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.

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.

Olympia law enforcement responded to a stabbing around 12:33 a.m. today on the Westside, near the intersection of Garfield and Milroy. The victim, 19 year-old Jose A. Lozano, was found lying in the street. He suffered stab wounds and was bleeding from the face and abdomen. The Olympia police reported that he was treated at the scene then transported to St. Peter's hospital. Lozano underwent surgery for his injuries.

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.

Those charged with a DUI typically ask if they can enter into a deferred prosecution to avoid having a DUI on their record. Deferred Prosecutions are technically a way to avoid DUI conviction, but they involve a lot of work and a steep time commitment. To enter a deferred prosecution, one is required to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation in which the substance abuse counselor must determine he or she is an alcoholic. That person must then submit to two years of treatment, including weekly AA meetings, weekly group meetings with a counselor and individual treatment sessions. Prior to a judge allowing someone to enter into a deferred prosecution, the defendant must admit to the court that he or she has a substance abuse problem that resulted in the DUI charge. If the court grants the petition for a deferred prosecution, the defendant must attend two years of treatment, and must not obtain any new law violations for 5 years among other requirements. Upon successful completion of a deferred prosecution, the DUI is dismissed from one's record.

Though technically "dismissed" a successful deferred prosecution still counts as a prior DUI and impacts one's mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction of a DUI in the future. In Washington, a second DUI within 7 years carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in jail and 60 days on electric home monitoring or 45 days in jail followed by 90 days of electric home monitoring, depending upon blood alcohol content (BAC).

Continue reading "DUI: Why Enter a Deferred Prosecution?" »

In Thurston County, Washington State Patrol is seeking the driver of a potential hit and run that occurred near Rochester Monday. The drivers of two vehicles died after a pickup truck pulled onto 1-5 from the shoulder, causing one vehicle to swerve and strike a third vehicle. Washington State Patrol says it is unclear whether the driver knew he or she caused the accident.

Hit and run is knowingly being involved in an accident and failing to stop and exchange information and render reasonable aid to the victim. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that a driver stuck another vehicle to convict a defendant of hit and run. Even if the driver did not strike the other vehicles, he or she could still have committed the crime of hit and run by having knowledge of involvement in the accident. Hit and run resulting in death is a class B felony.