Cle Elum Archives

DUI Physical Control Washington: State v. Reid and the Safely Off the Roadway Defense

DUI Physical Control Washington: Legal Background Washington law allows DUI charges even when you're not driving. Under RCW 46.61.504, being in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence is enough to be charged. But there’s an important legal safeguard: the “safely off the roadway” defense. This defense applies if you parked your vehicle in a safe place before police arrived. In the case of State v. Reid, the Washington Supreme Court clarified how and when this defense applies. State v. Reid: Defining the Limits of the Defense In Reid, the defendant was found sleeping inside a parked car in a private lot while intoxicated. He claimed his car was “safely off the roadway,” but the Court disagreed. The Washington Supreme Court ruled: The defense under RCW 46.61.504(2) isn’t automatic. Being on private property doesn’t guarantee protection. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show they moved the vehicle safely off the roadway, before any police interaction. This case reinforces the complexity of DUI physical control Washington law. When Can You Claim "Safely Off the Roadway"? ✅ You Must Act Voluntarily You must move the vehicle yourself, not just be parked somewhere convenient or random. ✅ It Must Happen Before Police Contact If you only pulled over after seeing flashing lights, it’s likely too late to claim this defense. ✅ The Area Must Be Safe Private lots, parking lanes, and shoulder areas are not automatically safe zones. Your chosen location must clearly reduce danger to yourself and others. Blanford Law: Experienced in DUI Physical Control Washington Defense At Blanford Law, we defend DUI physical control charges across Washington. If you parked somewhere to avoid driving drunk, we can help you prove you met the legal standard for the safely off the roadway defense. We will: Analyze your case under State v. Reid and related rulings...

Safely Off the Roadway? Understanding Washington DUI Law After State v. Neill

Safely Off the Roadway? Understanding Washington DUI Law After State v. Neill Slug: washington-dui-safely-off-roadway-neillFocus Keyphrase: Washington DUI safely off the roadwayMeta Description (≤156 characters): State v. Neill clarifies when Washington DUI defendants can use the "safely off the roadway" defense under RCW 46.61.504. Learn how Blanford Law can help. Parked Isn’t Always Protected: DUI Physical Control in Washington Can you be arrested for DUI even if you weren’t driving? In Washington, the answer is yes—under RCW 46.61.504, it’s a crime to be in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. That’s why the safely off the roadwaydefense is so important—and also so misunderstood. In the landmark case State v. Neill, No. 89373-5 (Wash. 2014), the Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue, ruling that a person found parked in a private parking lot could not automatically claim the “safely off the roadway” defense unless they proved specific legal elements. The Facts Behind State v. Neill In Neill, the defendant was found intoxicated while parked in a private grocery store parking lot. He was in the driver’s seat with the engine off. Neill claimed that because he was in a private lot and not obstructing traffic, he should be entitled to the “safely off the roadway” defense under RCW 46.61.504(2). However, the Washington Supreme Court disagreed. The Court emphasized that: “Roadway” refers to places open to or used for public travel—even if privately owned. The burden of proving the defense lies with the defendant. Being parked in a lot isn’t enough; there must be proof that the vehicle was moved voluntarily to a safe locationbefore police contact. What the Law Requires for This DUI Defense To assert the “safely off the roadway” defense successfully in Washington, you must prove: You moved the car yourself to a safe location....

Washington DUI Safely Off the Roadway: Lessons from State v. Lively

Parked Isn’t Always Safe: State v. Lively and Washington’s DUI Law Can you be convicted of DUI in Washington even if you weren’t driving? Yes—and the Washington DUI safely off the roadway defense may be your only shield. In State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1 (1996), the Washington Supreme Court analyzed this critical issue under RCW 46.61.504. The case helps define what “safely off the roadway” really means in a DUI physical control case. What Happened in State v. Lively Amy Lively was found in her parked car, intoxicated. The vehicle was not on a highway but located in a private lot. Law enforcement arrested her for being in “physical control” of a motor vehicle while under the influence—a violation of Washington DUI law under RCW 46.61.504. She argued that she should be protected under the safely off the roadway DUI defense. The question before the court was whether her location and behavior met the legal threshold to invoke that defense. What Does “Safely Off the Roadway” Mean in Washington DUI Law? RCW 46.61.504 allows a person to raise an affirmative defense to DUI if they were in physical control of a vehicle but had moved it safely off the roadway. In Lively, the Washington Supreme Court clarified: The burden of proof is on the defendant. You must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you voluntarily moved the vehicle to a safe location. A parking lot is not automatically safe. The court emphasized that being out of traffic lanes is not enough—context matters. The law focuses on risk to the public, not just where the car is parked. The court found that Lively had not conclusively demonstrated she had proactively taken herself out of danger to others. As a result, her Washington DUI safely off the roadway defense failed. Legal Takeaways from Lively for DUI Physical Control Charges This case sends a clear message: Intent matters. If you were sleeping in your car but didn't actively remove yourself from the road, you may still face charges. Location matters. Not all parking lots or driveways are considered “safe” under the law....

Washington DUI Physical Control: Spokane v. Beck and RCW 46.61.504

What the City of Spokane v. Beck Case Teaches About DUI and Physical Control Washington courts have long held that you don’t have to be driving to be charged with a DUI. The 2006 case City of Spokane v. Beck, decided by the Washington Court of Appeals, clarified what it means to be in “physical control” of a vehicle while under the influence under RCW 46.61.504. The decision is a powerful reminder that being intoxicated inside a vehicle—even if it's parked—can still lead to a conviction unless certain statutory defenses apply. The Facts: Parked, But Still in Trouble In Beck, the defendant was found intoxicated and asleep in her car, parked at a convenience store. The engine was running. Officers arrested her, and she was charged under Washington’s DUI physical control statute. The issue wasn’t whether she had been driving, but whether she was in actual physical control of the vehicle while under the influence. What Is “Physical Control” in Washington DUI Law? RCW 46.61.504 makes it a crime to be in “actual physical control” of a vehicle while intoxicated. Washington courts interpret this broadly. If you have the ability to operate the vehicle, you're considered in control—even if the car isn’t moving. In Beck’s case, the court determined that: The car was on. She was in the driver’s seat. She had the potential to drive away. That was enough. The “Safely Off the Roadway” Defense Washington law provides an affirmative defense if you can prove you moved your vehicle safely off the roadway prior to police contact. In this case, Beck's defense argued the car was in a safe parking lot, and thus she wasn't posing a risk. However, the court ruled that this defense requires more than just being in a parking space. The burden of proof lies with the defendant, and Beck failed to convincingly show that she had proactively moved the car off the roadway before becoming impaired. Why This Matters: Broad DUI Liability in Washington This ruling confirms: You can be convicted of a DUI even if you never start driving....

State v. Edgar DUI Washington – Affirmative Defense Succeeds

In the case of State v. Edgar DUI Washington, the Washington Court of Appeals overturned a felony DUI conviction after determining that the defendant had successfully proven the “safely off the roadway” affirmative defense under RCW 46.61.504. This important ruling highlights when Washington drivers may legally avoid a DUI conviction if they remove themselves from the roadway to prevent danger. Background of State v. Edgar Kevin Ray Edgar was arrested in Ellensburg, Washington, in the early morning hours of August 16, 2018. After drinking, he parked his vehicle at a large gas station parking lot, moving it roughly 20 feet away from the pumps to a location not obstructing traffic. He then fell asleep in the truck with the engine running. Law enforcement found him in this state and arrested him for physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, a felony because of his prior DUI-related conviction. Edgar argued at trial that he had taken responsible action by removing himself from the road. RCW 46.61.504 – Safely Off the Roadway Defense Washington law under RCW 46.61.504 allows a driver to avoid a DUI or physical control conviction if they can show that they were safely off the roadway. This is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden is on the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were not endangering others. Court’s Analysis and Ruling in State v. Edgar The appellate court in State v. Edgar DUI Washington focused on several key facts: Vehicle Location: Edgar was parked in a five-acre parking lot, not blocking any traffic. Intent: He had intentionally stopped driving to avoid risk due to his intoxication. Safety Factors: Although the engine was running, the vehicle was stationary and posed no immediate hazard. The court concluded that the jury lacked sufficient grounds to reject Edgar’s affirmative defense. The conviction was overturned and dismissed with prejudice, meaning Edgar could not be retried on the same charge. What State v. Edgar Means for DUI Law in Washington The State v. Edgar DUI Washington ruling confirms that courts will uphold the “safely off the roadway” defense when supported by facts. It sends a clear message that: Taking responsible action when intoxicated may be legally defensible Drivers are encouraged to remove themselves from danger rather than continue driving...

Yakima Rollover Crash at Fruitvale Blvd Leaves One Dead, Three Injured

Yakima Rollover Crash at Fruitvale Blvd Leaves One Dead, Three Injured Yakima, WA (May 5, 2025) — A deadly Yakima rollover crash early Sunday morning at Fruitvale Boulevard and River Road has claimed one life and left three others injured, according to the Yakima Police Department. The collision occurred just after 3:00 a.m. in the 3400 block of River Rd and involved a single vehicle carrying four young men, all 20 years old and from Yakima. Responding officers and firefighters arrived to find the car overturned and flames spreading in a nearby parking lot. Emergency crews extinguished the fire and provided aid to the victims. One passenger was pronounced dead at the scene. The driver and another occupant sustained serious injuries and were transported to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. A third passenger was treated locally for non-life-threatening injuries. Initial reports suggest the car was traveling westbound on River Rd when the driver failed to navigate a curve just east of Fruitvale Blvd. The vehicle crashed through a construction zone, rolled over, and came to rest on its roof in a nearby lot, where it ignited. Authorities believe speed was a major factor, and criminal charges may be filed as the investigation continues. We extend our deepest sympathies to the loved ones of the deceased and hope for the swift recovery of those injured. Legal Considerations After a Yakima Rollover Crash This fatal Yakima rollover crash illustrates the serious risks of speeding, especially during overnight hours and near construction zones. Rollover collisions are often deadly—particularly when fire is involved and victims become trapped inside the vehicle. Even survivors may suffer long-term injuries, emotional trauma, or face difficult financial burdens. The aftermath of such crashes often involves: Complex insurance claims Medical bills and future care costs Potential criminal proceedings Wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits Families may also struggle with finding answers, especially when multiple passengers are involved and responsibility is still under investigation. How Blanford Law Helps After Serious and Fatal Crashes At Blanford Law, we represent individuals and families affected by tragic crashes like the Yakima rollover crash. Our legal team helps clients navigate wrongful death claims, injury lawsuits, and insurance disputes—all while providing compassionate support during one of the hardest times of their lives. If you or a loved one has been affected by a rollover, high-speed, or fiery crash in Washington, we are here to help. 📞 Call us at...

Ellensburg Motorcycle Crash: Seattle Rider Killed in DUI I-90 Collision

Ellensburg Motorcycle Crash: Seattle Rider Killed in DUI I-90 Collision A fatal Ellensburg motorcycle crash claimed the life of a 63-year-old Seattle man on May 5, 2025. The crash happened on westbound Interstate 90, about six miles from Ellensburg, when a Jeep rear-ended the motorcyclist, ejecting him onto the roadway. A third vehicle struck the rider moments later. Despite wearing a helmet, the motorcyclist died at the scene. The Washington State Patrol (WSP) arrested the 22-year-old Jeep driver for driving under the influence (DUI). Other drivers were uninjured. The Ellensburg motorcycle crash remains under investigation, and the victim’s identity has not been released. The Risks of DUI in an Ellensburg Motorcycle Crash Motorcyclists face extreme vulnerability in any crash, but especially in rear-end collisions caused by impaired drivers. A rear-end strike—even at low speeds—can eject a rider, exposing them to a second impact, as tragically happened in this Ellensburg motorcycle crash. Even with helmet use, serious or fatal injuries are common in motorcycle wrecks. According to the NHTSA, motorcyclists are 28 times more likely to die in a crash than occupants of passenger vehicles. Legal Rights After an Ellensburg Motorcycle Crash Victims’ families may have grounds to file a wrongful death claim after a fatal Ellensburg motorcycle crash. This allows loved ones to seek justice and recover compensation for: Medical bills and burial costs Lost future income Pain and suffering Loss of companionship Hiring a motorcycle accident lawyer in Washington can help guide families through this complex process. How Blanford Law Can Help After a Motorcycle Crash At Blanford Law, we help families affected by motorcycle crashes across Washington—including those involving DUI collisions. We understand how devastating these tragedies are and will stand by you in seeking justice and accountability. 📞 Call us at 253-720-9304📧 Email: ken@blanfordlaw.com We offer free consultations and compassionate legal support when you need it most. Additional Resources on Motorcycle Accidents, DUI, and Washington Law...

Blog