Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP   PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION LAWYERS

Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Court of Appeals - Div III: A bunch of blahdeblah criminal stuff; Pretext stops still illegal; need to give evidence of prior conviction for felony DUI; Real Estate Transactions are BOOOORING

I'm going to be lazy and post these quotes unformatted. Forgive the sin :)

State v. Guerrero

Cesar Bribiesca Guerrero requested, but was denied, sentencing 

under the drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA), RCW 9.94A.660.  He appeals, 

arguing procedural error, that the trial court failed to meaningfully consider his request,

and that the court abused its discretion by imposing a $3,000 methamphetamine lab clean-

up fine. We find no error or abuse of discretion and affirm.

State v. Arreola

First, I just need to say how lucky Mr. Arreola is that his family kept that extra r in his last name. That said, this case involves using a tailpipe to pull someone over to investigate drunk driving despite seeing nothing that would make the officer thing that this was a drunk driver.

Pretextual traffic stops are prohibited by the Washington 

Constitution.  Const. art. I, § 7; State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 353, 979 P.2d 833 

(1999).  In this case, a patrol officer followed Gilbert Chacon Arreola's blue Chevy 

Cavalier for over a half mile because it fit the description of a car reportedly driven by a 

suspected drunk driver.  While watching for signs of impaired driving, the officer noticed

the car was equipped with a modified muffler in violation of state vehicle equipment 

requirements.  Without having seen any evidence of impaired driving, the officer pulled
over Mr. Chacon1 with the primary motive of investigating whether he was driving under 

the influence of alcohol (DUI), in violation of RCW 46.61.502.  At a hearing on Mr.  

No. 29164-2-III
State v. Chacon Arreola

Chacon's motion to suppress the State's evidence, the officer testified that the muffler 

was an additional reason for the stop and, hypothetically, would have caused him to stop 

and cite Mr. Chacon even absent suspicion of drunk driving.  

       The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court's finding of the officer's 

secondary, hypothetically sufficient reason for the stop supports its conclusion that the 

stop was nonpretextual and constitutional.  We hold that it does not.  The court's findings 

that the officer was following Mr. Chacon to investigate a possible DUI and stopped him 

principally for that reason compel the conclusion that the stop violated the Washington 

Constitution.  We reverse Mr. Chacon's conviction and remand with directions to dismiss 

the charges with prejudice.

State v. Santos

Felony driving under the influence (DUI) requires a showing that 

the defendant has been convicted of previous DUIs within a given time frame.  And, in 

Washington, the State must show that the person named in earlier judgments or court 

documents and the defendant presently sitting in the courtroom is the same person.  The 

State did not make that showing here, so we reverse this felony DUI conviction and 

remand for entry of a conviction and a sentence for gross misdemeanor DUI.

Washington Prof. Real Estate, LLC, v. Young

Reversal of SJ. Facts are at issue whether the buyers of the young's home learned of the listing through WPRE's marketing efforts. YAWN!

 

In other news, have you seen our new website on Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect? I'm pretty proud of this baby. Its called The Nursing Home Neglect Report. You can find it at http://www.nursinghomeneglectreport.com.

 


Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.