An Example of Winning at a DOL Hearing
In a previous article, I discussed what happens at a DOL hearing related to your DUI case.Now I will provide an example of my previous DOL hearing where I, as the attorney for DUI Law Firm, won on behalf of my client.Before discussing my client’s victory, I want to remind the reader that at a DOL hearing, the hearing officer will only consider a limited number of issues, so it is important that you or your attorney only focus on the relevant issues and not waste time presenting evidence or arguments which the hearing officer will not consider.The issues which the hearing officer will review during the hearing are as follows:
- Whether you were under lawful arrest
- Whether an officer had reasonable grounds to believe you had been driving or were in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while:
- Under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
- Having alcohol in your system of 0.02 or more and were under the age of 21.
- Whether you were advised of your rights and warnings as required by RCW 46.20.308(2).
- Whether you refused to submit to the test or if the test was administered, whether the test indicated an alcohol concentration of:
- a.0.08 or more if you were age 21 or over or
- 0.02 or more if you were under 21.
My previous DOL hearing involved a client who literally flew off his motor cycle after hitting a curve.Fortunately, he only sustained minor injuries and appeared to be more in a state of shock than anything else. One of the officers at the scene of accident observed that my client spoke in a “slurred speech” with a strong odor of intoxicants emanating from his breath.However, the officer also noted that his speech was fair, his attitude was cooperative,and his facial color was normal.While the officer did not make any assessment of his coordination, the most interesting omission by the officer was that he did not mark any of the boxes in his police report where he offered any assessment on whether my client was intoxicated.
How can an officer arrest you for DUI if he or she doesn’t have an opinion of whether or not you are intoxicated? Talking about a questionable police report, the officer also noted the time of arrest as the time he was dispatched to the scene of the accident. The officer therefore indicated that he had already decided to arrest my client for DUI before he even had the opportunity to get to the scene of the accident and conduct an investigation.
Despite the officer’s sloppy police report, results from a blood draw indicated that my client had a .13 blood alcohol concentration which is well above the .08 limit established under DUI law in Washington. However, based on the deficiency of the evidence disclosed in the police report, I raised the issue of whether my client’s arrest for DUI was lawful. In legal language, I argued that the officer lacked “probable cause” to arrest my client for DUI. As I stated above, whether an arrest in lawful is one of the issues that a hearing officer will consider at your DOL hearing. Interestingly, while my client prevailed at the DOL hearing, he didn’t win for the reasons related to the omissions in his police report. Rather, my client won because of a technicality involving the officer’s failure to properly inform him of implied consent warnings.
Prior to the attempted administration of a breath or blood test to determine your alcohol concentration, the officer must advise you of your implied consent warnings which essentially inform you that driving is not a right, but a privilege which includes your implicit approval to allow your blood to be tested for alcohol concentration if you are arrested for DUI. Upon being informed of the implied consent warnings, you can still refuse to take the blood or breath test, but such a refusal will automatically lead to a loss of your license and be counted as evidence of DUI.Based on Washington’s legalization of pot smoking which then led to driving under the influence of marijuana to be officially recognized as a criminal offense, Washington’s new implied consent law requires an officer to inform you of the consequences of having a certain level of THC (the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) in your blood after being arrested for DUI. The officer who arrested my client made the big mistake of reading the implied consent warnings from an old form which did not warn him of the possibility that his blood could be tested for THC level and what the consequences are if a certain level of THC is detected.Since the proper recitation of the implied consent warnings are a prerequisite for a lawful arrest, the officer’s failure to inform my client about the possibility of THC testing resulted in the hearing officer ruling in favor of my client.He therefore was allowed him to keep his license.
As a client of DUI Law Firm, I will defend you before the Department of Licensing (DOL) and in court where you stand accused of DUI. I have a record of success in both forums. While the offices of DUI Lawyer Seattle located in both Seattle and Bellevue, we provide not only cost-effective services, but offer great convenience to our clients by attempting to meet them in a location of their convenience whether they live near Tacoma, Seattle, Bellevue, South King County, and surrounding areas. DUI Law Firm refers to its service of coming to our clients as the “DUI Attorney At Your Doorstep” program. If you have any questions, please call M. Varn Chandola personally at (206) 356-5152 or visit us at www.duilawfirmwa.com.
