Screen Shot 2014-12-21 at 9.47.43 PM

Happy New Year

/in /by

2014 has been quite a year for the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten.  I started the year defending clients facing charges for misdemeanors like DUI and Assault Domestic Violence, and finished the year regularly defending clients charged with felonies ranging from possession of meth to rape of a child in the third degree.   I’ve also represented individuals facing tough divorces, child custody battles and even done a little probate work.  We ended up with 115 clients from May 1 to date.

My clients and I have gone to trial and won 3 out of 4 times in 2014.  We’ve earned the respect of our peers and judges in King, Pierce, and Thurston County.  It has been a tremendous honor to represent 95% of the clients who came through my door and I wish all of them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

 

 

I HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN CONVICTED YET, WHY HAS MY LICENSE TO DRIVE BEEN SUSPENDED?

/in /by

The collateral consequences of a DUI conviction are numerous and harsh.  But often my client’s primary concern is preventing their driving license from being suspended or restoring it upon resolving their matter.   Because many DUI defendants struggle to understand the following important facts about DOL suspensions, and consequently make decisions in court that do not necessarily reflect their best long-term interests, it is worth publishing answers to the following common questions.

Why has my driver’s license been suspended if I have not been convicted of anything yet?  Aren’t I innocent until proven guilty?

The short answer is that you have a right to drive until your license has formerly been suspended by the Department of Licensing.  But the Department of Licensing does not have to wait to suspend your license until you have actually been convicted of DUI.

This is because of the implied consent law, originally passed by initiative in 1968 and codified in 1969 as RCW 46.20.308.  This law applies to those who refuse a breath test, as well as those who submit to a test but apparently do not pass it.  In 2012, following the passage of Measure No 502 (decriminalizing Marijuana possession for those under the age of 21) the law was amended to require those suspected of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of cannabis had also implicitly consented to a test.

The policy behind the law has been described as:

  1. To discourage persons from driving motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
  2. To remove the driving privileges of those persons disposed to driving while intoxicated; and
  3. To provide an efficient means of gathering reliable evidence of intoxication or nonintoxication.

The implied consent law provides that a person who drives in this State is considered to have consented to a test to determine the alcohol content of that person’s blood or breath if arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drugs.  After arrest, if a driver refuses a breath test or submits to a test with results indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, or 0.02 or above for persons under age 21, the arresting officer is directed to serve notice in writing on the person of the intent of DOL to suspend, revoke, or deny the person’s license, permit, or driving privileges. The officer is also required to inform the driver of the driver’s right to an administrative hearing and the steps necessary to obtain such a hearing.

After a driver is arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the arresting officer must notify the DOL of the arrest and transmit a sworn report or declaration authorized by RCW 9A.72.085 within 72 hours except as may be delayed because of administration of a blood test. Upon receipt of the officer’s sworn report, the DOL will notify the person that that person’s driving privilege is revoked, suspended, or denied and will afford the driver an opportunity to request a hearing to contest the suspension, revocation, or denial.

A driver’s license suspension or revocation hearing is an administrative proceeding governed by chapter 46.20 RCW. If a hearing is requested, the scope of the hearing covers, among other issues, whether the law enforcement officer had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug and whether the requirements of the implied consent statute were satisfied before a breath test was administered.

A hearing officer conducts the formal departmental hearing and may issue subpoenas for attendance of witnesses and production of documents. At the hearing, the law enforcement officer’s sworn report is prima facie evidence of a valid arrest and compliance with the requirements of the implied consent statute.

The sworn report and any other evidence accompanying it, as well as certifications authorized by the criminal rules for courts of limited jurisdiction, are admissible at the hearing without further evidentiary foundation.

If they’re going to have a hearing to terminate my right to drive, don’t I have the right to have an attorney represent me to preserve my right to drive? 

You have the right to be represented by an attorney at your own expense during this hearing, but because you don’t not have a personal liberty interest at stake, you do not have the right to be represented at public expense.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The Court ordered that my license be suspended for only 30 days, but DOL has ordered it for the full two years.  How is that allowed?

In short, there are two separate charges here and two separate standards of proof.   If you refused the BAC test, you’re license is going to be suspended for 2 years even if you are found not guilty of DUI.  The Court is determining whether to strip you of your liberty via a factual determination of whether you were DUI.

The DOL hearing is only looking for a factual determination of whether or not you refused your BAC.

10672244_857406224068_2350096522394364855_n

Screen Shot 2014-11-15 at 4.50.40 PM

The Effect of I-594

/in /by

Nationwide, gun violence has been in a continual decline for the past 30 years. Nevertheless, this year Washington’s gun-control advocates made the case that additional laws were necessary to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill. Their mechanism for doing so was I-594.

Here’s the facts about the new law, what it changes, and what it does not.

BEFORE I-594

First, it was already illegal for Washingtonians who had been convicted of any form of domestic violence to possess a firearm. This means if you responded to a text message from a girlfriend who had a No Contact Order against you and got caught, your right to own a firearm was terminated.

It was also already illegal for someone charged with domestic violence to possess a firearm, with select exceptions for members of the military and law enforcement. It was also illegal to sell a firearm to someone convicted or charged with these crimes or to buy a gun on behalf of an individual charged with these crimes.

For such individuals, it’s a risk to be in someone else’s house if they own a gun, because mere proximity could constitute “possession” in the eyes of a zealous prosecutor.

There were and are other ways to lose the right to own a firearm that had nothing to do with guns. For example, a drunk driver who falls asleep at the wheel and consequently kills someone can lose the right to possess a firearm.

However, for those of us still allowed to possess a firearm, there were several ways to go about getting one.  We could purchase them through a licensed dealer, or we could sell them at gun shows – though the ability to purchase, sell or carry at these gun shows was already restricted in multiple ways.  For example, some shows wouldn’t let you buy or sell unless you were an NRA member.  Another way to get firearms was as gifts or through inheritance.

WHAT’S CHANGING

Not that much actually.  §1 explicitly says:

This measure would extend criminal and public safety background checks to all gun sales or transfers. Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques.

So, you can still inherit your daddy’s pistol without the executor of the estate or the probate court going through a background check.  You can also gift guns to “immediate family members” defined as “spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles.” §3(4)(a).  However, now you do need to report your possession of these guns to the department of licensing.  §3(4)(g)

What you can no longer do – unless you are a licensed gun dealer – is sell guns to a stranger at a gun show, unless you do so through a licensed intermediary.  Again, there was already regulations prohibiting who could sell and buy at gun shows, so this law is truly unnecessary.

The practical effect is that now, everyone must sell through or via a licensed dealer.  The problem with this is it’s not uncommon for dealers to take consignment fees.  We’ve seen these fees go as high as 40% of the sale price.  Given how expensive guns are, such a significant loss in the sales price might actually discourage gun owners from jettisoning their unwanted firearms and that might actually create a risk that neglected firearms will lie around in attics until discovered by the wrong hands.  I-594 seems to acknowledge this problem and attempts to address it by declaring:

The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm.

However, it doesn’t define what “fair market” is. Presumably, since the market currently allows 40% consignment fees, I-594 considers that fair.

WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

It’s unclear, but one could interpret the new law as forbidding the purchase of a pistol without a concealed pistol license.  §5(1)(a).  Prior to I-594, the law stated that no dealer could deliver a pistol to the purchaser until:

 

  1.      The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license;
  2.      The dealer was notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; OR
  3.        Five business days, meaning days on which state offices are open, have elapsed from the time of receipt of the application for the purchase thereof as provided herein by the chief of police or sheriff designated in subsection (5) of this section, and, when delivered, the pistol shall be securely wrapped and shall be unloaded.

See RCW 9.41.090

I-594 removes option #3, meaning if you don’t have a concealed pistol license, you can’t purchase a pistol.

This is a strange policy choice, as it almost encourages pistol owners to carry pistols, and that can only lead to more shootings.

WHAT ELSE?

There’s a lot of hubbub about “transfers” surrounding this initiative.  Opponents of I-594 seem to believe that allowing someone else to hold the gun might be a crime.  This interpretation is unfounded, but they are correct in that there are a lot of scenarios not covered by this initiative which do not constitute a crime by the law of common sense, but may under this initiative.

For example, the photo of Lawyer Chris Van Vechten holding the assault rifle in this post was not taken at an established shooting range, but rather in a ditch in Eastern Washington.  The gun belongs to Chris’ brother-in-law, not an “immediate family member” under this Initiative.  And because Chris was only target shooting, not hunting, he arguably could be arrested for doing this in a post I-594 world.

BOTTOM LINE

Your right to own and carry a gun has not been seriously diminished by the passage of I-594.  However, the amount of money you can collect selling your old gun probably has been reduced by the forced inclusion of licensed dealers.  Also, it is very likely that many of us will fail to report ownership of inherited guns to the department of licensing and one day potentially face criminal charges simply because the bureaucratic machinery fails to provide a method for giving notice.

The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is committed to defending client’s Second Amendment rights and to assisting those who have lost said rights in restoring them.

 

 

 

 

 

Defending DUIs

/in /by
  • All DUI’s are tough. The public is rarely on the driver’s side, and the Government’s formulaic narrative is always backed by experts, and designed to frame their too often subjective conclusions in an extremely objective light. Additionally, the law requires a finding of guilt based on arbitrary blood alcohol and THC ratings which reflect the political climate in which the law was drafted.  Finally, the collateral consequences of a DUI conviction are extensive and exceptional.   The Court can, and does, sentence individuals convicted of DUI to a maximum of 364 days in jail.   In select circumstances, a DUI can be a felony.   (See the most recent DUI Sentencing Grid)
  • The mandatory minimum’s for DUI are also exceptional, and include: jail time; fines; expensive counseling, monitoring and assessments; suspensions of driving privileges and more.
  • Then there are wide-ranging professional ramifications – especially for those serving in the military; those with commercial driving licenses; and those seeking professional licenses and degrees. Your ability to freely travel between international borders can also be jeopardized by DUI conviction. Additionally, a DUI can have grave consequences for your family – potentially affecting everything from a child-custody dispute to an application for US Citizenship.

Defending a DUI requires technical understanding and courtroom experience. Chris Van Vechten has both prosecuted and defended DUI cases. He knows what you face and how best to face it.

Chris embraces a multi-prong defense, encouraging clients to get involved and framing solution tailored to their goals.

Most importantly, If you were recently pulled over,  you need to get in touch with an attorney as soon as possible, even if you haven’t been formally charged yet.  Why?  Because the government can and does legally destroy video and audio evidence that is not requested within a narrow time frame.  

For example, the City of Puyallup currently has a policy of destroying 911 recordings 90 days after recorded, and jail video is destroyed every 60 days.  Meanwhile, the law allows Puyallup to file charges against you up to two years after you were arrested.

Waiting and hoping that the government will forget about you is too much of a risk, so get proactive early and get good counsel!

– Free Consultations

 

100 days in Office

/in /by

The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten recently hit the 100 days in office mark.  Been a fun/stressful/fulfilling ride.

Over the past 100 days, Chris has:

  1. Admitted a Last Will and Testament to probate;
  2. Drafted a professional services agreement for a company that specializes in providing consulting services to candidates for public office;
  3. Represented Defendants in two district courts and two municipal courts, across two counties;
  4. Helped a youth roller skate club apply for 501(c)(3) status;
  5. Filed some restraining and anti-harassment orders; and was even
  6. Retained by members of the Aryan Nation to provide legal advice concerning the intricacies of their right to free speech, checked by the rights of communities and private corporations who understandably wish to prohibit them from spreading their message.   (A surreal experience for a Jewish attorney).

Thank you for your support, and continued business.

PRIVATE COUNSEL OR PUBLIC DEFENDER?

/in /by

If you were recently arrested or even arraigned, the decision of whether to keep your public defender or retain private counsel is the most important choice you will make going forward – regardless of whether your ultimate goal is to prove your innocence at trial, or negotiate a plea deal in advance. Here’s some straightforward information to help guide your decision.

#1 Public Defenders Are Great. They tend to be committed to their clients, are experienced in the courtroom, and they have good working relationships with prosecutors. They also don’t have to worry about running a business in addition to practicing law and have access to resources most private defense attorneys don’t have.

#2 Public Defenders are overworked. This is true of virtually all attorneys, but especially for those representing the indigent. Washington’s Standards for Indigent Defense allow individual public defenders to represent up to 400 cases per attorney. This makes getting a hold of them difficult and clients often complain that things were not fully explained to them prior to signing documents, taking plea deals or otherwise making decisions with consequences.   “Customer service complaints” are probably the #1 issue clients have with public defenders (though the same can be true for private).

#3 Not all Public Defenders are attorneys. Some are what are called Rule 9 interns, who have at least two years of law school under their belt, but have yet to actually graduate, take the bar, and – in many incidents – try a case. Most work as volunteers in public defenders’ offices for the experience, and although supervised by more senior attorneys, are nevertheless “here to learn.”

#4 You don’t have an automatic right to a Public Defender. While your right to an attorney is stated in the Constitution, the right to an attorney at public expense is reserved for those who have been screened and found to be indigent. The process of screening varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it may require (depending on the jurisdiction) that you go before a Judge and prove your financial situation under penalty of perjury. If the court finds you to be “indigent” it will grant you an attorney, but often this does not mean you get the attorney for “free.”

Generally, when the Court finds that you are not really indigent but also not really able to pay for your own attorney, they will impose a contribution cost. Chris has seen these costs range from $150 to around a thousand.   There’s no hard and fast dollar figure to define “indigent” but just because you are on disability, receive food stamps, have children or student loans or were recently laid off…DON’T EXPECT TO GET AN ATTORNEY FOR FREE. You will probably be asked to contribute finances to the cost of your representation.

The major difference – however – is that private defense counsel will probably ask you to pay at least a portion of their fee in advance, while the Court will ask you to pay for your defense at the disposition of your matter.

#5 You don’t have the right to chose your Public Defender. Depending on the situation, you may be able to fire your public defender and substitute private counsel – but trading one public defender for another is tricky and never a guarantee.

#6 Most private criminal defense attorneys were public defenders at one time or still do public conflict work.

#7 Private Attorneys range in affordability. Some – like the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten – have payment plans and also allow payment by credit card. Criminal Attorneys are also a flat-fee staggered rate, which takes some of the sting out of retaining one.  Bottom line, if there’s a real possibility you’re going to have to pay $1000 for a public defender, you can probably afford to hire a private  attorney.

#8 Regardless of whether you are even convicted, just being charged with a crime can be an expensive affair. The conditions of your release (if you are lucky enough to be released) include costly No Contact Orders, SCRAM devices, Electric Home Monitoring, Work Release and more, all of which need to be paid for at the Defendant’s expense (some expenses may be covered by the Public Defender’s Office if you are found to be indigent). It is never clear whether modifying the conditions of release is within the scope of a Public Defender’s representation, who may perceive their duty as reserved to defending you against your charge, and not restoring you to a more normal routine while you await the disposition of your case. 

In summary, no matter what you’re charged with, what’s at stake for you is your finances, your future, and your freedom.  Neither a public defender nor private counsel can change the facts of your case, but both can have a significant effect on how the jury, the court, or the prosecutor interprets those facts when applied to the law.

Easier than ever to file for 501(c)(3) status

/in /by

chrisVlogo

The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten was recently retained to assist a Kitsap County youth sports client in applying for 501(c)(3) status.  Traditionally, applying for 501(c)3 tax-exemption has been a laborious task, but recent developments at the IRS have made it easier than ever.  Public Charities which receive less than $50,000 a year in donations and which meet several other eligibility requirements no longer have to fill out the exhaustive 26 page form 1023.  Instead, they can elect to fill out the three page form 1023-EZ, which can only be filed electronically through Pay.gov.

There are some detractors of this streamlined form.  Time Magazine accused the 1023-EZ of turning the IRS into a rubber stamp, which fails to adequately screen applicants.  There is also room for uncomfortable interpretation with the new form.  Chris personally felt that at least one line – Part 3, line 6, “Do you or will you donate funds to or pay expenses for individual(s)” was not adequately explained in the instruction manual.   Nevertheless, the 1023-EZ is a great opportunity for small non-profits, like school booster clubs, to achieve tax-exempt status with less hassle than ever before.

Get help restoring your right to vote for FREE

/in /by

For the month of July, the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is offering FREE assistance to convicted felons in Washington State who are interested in restoring their right to vote.  While restoration of voting rights does not normally require an attorney, Chris is willing to lend assistance to those who have worked to regain their voice, along with their freedom, and want some non-partisan assistance.

Call 253-666-8987 to set up a free appointment.  

Alternatively, you can contact the:

 

Why Bottled Beer is Better

/in /by

Summer is a great time to be outside and to socialize….and law enforcement knows it. Summer bears witness to a noticeable uptick in all crimes and misdemeanors – especially alcohol related. DUI and MIP are the obvious ones – but some alcohol crimes are more esoteric.

Recently the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten was asked to defend a client charged with violation of Keg Registration. If you’ve never heard of this gross misdemeanor before, don’t be embarrassed – neither had Chris.

The gist of it is that people who rent or buy a keg – defined as a four gallon container or greater of malt liquor – must:

  1. Sign a declaration and receipt for the keg;
  2. Provide one piece of identification;
  3. Be of legal age to purchase, possess, or use malt liquor;
  4. Not allow any person under the age of twenty-one to consume the beverage;
  5. Not remove, obliterate, or allow to be removed or obliterated, the identification;
  6. Not move, keep, or store the keg or its contents, except for transporting to and from the distributor, at any place other than that particular address declared on the receipt and declaration; and
  7. Maintain a copy of the declaration and receipt next to or adjacent to the keg or other container, in no event a distance greater than five feet, and visible without a physical barrier from the keg, during the time that the keg or other container is in the purchaser’s possession or control.

Part 6 is likely where most people are going to be tripped up. After all, if you’re planning on taking the keg to a party and drinking the remains at home, which address are you supposed to put on the label? There’s no requirement that bars and taverns who lease these kegs fully apprise renters that this is not merely a tavern policy, this is the law – and failure to obey may result in 364 days in jail and/or a $5000 fine.

This is a particularly cheap charge for prosecutors to hurl at defendants. Law abiding citizens have never heard of this crime. Most lawyers have never heard of this crime. The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten has yet to find a single published opinion in the history of Washington State concerning this law. Yet the fact is that in some jurisdictions prosecutors are likely to throw this charge in with more noteworthy offenses – like public intoxication or supplying alcohol to minors – in order to strengthen their hand and force you into a plea deal that results in a criminal record.

The best defense is not to be charged.  So if you plan on celebrating summer with beer: don’t rent a keg, or if you do, only take it to where you plan to drink it. Better yet, opt for bottled beer instead. The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is particularly partial to Alaska, Deschutes and 21st Amendment Brewery. Also, growlers from local breweries are a nice substitute to kegs.

Office Location

705 South 9th Street
Suite 206
Tacoma, Washington 98405

Call or text now:

(253) 666-8987

Free Case Evaluation

Our Criminal Defense Attorney and Staff will be notified immediately.

Criminal Defense Law

The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is a Criminal Defense Law Office Serving:

Seattle and all of King County

Bellevue . Kent . Renton . Federal Way . Auburn . Redmond . Shoreline . Kirkland . Sammamish . Burien . Issaquah . Des Moines . SeaTac . Mercer Island . Maple Valley . Kenmore . Tukwila . Covington . Lake Forest Park

Tacoma and all of Pierce County

Tacoma . Auburn . Lakewood . Puyallup . University Place . Bonney Lake . Enumclaw . Sumner . Edgewood . Fife . DuPont . Gig Harbor . Milton . Orting . Pacific . Fircrest . Steilacoom . Buckley . Eatonville . Roy . Carbonado . Wilkeson . South Prairie

Olympia and all of Thurston County

Lacey . Tumwater . Yelm

Bremerton and all of Kitsap County

Bainbridge Island . Port Orchard . Poulsbo