Negligent Driving First Degree (Washington State)

[nwpassage]

I was pulled over a few nights ago for doing 10mph over the speed limit (40 in a 30). I took the field test (and did well), but didn't take the field breathalyzer. I was arrested and brought to the station where I spoke to a public defender. I didn't answer any of the officer's questions and when given the breathalyer blew a .048. The officer then gave me a ticket for NEG1. This is in Washington State.

My question is: What's the likelihood of getting this reduced or dismissed? I cannot afford an attorney and don't know what my options are. Can I ask the prosecutor or judge directly? Need advice.

Thanks.

 

[Proseguru]

What were you arrested for? Sounds like you did not pass the field test.

What statue were you cited with?

 

[nwpassage]

I was arrested for DUI. State Patrol had an emphasis campaign going on that night. He had me stand on one leg and count to 30. I did that without dropping my foot. He said I was a little rocky on my toe to toe walk but even conceded it might have been nerves.

When my brother came and picked me up, the cop told us that I was a good candidate for the field test and if I'd have taken the field breathalyzer I probably wouldn't have been arrested.

This is what I was cited with: RCW 46.61.5249 which reads:

A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug.

Is doing 10 over negligent? Because I trust I wasn't endangering anyone.

 

[davew128]

I was arrested for DUI. State Patrol had an emphasis campaign going on that night. He had me stand on one leg and count to 30. I did that without dropping my foot. He said I was a little rocky on my toe to toe walk but even conceded it might have been nerves.

I would have a hard time doing it absolutely still without wobbling on my foot. Most people would. You should hire an attorney to fight the DUI.

 

[nwpassage]

I wasn't charged with DUI, I was charged with NEG1.

The point I'm trying to make is he pulled me over for doing 10 over the speed limit. Nothing more, nothing less. Then I blew .048. Is that really considered a negiligent first degree?

 

[Proseguru]

I wasn't charged with DUI, I was charged with NEG1.

The point I'm trying to make is he pulled me over for doing 10 over the speed limit. Nothing more, nothing less. Then I blew .048. Is that really considered a negiligent first degree?

Right now you do not know what the officer will testify to. If its only speeding then its not negligent driving.

But you already claimed you passed the field test and then were arrested for DUI so your recollection of what occurred seems shaky at best.

If he just pulled you over for speeding then why the current charge?

You can call the officer and ask him why he charged you with it.

 

[nwpassage]

it was a DUI emphasis that night, and when he pulled me over he could smell alcohol on my breath. I think my refusal to take the field breathalyzer irked him ...

 

[davew128]

I wasn't charged with DUI, I was charged with NEG1.

I was arrested for DUI.

Well which is it?

 

[HighwayMan]

He was arrested for DUI. The officer obviously based that on his observations and the field tests.

Once he (OP) took the breath test the officer instead decided to charge him with negligent driving.

According to the statute if you showed signs of having consumed alcohol then the charge is appropriate.

 

[nwpassage]

But the statute says negligent/endangering AND exhibits the effects.

 

[Proseguru]

But the statute says negligent/endangering AND exhibits the effects.

I think highwayman meant that the charge was appropriate because you were speeding and had alcohol.

Of course, the elements of the charge need to be proven at court. What will you do if the officer says that you were endangering people?

 

[davew128]

Of course, the elements of the charge need to be proven at court. What will you do if the officer says that you were endangering people?

Under direct the officer is going to have provide more than just saying he was endangering people, he is going to have to testify as to what he saw that made him believe that.