Posted Thursday, July 23, 2015 by Blog Admin.
Lizanne Padula testifies before the Washington State Senate Law & Justice Committee on June 17, 2015, regarding SB6134: Exempting pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring programs from statutory limitations on pretrial supervision costs. Padula testified on behalf of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Posted Monday, March 30, 2015 by Blog Admin.
The 2015 Annual Meeting of Citizens for Judicial Excellence was held on March 19 in Kirkland. Ted Barr, CJE President for the past eight years, retired and the membership elected Lizanne Padula as CJE President for the next four-year term. View link below:
Citizens for Judicial Excellence is a political action committee formed to recruit and support highly accomplished, fair, service-oriented attorneys who wish to become judges in the District and Municipal Court of the State of Washington.
Posted Thursday, August 9, 2012 by Blog Admin.
Our Client L.W.C. receives a call from a friend who is stranded and needs a ride from Kirkland. L.W.C. should have stayed home because he had been drinking; however, they could not resist a friend in need. L.W.C. picked up the friend but then got stopped by Kirkland Police when they failed to stop at a stop sign. After sobriety testing, our client was arrested for DUI. Back at the station, L.W.C. asked to use the bathroom. The Police ignored him. Over the next 20 minutes L.W.C. repeated thier request to use the bathroom to urinate numerous times. Each time, his request was ignored or declined. Finally, the police officer asked L.W.C. if he would submit to a breath test. L.W.C. said, “yes, right after I use the bathroom”. The Officer decided this was a refusal to submit to a breath test. Lizanne Padula saw this for what it was: a request to go to the bathroom and not a refusal! Lizanne set the matter for a hearing to argue whether or not this was a refusal. Additionally, in order to be thorough, Lizanne also filed a motion asking the Court to find that the police lacked probable cause to arrest L.W.C. During the hearing, the Prosecutor became so focused on the refusal issue that she forgot to make a case that L.W.C. was lawfully arrested. Lizanne noted the absence of evidence on this issue and quietly waited for her opportunity to pounce. The strategy worked! Case dismissed!
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2011 by Blog Admin.
DOL in an effort to stop people from filing an appeal challenging the poor rulings of their hearing officers, has forced drivers to elect between pursuing a challenge to an incorrect suspension/revocation and an Ignition Interlock License (IIL). An IIL allows a suspended/revoked driver to drive as long as they have an Ignition Interlock Device, SR-22 insurance and a successful IIL application (with payment of $150.00). An appeal allows a driver to challenge a ruling by DOL and have a Superior Court Judge make the final decision. DOL has successfully lobbied for a law eliminating a Driver’s ability to get an IIL if they file an appeal with Superior Court.
Our client had a great issue and should have won her DOL hearing. The video from the Police Station clearly showed the Police Officer failing to read all of the Implied Consent Warnings. This should have been fatal to DOL’s license revocation. Unfortunately, DOL still ruled to uphold the revocation.
Now the client had a tough decision: pursue an honest and correct decision and not drive for a year or get the IIL and let DOL get away with a terrible and intellectually dishonest ruling. Our attorneys came up with a creative way to do both!
During an appeal of a DOL suspension, the License suspension/revocation remains in place unless you petition for a stay of the suspension/revocation. To get a stay granted, you need to prove that you are likely to prevail and that you will suffer irreparable harm from the suspension/revocation. The stay procedure had not been eliminated by the creation of the IIL. We could file the appeal, pursue the stay and, if we lost, we could withdraw the appeal and have our client get the IIL. This would allow us to have a Judge review the case and see if he/she agreed with our position. If the Judge agreed, the stay would be a good sign and it would let our client drive while the appeal proceeded. If the Judge disagreed we could retreat and withdraw the appeal. This would allow our client to get an IIL.
The client agreed not to drive for a couple weeks while we petitioned for the stay. We moved forward. Initially the Judge denied our motion for the stay, but a careful review of the Judge’s order showed us that she misunderstood the law. We swiftly filed a motion to reconsider and the Court reversed itself and ordered the stay!
Then the best thing happened! DOL, having been forced to face the fact that their ruling was flat-out wrong; conceded! Our client not only got her DUI rejected by the Prosecutor; (that is another story) she also had her license revocation reversed. Her driving record remains clean and clear.