News

Effective Sept 1 - new rule amendment proposed by defense organizations removes the language "materially affect the accused's right to a fair trial" from the CrR 8.3/CrRLJ 8.3 rule. The amendment further adds factors for the court to consider in such a motion. This will dramatically increase the number of motions to dismiss criminal cases based on every conceivable procedural irregularity going forward.

See the changes in the order amending rule here

-Brad and Michelle

The Supreme Court adopted some rule changes proposed by defense organizations, including changes to preliminary hearings and arraignment timelines. This means some offices will need to change procedures for filing in custody cases and arraignment dates. See the order amending the rules here:  https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rule_related_orders/orders/25700-A-1653.pdf  

Brad and Michelle

Summer Newsletter is available HERE. We have important legal updates in this issue as well as upcoming trainings and current THC testing emerging science, CHECK IT OUT!

IN THIS EDITION:

• Justice Served in faller Trooper Vehicular Homicide Trial

• Hot Topics in Case Law & Legislative updates

• Upcoming training opportunities & national webinar series

• Target Zero Emphasis Patrols  

• Updates from our Law and Justice Partners

• Resources and Manuals

State v. Abdullahi (85874-2) - Cuffs but not Custody & Meth Contamination Abatement

Alright folks, this week COA-I released a long-awaited opinion in King County's State v. Abdullahi (Jun. 23, 2025, 85874-2).  This opinion arises from a felony Physical Control case in King County where officers encountered a vehicle stopped in traffic with an apparent impaired driver behind the wheel.  The defendant made some initial incriminating statements and, after officers extricated him and placed him in cuffs for safety reasons, the dialog between the parties continued.  A blood draw was eventually completed and analyzed by the tox lab.

This opinion is worth reading for a few reasons:  The discussion on the Miranda custody analysis is a great reminder to some of our courts of limited jurisdiction which can forget that cuffs are not de facto custody and that safety concerns greatly weigh on the calculous.  Additionally, it wasn't an abuse of discretion for the trial court to find a lack of resulting prejudice in the State's tardy disclosure of a government contamination abatement recommendation letter.  Further, the panel lends credence to the significant efforts that our tox lab undertook to abate the contamination exclusive from the recommendations in that letter.

One brief comment from the panel which was made during oral argument and noted in this opinion is the fact that the State chose not to cross-appeal the trial court's findings associated with the import of the abatement letter and the recommendations contained therein.  At oral argument, the panel expressed some skepticism that the recommendations in that letter should be given the weight that they were given since there was no inquiry into whether the drafters of that letter possessed any sort of forensic toxicology credentials.  This is important since the defense tends to use this letter as some sort of legitimate standard of care (though lacking any real scrutiny).  This is an appellate practice point to note for later - if we're going to dance, let's dance the whole number and cross-appeal on unfavorable findings where we can preserve the issue.

Read the opinion HERE - > 858742.pdf

Target Zero - 100 Safe Days of Summer DUI Emphasis Patrol

A big thanks to our impaired driving enforcers and crash prosecutors who came out to join all of our allied agency partners at the King County Target Zero 100-Safe Days of Summer DUI emphasis on Friday night (June 6th) – It was a huge success!

Out of all the regional allied agencies which participated, we had 19-DUI arrests, a KCSO DRE Deputy caught 4 suspects, a Seattle PD officer caught 3 suspects, and we made about 30-40 contacts. Many lives were potentially saved Friday night – a great effort for traffic safety in the greater King County region.

My gratitude to our attorneys who had time to ride-along – it means a lot to our agency partnership and fosters morale, comradery, and ownership in this unified criminal justice cause.

- Brad & Michelle

State v. Hall-Haught, No. 102405-3 (May 29, 2025) - We probably need to subpoena our bench toxicologists going forward

WA Crash Prosecutors - *OPINION RELEASED - State v. Hall-Haught* Alright, folks - I've been lecturing nationally on the USSC's Smith decision for a long time and today we get our WA State analog: If you haven't seen my briefing, State v. Hall-Haught is an Island Co. case which, in Div-I of the COA, supported the common notion that a reviewing or supervising scientist can testify to our tox results on impaired driving cases. This was supported by State v. Lui and over a decade of confrontation jurisprudence. This case was elevated to our supreme court to review in light of Smith. Our supreme Court admitted that they would have to abrogate State v. Lui in order to support a Smith claim under these circumstances in WA. And that’s what they did: “To the extent that Lui allowed the supervisor’s expert opinion to rely on the nontestifying forensic analyst’s factual statements as the basis for their opinion, it is unconstitutional under Smith. To this extent, Smith has abrogated Lui.”  This will change the way we marshal our trial cases in WA when it comes to tox testimony (leaving some room for some possible procedural avenues forward). What's noteworthy here is that our court actually addressed the "testimonial" question avoided by most other state courts which have dealt with their own Smith cases. Download The Opinion Here Reach out with questions. - Cheers! Brad & Michelle

Wenatchee v. Stearns, No. 102680-3 (May 15, 2025) - Division III reversed and we win!

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD OPINION

Alright folks - the long-awaited opinion is out and we have a return to normalcy!

The opinion in Wenatchee v. Stearns is out!  And we won – As we already knew, 911 callers are presumed reliable in the informant-tip analysis.  This is a DUI case out of Div-III which caused potentially HUGE problems in that the panel essentially treated a 911 caller like a snitch and required that a responding officer make contact with that RP to corroborate observations and establish reliability (this would render many 911-based investigations tough to prove).  Luckily, that law doesn’t stand and we have a return to normalcy.

See below for rundown on that case:

- Cheers!

Brad & Michelle

National Police Week

This week we recognize and honor the courage and sacrifice of our law enforcement family that puts it on the line every day in service of our community. Specifically, this week we honor those who marked their end of watch in the ultimate sacrifice.

We express our gratitude to those heroes who selflessly protect and serve. Those who fight to advance justice and community safety - lost but not forgotten

Announcing:

2025 Traffic Safety Summit!

Be part of the change!

Let's work together to save lives!

 

When: July 15-17, 2025

Where: Spokane Convention Center

 

CLICK HERE FOR EVENT INFORMATION

 

Join your fellow traffic safety professionals in 3-days of traffic safety programming administered by dozens of industry experts across various educational tracks -> CLICK HERE FOR THE AGENDA

Michelle and Brad will administer an update on emerging traffic safety issues through the lens of various case law updates!

REGISTER HERE

- Cheers!

Brad & Michelle

WA Crash Prosecutors - The COA-I case, State v. Wasuge, has been docketed for oral argument before the state supreme court.  This is a Physical Control affected-by case involving testimony of "burn off" with broader implications on Retrograde Extrapolation testimony as that testimony relates to generalities without a specific biographical nexus to qualities possessed by defendant.  It's been certified for the "burn off" issue as well as a possible issue regarding defendant's statements made during the initial investigative detention.

This is one to watch because it will affect our practice.

Oral Argument set for May 20, 2025 at 9AM to be viewed virtually here once they calendar the video feed Schedule - TVW