So why would I decide to change all this?  Well, outside my law practice, I am also very involved in Washington County and the City of Beaverton.  So when an attorney of Rod Adams stature, an attorney who has been practicing law in the same downtown Beaverton location and serving Beaverton and Washington County citizens for over 40 years, invites you into a business venture, you at least have to stop and think about it.

Rod Adams http://adams-uffelman.com/our-partners/rodney-c-adams devotion to providing quality legal services in Beaverton and Washington County is unquestioned.    Then I factored in that his partner, John Uffelman http://adams-uffelman.com/our-partners/john-e-uffelman has worked with Rod Adams for the past 15 years and has established himself as a top rated lawyer in Beaverton.  These two have really epitomized professional legal services in Beaverton, Washington Clackamas and Multinomial Counties.

As much as I enjoy my small practice and all the benefits that go with a small practice, how can I pass up the chance to take my practice to another level?  I believe I will get to work on bigger cases and more complex issues.  I have the opportunity to associate with attorneys that have not only survived every economic downturn, but have provided legal services that parallel any big law firm downtown.  Now is the time, for my partner and me to step up, join our law firm with these two very well established attorneys, and take our services to higher level.

I understand I may be going commercial.  I suspect many of my clients will be a bit disappointed that I have taken this path.  I do believe by making this move I will be able to provide an even higher level of legal services to more clients.  I believe this will allow me to fully concentrate on matters in Beaverton and Washington County.  But most importantly, I will vow, here on my blog, to all of my past, current and future clients, that I will not lose that personal touch.  Either my staff or I will return phone calls within 24 hours.  I will be available on weekends and after hours.  I will continue to make weekend and home appointments.  I will be there physically and emotionally with my clients every step of the way. 

Just yesterday, while being part of the Beaverton Law Group, I represented my client in a DUII trial.  I was there for every court appearance, had many meetings and conversations with my client before trial and personally spoke to each witness before they testified on the stand.  I was with her every step of the way, from the first court appearance through the final step when the verdict was read.  I have never promised the results of a trial and my clients know this.  But win or lose, I am confident my client was pleased with my legal services and the way I tried her case . . . of course it helps that we got a Not Guilty verdict.

I look forward to providing the same personal legal services in this new professional setting called the Beaverton Law Group, LLP.

At this stage, even knowing some things that happen during an investigation because I was a prosecutor for 10 years, I’m not here to say that Terri Horman is or is not involved.  But if one could stop for a minute with all the reasons they think she is invovled and instead think of this case from the perspective that she wasn’t involved, could you image how terrible an ordeal this would be for Terri Horman. 

I know the natural reaction is to think that she has brought everything on herself and who can possibly feel sorry for someone who has harmed a child.  But that isn’t what I’m saying here.  Imagine, instead, that a child you love disappears and law enforcement is pointing the finger at you.  Then law enforcement rips open your entire life, guts open your life history for the everyone to see.  Every strange action you have taken, every email that wasn’t worded right, everything that you have said in frustration, every particular vice you may have,  is now being used against you to show you harmed a child.  It just doesn’t seem right.

But we all know the power of the press.  This story has national attention, there is a missing child, there are biological parents at odds and grieving and there is a step-mother with a strange and complex history involved.  This makes for good press and high ratings.  But is the press being fair about the situation or simply chasing ratings?  Because if . . . if Terri Horman had nothing to do with this, than what is happening to her is equivalent to a modern day witch hunt.  And if that is the case, one has to wonder how much society has progressed over the centuries.

According to the Beaverton Police Department, the purpose is to increase traffic safety efforts of pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists. Primarily, at the following designated locations:

1. Beaverton Hillsdale Highway and Griffith Drive;
2. Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road;
3. Cedar Hills Boulevard and Walker Road; and
4. SW Allen Boulevard and Lombard Avenue.

The City of Beaverton initiated the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program in 2001. The goal of the program was to capture and then issue citations to motorists running red lights at designated intersections. Then, in 2008, the cameras were upgraded to a digital format, allowing the cameras to capture motorists that do not make a complete stop at a red light prior to making a right-hand turn. To date, this feature has not been implemented.

City of Beaverton Expands its Traffic Safety Efforts – Media Release

Photo Red Light Presentation by Beaverton's Chief of Police

Believe it or not, many police officers are choosing the most extreme choice and charging Tri-Met riders who do not have proof of fare with the crime of theft of services. We are talking about a $2.30 fare! And this is not just one or two officers who have decided to charge this conduct as a crime. Hundreds of people in the Portland tri-county area have plead guilty to the crime of theft of services for not having proof of Tri-Met fare.  I do not believe this is a fair and equitable result.

Personally, I have already had three jury trials on these type of cases where my clients have been charged with the crime of theft of services because they were riding Tri-Met without proof of fare. These are three specific cases in which the State was willing to spend the time and money in an attempt to get a conviction for theft, which would appear on their record and label them as a thief.  Had the State simply charged my clients with the violation and imposed a money fine, they could have saved the money and time spent by the prosecutor, the police, the court staff, the judge and the jury. Instead, law enforcement decided (and is continuing to decide) to spend the money and take a full day of the court’s time to have a jury decide if people in this situation should have a theft on their record.  (I should note that I have handled many of these types of cases and there have been times when the State has reduced the criminal charge of theft of services to a violation)

For what it is worth, in the three Oregon jury trials I have had with regard to this issue, the jury has twice found my clients not guilty and once found my client guilty.  As you can see (and as silly as these cases may sound), these Tri-Met cases are a battle. I suspect as long as law enforcement in Oregon continues to take this very aggressive approach to riding Tri-Met without a fare, defense attorneys will continue to battle this charge in court.

If you or someone you know has been charged with theft of services from Tri-Met, they should consult with an attorney immediately.

The reason I decided to blog now is because my paralegal suggested that with all the success I have been having in trial, I should blog about them.  That was my plan until I read my last blog about how the State of Oregon appealed a motion I won in court.  I believe a follow up to that case would be appropriate given the emails and responses I got from that last blog.

There has been a lot of new legal developments in 2010 when it comes to DUII laws in Oregon.  As I kept up to date with the changes in DUII laws (including the new Oregon Supreme Court decision addressing State v. Machuca), I was concerned with the ruling we would receive from the Oregon Court of Appeals.  However, I am happy to report that the Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed the State’s appeal.  My client’s driving under the influence of an intoxicant criminal charge is now officially dismissed with prejudice (meaning the State can not pursue this case again).

The Oregon Court of Appeals ruling focused on the jurisdiction of Beaverton Municipal Court.  Beaverton Municipal Court in the County of Washington, Sate of Oregon, is a court of record.  Therefore ORS 221.359(3) controls.  This statute only allows appeals from a criminal judgment.  The Oregon Court of Appeals does not have the jurisdiction to overrule the judge’s rulings on pre-trial orders.  The State tried to argue that either it should have the same rights to appeal as it does in an Oregon municipal court that is not of record or that the term “judgment” in ORS 221.359(3) should be broadly read to include pre-trail orders suppressing evidence.  The Oregon Court of Appeals did not agree with the State’s arguments and ruled in factor of my client dismissing the State’s appeal.

That DUII case was a long hard fought battle with a great result for my client.  As mentioned previously, I have had other court battles and trials in 2010.  For instance, I recently had a DUII trial where the State brought in a forensic expert from Salem to explain to the jury that my client’s blood alcohol level was a .08 at the time of driving based on retrograde extrapolation.  The jury did not find the evidence credible and found my client not guilty of driving under the influence of an intoxicant.  I hope to share some interesting details of this trial along with others in my future blogs.

Hope all is well with people reading this blog.  They say that attorneys should practice the advise they give to their clients.  So my advise is to take time to enjoy the rest of the summer before it passes by.

I recently learned that the Beaverton City Attorney will be appealing this particular case.  The prosecutor disagrees with the trial judge and, quite frankly, with the current state of the law.  The prosecution is allowed to file a motion to challenge the judge’s ruling if they so choose.  I believe the prosecutor appealing this DUI case is more about appealing the current state of the law than believing the judge made a mistake on his ruling.

I can’t say this is unexpected. Defense lawyers, judges and prosecutors all are waiting to read what the Oregon Supreme Court will say about this cutting edge issue.  Until then, the Oregon Court of Appeals Case of State v. Machuca is the controlling law for Oregon DUI cases.  This means until the Oregon Supreme Court changes the law, law enforcement will have to change the way they process driving under the influence case or face the very real possibility that the intoxilyzer exam results will not be allowed at trial.

The court agreed with my analysis and ruled that my client’s consent to take the breath test during DUII processing was not voluntary.  Even though he agreed to take the breath test, the consent was not voluntary because of the way the police processed the case prior to asking to take the breath test.  As a result of the way the police handled the DUI and the ruling by the Beaverton Municipal Trial Court, the prosecution will not be allowed to use the results of the breath test in our upcoming trial. 

I believe this is just the start of what will turn out to be many Oregon DUII cases in which the court will rule that because of police DUII procedures, the results of the intoxilyzer exam will not be allowed as evidence in trial.  I have heard that the state lawyers (prosecutors) are already appealing some of these decisions by the Oregon Trial Courts Judges.  The prosecutors are trying to bring the matter before the Oregon Supreme Court in hopes that Machuca gets overruled or clarified.  It really is just a matter of time before the Oregon Supreme Court will have to rule on this matter.  Until then, the Oregon courts are likely to be flooded with motions from aggressive criminal defense attorneys testing the limits of the Machuca case.

No doubt that both Oregon state prosecutors and Oregon criminal defense attorneys are studying State v. Machuca to determine the current state of the law and how Machuca impacts the way police officers must now process DUII arrests.  I have heard that some counties have implemented  a policy to obtain a warrant for every DUII stop.  Other county agencies are changing the way they try to get a suspected DUII driver to consent to the intoxilyzer exam.  While other counties have yet to change their polices on how to process a DUII arrrest.  With the holiday season already in full swing, the big holiday question for the court system is, are police officers being trained fast enough or are many DUII arrests going to be handled improperly this holiday season?

It has been a tough 2009 for Oregon, as many have experienced less money, loss of job or loss of home. In spite of these times, I hope and believe that most everyone can find something to be grateful for on this Thanksgiving Day. Whether one needs to reflect on friends of past and present, a sense of purpose for the new year or simply appreciate living in beautiful Oregon, today is the day to find peace and thankfulness.