Remember, every Court has a different procedure for quashing warrants. See link for King County instructions for each Courthouse. (Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Issaquah, MRJC, Redmond, Seattle, Shoreline Courthouses) Warrant Procedure – King County District Court

My office assists clients quashing warrants and getting their cases back on track and resolved. Call, text (206) 335-2422 or email james@duiseattle.com for a free consultation. We charge reasonable rates and offer flexible payment plans. We offer reduced rates for those who qualify for a public defender – but would like a private DUI attorney.

Forever. If your conviction is after July 1, 2000, your fines, court costs, interest etc. called Legal Financial Obligations or LFO’s can be collected for perpetuity. It is outrageous in my opinion and places an undue burden on defendants who have served their time. LFO’s grow at 12% annually. Fortunately, it appears the Courts in Washington must now consider your ability to pay and are waiving at least some of the LFO’s and interest if indigent. See this blog for more i nfo.

Probably. It really depends on the Court. That said, most but not all, district and municipal judges in the Seattle area are imposing it as a condition of release – even on 1st offense DUI’s. Your attorney can always object to no consumption as a condition. However, if you do, I would suggest having at least the alcohol/drug evaluation and any recommendation completed. (i.e. ADIS/Victims Panel)

Not yet. See Seattle Times Story of the Washington State Patrol (WSP) Breath Test Machine upgrade. It has been in the works for quite awhile. BAC Upgrade The new breath test machine Dräger Alcotest 9510 is so far in Island Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom counties. At a cost of $9,500.00 a piece we will finally leave behind 1980-1990’s technology. Whether it is more trustworthy – only time will tell. I can imagine the WSP would like to get the kinks worked out before entering the largest county. Although, I expect it will come to King County within a year or two.

Dräger Alcotest® 9510

SR-22 insurance is required for 3-years on a DUI administrative suspension and/or revocation or as a result of a DUI, Physical Control or Reckless Driving conviction. To avoid SR-22 insurance you would have to be successful at the Department of Licensing (DOL) administrative appeal hearing and have the DUI charge either dismissed or reduced to negligent driving or reckless endangerment. The only other exception would be if you entered a deferred prosecution and you did not refuse the breath test or were successful at the hearing.

No. A reduction of your DUI charge to Negligent Driving First Degree does not require SR-22 Insurance. However, SR-22 insurance will still be required – if you did not win the accompanying Civil Administrative Department of Licensing (DOL) Hearing.

It depends. Some officers will give you this date when arrested (Seattle Police Dept.) others you will receive date in the mail within 20 – 30 days or so. (Washington State Patrol) Just depends on the arresting agency and area of the State. It is a good idea to have hired an attorney by your 1st Court appearance, if possible. Also, blood test DUI arrests usually take several months before charges are filed.

Having recently been in Australia and experienced first hand a DUI checkpoint, it made me think again of the extra privacy protections we have in our automobiles in the Seattle metropolitan area. Unlike most States, the Washington State Supreme Court has outlawed roadblocks or DUI checkpoints in Washington. (39 states or so allow)

An officer must have a “valid reason” to contact you in your vehicle. The Court said: “No argument has been presented to this court that would bring the checkpoint program within any possible interpretation of the constitutionally required “authority of law.” The Seattle sobriety checkpoint program therefore violated petitioners’ rights under article 1, section 7. City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 755 P. 2d 775 – Wash: Supreme Court 1988.

“From the earliest days of the automobile in this state, this court has acknowledged the privacy interest of individuals and objects in automobiles”. State v. Ladson, 979 P. 2d 833 – Wash: Supreme Court 1999.