Olympia DUI Lawyer Blog

In Olympia, Thurston County District Court began a new program last week aimed at helping veterans who wind up in legal troubles. The new Veterans' Court focuses on providing vets who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury(TBI), and other problems associated with recovering from the trauma of war with the necessary treatment and support. The veterans in this court wind up with legal troubles, such as assault or domestic violence charges as well as DUI. Rather than merely punishing the behavior in the form of jail time, this program seeks to get defendants out of jail sooner and get them them hooked up with mental health and chemical dependency treatment. The court meets weekly and serves as both a support group for the vets as well as a way to monitor participants' progress. If participants re-offend or stop doing their treatment, Judge Buckley, the veteran court Judge who is a former JAG member and the son of a veteran, has the ability to impose sanction up to making the participants serve the remainder of their suspended sentences.

This program was spearheaded by members of Thurston County's Mental Health Court as well as local public defender Alex Frix, who is the son of a two star general. While growing up, Frix saw the impact that PTSD had on this father and other military members and families, and recognized the need for this specialized court during his representation of veterans charged with crimes in the county. Though veterans previously had the ability to enter mental health court, that court presented some problems for veterans. I previously represented a veteran charged various domestic violence crimes in Thurston County District Court who suffered from both PTSD and TBI. In that case, the prosecutor would not agree to allow my client entrance into mental health court, which is a requirement prior to the Judge allowing entry. The prosecutor felt that though my client suffered from mental health issues, mental health court was not appropriate as this prosecutor viewed veterans mental health problems as different than those defendants who typically wind up in mental health court. Beyond the hurdle of getting prosecutors to agree on mental health court, veterans too often often don't want to enter that court due to the stigma of suffering from mental health problems. Hopefully, now that Thurston County has a court tailored towards veteran specific mental heath issues, veterans can seek comfort in knowing that others who have gone through comparable combat situations have developed similar mental health problems.

Washington State Patrol officers working out of the Olympia airport are now using airplanes to catch DUI and Reckless Driving suspects. When callers speak with 911 representatives, the 911 worker contacts the operator of "Smokey 3," a plane used by Washington State Patrol. The plane's operator calls the complaining party, and uses the information provided by him or her to track down the suspect vehicle and relay the vehicle's location to law enforcement on the ground. Beyond just tracking down location, Smokey 3 is also equipped with a gyro-stabilized video camera attached to the side of the aircraft. It's called a Forward-Looking Infrared or FLIR camera. According to an NPR article, the camera is "similar to ones used by the military, it has night-vision capabilities and can lock-in on a vehicle zipping down the freeway." The camera records the driver, and prosecutors then have access to these recordings to use against DUI suspects in court. 911 dispatch also has access to the driving the camera records, and relays what he or she sees to law enforcement on the ground. This cutting-edge technology is not cheap. Washington did not have to pony up for this capability out of our budget as Uncle Sam picked up the several hundred thousand dollar bill in the form of a Homeland Security Grant. Washington State is currently the only state that utilizes this technology to apprehend drunk drivers.

A woman was assaulted in Olympia's Priest Point Park this morning. According to the Olympian, the woman was alone in the park at 9:45 am when a man "forced her to the ground an assaulted her." In Washington, assault is either a gross misdemeanor or a felony depending upon the severity of the victim's injuries.

In Olympia, The Washington State Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, reinstated a $14 million award in a DUI case.

The plaintiff in the case, Bianca Faust, sued The Bellingham Moose Lodge and Alexis Chapman a bartender of the lodge, as well as the Estate of Hawkeye Kinkaide. Kincaide, who was Alexis Chapman's boyfriend, drank at the Bellingham Moose Lodge where he was served by Chapman. There was evidence that had not consumed alcohol prior to arriving at the tavern and that at the time of the collision he was above the blood alcohol content (BAC) legal limit. When he drove away from the lodge, he collided with a car driven by Bianca Faust. The impact killed Kincaide, paralyzed Faust's minor son and injured Faust.

The Appellate Court overturned the $14 million jury award for injuries sustained to Faust and her family. The issue in the case related to the type and level of evidence required to prove that a tavern's bartender(s) negligently continued to serve drinks to a visibly intoxicated patron. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that evidence sufficient to submit the issue of negligent overservice to a jury may be either direct or circumstantial and that evidence of BAC and autopsy reports can corroborate evidence of postservice appearance and support an inference that a defendant appeared under the influence at the time he was served.

Olympia's Ralph's Thriftway owners filed suit in July of 2007 asserting that the rules issued by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy that require pharmacies to deliver lawfully prescribed Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") approved medication violated the owner's First Amendment rights by requiring them to stock Plan B, an oral contraceptive that significantly reduces likelihood of pregnancy if within 72 hours of intercourse. Thriftway's owners argue that requiring the pharmacy to stock and sell the medication violates their First Amendment right to religious freedom. Owner Kevin Stormans "learned that Plan B can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and because Storman's owners believe life begins with fertilization, Stormans decided it would not sell the drug." Storman, Inc. v. Selecky, 8448-9. The new rules issued by the Board do not require an individual pharmacist to dispense medication in the face of personal objection, though that pharmacist must have another pharmacist available in person or by telephone. Sending patients to another pharmacy is not an allowable option under the rule.

The US Appellate Court reversed the District Court in an opinion issued July 8, 2009. The United States District Court previously issued an injunction which allowed Thriftway and other pharmacies to not sell plan B until the courts ruled on whether the law violated pharmacists' constitutional rights. The US Appellate Court ruled that the District Court's injunction was overbroad as it allowed any pharmacist to refuse to stock or sell plan b for religious or moral reasons, though general morality is not defined or protected by the constitution. The District Court's ruling allowed pharmacists to refuse to dispense Plan B if they immediately referred the patient to the nearest sourse of Plan B. The defendants include various Washington State agencies and boards as well as seven individual people, including Catherine Rosman, a case manager who deals with victim's of domestic violence and sexual assault. Rosman, who has taken the medication after being the victim of sexual assault, is "concerned that refusals to dispense Plan B will compound the trauma that her clients and thousands of girls and women like them will suffer as a result of sexual violence every year in Washington." Among the seven individuals are two HIV positive people who fear that without timely access to Plan B, they and those in similar situations face serious potential health risks.

The Washington State Board of Pharmacy began investigating Ralph's in the summer of 2006. It "questioned Kevin Stormans, requiring a written statement. Though the Board closed that investigation without taking any action, in January 2007, the Board initiated a new investigation against Ralph's." After Stormans filed suit alleging that the rules violate his constitutional protections, the Board began a new investigation of Ralph's under the new rules. Should The District Court decline to reissue the injunction, Ralph's would face potential disciplinary charges if it continues refusing to dispense the drug. Indeed, "Stormans expects that the Board's investigation will result in disciplinary charges, including possible revocation of its pharmacy license, as well as the initiation of an enforcement action by HRC if the preliminary injunction is overturned."

The Appellate Court ruled that the District Court not only issued an overbroad injunction by including morality and including pharmacists other than those who filed suit, but that in reaching its conclusion, the Court applied the wrong level of judicial review to the legal issue. The Appellate Court further ruled that the lower Court abused its discretion in failing to weigh the balance of hardship to the pharmacists by impacting their financial livelihood by potential job loss or loss of pharmacy license with the hardship to the community by women not having access to Plan B. The Court further ruled that District Court abused its discretion by not analyzing the public interest stating that "it may be in the public interest to deny the injunction to the extent that it is likely that sexually active women of childbearing age will be denied reasonable access to Plan B. Likewise, the injunction may not be in the public interest if it would likely cause unreasonable delay to a woman's ability to acquire and use the drug, where such delay may render the drug ineffective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy."

The Appellate Court vacated, reversed, and remanded the case back down to the District Court. As such, the US District Court will now have to rule on the case again, this time applying the correct, more relaxed rational basis review rather than the strict scrutiny review it initially used to analyze the case. The Court will also have to examine the balance of hardships and the public interest.