Law Office of Chris Van Vechten | The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

Halloween Special on Wills, POAs and other Estate Planning Devices

September 24, 2018/in Blog Posts /by Chris Van Vechten

Regardless of the size of your estate, or whether you even have an estate, leaving this world without a plan makes an already difficult time for your loved ones that much more painful. A poorly written or vague advanced directive may cause anguish and indecision for your family in your final moments. Dying without a will or “intestate” ensures unnecessary costs for your people, regardless of the state of your finances at the time of your death. As difficult as it is to think about, everyone needs to have at least three documents in place: an advanced directive, durable power of attorney, and at least a simple will.

Now through the end of October, the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is promoting package deals of these essentials with complimentary notary service.

Active-duty military and veterans, union members and non-charter-school teachers will receive an additional 10% off.

Call or email Chris today at 253-666-8987 or [email protected] to take advantage of this limited time offer.

Handwritten text: not guilty and a loudspeaker

150 “Not Guilty” Verdicts / Criminal Case Dismissed… and Counting

The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is celebrating our 150th criminal case dimissed! We’re proud of our record and we want to help you with your criminal case.

The Need To Pass a law to Require Prosecutors To Disclose Information from Incentivized Informants

May 21, 2017/in Blog Posts /by Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

Last year I represented an individual who was charged with 5 counts of drug dealing primarily based on evidence derived from a paid informant working with the Tacoma Police Department. The evidence against my client was so connected to said informant that we were not permitted to see any of the evidence against us by the prosecutors under threat of “ending all negotiations” because by revealing the audio or video evidence, the “asset to law enforcement” – we were told – would be lost. My client bravely defied the State and after six months of delays we were finally given information concerning the informant and the investigation of my client’s case and what we learned was horrifying.

First, the informant had died of a drug overdose just 4 days after my client was arraigned. This meant that much of the evidence against my client was not admissible per chain of custody, Confrontation Clause, hearsay and other constitutional and evidentiary issues.

Second, the informant had been charged with Second Degree Child Rape 6 years prior and in her psychosexual evaluation had claimed not to use drugs. The fact that she was working for TPD in that capacity went to her credibility (as did the subsequent drug overdose).

Third, despite being convicted of a serious felony involving children (though it was not ultimately plead as a sex crime but rather Second Degree Assault) the informant in question got herself a job at L&I working as a Spanish interpreter. She eventually plead guilty to defrauding L&I out of more than $34,000 by filing claims for interpreter services for people who did not in fact exist. Less than a year after pleading guilty to this, she became a paid informant for the Tacoma Police Department. Since she had already exhibited a history of lying for cash from the government, these were not minor details.

Fourth and most concerning, there was evidence to suggest that the informant may have simultaneously been working as a Spanish interpreter for private defense attorneys whilst concurrently working as an informant for TPD, suggesting the possibility that law enforcement was using our own assets against us in violation of our clients’ rights to attorney-client confidentiality. (although admittedly the evidence was limited and establishing a clear timeline for when she stopped working as an interpreter was not easy).

Ultimately, however, none of the aforementioned resulted in the case being dismissed for my client because – the Court ruled – there was no clear duty to disclose any of this to defense counsel and no evidence of any harm to the client because the client had yet to plead guilty or be convicted by a jury.

False testimony from incentivized witnesses is a leading cause of wrongful conviction in capital cases across the nation. Out of the 349 DNA based exonerations in the US, 17% involved an incentivized witness. Washington has 10 documented exoneration cases that involved the use of incentivized testimony. This will continue unless laws to protect the innocent are put in place. The system depends on honest prosecution but even honest prosecutors won’t do something unless they’re required by law to do it. That’s why we need to create an obligation to disclose information about paid informants to hold the State and the system accountable.

Senate Bill 5038 is an attempt to infuse some accountability into the process of using paid informants by requiring prosecutors to disclose certain information about informants prior to trial to defense counsel. At present, the bill has sponsorship from State Senators: Padden, Pedersen, Kuderer, Darneille, Frockt and Angel, but they and other Senators and members of the State House need to hear support for the legislation from the voters.

You can learn who your legislators are and subsequently contact them regarding your support for this important legislation here, but above all, voters who want to ensure honest due process need to contact Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, which can be done here.

In all honesty, this law will not do enough, but it’s a start. I am therefore asking the general public to please help the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten acquire the statutory tools necessary to better protect the innocent and ensure fairness for the rest.

CONVICTED ON A TECHNICALITY: the manipulations of the law to maximize consequences to minor offenders

May 1, 2017/in Blog Posts /by Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

One of the great failures of the criminal justice system was the Sentence Reform Act, a piece of legislation designed to promote consistency and fairness in the criminal justice system by restraining the power of judges without taking any steps to restrain prosecutors and police. The basis of the SRA is the concept that sentence ranges should be determined based on the seriousness of the present offense (as determined by statute, rather than the actual facts of the case) combined with the number of prior felony convictions (although, misdemeanor convictions increasingly are factored into felony offender scores).

In short, the more felony convictions, the longer the potential sentence upon conviction. Generally speaking, the harsher a potential sentence may be, the less likely a case is to go to trial and the more likely a defendant is to enter into a plea agreement (regardless of their innocence or guilt). Because many prosecutors are poor trial attorneys, some have adopted strategies to maximize the potential cost of asserting one’s right to trial to discourage defendants from asserting their rights to a trial by jury.

The following is a short list of some of the arguably unjust ways prosecutors seek to “pack felonies” into a defendant’s offender score by “up-charging” gross misdemeanors into felonies.

BURGLARY

Burglary is arguably the most abused charge in the Prosecutor’s arsenal. It is a class B felony that carries with it a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and in some states it is a strike offense (as in, “three strikes, you’re out” = life in prison).

Yet an alarming number of burglaries charged are really just shoplifting from Walmart. This is because burglary is defined as unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein. So if someone was banned from Walmart for life because he shoplifted a Seahawks t-shirt, and came back within the next 99 years to do it again, they can be charged with burglary, transforming a petty thief into a convicted felon – with all the personal and societal consequences such a charge carries.

But burglary doesn’t stop there, because you can be charged with burglarizing your own house. In fact, Chris Van Vechten once defended an individual charged with burglary because he entered his own house in violation of a no contact order at the request of the protected party. The Defendant did this because the protected party – his wife – needed to go to work and she needed someone to babysit their child, a 4 year-old quadriplegic child suffering from cerebral palsy.

Chris firmly believes one cannot be convicted of burglary merely by entering a home in violation of court order, but the issue remains unresolved by our courts and some prosecutors charge such violations as burglaries to maximize offender scores.

BAIL JUMPING

If Burglary is the most abused charge, bail jumping is probably the most used. For practical purposes, an over simplification of bail jumping is merely failing to show up to court when ordered to do so. You don’t need to actually be out on “bail” to be guilty of bail jumping.

There are two main defenses to bail jumping: (1) The Defendant did not know they were required to appear; & (2) “uncontrollable circumstances prevented the person from appearing or surrendering, and that the person did not contribute to the creation of such circumstances in reckless disregard of the requirement to appear or surrender, and that the person appeared or surrendered as soon as such circumstances ceased to exist.” RCW 9A.76.170.

The “uncontrollable circumstances” defense is where the charge gets abused. The pattern jury instruction definition of “uncontrollable circumstance” is fairly narrow, arguably excluding car trouble and there is case law expressly excluding any illness as a defense unless the illness progressed to the point of hospitalization. See WPIC 19.17 and State v Fredrick, 123 Wn.App. 347, 352, 97 P.3d 47 (2004). Furthermore, you can be charged with bail jumping because you were in jail in another jurisdiction when you were supposed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The prosecutor’s argument for this is that it’s the defendant’s fault for getting arrested when they knew they had a court date. Juries don’t like this argument, and skilled defense attorneys can blow it out of the water, but the point of filing the additional charge is to increase the risk of asserting Constitutional rights against the State.

ROBBERY

This is an oldey but a goody for prosecutors. “Robbery” is defined as unlawfully taking personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. RCW 9A.56.190. Despite what appears as a reasonable definition on the surface, within prison culture “robbery” is often referred to as “shoplifting with a shove.”

Chris Van Vechten once defended a client who was detained by Goodwill security after she attempted to shoplift a shirt by wearing it out of the store underneath some other garments. The officer grabbed her, and she attempted to break free of the grasp while still wearing the shirt. By doing so, she committed “robbery” by using “force” (aka, running while wearing the shirt).

The most egregious use of robbery Chris Van Vechten ever saw was a homeless lady who purchased a hamburger from Jack in the Box. As she counted out her coins at the cash register to pay, it was revealed that she was 18 cents short. No one volunteered to help her shore up the difference and so she snatched the burger from the counter and fled the building. In so doing, she unlawfully took property in the presence of another by the use of force and got charged with Robbery.

Like Burglary, Robbery is a Class B felony, but in Washington it is also a strike offense, meaning someone could be sentenced to life in prison because they ran off with a hamburger that they were 18 cents short on.

IDENTITY THEFT/CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION

In recent years, some prosecutor offices have begun abusing these Class C felonies to increase offender scores.

ID Theft occurs when someone knowingly obtains, possess, uses, or transfers a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime. RCW 9.35.020

“Means of Identification” is exceptionally broads and includes means:

information or an item that is not describing finances or credit but is personal to or identifiable with an individual or other person, including: A current or former name of the person, telephone number, an electronic address, or identifier of the individual or a member of his or her family, including the ancestor of the person; information relating to a change in name, address, telephone number, or electronic address or identifier of the individual or his or her family; a social security, driver’s license, or tax identification number of the individual or a member of his or her family; and other information that could be used to identify the person, including unique biometric data.

See RCW 9.35.005(3)

Felony Criminal Impersonation occurs when someone: “assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose.” RCW 9A.60.040

Over the past year, prosecutors have been charging defendants who give a false name to police officers with Identity Theft and Criminal Impersonation. It is a crime to give a false statement to a police officer – and it constitutes a gross misdemeanor.

People who get stopped for driving with a suspended license will sometime lie about who they are by giving the name of someone else they think has an active driver’s license. Historically, this has been charged as a gross misdemeanor, but prosecutors have begun charging them as felonies.

Chris Van Vechten does not believe someone assumes a false identity merely by giving a false name, and has successfully fought prosecutors on this, but unfortunately Identity Theft is both extremely broad in its scope and the Courts have thus far failed to restrain prosecutors to what was surely the intent of the Legislature.

DON’T LET YOURSELF BE CONVICTED ON A TECHNICALITY.

If it appears as though the prosecutor is up-charging you, it’s probably because he/she is afraid to take your case to trial. Get yourself an attorney with courage and resolve yourself to resist.

Police Officer Giving a Breathalyzer Breath Test

The New Rationale for Why the Police Don’t Need a Search Warrant for a Breathalyzer Breath Test

January 30, 2017/in Criminal Defense Law Blog, Law Enforcement and Police Officers, Search Warrants /by Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

This Washington Supreme Court ruling says Police don’t need a search warrant to make you blow – drivers have no constitutional right to refuse a breath test.

A NEW OFFICE FOR A NEW YEAR

December 28, 2016/in Blog Posts /by Chris Van Vechten

2016 was a big year for the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten, marked by some dramatic successes both inside and out of the courtroom. The highlight of course was proving the innocence of a 15 year-old-client who was framed for bringing a loaded and cocked semi-automatic pistol to his high school, in a relatively high profile case that garnered significant regional attention. But there were many less celebrated success also that have made this year special.

Since starting the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten in April of 2014, Chris has gotten 106 criminal clients cases either completely dismissed or received a “not guilty” verdict at trial, and 2016 played a big role in getting Chris to that number. And of course, there were many incidents where Chris’ clients were found guilty, but nevertheless received lighter sentences than the government had asked for.

Looking to expand and try out new areas of practice, Chris accepted an opportunity to upgrade his office by entering into an office share agreement with the Law Office of Mark Treyz, a fellow defense attorney with more than 30 years experience in practice who also does personal injury and select family law work. The agreement includes a significant increase in the quality of Chris’ resources in exchange for only a modest increase in his expenses. This should allow Chris to continue to provide quality representation at a reasonable rate.

And so, the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is now operating out of 705 S 9th St, Suite 206, Tacoma, WA, 98405, conveniently located across the street from the Pierce County Jail/Courthouse. This is the third move the Law Office made in as many years. However, the plan is that this will be the Law Office’s home for the foreseeable future.

As we prepare for a new year and new political administrations with new bad ideas to combat addiction, to protect people’s sensitive information, to keep us “safe”, and to punish those who supposedly broke the law – it is more important than ever that those targeted by these policies have zealous advocates ready to defend their rights. Chris remains committed to struggle and thankful for your support.

Theft in the Third Degree

September 11, 2016/in Blog Posts /by Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to represent many wonderful people in horrible situations, and too many of them I’ve represented multiple times. When I look back on the criminal history of these frequent flyers, it’s clear to me what criminal conviction turned them from law-abiding persons who made a mistake into life-long criminals. Surprisingly, it’s not the drug charge, or the DUI, nor is it the petty domestic violence conviction. Society is ready to forgive those who have struggled with addiction or anger problems, but theft is a biblical crime that is universally despised and carries with it life-long consequences in addition to serious stigmas.

The subcategory of Third Degree Theft is a gross misdemeanor which carries with it a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail and a $5000 fine. It is defined as “theft of property or services which… does not exceed seven hundred fifty dollars in value.” See RCW 9A.56.050. At least 90% of theft three charges concern alleged shoplifting.

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

In addition to jail and fines, those convicted of Theft in the Third Degree can be expected to pay restitution to the victim and attend questionable “consumer awareness classes.” It is not uncommon for courts to impose community service hours also.

Those convicted of shop-lifting will be formally trespassed from the store where the alleged crime transpired. If the victim store was a chain like Walmart, the defendant can expect to be banned from all Walmart properties nationwide and if they return and commit a subsequent theft three, they could be charged with Burglary – a class B felony that carries with it a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. For low-income people living in communities where superstores like Walmart are the only game in town for groceries and pharmaceuticals, this exclusion can be tantamount to a death sentence.

What is particularly damaging about Theft in the Third Degree is that, regardless of the scale of the theft, there are serious professional consequences.

One former client of mine was charged with shoplifting a single bottle of nail polish valued at $5.99 from Walmart. She was 22 years old at the time, and had no prior criminal history. It took the government more than a year to formally bring charges against her and in the mean time she got a job as a CNA at a Tacoma area assisted living community while earning a degree part-time.

The charge threatened her job, because those convicted of theft cannot work with “vulnerable populations” such as the elderly (even though the mentality to steal nail polish from Walmart is dramatically different from that required to steal jewelry or medicine from bed-bound grandparents). Had she been convicted, she would have lost her CNA license, and future academic or professional opportunities would have been delayed if not derailed. This is dramatically disproportionate to the offense.

Another consequence of conviction is that those convicted of Theft in the Third Degree can’t act as executors of estates, potentially complicating wills executed prior to the conviction.

Finally, one major consequence to being convicted of any category of theft is that it is a crime of dishonesty. See Washington Evidence Rule 609. This means that if you subsequently are a party to an action in court again – be it criminal or civil – and you take the stand to testify – your theft conviction can be used to impeach your credibility for at least the subsequent 10 years. This is true regardless of the nature of the legal action. This could be used against you in a child custody battle or a personal injury lawsuit.

WHAT IF I’M CHARGED WITH THIRD DEGREE THEFT? WHAT CAN I DO?

Not many attorneys in private practice want to represent people charged with shoplifting. The majority of the people charged with it are unemployed and stealing for necessity and are not deemed “profitable.” However, there are things an aggressive attorney can do to get your case dismissed and safeguard your future, and they can do it at a price that is affordable.

The Law Office of Chris Van Vechten is passionate about defending those charged with Theft in the Third Degree. Chris Van Vechten has worked to persuade the Tacoma City Council to decriminalize at least some categories of theft within city limits; arguing that the negative societal impacts outstrip the perceived harm.

Committed to being both affordable and aggressive, Chris will work with you to make representation possible.

Male lawyer working in the courtroom sitting at the table

Prosecutor vs Attorney: How Prosecutors Pressure Your Attorney Not To Investigate Your Case

August 5, 2016/in Criminal Defense Law Blog, Prosecutorial Misconduct /by Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

Prosecutor vs Attorney: Prosecutors pressure attorneys not to investigate claims against their clients by offering plea deals. This is prosecutorial misconduct.

DRUG CRIMES

October 12, 2015/in Blog Posts /by Chris Van Vechten

Despite some highly publicized moves at both the State and Federal Level, the War on Drugs is still very much alive in Pierce, Thurston, Kitsap and King County, particularly for those alleged to be involved in the use and distribution of heroine and methamphetamine. However, the consequences of even mere possession of any controlled substance can include lengthy prison sentences, thousands of dollars in fines, mandated treatment, a year of community custody, and exclusion from those places the government deems to be a “drug free zone.” Then there’s the boilerplate collateral consequences of conviction: loss of the right to possess a firearm, loss of voting rights, potential denial of government housing, welfare and education benefits and exclusion from working in various fields and industries.

YOU CAN HIRE A PRO WITHOUT BLOWING ALL YOUR DOUGH

Regardless of whether you are an addict on the verge of losing control, or an innocent victim whose only mistake was associating with the wrong crowd, you need an aggressive/creative advocate on your side.

Chris has defended everything from paraphernalia to possession-with-intent-to-deliver and a myriad of drug crimes in between. In battles with the State, he has suppressed evidence which deprived the government of its case; argued a plea offer of 18 months down to 30 days; secured placement for clients in drug courts and diversion programs which give them the opportunity to keep their record clean while getting the disciplined treatment they need; and much more.

If you or a loved one is facing prosecution for a drug-related crime, contact Chris today for a free evaluation of your case. Private counsel is more affordable than you might think and depending on your situation, you may be eligible for a payment plan.

See Should I hire private counsel or go with the public Defender? for more information.

Smoke Pot? Own a Car? You should know about this.

October 12, 2015/in Blog Posts /by Law Office of Chris Van Vechten

In 2015, the Washington State Legislature expanded its open container law to encompass marijuana. House Bill 1276, which predominately concerned one of the Legislature’s favorite criminal subjects – DUI – nevertheless made it a traffic infraction for the registered owner of a motor vehicle, or the driver if the registered owner is not then present, or any passengers in the vehicle….to keep marijuana in a motor vehicle when the vehicle is upon a highway, unless it is (A) In the trunk; (B) In an area of a vehicle not “directly accessible” to the driver or passengers. (The rule expressly considers the glove compartment to be accessible); or (C) In a package or container that has not been opened. If your primary mode of transport is a motorcycle, option C is arguably your only legal form of transport.

It is furthermore an infraction to ingest or smoke marijuana while driving or while riding as a passenger in the vehicle.

Of course, police officers still require at least a reasonable suspicion that a driver or passenger has or is about to commit a traffic infraction before initiating a stop. The question then is whether – for example – simply by smoking an e-cigarette in a moving vehicle, a police officer will have an enforceable excuse to stop Washington motorists to ensure the substance that is being blown out is not cannabis-based. And of course, in the course of investigating possible cannabis open container violations, said officers will have the right to run names for any warrants or to determine whether anyone in the car is a party to a no contact order. They’ll also be able to ensure that licenses and insurance coverage is current, to inspect that wind-shields are properly tinted, etc. etc. etc.

The bottom line is that the Legislature has given law enforcement a new tool, and they intend to use it. If they chose to use it on you, contact the Law Office of Chris Van Vechten immediately to determine how best to proceed.

Posts

Halloween Special on Wills, POAs and other Estate Planning Devices

150 “Not Guilty” Verdicts / Criminal Case Dismissed… and Counting

The Need To Pass a law to Require Prosecutors To Disclose Information from Incentivized Informants

CONVICTED ON A TECHNICALITY: the manipulations of the law to maximize consequences to minor offenders

The New Rationale for Why the Police Don’t Need a Search Warrant for a Breathalyzer Breath Test

A NEW OFFICE FOR A NEW YEAR

Theft in the Third Degree

Prosecutor vs Attorney: How Prosecutors Pressure Your Attorney Not To Investigate Your Case

DRUG CRIMES

Smoke Pot? Own a Car? You should know about this.

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

Tacoma and all of Pierce County

Olympia and all of Thurston County

Bremerton and all of Kitsap County