Shannon Wilson Interview Transcript (Oregon DUI Lawyer)

 

Rich Jacobs from myDUIattorney.com sits down with Shannon Wilson, a criminal and DUI defense lawyer practicing DUI law out of Salem, Oregon. To contact Attorney Wilson of Bridgetown Law – www.bridgetownlaw.com or at (971) 322 9032 .A must read for anyone charged with a drug or alcohol related DUI in Oregon, or in the United States.

 

RJ: What made you choose to handle DUI cases, and what motivates you to be a criminal defense attorney?

 

SW:Even before I started to become an attorney, I was always very interested in the criminal justice system. As an undergraduate I focused on criminal justice degree and when I entered law school, I knew that I was going to be focusing on getting experience and education in criminal justice. So when I did graduate from Wilson Clark in 2005, I did receive a certificate in criminal law. And DUI defense work is just another branch of criminal work carried out here in Oregon. I really enjoy doing this type of work, and here in Oregan it’s very complicated and there’s a lot of changes in the law, recent changes actually, so it’s a very exciting area to be working in legal defense at the moment.

 

RJ: I’m sure our viewers will be interested in hearing about those changes, so we’ll talk about those a little later. Moving on, of all the clients you’ve seen over the years are there any typical ones, are there more first time-offenders, more men than women, for example?

 

SW: You know, I would say that DUI defendants come from all different walks of life. There’s not really a particular demographic that I see more than others. You know, people receive DUIs for a number of different situations and there are a number of different ways that you can get a DUI here in Oregon. It doesn’t always require alcohol abuse, it ranges from people that are under age, not quite 21 – I’ve had clients that are retired – so it really doesn’t matter.

 

RJ: For the alcohol related DUIs, are there any commonalities? Are they closer to the .08 limit or much higher or lower?

 

SW:In my experience, the most that I’ve seen are around .12 or .14 or .16. For some reason I see a lot of that. But it’s also all over the board, I see .05, I see .24 – it varies a lot, and that’s when you’re talking about an alcoholic DUI.

 

RJ: Out of the cases that you see, are you seeing more alcohol-related ones or more drug-related ones?

 

SW: I think that that in administrative cases, you are seeing a combination, but with the state criminal charges they are filing for alcohol, or a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance – drug under the influence charges. And there’s never a different reason for that. Prescription drug use often are controlled substances, sometimes they are not, but the state likes to use the additive effects so I am seeing more and more of that, and I think the defense lawyers are seeing more and more of that.

 

If the state isn’t initially prosecuting for an alcohol and controlled substance in their initial plea then they cannot try to bring that up later, so I think that there may or may not be evidence of a controlled substance involved, they are doing this broad charge just in case they can cast a wider net and later determine if the person was under the influence of other intoxicants, rather than make the charge physically alcohol related.

 

RJ: You mentioned the additive effect theory, can you explain briefly what that’s about?

 

SW:Sure, just briefly, because without having a legal background it gets kind of complicated. But basically, if you use a prescription drug , and that prescription drug is a controlled substance, and let’s say you had very little alcohol use, or you had half of a beverage or one beverage and you take a breath test and you are not even blowing over that legal limit – if the prosecution can prove that the prescription drug use in combination with the alcohol enhanced the effects of the alcohol, then you can be found guilty of a DUI here in Oregon. So you don’t need to consume a great amount of alcohol to put you over that .08 limit – it could be .05 or .04 and then you are under the influence of some prescription drug that is a controlled substance. And often you’ll see that if the police officer is a drug recognition expert evaluator, they’ll get a urine analysis test if they suspect another substance is involved. In that you’ll want to get a good reading and request all the charts and documents from the Oregan forensic crime lab.

 

But often times you’ll see the officer and drug recognition expert not even know the difference between what was a controlled substance and what wasn’t a controlled substance, because many of these prescription drugs are not controlled substances. And that’s where it gets really interesting where the prosecution has to prove that it was the controlled substance, and not just the prescription non-controlled substance that was mixed with the alcohol that you see the effects of by the officer. So it gets really really interesting, especially with prescription drug use in the United States, all different sorts of things could happen so it’s a very interesting area of law to be in.

 

RJ: So let’s say there was a scenario where I had I cold and took pseudoephedrine and had one beer, was pulled over, and blew at a .05, you are saying that the state would say, Well, because of the pseudoephedrine, plus the alcohol actually really impaired me more than the reading I gave on the breathalyzer so therefore I’m guilty?

 

SW:Yes, exactly.We’re talking about circumstances that there has been alcohol and a controlled substance combined. But actually you don’t have to give any sort of reading on the breath test, and they can still charge you with a drug DUI – they either test your urine or your blood later and they find a controlled substance – the state can try to go back and try to retroactively calculate what the effect of the controlled substance was at the time the driver was arrested or that the driving was in some way out of balance.

RJ: The reason I ask is that DUI seems to be going way beyond alcohol. Now including illegal drugs, to legal drugs to prescription or over the counter drugs. That’s why I’m asking it just seems very interesting.

 

SW:Yes, it’s under the Oregan statute – it could be three things; alcohol, intoxicants, and illicit drugs, or any controlled substance. There was even something a little while back about bringing in a non-controlled substance, something like Benedryl, because if you take a lot of Benedryl it can make you very sleepy. So there was someone pushing not too long ago to loop in non-controlled substances by law, but that didn’t happen.

 

RJ: Another hypothetical question about drugs, let’s say I’m a medical marijuana user, and I smoked five days ago, I haven’t smoked since and I go out driving and I get pulled over and for some reason the police officer believes I am impaired, and they do a urine or blood test and they do find evidence of marijuana in my system, will I be arrested for DUI and convicted? What would happen?

 

SW:Well if you’re asked to give a blood or urine test you will have been arrested at that point, the officer will have had to establish probable cause that you are under the influence, in this case marijuana before they can take you in and have you provide that sample. So whether you are going to be charged for DUI I would say yes initially, but they might write you a citation for DUI, and bring in an expert that says, yes your behavior demonstrates that of someone who uses marijuana and that you were slow driving or fast driving, or something that driving under the influence of marijuana would produce. But it doesn’t really change whether you were using medical marijuana or marijuana. The key here is that based on the observations and based on the results of the test – can they prove that at the time of driving you were impaired. So that’s the key here.

 

Now where medical marijuana is concerned, you do run into a lot of different issues from your regular or alcohol DUI – because it comes down to treatment programs, so if you’d like to get into that I’d love to.

 

RJ: Yes, absolutely.

 

SW:There’s a version up here in Oregon and anyone looking on the internet will find that pretty quickly, and see pretty fast whether they qualify for that. And the provisions on whether there’s going to be mandatory treatment. With alcohol and drug DUIs you’re going to have to go sit in mandatory treatment programs because a lot of programs that will not allow medical marijuana use when they are going through the program. But there are some programs that are more liberal and progressive and they understand the medical benefits of marijuana – so oftentimes I’ll help my clients seek out those facilities and get them enrolled as soon as possible because the more control of your case you take early on, the less the court is going to push you. So if you get in touch with the ADES which is the alcohol and drug abuse program here, you can say ‘Hey, I’ve already been in touch with them and am being proactive about my treatment, can you make a recommendation that I continue with this program here?’

 

RJ: So what would you say is unique about the counties and cities and states that you serve, and what are the new laws that you mentioned earlier?

 

SW:Basically, the biggest change that went into effect in December that will have the biggest impact is that if you have had convictions for DUIs in your home state or any other one, your third one will carry a punishment as much as a class 73 Felony, has hefty, hefty penalties, and if this is your situation, you want to contact an attorney as soon as possible. You are facing significant jail time. Whereas before it would have just been a misdemeanor, you are facing a lifetime revocation of your driving privileges, hefty fines, and penalties. It’s still being discussed whether there are some constitutionality challenges as far as this new law goes, but that’s something that’s really developing right now. But I’m seeing this more and more and it’s not a good situation. In Molina county has been a little bit better if you are going to receive a charge 73, and I don’t know whether that’s because it’s a bigger city and there’s more resources, or whether the judges there have seen an influx in these types of cases and have been proactive about developing an alternate solution because taking it to trial is costly, and it requires a plea obviously to the charge but it also allows for intensive 5 year probation, treatment, any car that you own, you can give up your driving privilege, you have to maintain employment for at least 40 to 60 hours a week, so you basically have to give up all your rights, privileges and liberties while you are going through this treatment, instead of a jail sentence, so that’s good if you have employment and wish to continue maintaining a normal life to an extent, but it still is very, very serious.

 

RJ: That sounds very intense.

 

SW: Yes, but when you’re talking about that or an 18 month jail sentence, people will want to continue their life and kind of move forward

 

RJ: Are there any other unique or unusual laws in your area that you’d like to tell us about?

 

SW: I’m not quite sure about what’s unique or unusual compared to other states, but talking about driving privileges and things like that. And I know that most states have a zero tolerance policy for under age drinkers, so that’s not necessarily unique, but when you’re talking about the suspension of driving privileges, I really don’t know about the other states, so I don’t know what would make Oregon unique other than this recent Measure 73.

 

RJ: What’s your best tip for someone who has been pulled over and may have had a few drinks, what should they do, what shouldn’t they do?

 

SW:What I would say is be cooperative, be polite, but don’t help the police build a case against you. If you know that you are feeling the effects of alcohol – people often try to determine if they are intoxicated or not based on how they are feeling, judgment is reduced, don’t try to negotiate your way out of receiving a DUI with the officer. Because cooperating with the field sobriety tests and taking the breath test is just building the case against you. To be honest with you even on my most athletic days whether I would be able to pass those field sobriety tests – so you see people that think they are going to do excellent on your field sobriety tests but most likely you are going to fail. I’m not quite sure I’ve ever heard of anyone passing the field sobriety tests. So that being said, take that into consideration. As far as the implied consent laws here in Oregon, if you’re asked to provide a breath sample, don’t take the chance, I’d refuse to take the chance. If you have consumed alcohol recently, don’t provide a blood sample, you know a lot of people are so fearful of losing their driving privilege for a year that they’ll just take a chance that they’re going to be under the .08 – but the way I see it is you are helping to give the state evidence to build a criminal case against you, you’re facing criminal charges that will have life-long implications. So if you have to not drive for a few months, then apply for a hardship permit, and pay hire insurance premiums for the next few years, that’s a lot better than having a criminal record at all.

 

So I guess if I could narrow it down to 3 things, I would say, remain silent, try to limit the evidence that you provide to the state and always alwaysalways request counsel.

 

RJ: Is there a big difference between refusing tests before or after arrest?

 

SW: You always have the right to remain silent, you don’t have the right to refuse arrest obviously, but being an attorney, I think that’s the golden rule. Like everywhere, there’s professional police officers, and there’s unprofessional police officers and a lot of times its going to come down to your word against there’s, so the less you provide them with information to be admitted into evidence, the better off you’ll because in the end it’s necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did this certain behavior.

 

RJ: So I guess the take home message is don’t ever think that the police officer is your friend and don’t talk to them any more than you have to?

 

SW: Exactly, that’s absolutely right. And that’s no knock on police officers to say they are dishonest people, but they are looking for DUI evidence wherever they can find it, so don’t help them build a case that way. But be polite and always request that you want to speak with counsel.

 

RJ: What kinds of help can you provide to people being prosecuted for DUI? Can you possibly reduce jail time or fines?

 

SW:Yes, absolutely. Reduction or elimination of jail time, reduction of fines and fees, entering into the diversion program or state detention, and the state initially says ‘no way’ and we have a hearing and the judge overrules that decision, so that’s great. Reduction of suspension of your driving privilege is a huge benefit, especially if you are commuting to work – so we can certainly help you with that. And also, what I like to pride myself on is my practice, is that I’m with my clients from soon after the moment of arrest, to requesting all the necessary hearings that we need to request, getting ready for first court appearances, discovery, requesting facts of discovery, all the way from the initial point, throughout the entire court procedure, after you enter into treatment, keeping in touch with you while you are in treatment, so that you are on good terms with people that are providing the treatment, all the way to getting the sentence or the result – I’m always available to my clients and I know a lot of attorneys that will do the court proceedings, give a handshake and then it’s done and ‘the best of luck to you’, and that’s not really doing the full job, because I really feel that part of being an attorney is not just the advocating portion of it, it’s also the counseling portion of it, so that you as a client understand what the process is, what you are obligated to do – and I think that a lot of people feel that they are in more control of their lives to have someone in their corner in their case and ask questions at the right time.

 

RJ: What level of success do you feel you’ve had in getting defendants situations improved, maybe not completely dismissed but at least improved?

SW: I think that every single case I’ve had my clients have been happy with my services . Even if we go to trial – worst case scenario – and it doesn’t turn out exactly as we hoped, still in those situations my clients have been thrilled with my representation which basically makes me and my clients feel very good because they know I put my heart and soul into representation and will fight till the very end. And avoiding jail-time is the best thing that I can do if we can make that happen, even though there’s still some consequences still, I see that as a victory too. In every case I’ve had, I’ve been able to do something for my client.

 

RJ: That leads to my next question, what’s the benefit of hiring a private attorney versus a public defender, or defending yourself?

 

SW: Well judges here in Oregon most always want to see you represented with counsel because there’s so many rights and privileges you are waiving, even if you are seeking aversion, there’s so many things about the legal process that a regular civilian just can’t possibly grasp in that short period of time, so judges really want to know that people are entering these programs, entering these pleas knowingly and getting educated and are voluntarily and educatedly entering the pleas.

 

So as far as representing yourself, I would not recommend it, also DUI law is extremely complicated, and it’s stressful and make sure that if you are hiring someone that you are being protected and guiding you through the process – I think it’s well worth the cost just for the peace of mind that it provides you.

 

And as far as going with a public defense attorney, I have colleagues that are public defense attorneys and they are brilliant, and can make a lot of wonderful things happen for a lot of clients, but they are very busy, their caseloads are extremely high. So ultimately, I would most definitely recommend going with a private attorney, if you have the financial resources to do so, in order to give yourself the best chance of getting the best possible outcome for your case.