The 2010 Washington State Legislative session has brought several law changes related to DUI cases. The biggest changes are not to the DUI laws themselves, but collateral laws such as the Interlock Ignition License statute, child dependency and traffic laws. Unless otherwise noted the updates below do not take effect until January 1, 2011.

Mandatory reporting for suspected DUI with a child in the vehicle. SHB 3124 requires law enforcement officers to notify child protective services when a child under the age of 13 or under is present in a car being driven by a parent, legal custodian, or guardian who is being arrested for driving under the influence of physical control. If an officer believes that the child will be in imminent risk of harm, or there is no person properly authorized to take custody the officer is authorized to take the child into emergency custody.

Unauthorized use of cell phones while driving is a primary offense as of June 10, 2010. What this means is that an officer can now pull over drivers for talking on their cell phone or texting without using a hands-free device or texting while driving. (Previously the officer could only write a ticket for this infraction if he or she had stopped the vehicle for some other valid reason, but could not stop a driver simply for violating the cell phone statute.) Drivers with an instructional permit or intermediate license can no longer use a cell phone while driving at any time. There is an exception to this law when the driver is reporting illegal activity, summoning medical or other emergency help, or to prevent injury to a person or property. Why is this relevant to DUIs? Most DUI cases start as a stop for some type of traffic infraction, such as speeding or failure to use a turn signal. This provides one more reason for officers to legally stop vehicles and initiate DUI investigations. This law may also give officers authority to stop vehicles driven by drivers using hands free devices if they appear too young to have a regular license (although, this is obviously brings up lots of Constitutional issues).

New breath test machines are on the way. HB 2465 amends RCW 46.51.506, the statute governing when a breath test is admissible, to include the use of a dry gas external standard. This allows the State to start replacing the old Datamaster machines (no longer produced) with machines using dry gas technology, the Alcotest 9510 manufactured by German company, Dräger.

Deferred Prosecution administrative fee increase. The administrative fee that courts can charge for a Deferred Prosecution was increased to $250. Considering the cost of an IIL, probation and two years of treatment, this is still the least of one’s worries when entering a DP.

Interlock Ignition License (IIL) law updates. The most significant changes in DUI related legislation come in the area of IIL laws. Amendments to RCW 46.20.385(1)(a) extend the eligibility for an IIL to include drug-related DUI offenses, DUI-related vehicular assault and vehicular homicide. The “employment vehicle” exception is extended to include valets, mechanics and rental cars for “vehicles owned, leased, or rented by a person’s employer and on those vehicles whose care and/or maintenance is the temporary responsibility of the employer, and driven at the direction of a person’s employer as a requirement of employment during working hours. “

Under 2SB 2742, an individual must be given 45-days notice of DOL’s intent to cancel a IIL, instead of the 15 days previously required. Notice must also comport with all of the requirements of RCW 46.20.245 (directing how notice is provided and for the right to request an administrative hearing to challenge the cancellation). Also a driver whose IIL has been cancelled may apply for immediate reinstatement if they meet all of the requirements for an IIL.

As of January 1, 2001, before an IIL holder can remove an IID they will have to affirmatively establish that, within the four months prior to the request for removal, there was: (1) no attempt to start the vehicle with a BAC of 0.04% or higher; (2) no failure to take or pass a re-test; and (3) no failure to comply with required calibration, maintenance or repair of the IID.

The Washington Legislature also voted to change some of the requirements for courts when a driver is convicted of DUI. Courts are now required to order installation of an IID and application for an IIL for both drug and alcohol based DUI and Physical control convictions. The court may waive these requirements if the driver (1) does not operate a vehicle, (2) is not otherwise eligible for an IIL, or (3) lives out of state and an IID is not reasonably available. The requirement that the court order “other alcohol monitoring” when not ordering an IIL has been amended so that the court only need require this when also ordering abstinence as well.

Lowering the costs of Deferred Prosecutions courts will no longer be required to order the defendant to apply for an IIL per RCW 46.20.720(2).

Finally, IID installers must begin to use the newer fuel cell technology in lieu of the older T-cell technology. Companies that are currently using T-cell technology have five years to replace their equipment.