What Evidence is Needed for a DUI Conviction in Washington?

In Washington, a defendant can be convicted of DUI crimes based on circumstantial evidence, such as the result of field sobriety testing, or direct evidence, such as a BAC level. Regardless of the character of the evidence presented, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence that the defendant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to an extent that rendered them incapable of safe operation. If the prosecution is unable to meet this burden, the defendant should not be convicted. In a recent Washington ruling, the court elaborated on the sufficiency of evidence in a DUI case, ultimately sustaining the defendant’s conviction. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is smart to talk to a Tacoma DUI defense lawyer about what defenses you may be able to assert.

Law enforcement agents must adhere to constitutional principles when investigating crimes, including DUI offenses. In other words, they must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to stop a motorist for suspected DUI. If they lack suspicion or other grounds for conducting a warrantless investigation, any evidence obtained during the investigation may be deemed inadmissible.

Recent Cases that Demonstrate Situations Where the Evidence or Investigation for a DUI Got Tossed Out

In a recent case, it was alleged that the defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He was convicted, after which he appealed. He raised several arguments on appeal, all of which the court rejected.

Evidence Sufficient to Establish Guilt in Washington DUI Cases

First, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the third element of his conviction, which required him to be operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe operation. He argued that the arresting officer’s initial decision not to immediately pull him over undermined this element. However, the court disagreed and found that the evidence, when viewed favorably to the verdict, supported his conviction.

Second, the defendant raised Fourth Amendment concerns related to the stop and arrest. While he did not contest the initial stop based on reasonable suspicion, he questioned the subsequent actions of the rangers, including ordering him out of the vehicle at gunpoint. The court determined that these actions did not transform the stop into an arrest and further stated that the rangers had probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence by the time they handcuffed him.

Third, the defendant asserted a due process claim, alleging that he received misinformation from the arresting officer about the consequences of refusing a chemical breath test. However, the court pointed out that the defendant did not refuse a test, was not charged with refusal, and was not challenging a refusal-based charge or sentence. Therefore, his due process argument was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate how accurate information about refusal consequences would have affected his conviction.

Finally, the defendant contended that testimony about the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test was improperly admitted. The court acknowledged this claim but found any error to be harmless. It concluded that the strength of the evidence and the magistrate judge’s statements suggested that the admission of this testimony did not affect the verdict.

A Case Where the Entire DUI Investigation Got Tossed

In July 2019, a police officer responded to a 911 call from a witness, reporting a man in his mid-thirties staggering through a parking lot. The witness reportedly observed the man, later identified as the defendant, getting into a black pickup truck and moving it within the lot. The police officer, upon arrival, encountered a man pointing to a black truck, claiming the defendant was intoxicated. The officer, unfamiliar with the man, failed to verify his identity and speculated he was the caller. The officer, who found the caller’s tip insufficient to arrest the defendant, then decided to observe the defendant’s driving to corroborate the suspicion of impairment.

Allegedly, the officer then followed the defendant but lost sight of him temporarily due to traffic. She then noted the defendant drifting and suspected speeding. Ultimately, upon noting no definitive infractions, she decided to initiate a traffic stop due to a faulty brake light. The subsequent stop led to the defendant’s DUI arrest and charges. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop. The trial court denied his motion, and he was convicted. He appealed, and the trial court ruling was reversed, finding the tip that led to the investigation tip unreliable and uncorroborated. The city then appealed.

Grounds for Instituting a DUI Investigation

On appeal, the court affirmed the order in favor of the defendant. In doing so, the court disagreed with the city’s assertions that the tip was reliable, emphasizing that the arresting officer lacked familiarity with the witness who provided the tip.

The court explained that warrantless seizures were presumed to be unreasonable, and the burden was on the state to show an exception to the warrant requirement. One such exception was a Terry stop, justified by reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts.

The court then analyzed the reliability of the witness’s tip, focusing on two elements: veracity and basis of knowledge. The city argued that the tip was reliable because the witness called 911, gave his name, and reported contemporaneous eyewitness information. The court noted, however, that even with such factors, the tip might not create a sustainable basis for a Terry stop.

The court highlighted the officer’s lack of familiarity with the witness, stating that an officer’s lack of familiarity with an informant generally undermined reliability. As such,  due to the insufficient reliability of the tip, the officer needed to corroborate it to have reasonable suspicion. As the officer’s observations of the defendant did not indicate criminal activity and did not support a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving under the influence, the tip did not provide a sufficient basis for a Terry stop.

Speak to a Knowledgeable Tacoma Defense Attorney

People charged with DUI crimes do not have to present any evidence in their defense, whereas the prosecution must meet a significant burden of proof to establish guilt. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney.  The knowledgeable Tacoma criminal defense lawyers of The Law Offices of Smith & White can inform you of your rights and aid you in seeking the best outcome possible. You can contact us through our online form or by calling us at (253) 525-8036 to arrange a conference.