Washington State: I refused the roadside sobriety test and got taken in

[Washington_Guy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Washington State

Thank you in advance for any responses.

Long story short I was pulled over the other day for failure to signal and the officer asked me if I had been drinking and I told him I had had a couple beers.

He asked me to step out of the vehicle and then asked me if I would submit to some roadside tests and I politely declined. This is the first time something like this has happened to me, and I know that I only had a couple beers (equivalent of 3 at the most maybe because they were those larger mugs)and I am a 250 pound the guy and wasn't even buzzed, but I had always heard that the best thing to do is to decline those roadside tests which is why I did it.

So they impounded my vehicle and took me in and explained to me the implied consent laws. At that point because I did not want my license suspended etc, I took the breath test there at the station. The result was .034, or less than half the legal limit. I don't know if it matters but the test at the station was approximately one hour after I was pulled over.

My question is when I go in to appear once I receive a summons, what is the likely outcome given this low test result? Or will they just choose to drop it before hand?

Thanks again.

 

[adjusterjack]

There are two types of alcohol related charges: Driving while intoxicated and driving under the influence. I think DWI is the one that applies if you have over a certain BAC and the other needs only to show that you were impaired. You might still be convicted of the latter.

Unfortunately, you have two problems. One is beating the charges and the other (worse) is a likely administrative suspension just for refusing the tests when you were pulled over.

Others more familiar with WA alcohol citations may have better comments.

All I can tell you is get yourself a lawyer ASAP as you are facing some serious consequences.

In addition to a possible conviction and license suspension, you can lose your car insurance and end up paying 2 or 3 times the rate next time you buy it.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Washington State

... He asked me to step out of the vehicle and then asked me if I would submit to some roadside tests and I politely declined ... but I had always heard that the best thing to do is to decline those roadside tests which is why I did it ...

Your state's supreme court decided in June of this year that a refusal to take roadside tests can be used as evidence in court.

State of Washington v. Mark Tracy Mecham: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1739003.html

The Court said: "We hold that a field sobriety test is a seizure that may be justified under the doctrine of Terry. Therefore, Mecham did not have a constitutional right to refuse the FSTs and the trial court properly admitted evidence of Mecham's refusal as evidence of consciousness of guilt against him at trial."

In many other states, it can be best to decline roadside breath tests. In Washington state, it takes a careful weighing of the pros and cons.

Sometimes what is reported in your local newspapers or on local TV can be worth knowing, huh?

I recommend you contact an attorney in your area for assistance.

 

[TigerD]

Unfortunately, you have two problems. One is beating the charges and the other (worse) is a likely administrative suspension just for refusing the tests when you were pulled over.

And since when are trained monkey tricks required under Washington law?
SFSTs are not required; although, some states - and Washington is among them - allow the refusal to provide evidence against yourself to be introduced at trial.

Take just a minute and think about how wrong that is. Your exercising a Constitutional right can be used as evidence or the very wrong doing for which you exercised your Constitutional right.

TD

 

[quincy]

And since when are trained monkey tricks required under Washington law?
SFSTs are not required; although, some states - and Washington is among them - allow the refusal to provide evidence against yourself to be introduced at trial.

Take just a minute and think about how wrong that is. Your exercising a Constitutional right can be used as evidence or the very wrong doing for which you exercised your Constitutional right.

TD

In Washington, refusing the FSTs is not a constitutional right.

The Court said: "We hold that Mecham's rights were not violated because an FST is not a search under our state and federal constitutions and Mecham had no constitutional right to refuse to perform the FSTs."

It was a 5 to 4 decision.

 

[CdwJava]

When one chooses not to take the FSTs, then the officer has only his observations to go on. If the officer observed driving and and/or the objective symptoms of impairment sufficient to articulate probable cause to believe the offense occurred, he is permitted to make the arrest.

Consult legal counsel.

 

[quincy]

... Consult legal counsel.

Washington_Guy should definitely seek out local counsel if he wants the best outcome. The Supreme Court decision complicates matters for him.

 

[TigerD]

In Washington, refusing the FSTs is not a constitutional right.

The Court said: "We hold that Mecham's rights were not violated because an FST is not a search under our state and federal constitutions and Mecham had no constitutional right to refuse to perform the FSTs."

It was a 5 to 4 decision.

I think you misunderstand the point. Perhaps I was not clear. There is a big difference between Mecham, where the issue was admissibility of the refusal and adjusterjack's post that asserted the driver would face administrative suspension for refusing. Washington does not require participation in field sobriety testing. However, the refusal to participate is admissible.

And the Washington State Supreme Court is wrong. But that isn't just their fault - the attorneys put the wrong questions before the court. A field sobriety test is a minimal search - Bridgefield v. No. Dak. and McNeely support that. The issue is not the search - there is absolutely nothing wrong with an officer simply observing a suspect. The issue is that by making the subject perform any specific actions <- this is the key, then they are making the person create/provide evidence against himself. That is a Constitutional law violation.

TD

 

[quincy]

I think you misunderstand the point. Perhaps I was not clear. There is a big difference between Mecham, where the issue was admissibility of the refusal and adjusterjack's post that asserted the driver would face administrative suspension for refusing. Washington does not require participation in field sobriety testing. However, the refusal to participate is admissible.

And the Washington State Supreme Court is wrong. But that isn't just their fault - the attorneys put the wrong questions before the court. A field sobriety test is a minimal search - Bridgefield v. No. Dak. and McNeely support that. The issue is not the search - there is absolutely nothing wrong with an officer simply observing a suspect. The issue is that by making the subject perform any specific actions <- this is the key, then they are making the person create/provide evidence against himself. That is a Constitutional law violation.

TD

Ah. I did misunderstand your point. Sorry.

Here is a link to Washington's implied consent law, RCW 46.20.308: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308