of  The Ultimate Washington State DUI Handbook (2012) Outskirts Press

Author of  The Traffic Ticket Handbook (2011) Outskirts Press

Author of  The DUI Handbook For the Accused, 2nd Ed. (2011) Outskirts Press

Author of  The Drug DUI Handbook. (2011) Outskirts Press

Author of  The DUI Investigation Handbook (2011) Outskirts Press

Author of  DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence (2009) Outskirts Press
Author of  The DUI Handbook For the Accused (2007) Outskirts Press

Author of iTunes "The DUI App" (2010) (First DUI App in the United States written by an attorney for accused)Apple iTunes

Past Positions:
Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan + McKenzie, Mill Creek, WA; 2001 - 2004
City of Lynnwood - Assistant City Attorney; 1998 - 2001
Kitsap County; Deputy Prosecuting Attorney; 1997 - 1998
Professional Memberships & Associations:

Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Member
Snohomish County Bar Association (SCBA) Member
Skagit County Bar Association (SCBA) Member
Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL) Member
DUI College of Defense - Harvard Law School
NHTSA-Certified Instructor DUI Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

NHTSA - Certified DUI Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

South Everett / Mukilteo Rotary Club Member
Mill Creek Business Association Member, 2001-2004
Snohomish County Big Brothers Member , 2001 - 2002
Seattle Australian Football Club, Former Board Member and General Counsel

Pro Bono:
King County Estate Planning 1997 - 2003
Unemployment Law Project 1997 – 1998
Practice Areas:
DUI Defense, Traffic Ticket Defense, Personal Injury

Miscellaneous:
David was born in Melbourne, Australia and lived there until the age of 12.  He then moved with my family to Calgary, Canada, and lived there for 15 years. David has lived in the U.S.A. since 1994 and now calls Mukilteo, Washington, home.
Interests:
Australian Rules Football-player (now retired) with Seattle Australian Football Club in the United States Australian Football League.  David represented Seattle at the National tournament 5 times and was selected to play for Canada (David is a dual citizen) in the 2002 World Cup. David also loves cars, particularly a certain German manufacturer and is a bad golfer.

How to Beat a DUI

360 Legal Defenses and Arguments

Driving

Lack of probable cause to stop and/or contact the vehicle

Weaving inside the lane is not illegal

Driving over the fog line once may not validate the stop and/or contact of the vehicle

Anonymous report of DUI – officer must corroborate the report

Corpus Delicti – must prove defendant was actually driving

Safely Off the Roadway – a defense to “physical control”

Videos in Patrol Car – may contradict officer’s report

Observations of Driver -Physical Appearance

Clothing and Grooming

Is there an innocent explanation for the defendant’s disheveled clothing?

Why had the defendant not shaved or combed his hair?

Are there any other witnesses to the defendant’s appearance within an hour of the arrest?

Can the officer’s conclusions be used to discredit other testimony?

Eyes

Does the defendant suffer from an eye disorder?

Is the normal appearance of defendant’s eyes red, glassy, watery, or bloodshot?

Was the defendant suffering from fatigue, lack of sleep, or eye strain?

Was there significant air pollution on the day of the arrest?

If a pupil reaction test was given:

-Was the officer qualified to administer the test and render medical conclusions?

-How were size of pupils and speed of their reaction measured?

-Is the officer familiar with nonalcoholic causes of slow pupil reaction?

Flushed Face

Is the defendant’s facial complexion normally flushed or red?

Was the defendant nervous, angry, or otherwise emotionally upset at the time of the officer’s observations?

Are there causes for a flushed appearance other than alcohol?

Breath Odor

As alcohol has little or no odor, was the officer smelling an unusually strong beverage flavoring such as that of beer or wine?

Does the officer contend that he can tell what the defendant was drinking, when, and how much?

Does or did the defendant simply have bad breath or acetone (caused by diabetes)?

Was the defendant belching prior to the officer smelling his breath?

Did the presence of an odor of alcohol have an instrumental effect in the forming of the officer’s opinion of intoxication?

Was the defendant’s last drink within one hour of driving?

Speech

Was the officer familiar with the defendant’s normal speech prior to the arrest?

Does the defendant normally speak in a thick, slurred, stuttering, and/or confused manner?

Did nervousness, anger, or embarrassment affect the defendant’s speech?

Are there any other witnesses to the defendant’s speech characteristics within an hour of the arrest?

Did the police report permit any alternatives to slurred speech, such as “good,” “fair,” “repetitive,” and “fast?”

Was the officer able to understand the defendant’s answers to the numerous questions?

Does the defendant have an accent?

Is English the defendant’s native language?

Do any audio or video tapes exist?

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs)

Initial Considerations

Did the tests consist of the federally recommended ‘‘standardized’’ battery of tests: walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, and horizontal nystagmus?

-If so, were they administered and scored as recommended?

-If not, why were tests not approved by NHTSA used by the officer?

Can the FSTs be suppressed at a motion hearing?

Should the officer and prosecutor be instructed to refrain from using such terms as ‘‘test’’ or ‘‘fail’’?

When was the officer trained in FSTs?

Has the officer received refresher courses in FSTs?

Has the officer received ARIDE training?

Is the officer an instructor for FSTs?

Defendant’s Condition

Was the defendant 50 pounds or more overweight?

Was the defendant 65 years of age or older?

Was the defendant suffering from any illness affecting his balance or coordination?

Was the defendant taking any drugs or medication that might affect his balance?

Did the defendant have any physical disabilities affecting his ability to take the tests?

Was the defendant upset by or injured in a traffic collision?

Was the defendant suffering from any emotional reactions to the procedure - fear, embarrassment, anger, nervousness?

Was the defendant wearing shoes with high heels while performing the tests?

Administration of Field Sobriety Tests

Were the tests given on a smooth and level area?

Was the area covered with gravel, loose dirt, or other possible obstructions?

Were the tests administered near passing vehicles, creating nose and wind waves?

Did the lighting conditions impede the defendant’s successful performance?

Did the weather conditions make the tests more difficult to perform?

Did the police vehicle have flashing lights creating a strobe effect?

Could unclear instructions by the officer have contributed to test results?

Was the defendant given the opportunity to practice each of the tests once before attempting them? Why not?

What was the physical line used in the walk-the-line test?

Did he demonstrate to the defendant by first performing each test?

Does ‘‘passing’’ involve a subjective opinion by the officer?

Had the officer already formed an opinion that the defendant was intoxicated?

Are there any objective criteria?

Did the officer use negative scoring?

Did the officer take into consideration the ‘‘impaired learning curve’’ (fear, nervousness) in assessing pass/fail?

Corroboration

Were any videotapes or photographs taken of the defendant performing the tests?

Were any audio or video devices available to the officer, if so, and they were not used, why not?

Are there any defense witnesses who observed the tests being given?

Were any potential witnesses prevented by the police from viewing the tests?

Did the officer diagram the walk-the-line and/or finger-to-nose tests as they were performed?

Was he capable of recalling all details when he later drafted his report?

Can a comparison of the defendant’s signature and/or handwriting be effectively made?

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)

Admissibility

Is evidence of the HGN test admissible at trial?

If so, is it available to prove consumption of alcohol only (not impairment)?

Is the officer qualified as an expert?

Does the test pass the state and/or Frye standards?

Does the evidence consist of testimony as to the indicated blood-alcohol level, or as to whether the defendant passed or failed?

Foundation

Was the officer qualified to administer the HGN test?

Has he had sufficient training and experience?

Is he familiar with the physiological theory behind the test?

Is the officer aware of the many sources for error inherent in the test?

Administration

Was the test administered according to the standardized procedures?

Did the officer ask the defendant if he was wearing contacts and note the answer?

Did the officer have the defendant remove glasses before testing?

Did the officer tell the defendant, ‘‘I am going to check your eyes’’?

Did the officer instruct the defendant: ‘‘Keep your head still and follow this stimulus with your eyes only’’?

Was the defendant told: ‘‘Keep focusing on this stimulus until I tell you to stop’’?

Did the officer hold the stimulus 12 to 15 inches from the defendant’s nose and slightly above eye level?

Pupils not equal in size may indicate a head injury; did the officer check to see if the defendant’s pupils were equal in size?

Eyes that don’t track together could indicate a possible medical disorder, injury, or blindness; did the officer check the defendant’s eyes for the ability to track together?

Did the officer move the stimulus smoothly?

Did the officer move the stimulus two seconds out, two seconds back, for each eye?

Was the stimulus moved to maximum deviation, and held for four seconds for each eye?

Did the officer check to see if the onset of nystagmus occurred before 45 degrees?

Was the sclera (white of the eye) visible?

Did the officer check for each clue at least twice in each eye?

Was the defendant facing away from flashing lights?

Did the defendant exhibit the standardized clues?

-Lack of smooth pursuit

-Distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation

-Onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees

-Did the defendant exhibit other clues?

-Did the defendant sway noticeably during the test?

-Did the defendant keep his head still during the test?

Does this testimony conflict with the officer’s earlier or later testimony that the defendant was staggering, weaving, or unstable on his feet?

Sources of Error

Was the angle of onset measured accurately and honestly?

Was the angle of onset measured with a template, or by estimate?

Has the officer received training in estimating angles?

Has the officer undergone recent verification of his ability to estimate angles?

Did the officer simply use the defendant’s shoulders to measure 45 degrees?

Was the jerking of the eye observed by the officer due to his moving the focal object in a jerking manner?

Is there any evidence corroborative of the officer’s testimony concerning the angle?

Did the officer use the objective scoring system recommended by the NHTSA?

Are there any sources of possible error in the test?

Is the officer aware of physiological grounds for error?

Had the defendant consumed coffee, smoked a cigarette, or taken an aspirin?

Did the defendant suffer from any physiological problems that would affect nystagmus, such as influenza, streptococcus, vertigo, or epilepsy?

Is the defendant hypertensive or hypotensive?

Was the defendant carsick?

Were there any inner ear problems?

Was the defendant suffering from eyestrain or eye muscle fatigue?

Is the officer aware of the effects of circadian rhythm on the onset of nystagmus?

Walk-and-Turn

Was the test administered in accordance with the standardized procedures?

Were the required conditions for the administration of this test met?

Was the test conducted on a dry, hard, level, non-slippery surface?

Was there a designated straight line?

Was the test administered under relatively safe conditions?

Were the proper instructions given?

Did the officer tell the defendant: ‘‘Place your left foot on the line’’?

Did the officer further explain: ‘‘Place your right foot on the line ahead of the left foot, with the heel of your right foot against the toe of your left foot’’?

Was the defendant told: ‘‘Place your arms down at your side’’?

Was the defendant instructed: ‘‘Keep this position until I tell you to begin; do not start to walk until I tell you to do so’’?

Did the officer verify that the defendant understood the stance was to be maintained while instructions were given?

If the defendant lapsed from the stance during the instructions, did the officer cease instructions until the stance was resumed?

Did the officer tell the defendant that he would be required to do nine heel-to-toe steps down the line, turn around, and take nine heel-to-toe steps up the line?

Did the officer demonstrate several heel-to-toe steps?

Did the officer demonstrate the turn?

Did the officer tell the defendant to look at his feet, keep arms at sides, count steps aloud, and not to stop walking until the test is completed?

Did the officer ask the defendant whether he understood and re-explain what was not understood?

Were the proper procedures followed while the defendant performed the test?

Was the defendant told to begin?

If the defendant staggered or stopped, did the officer allow him to resume from the point of interruption rather than go back to the beginning?

The officer should not have followed alongside the defendant.

The officer should not have been within three or four feet of the defendant during the test.

Did the defendant exhibit any of the standardized clues?

-Lose balance during instructions (feet must break apart from the heel-to-toe stance);

-Start walking too soon;

-Stop while walking to steady self;

-Miss heel-to-toe while walking (by 1/2 inch or more);

-Raise arms from side while walking (6 inches or more);

-Step off the line;

-Turn improperly;

-Take wrong number of steps.

One-Leg-Stand

Was the test administered according to the standardized procedures?

Were the required conditions for the administration of the test met?

Was the test administered on a smooth, level surface?

Was the lighting adequate?

Were the proper instructions given?

Was the defendant told to stand with feet together and arms at sides?

Did the officer tell the defendant not to start until told to do so?

Did the officer ask the defendant if he understood?

Was the defendant told to stand on either foot with the other foot held straight and about six inches off the ground, toes pointed out?

Did the officer demonstrate the proper stance?

Did the officer instruct the subject to count from 1 to 30 by thousands until told to stop?

Did the officer demonstrate the count for several seconds?

Did the officer ask the defendant if he understood, and if not, did the officer re-explain? Were the proper procedures followed while the defendant performed the test?

Did the officer tell the defendant to begin?

If the defendant stopped or put his foot down, did the officer allow him or her to begin at the point of interruption?

Was the defendant permitted to remove his shoes?

The officer should not stand within three feet of the suspect during the test.

The officer should not move around during the test.

Did the defendant exhibit any of the standardized clues?

-Sway in trying to balance;

-Put foot down;

-Hop;

-Raise arm from side 6 inches or more.

Preliminary Breath Test (PBT)

Was the device approved by State Statute? (Alcosensor III and Alcosensor FST (Washington State)

Did the officer advise the subject prior to the test that the PBT was voluntary?
Did the operator perform the test according to the policies and procedures approved by the state toxicologist?

Did the operator will perform the following test protocol?

-The operator shall advise the subject that this is a voluntary test, and that it is not an alternative to any evidential breath alcohol test;

- The operator shall determine by observation or inquiry, that the subject has not consumed any alcohol in the fifteen minutes prior to administering the test. If the subject has consumed alcohol during that period, the officer should not administer the screening test for probable cause purposes until fifteen minutes have passed. If the subject responds that they have not consumed any alcohol in the last fifteen minutes, the officer may offer the subject the opportunity to provide a breath sample into the PBT;

-Ensure a blank test result is obtained;

-Have the subject exhale into the mouthpiece with a full and continuous exhalation;
-Observe the results.

Breath Tests

Breath Analysis

Was the machine properly certified and maintained?

Was the operator properly trained and certified?

Was the machine accurately calibrated?

Was the simulator solution mixed correctly?

Could the alcohol in the solution have become depleted?

What was the temperature of the solution?

Could there have been leakage in the vapor tube?

Could radio frequency interference (RFI) have affected the reading?

What possible sources of RFI existed in the breath machine’s environment?

Does the machine use infrared spectroscopy?

Is it specific for ethyl alcohol?

What compounds found on the human breath will it detect as ‘‘alcohol’’?

Does the machine have an acetone detector? If yes, was it working properly? If no, why not?

Does the machine have an acetaldehyde detector? If yes, was it working properly? If no, why not?

Is the client a diabetic or has he been fasting?

What compounds containing the methyl group has he ingested or been exposed to?

Could the breath test have been conducted during the client’s absorptive phase?

Had the client recently eaten food before drinking?

Was mouth alcohol present?

Did the client burp, belch, hiccup, or regurgitate within 15 minutes of the breath test?

Did he consume any alcohol within 15 minutes of the test?

Did he observe the client constantly for 15 minutes before administering the test?

Could the operator have manipulated the observation period times (the officer manually types in the beginning of the observation period)?

Were there any other people in the BAC room/area during the observation period that could have been distractions to the officer?

Does he wear dentures, use dental adhesive, or have dental caps that could trap alcohol?

Did he use any mouthwash, cough syrup, throat spray, breath freshener, or other product containing alcohol?

What was the client’s body temperature at the time of the test?

Could the client’s breathing pattern have affected the breath test?

Could stress have had an effect on the test?

Was a sterile new mouthpiece for both breath tests used?

Was the machine purged with room air containing alcohol vapor from the client or previously tested suspects?

Do the machine’s records indicate any failures or mechanical problems before or since the test?

Has the machine been modified in any way affecting its status as a state-approved device?

Is operator/officer familiar with the theory and operation of the BAC machine in use?

Did he follow the manufacturer’s checklist? Can he recall each step?

Is the machine specific for alcohol?

What other compounds found on the breath will be reported as alcohol by the machine?

Could the client have had acetaldehyde in his system? Acetone? Ketones? Paint or glue fumes? Other compounds?

Was there any source of radio frequency interference in the area of the machine when the client was tested?

Any police transmitters? Walkie-talkies? Televisions? Electric door locks? Microwave ovens? Police car transmitters in the parking lot? Teletype machines? Computers? Radios? Fluorescent lighting?

Could the machine have been affected by a mechanical or electrical problem, such as a drop in line voltage?

How many malfunctions are recognized as possible by the manufacturer?

Are all of these detected by the machine’s internal computer?

Would a defect in the computer or its software be detectable?

Were all operating temperatures as required by the manufacturer?

Could condensation have formed in the breath tube as a result of being operated at an improper temperature?

Were there any possible problems with the machine’s temperature, humidity, optics, or age?

Was a self-checking diagnostic system available in the BAC machine?

Was it run immediately before or after the client’s test? Why not?

Are there any generic problems with breath testing?

Can the prosecution establish that the client’s partition ratio was 2100:1?

Blood Draws

Blood Analysis

Was the laboratory conducting the analysis properly licensed?

Was the individual drawing the blood sample qualified and/or licensed?

Was the laboratory technician who analyzed the sample properly licensed?

Was the equipment calibrated accurately?

Was the syringe used to withdraw the sample sterilized?

Was the arm swabbed with alcohol or any other substance that could contaminate the sample?

Did the blood sample come from the client’s artery or vein?

Is there a regulation as to which must be used?

Would an arterial sample give a falsely high BAC?

Would a venous sample give a falsely high BAC?

Was the blood sample refrigerated at all times?

Was the proper preservative added and in the correct amount?

Could sodium fluoride have caused a higher BAC because of a ‘‘salting out’’ effect?

Was the proper anticoagulant added and in the correct amount?

Was the vial properly sealed, or could evaporation have caused an increased BAC?

Can the prosecution account for the chain of custody of the analyzed sample?

What method of analysis was used?

If gas chromatography was used, were there any sources of radio frequency interference in or near the laboratory?

If the Kozelka-Hines (dichromate) method was used, could acetone, acetalde-hyde, or other substances have caused a false BAC?

Was the sample one of a larger batch of samples analyzed en masse?

Did the analyzed sample consist of whole blood or of serum/plasma?

If serum/plasma, has the laboratory adjusted the BAC downward to allow for the serum/plasma concentration being 15 to 20 percent higher?

If so, did the laboratory use an average conversion ratio? Was that ratio demonstrably applicable to the client’s sample?

Is a portion of the blood sample available to counsel for independent analysis?

Urine Tests

Is urinalysis an approved method of blood-alcohol analysis?

Was a more accurate method available?

Were duplicate samples obtained?

Was the laboratory conducting the analysis properly licensed?

Was the laboratory technician who analyzed the sample properly licensed?

Was the equipment accurately calibrated?

Was the sample one of a larger batch of samples analyzed en masse?

How long after the arrest was the sample obtained?

Was the client required to void his bladder 20 minutes before producing a sample?

Did he void incompletely on purpose?

Is it possible to void completely? Did old urine involuntarily left after a ‘‘complete’’ void contaminate the new urine?

Did the urinalysis assume a urine/blood ratio of 1.33:1?

What evidence exists of the client’s actual ratio?

What range of possible BACs would be obtained by applying the range of possible urine/blood ratios?

Could the urine sample have been contaminated?

Could the client have had a substance on his hands that could have contaminated the sample urine?

Was the sample jar sterile?

Was the proper preservative added and in the correct amount?

Was the urine sample refrigerated at all times?

Could the presence of Candida albicans in the urine sample have caused the production of alcohol?

Was the vial properly sealed, or could evaporation have caused an increased BAC?

Can the prosecution account for the chain of custody of the analyzed sample?

What method of analysis was used?

If gas chromatography was used, were there any sources of radio frequency interference in or near the laboratory?

If the Kozelka-Hines (dichromate) method was used, could any substances other than alcohol have caused a false BAC?

Is a portion of the urine sample available to counsel for independent analysis?

Medical Defenses

The BAC, field sobriety test performance, or physical observations (that look like intoxication) may be explained by the following diseases or conditions

Does the driver suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)?

Does the driver suffer from diabetes?

Does the driver suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)?

Does the driver suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?

Does the driver suffer from Parkinson’s disease?

Does the driver suffer from cerebral palsy?

Does the driver suffer from multiple sclerosis?

Does the driver suffer from Ménière's disease?

Does the driver suffer from head injuries or concussions?

Does the driver suffer from foot, leg, or back problems or injuries?

Does the driver suffer from an eye condition?

Legal Defenses

The Stop/Contact

Did the officer have probable cause to stop the client’s car?

Are there specific and articulable facts present?

Did probable cause depend at least in part on a tip?

Is the informant known and reliable?

Was the information forwarded by a dispatcher or other source, constituting ‘‘double hearsay’’?

Is there any risk of a jury hearing evidence of the informant’s information?

Detention

Did the officer have probable cause to detain the client for further investigation?

Was the detention unreasonably long in time?

Arrest

Did the officer have probable cause to arrest the client?

Did the officer have legal authority to make an arrest?

Did a lawful arrest precede any blood-alcohol test or interrogation?

Was the evidence used by the officer to determine probable cause to arrest, validly obtained?

Sobriety Checkpoints

(Not legal in Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming)

Did the client’s DUI stop result from a roadblock or checkpoint?

Is there a legislatively developed procedure for roadblocks?

Do guidelines exist by statute or case precedent?

Did the roadblock or checkpoint comply with acceptable standards?

Was the decision-making process accomplished at the supervisory level?

Were effective limits placed on the discretion of officers at the checkpoint?

Was the checkpoint administered in a safe manner?

Was the location chosen a reasonable one?

How intrusive were the time and duration of the checkpoint?

Were sufficient indicia of authority clearly visible to the public?

Was the length of detention minimal?

Was there sufficient advance publicity as to the time, location, and nature of the checkpoint?

What reports, memoranda, notes, etc., are available through discovery?

Was the roadblock valid under the relevant provisions of the state constitution?

Incriminating Statements

Did the client make any incriminating statements?

Was the statement given as a result of custodial interrogation?

If under arrest, was Miranda given?

If Miranda was advised, did the defendant waived the right to remain silent?

Is the statement relevant to the issue of intoxication?

Does any probative value outweigh the prejudicial effect?

Is the appropriate procedure for suppression a pre-trial motion, motion in limine, an objection, or a motion out of hearing of the jury?

Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing

Do the client’s words and/or conduct constitute a refusal?

If arguably they do not, does any probative value outweigh the prejudicial effect?

Can the refusal be suppressed?

Was the refusal due to consciousness of guilt?

Can the prosecution lay a foundation showing the reason for the refusal?

Did the client refuse to take field sobriety tests?

Suppressing Blood-Alcohol Evidence

Did the client consent to testing?

Was he advised of the implied consent warnings?

Were these warnings provided in a timely manner prior to the breath test request?

Did the defendant express confusion after the reading of the implied consent warnings?

Did the officer read the implied consent warnings ver batum?

Was the consent obtained through coercion?

Is there any independent evidence of the consent?

Did the client have a right to a choice of tests?

Was he advised of this right?

Was the client denied access to counsel before submitting to a test?

Did the officer check the subject’s mouth more than 15 minutes prior to the test (or according to the State statute)?

If the officer found a foreign substance in the subject’s mouth, was it removed and a new observation time started?

Was a blood sample obtained through excessive force?

Was the client denied an opportunity to have an independent blood-alcohol test?

Did the officer advise him of this right?

Did the officer assist or offer to assist in obtaining the independent sample?

Can the prosecution establish a sufficient foundation for the introduction of the blood-alcohol evidence?

Is the blood or urine sample available for re-analysis?

Miscellaneous

What is the reputation of the reporting/arresting officer(s)?

Language Issues: Did the officer get a language interpreter for the interpretation of the implied consent warnings?


Mukilteo WA Criminal Defense Attorney

Cities served:
Select a city
 
 RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Criminal Defense Law Blog
SiteMap  | MembersFAQ | Member Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2008. “FDPInc.net”. All rights reserved.

...