Before I start my explanation of probable cause, particularly as it relates to Seattle DUI accusations, I want to underscore that this piece is for educational purposes (if you're starting a law firm, this might be a good place to learn a little bit). If you are charged with a Seattle DUI, please get in touch with a Seattle criminal attorney for conference on your particular set of circumstances. Do not rely on this as legal advice, as each set of circumstances is so factually distinctive individual advice is mandatory.
Probable cause is usually viewed as a mixed issue of law and fact. It requires sizeable support and a legal conclusion of probable cause. Substantial substantiation requires "a satisfactory quantity of proof in the record to sway a fair-minded, sane individual of the truth of the finding." It is the who, what, when, and where of the analysis.
For instance, let's pretend we have a guy driving around in Seattle subsequent to having drank more than a few cocktails. He is pulled over by a cop for speeding - 37 in a 25. He is otherwise driving ordinarily, including pulling off to the side of the street in a sensible way. At this point there almost certainly is no probable cause for DUI, though there is probable cause for speeding. But what if when the cop approaches the driver he notices a strong odor of beer and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. This might grow to the quantity of substantial substantiation of DUI.
The second prong of probable cause is whether the details confirm a legal conclusion of probable cause. Basically, do the details as acknowledged support a logical belief that a crime has been committed. In this set of circumstances, perhaps so, perhaps not. Individuals are allowed to drink and then drive (just not when impaired by alcohol), and the watery eyes may be explained away by something else.
So, what if the cop then asks the driver to carry out field sobriety tests (which you are able to and should at all times refuse to do in the State of Washington) and he does, failing to touch his finger to his nose, failing to balance on one leg, and failing to touch heel to toe in a walk and turn examination? Is that enough for an police officer to obtain a sensible determination that the driver was driving under the influence of booze? Likely. It is definitely a stronger case for the officer (although not definitive - injuries and weather circumstances may have been a factor, for example).
Now, why is this important for you, the common Seattle citizen? Because it is essential to understand that each time a officer stops you and begins to question you he is not concerned with your security (excluding in those obvious circumstances) and is usually attempting to gather adequate information from you to establish probable cause. And it is even more essential to understand it is within your Constitutional rights to refuse to give him information he will in time utilize against you (although you ought to give your license, registration, and act politely to the officer).
If you do discover yourself likely to be apprehended for DUI, chat to the police as little as possible by saying no politely ("I'd respectfully refuse to answer that problem") and if things continue to heat up ask to have a minute to phone your Seattle criminal attorney. Even if they get you to say stuff your Seattle criminal attorney will have a good chance of getting it thrown out (you ought to never waive our rights, for your information).
Related Posts:
How a Cop Sees a Criminal Stop
Why You Need to Know a Good Seattle Criminal Attorney
