On September 15, 2011, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed Gilberto Arreola’s driving under the influence conviction after finding the officer’s traffic stop was pretextual.  A pretextual stop occurs when an officer stops a vehicle for a minor traffic infraction when his true motivations are to begin a criminal investigation, as was the case in State v. Arreola, ---P.3d ----, 3, 2011 WL 4090202 Wash.App. Div. 3, (2011).  Pretextual stops are prohibited by the Washington Constitution and a competent Washington DUI Lawyer will ensure that your rights were not violated under this new law.

            In that case, the officer followed Mr. Arreola for over a half mile because his car fit the description of a car suspected of being driven by a drunk driver.  While following Mr. Arreola, the officer noticed the car had a modified muffler, which was in violation of the state vehicle equipment requirements.  Although the officer did not see any indication of impaired driving, he pulled over Mr. Arreola and began an investigation for driving under the influence.  The Court found that the officer’s primary motivation for pulling over Mr. Arreola was to investigate for driving under the influence, and not for a vehicle equipment violation. 

            In finding that the officer stopped Mr. Arreola pretextually, it held that “Washingtonians retain their privacy while in [their] automobiles.”  Although, an officer can stop a driver for any traffic infraction he observes, the Court noted that nearly “the entire driving population is in violation of some regulation as soon as they get in their cars, or shortly thereafter” and warrantless seizures are not justified in these instances. 

            The Court in Arreola held that the totality of the circumstances be taken into consideration when determining whether an officer had a pretextual motivation in stopping a vehicle.  In almost every driving under the influence stop there is a pretextual reason, or a hypothetically sufficient legal justification, for the stop – whether it be failure to signal, failure to wear a seatbelt, or talking on a cell phone.  All of these acts are in violation of the traffic code and all provide officers a hypothetically sufficient legal justification to stop the vehicle.  The ruling in Arreola will allow attorneys to force the trial courts to look at the officer’s primary motivation in stopping the vehicle, which will help defendants facing driving under the influence charges prove they were stopped in violation of their constitutional rights. 

            Arreola is a win for the Tacoma criminal defense legal community and will force officers to justify why the stops are made.  Contact Tacoma DUI Attorney, Angela Horwath to see if this new case impacts your DUI charge.