Should I Plea Down to Negligent Driving

[TurnUpTheLove]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Washington

Hi,

I got pulled over for a DUI and I blew a 0.08. I denied the officer's request to take a sobriety test, and when he asked me how many drinks I had, I think I answered something like "2 drinks over 4 hours ago." I got pulled over initially for speeding (officer claimed 80 on a 60 freeway). Prior to this I've had no record and no traffic tickets.

At the arraignment hearing, the DA offered a deal for negligent driving. In your opinion, do you think I should plea down to this? I understand that this charge is usually the end goal for criminal defense attorneys. So I find it interesting that they are offering this to me so early (I expected reckless driving, then having to bargain down to negligent driving). Is something up here, do you think I can push for a neg 2? I haven't seen the police report yet or met with my DUI lawyer about this as he seems overwhelmed with work recently.

Also, the speeding ticket I received from the Officer was dropped. My lawyer fought it based on lack of foundation, but really it was a technical issue (she wanted the traffic ticket to track with the DUI, but the DA neglected to do this. So there was nothing written on the speeding ticket).

My college friend who just graduated from law school, but is not a defense attorney (she is a divorce attorney), told me that since my defense lawyer got the ticket thrown out due to lack of foundation, that I should sue the city for racial profiling (I am a minority). She thinks since Washington police forces has such a bad rep, is currently being investigated by The Justice Department, and the fact that my background is solid that I could have a case. She thinks I should claim they pulled me over for no reason other than discrimination.

Albeit, she is a good friend of mine so she might be over eager here, so I'm looking for impartial perspectives. Do you guys think that I should just take the deal and agree to negligent driving? Or do you think I shouldn't, take it to court, and then sue the city like my friend suggests?

[itsjustme]

I wouldn't plea. And since the speeding ticket was dropped because lack of foundation from what i believe your DUI should be thrown out automatically since there was no basis for the stop.

Negligent Driving has a 2 year probation and 90 day prison sentenced with 90 days suspended but its still heaven compared to the nightmare penalties of a DUI conviction.

You must a have a PD lawyer because your DUI should be thrown out if you fought the ticket and won

[PTPD22]

I have to disagree with itsjustme on this one. It sounds to me like the speeding ticket was dropped because the officer relied on the DUI arrest report and expected that to provide the foundation for the notice of infraction. Because the arrest report was not presented with the NOI, and the officer did not include a separate narrative with the NOI, the speeding was dropped.

However, the DA does not need a conviction for the initial reason for the stop to show that the stop and subsequent DUI investigation was lawful. All he/she needs to show is that the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the OP had committed a violation of the law. I am quite sure that the basis for the stop IS articulated in the arrest report, even if it was not included on the NOI. So, even with the speeding dropped, the DA can still show that the OP's speeding violation presented a legal reason for the stop.

If the officer did NOT articulate a basis for the initial stop, your attorney (ESPECIALLY a public defender - in spite of the other poster's apparent disdain for PDs) would have already gotten the charges dropped...In fact, the DA would probably never even wasted the time to file in the first place.

As to why you were offered the neg 1 so effortlessly, it could be a few reasons. But, I wouldn't assume it is because the DA thinks he/she has a weak case. It could simply be that the DUI prosecutor has a stack of DUIs on their desk 3 ft high and, since this is your first offense and with a low BAC, he/she just doesn't want to spend much time on it. I would advise that you ask your attorney about seeing if you can negotiate down to neg 2. All the DA can do is say no...and such a request is not going to cause him/her to pull the neg 1 offer. If the DA declines on the neg 2, take the neg 1 and let your attorney bargain for the best sentence deal he/she can.

As far as the racial profiling idea goes, yeah, I think that your friend is showing some rookie over-eagerness. Since the burden of proof would be on you and require quite a bit of legal research work, it would cost you a pretty penny in private attorney costs. No PD would touch it. Sure, if you won, you have a chance of recouping those costs in a civil suit, but that's a big gamble. You would have to show that THAT OFFICER has a track record of racial profiling. Doing so would entail researching every contact that that officer has made, probably for several years, and showing a pattern. And simple numbers, unless they are WAY disproportionate, won't do it. Maybe if you could show that X minority group only comprises 10% of the population (in the area the officer regularly works, not the population in general), yet X minority group makes up 90% of his/her stops, you might have a case just on numbers. But, if it is more like 10%/20%, you are going to have to show (through conviction rates, a pattern of statements by the officer, etc.) that the officer is making the stops based on race rather than behavior. As I say, the burden of proof would be on you. Just because some department(s) in the area have a "bad rep" will do little to show racial motivation regarding a specific officer.

[flyingron]

I am with PTPD22, the technical matter on the speeding ticket is probably NOT enough to dismiss the probable cause on the DUI. In fact, the officer wasn't even obliged to write that ticket for it to be probable cause. That's 0 for 2 today on probable cause issues.

[TurnUpTheLove]

However, the DA does not need a conviction for the initial reason for the stop to show that the stop and subsequent DUI investigation was lawful. All he/she needs to show is that the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the OP had committed a violation of the law. I am quite sure that the basis for the stop IS articulated in the arrest report, even if it was not included on the NOI. So, even with the speeding dropped, the DA can still show that the OP's speeding violation presented a legal reason for the stop.

That's actually the most complicated part. Because I asked the Officer why he pulled me over, and he said I was swerving. Then I saw footage of me driving and I told him that I wasn't swerving, I was clearly in my lane, and I even signaled before pulling over to a location safe for both of us. So I asked him again why he pulled me over, and he said "speeding." Then I asked him why he incorrectly accused me of swerving when I wasn't swerving, and why he was changing his mind. He turned silent so I told him that the recorded conversation would be brought up in court.

I haven't seen what he's written in the police report yet. I'm going to assume he's just going to list a bunch of usual reasons for a pull-over, throw shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks.

As far as the racial profiling idea goes, yeah, I think that your friend is showing some rookie over-eagerness. Since the burden of proof would be on you and require quite a bit of legal research work, it would cost you a pretty penny in private attorney costs. No PD would touch it. Sure, if you won, you have a chance of recouping those costs in a civil suit, but that's a big gamble. You would have to show that THAT OFFICER has a track record of racial profiling. Doing so would entail researching every contact that that officer has made, probably for several years, and showing a pattern.

Is there a way for non officers of the court or law enforcement to check an officer's arrest history, and whether they've had issues with internal affairs?

As to why you were offered the neg 1 so effortlessly, it could be a few reasons. But, I wouldn't assume it is because the DA thinks he/she has a weak case. It could simply be that the DUI prosecutor has a stack of DUIs on their desk 3 ft high and, since this is your first offense and with a low BAC, he/she just doesn't want to spend much time on it.

My friend theorizes that this is the issue they have too. And that the fact that they don't want to spend much time on me means if i file a discrimination suit, they'll not want to deal with it even more since it would be a mess for them politically.

[PTPD22]

My friend theorizes that this is the issue they have too. And that the fact that they don't want to spend much time on me means if i file a discrimination suit, they'll not want to deal with it even more since it would be a mess for them politically.

Actually, filing a civil discrimination suit is unlikely to impact the prosecutor's decisions on the criminal charges at all. Any civil suit would be handled by the city attorney's office (or county attorney or state attorney general, depending on what agency you are suing). That is a completely different agency than the prosecutor's office. If anything, the city attorney will ask the prosecutor to take special interest in your case. Having a jury convict you on the criminal side will only help the city defend against the civil suit.

What I thought you were talking about was presenting a defense based on lack of probable cause. If you could show that the officer stopped you based on race, rather than reasonable suspicion that you committed a violation of the law, then the whole rest of his/her investigation would be ruled inadmissible.

[itsjustme]

I have to disagree with itsjustme on this one. It sounds to me like the speeding ticket was dropped because the officer relied on the DUI arrest report and expected that to provide the foundation for the notice of infraction. Because the arrest report was not presented with the NOI, and the officer did not include a separate narrative with the NOI, the speeding was dropped.

However, the DA does not need a conviction for the initial reason for the stop to show that the stop and subsequent DUI investigation was lawful. All he/she needs to show is that the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the OP had committed a violation of the law. I am quite sure that the basis for the stop IS articulated in the arrest report, even if it was not included on the NOI. So, even with the speeding dropped, the DA can still show that the OP's speeding violation presented a legal reason for the stop.

Yea but the stop itself "speeding" was not enough PC to think the driver was drinking

and to the OP, I doubt the officer showed you video of you driving. They never do that

That's actually the most complicated part. Because I asked the Officer why he pulled me over, and he said I was swerving. Then I saw footage of me driving and I told him that I wasn't swerving, I was clearly in my lane, and I even signaled before pulling over to a location safe for both of us. So I asked him again why he pulled me over, and he said "speeding." Then I asked him why he incorrectly accused me of swerving when I wasn't swerving, and why he was changing his mind. He turned silent so I told him that the recorded conversation would be brought up in court.

I haven't seen what he's written in the police report yet. I'm going to assume he's just going to list a bunch of usual reasons for a pull-over, throw shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks.



Is there a way for non officers of the court or law enforcement to check an officer's arrest history, and whether they've had issues with internal affairs?



My friend theorizes that this is the issue they have too. And that the fact that they don't want to spend much time on me means if i file a discrimination suit, they'll not want to deal with it even more since it would be a mess for them politically.

You have no basis for discrimination lawsuit so stop it. Officer claimed you were doing 80 in a 60mph zone, so either way you were speeding somewhat so the the stop was really justified. Rather he said you were swerving then changed his mind dont matter.

Actually, filing a civil discrimination suit is unlikely to impact the prosecutor's decisions on the criminal charges at all. Any civil suit would be handled by the city attorney's office (or county attorney or state attorney general, depending on what agency you are suing). That is a completely different agency than the prosecutor's office. If anything, the city attorney will ask the prosecutor to take special interest in your case. Having a jury convict you on the criminal side will only help the city defend against the civil suit.

What I thought you were talking about was presenting a defense based on lack of probable cause. If you could show that the officer stopped you based on race, rather than reasonable suspicion that you committed a violation of the law, then the whole rest of his/her investigation would be ruled inadmissible.

YES it do!. If he file a lawsuit and they know they were wrong they are going to drop the charges ASAP to save face so somebody filling a lawsuit does weigh on the prosecuter, I dont see how you can say not.


and the stop wa sjustfied. officer said he was doing 80mph in 60mph

[PTPD22]

YES it do!. If he file a lawsuit and they know they were wrong they are going to drop the charges ASAP to save face so somebody filling a lawsuit does weigh on the prosecuter, I dont see how you can say not.

Ok...if you say so. Good luck with that.

Hint to OP: You might want to review other posts of anyone who gives you advice here and make your own evaluation of how much weight to give that advice. Many of the regular posters here are quite knowledgeable...some, not so much.