Police Citing For Driving Under Influence Of Electronics

WA Police Citing For Driving Under Influence Of Electronics
Published on Nov 3, 2017


15 States? Who else has seen this in your state?

Washington’s newest distracted driving law goes into effect
Published on Jul 5, 2017


More than 16,000 sign petition to re-write new distracted driving law

 

Oregon's new distracted driving law is also very strict. You need to pull over to do just about anything on a smartphone, including changing music tracks. I'm okay with it. Pulling over for thirty seconds is easy, and distracted driving does kill, and narrower restrictions (you can use music apps but not texting or social media while in motion) are almost impossible to enforce because the officer can see you're using a phone but not what you're doing with it.

 

Since they say "Electronics" and not "Smartphone / Cellphone" does that mean you can't control your music with the onboard sound system too? Or, if that's allowed and the iPhone / Android phone integrates with the onboard sound system, you could certainly use those controls to control the music on your smartphone, right?

And, if the onboard system is allowed, they also integrate with smartphones to control them for phone calls and even applications like GPS Mapping and directions.

So it's really another oppression of the poor people that can't afford to integrate their smartphones with their car onboard control systems

Besides, pulling over on the freeway / hiway /road, or off via an off-ramp to answer your phone or make a call to the person's call you missed adds additional risk when leaving and merging with traffic as well.

Someone needs to look up those statistics for the random interruption of stopping and restarting your trip, while under stress wondering if your boss called, your wife, or your kids, and "They know I'm driving, wth hell are they doing calling me?"

We do need some kind of phone feature that notices you are driving and answers the phone as such, "Blah blah can't answer the phone right now, he can't afford another $264 ticket for answering your calls, please stop calling him while he's driving!! - please leave a message at the tone. Beeeep!"

And, don't forget if you need to rearrange your package while driving, and you veer into another lane, that will cost you a ticket too.

 

The Oregon law is cellphone specific. I don't know about the Washington law because I don't live there.

The Oregon law allows you to use gps navigation with the phone in a cradle, so long as you're not interacting with the phone while the car is in motion.

I am utterly unconvinced that the risk of pulling over to the side of the road is equal or greater to the risk of operating a motor vehicle while simultaneously using your phone.

Saying "but there are other distractions too" doesn't mean that this particular ban is wrong. There are other intoxicants bedsides just alcohol that make driving dangerous, but nobody uses that to argue that we shouldn't have a drunk driving law.

 

The WA and other municipalities have adopted "Driving Under the Influence of Electronics" DUI-E as the law / offense moniker, so it's not just cellphones.

And, they tagged on a number of other offenses not involving electronics, like eating, putting on makeup, and any other activity not focused on driving that distracts the driver - causes them to look away from the road.

The funny thing was to hear a cop say, "if I see you eating a hamburger and watching the road while driving, that's ok, but when you look away to put it down I am pulling you over."

In Washington, distracted driving gets a rebrand as DUI-E
CBS NEWS November 3, 2017, 7:39 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-state-driving-under-influence-of-electronics/

"A campaign by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to crack down on distracted driving recently swept up a high-profile offender. Newly-released video shows the SUV of the Garden State's first lady, Mary Pat Christie, being pulled over last April. The officer says she was holding a phone in her hand.

The distracted driving crackdown was ordered by Gov. Christie's own attorney general. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have already banned handheld devices while driving. Among them is Washington state, which is now citing drivers for DUI-E: driving under the influence of electronics."

 

Good, I'm glad they do.

Do you object to these laws?

 

Yes, I do object to the new law(s) against activity(ies) in the car while driving.

I don't like to give any more excuses to stop motorists for inspection, it can easily be abused. It's a problem that has solutions without this level of interference.

It's another revenue stream that can be abused, just like all the other end of month 1 MPH over tickets. It's also a waste of time and manpower.

It's the officers word against the citizens word, and that starts a dangerous precedent. There is no "proof" of what was done / seen, and there is no "excuse" allowed, as per that accompanying video in the CBS article.

The speeding and traffic laws were abused so by officers accusing motorists of speeding before radar - and after, as well as so many other abuses - do you follow history and watch the news?

There is enough real crime out there, and few enough resources to combat it, adding this to the demands on officers is ridiculous.

Human error is going to cause accidents. Before cell phones there were lots of accidents, and after cell phones there are lots of accidents.

Stopping cars and giving tickets to people for being human is going to be an endless task.

There are distractive causes other than cell phones, being human and easily distracted due to inattention from nothing other than a wandering mind during a drive - thinking about other things.

Will our thoughts be monitored to make sure we maintain attention on driving? A big light goes on on the top of our car so the police can stop our wrong thinking while driving?

Humans will be humans, we don't need cellphones to be human and make mistakes.

Darwin Awards
http://www.darwinawards.com/

 

I follow history, watch the news, and in fact, work with law enforcement (I'm not a LEO myself, just for clarity). Any criticism of law enforcement can be sensationalized by the news media. The fact of the matter is, distracted driving is extremely dangerous. 10% of vehicular fatalities involve sober-but-distracted drivers. That's from the CDC, which does not gain any revenue from law enforcement traffic enforcement.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/index.html

 

What was the number for distracted drivers before smartphones?

There were even higher penalty laws for distracted driving before the smartphone rise.

It's a matter of human nature to quickly become bored of repetitive actions, and distraction is what is used to avoid these dangers.

There have been systems in long haul truck driving for avoiding monotony induced accidents and highway hypnosis, also a large portion of accident causality. Distractions save lives in these cases, keeping the attention of the driver active.

Integrated entertainment is another substitute for independent non-connected cellphones, and are on the rise soon to replace the no longer required independent manipulation of a cellphone / smartphone for complete control and use of the device.

That's why they were in a hurry to enact these laws, the need for them will soon disappear.

I don't know anyone that texts and drives, and most ignore phone calls when driving if they don't have an integrated car control system.

Car accidents are tragedies no matter the cause, and it's easy to play on sentiment while restricting freedoms and increasing the powers and reach into our lives for everyday activities.

Using DUI in the name is no accident.

 

I don't know anyone who drinks and drives. Doesn't mean it's not a real thing or a real danger.

On March 31, 2017, a truck driver killed 13 people when his truck hit a church bus. He was texting and driving at the time of the accident. This is just one of many. There are literally thousands of these easily-avoidable fatalities every year in the USA.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...river-texas-crash-killed-13-texting/99888684/

"Car accidents are tragedies no matter the cause, and not all car accidents are due to alcohol"...so should we legalize drunk driving?

 

As I suspected the actual distracted driving statistics have improved over time, and are now at their lowest, that's likely why the rush to put these laws in place - to take advantage of the unaware, play on sentiments, and get the laws in place to stop drivers for any made up reason they can get on the books - before people figure out it's all BS:

2004-2008 - the numbers are higher than the more recent numbers from the link you quoted.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811216.pdf

 

I am not saying it isn't happening, I am saying we don't need to put into law another limit on our lives. There are already distracted driving laws in effect, and you should know that - you say you do, so what's up with not remembering those laws are already in effect and can and have been used to stop drivers.

Why wasn't that bus driver stopped by police for distracted driving with the laws already on the books? Because they didn't see him. And, do you think he would have been stopped if DUI-E laws or similarly newly enacted laws were already on the books? Are DUI-E or similarly newly enacted laws already on the books in the state he had the accident in??

It's a fallacy of thinking to believe adding laws and restrictions on our freedoms will be used as advertised, that they will be helpful in stopping that bus driver, and that it's any more than a subject to get attention for government officials trying to ride an issue into higher office.

We already have laws to cover distracted driving, this more recent push isn't driven by increases in distracted driving statistics, as they are on the downward trend and have been for years.

People are already becoming more responsible and not texting and driving on their own, and many have stopped smoking, another high percentage of distracted driving accidents.

We don't need more laws, we need more attention given to the subject and more education to drivers.

 

We have distracted driving laws, but they're very hard to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt except in extreme circumstances. Kind of like how DUII would be much harder to successfully prosecute if we just said "you've committed DUII if you're too drunk to drive safely" instead of having certain bright-line rules such as "no BAC above 0.08%" in addition to that catchall.

 

DUII deaths are down too. That's because educating people about prevention is reducing DUII incidents, not because we don't need DUII laws anymore, or because committing DUII isn't dangerous.

Education-based texting-and-driving programs help, but having an enforcement mechanism for people who still do it also helps. Like DUII, there's no reason that education and enforcement has to be an either-or choice.

 

How do you expect to measure DUI-E?

 

Through the officer's testimony that you were using your phone while driving. Easy. Instead of having to prove whether or not you personally can handle multitasking to that degree, and what exactly you were doing on the phone at that moment.

 

Not good enough. For the stigma the DUI-E is trying to label people with, associating it with the stigma of DUI, it's too easy to ruin good people's lives.

And keep them from being able to be employed:

DUI is a relatively new stigma, for many years driving and drinking was a wink wink offense, but put out a few sentimental mothers crying over their losses, stir up the good hearted people to turn against themselves, and all of a sudden previously marginally acceptable behavior can get your life ruined.

It's not acceptable to drink and drive, and it's not acceptable to text and drive, if it ends up killing someone. 99% of the time it won't.

There are 20x+ more deaths from automobile accidents from other causes, why is the stigma assigned to normal behavior by adults in other situations, but when driving all of a sudden it's a 100% loss of life - the life of the victim that's caught and cited.

Because people are easily tricked into subjugating themselves by associating their own human failings and playing on their guilt. Those two weaknesses are known by those in power to be easy targets to get people behind their agenda's.

It's like a politician seeing a pile of donor money on the table and leaving it untaken. It's not going to happen.

DUI-E is a political opportunity too good to pass up.

With the dropping rates of distracted driving accidents and deaths, it's also an assured success, as the rates are already dropping the politicians can be assured that they can claim the new laws are the reason, and they can claim credit.

With car automation, integrated electronics giving control of your smartphone and other electronics through the approved for driving control systems, the rate's would continue to drop on their own without adding these laws to trap and oppress.

That's why these laws are being rushed into being.

Save lives, maybe your own, keep the phone off and in the trunk.

 

Well since you've now said you think that drunk driving laws shouldn't exist and are unfairly subjugating and stigmatizing people, I think it's safe to say we'll never agree on public policy or public safety. I'll agree to disagree on everything besides the premise that using a smartphone while driving is a lot like driving drunk. On that we agree.

 

It's just a matter of time, DD was originally fines only too, and then after publicly drilling the "evils" of DD involved deaths into the minds of the public for years, soon to follow were heavy sentences and the end of a normal life for people getting a DUI.

Even as first time DUI offenders, over the top persecution - ending good people's lives - became acceptable, as your "end of discussion" response to a frank and open comparison between DUI and DUI-E demonstrates. Instead of helping people that need help, DUI offenders are locked up and their lives are ruined. DUI-E is trying to follow the same path of persecution.

It sounds funny now to think that the exact same process will happen to DUI-E offenders, but the same techniques to vilify the DUI-E "murderers" will be used.

Instead of having the protection of a physical DUI test to save the non-drunk from prosecution anyone can be accused and stigmatized based on only the word of the arresting officer.

With DUI-E *everyone* has a smartphone - and all smartphones get notifications, texts, calls, before during and after driving, it will be easy to accuse someone of "looking at their phone" any time they are driving with their phone in the cabin.

The only way to avoid the accusation of DUI-E right now would be to leave your phone in the trunk, or at home while driving. Save lives, maybe your own, keep the phone off and in the trunk.

If that solution is so easy, and the goal is to save people, why isn't that the leading recommendation for all media on the subject? Why is the coverage always about the process and system aspects. Solve the problem, don't build a process of fear to ruin people lives.

Fortunately in this situation with DUI-E there are programmatic ways that can be created for the driver and passengers to opt-in to disable their phone(s) while driving, voluntarily.

We can all look forward to all those apps that log the shutdown of the phone before getting in the car and log unlocking the phone after we exit the car, uploading the details to the cloud to prove your innocence if necessary.

Chalk up another "voluntary" invasion of privacy... sigh.

Too bad we can't disable the effects of alcohol the same way.

 

Interesting you are only getting this law now.
We had this for a very long time now.

 

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin

 

I'll take "Most misinterpreted quotes for 100"
I see a lot of people use this B. Franklin's quote. What they fail to realize that we are already past that point.

 

Like I mentioned, distracted driving has been on the books for a long time, and cellphone abuse in particular has been covered.

What is relatively new and gaining ground is the notion of affixing the same stigma as DUI to DUI-E - Driving while under the influence of Electronics.

That's where the dangerous curve of the slippery slope has taken a turn toward the evils associated with drunk driving. Ruining people's lives.

There are solutions to curtail these behaviors without ruining people's lives, but instead of helping everyone, the focus is on demonizing people - creating another input into the penal system that once you are in it, you are in it to stay - as it generates revenue.

It's another revenue stream and political capital generation, nothing more, it's nothing to do with helping citizens, it's goal is generating victims and eventually enslaving them in the criminal world, just like DUI. DUI-E is bad for all of us.

That's the new twist, and we should all do our best to stop it before it gains traction.

Stop using our cell phones in the car, drivers and passengers. Save lives, maybe your own, keep the phone off and in the trunk. Stop this new menace to our freedoms before it starts.

 

We are always at the point anew when new opportunities to curtail our freedoms and stifle our freedom of speech, expression, and creativity arise.

That quote doesn't say to protect your freedom's one time, or only if you are totally free, it says to do it all the time and to not stop no matter how little you think it matters, because it matters.

You matter. Your actions matter. Your voice matters. Do it, don't shrug off the responsibility because "it's too late", it's never too late, or too soon to stand up for your freedom's.

When we as humans create a way out of oppression, those oppressing us can't let that happen - otherwise they loose their advantages over you, and they will stop it any way possible.

If they can have a new way to stop you at any time in your car with the flimsy excuse that they saw you look at your phone, they have another way to interfere with your life and take advantage of your lack of understanding to take any liberty you have away.

Keep the phone in the trunk, there's no way they could have seen you look at it, that invalidates the stop. Save lives, maybe your own, keep the phone off and in the trunk.

Report the bogus stop for DUI-E and the officers badge numbers (both if there are 2 officers) to whatever media outlet will take it, report it to whatever watchdog group / office is in oversight on that officers department that stopped you. Remember to tell them your phone was off and in the trunk so there was no way the officers saw you looking at your phone.

Probably cause abuse is bad enough as it is. Stopping people for a tail light and then hauling you in for some BS to hassle you has reached a new level with this DUI-E law push, another BS excuse to stop you.

 

I guarantee you that Benjamin Franklin was not talking about the enforcement and prosecution of traffic laws with all the related due process.

You are not being restricted in artistic and political speech because you're asked to pull over your car before tweeting. You may as well claim DUII laws violate the 21st amendment. The fact is, they don't.

 

If I have to keep my phone in the trunk instead of having free access to it while driving for fear of getting pulled over and run through the criminal due process mess, then that is curtailing my freedoms through fear.

You are missing the whole point of your field, the management and application of fear through loss of freedom, through the application of violence to oppress freedom of expression and freedom of speech. That's why it's call Law Enforcement.

Curtailing freedom and forcefully apply the desires of those in power, that is the job.

You don't know, and that's ok, when inside it's not well known and not often thought of, as it's a job to you with it's own internal justifications. To you you know all the defenses and excuses, and they roll off your tongue smoothly. Well done. But, you are defending the job, not the citizens.

The Citizens must actively defend themselves from current and potential abuses of government, and it's a never ending process.

I am saying you are part of a system that when given the power, through enacting laws, there are other agenda's at work and before putting those laws on the books, providing those in power the opportunities for abuse, we must find our way to defend against the abuses.

Wake up.

 

You've not pointed out anything wrong with this particular traffic law. As far as I can tell, your beef is with the entire concept of traffic laws and their enforcement.

If all you're going to do is accuse all cops of trying to frame you and end with a stereotypical exhortation to "wake up," you're against literally any sort of traffic law, from speeding to red lights to following too closely. Your problem is not with this law. It's with the entire American criminal justice system, and that's not a debate for the smartphone forum. I'm not going to engage you on it, partially because there's no point when you literally believe that people who enforce such laws are evil (and my office does prosecute traffic offenses among plenty of other things), and partially because it's so entirely off-topic from the purpose of this forum.

I drive around with a phone on and in my pocket all the time. I don't get pulled over because (1) light isn't shining up on my face from below, and (2) I'm not constantly looking down at my crotch or my palm while operating a motor vehicle, which are the two most common signs that cops are going to look for to identify people using mobile electronics while driving.

 

Hey, that's great, hopefully you'll avoid getting pulled over for DUI-E every time you casually forget and pull the phone out to look at the time, notifications, or catch that important phone call.

Good luck with that, and please let us know if you get pulled over, after you get out

 

I get calls all the time when I'm driving. I don't answer them. It's not hard to not answer the phone when you're piloting a two-ton vehicle. You just don't. The phone rings and you just ignore it. Or if you're expecting an important call or text, you pull over and then check. This isn't rocket science.

 

You and I are in agreement, the solution is simple common sense, and therefore these new laws aren't needed.

A dose of common sense and some community outreach would have been enough, don't you think?

Makes ya kinda wonder what the real purpose of these new laws are, if it isn't for the public good?

Of course, I already answered that.

See, that didn't take long, a little common sense contemplation of the situation, and we come to the same understanding.

 

Please don't say that I agreed with your position that these laws aren't about improving public safety, are just about raising revenue and oppressing people, or whatever else you've asserted. I never agreed to any of that and you know it.

 

As far as I understand and I admit I took my drivers education a while ago and from a city in Wisconsin far from WA or OR but isn't driving a vehicle a privilege and by no means a right? By getting a drivers license isn't that you agreeing to obey all laws pertaining to operating a vehicle on public roads? If you don't want to get oppressed by the evil government trying to "ruin your life" there is always the option to walk, or bike, or take a bus, carpool, and there is even the option to take a train. I have personally been run off the road while on a motorcycle twice by people looking at their phone while driving. I would support the idea to make this a law in all 50 states. If it can gain the status and the stigma that a DUI already has and will cause a person to go "This isn't worth killing someone or myself it can wait." That would be a win in my book and worth the annoyance it might also cause. I feel like this will have a bigger impact on teen and young drivers than the law abiding citizens already following the law who fully understands the consequences that texting/drinking can have. If you think it will be so abused and it could cause you to get pulled over there is always the option to get those nifty cameras on your dash to prove your innocence. Just my two cents.

 

Yeah, let's remove all laws and just use common sense!
/s

If that was that simple I'm sure there wouldn't be any be laws. But as it stands, a lot of people don't use "common sense" and fines are very good "motivators."
Next time before writing a text or checking a Facebook status, some people will think twice before doing so.

Oh, but what if the evil government will charge you for DUI-E when you walk?

Jokes aside, there was a proposal in my neck of the wood to fine people who look at their phones instead of road when they cross it, and I'm actually for it. It's bad enough there are careless drivers, careless pedestrians make matters even worse. Instead of looking at a freakin' phone, look at the road you are crossing (sometimes not even in the designated area)!

 

All for it!

 

Washington State uses DUI stigma to crack down on distracted driving

DUI & DWI in Washington
Verified As Of: 11/7/2017
https://www.dmv.org/wa-washington/automotive-law/dui.php

 

New York to Be First State to Ban Holding Cell Phone While Driving
By JAMES C. MCKINLEY JR.JUNE 26, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/26/n...-to-ban-holding-cell-phone-while-driving.html

"During debate on the bill, several Republicans in the Assembly raised questions about whether talking on the telephone was any more distracting than dealing with young children, drinking coffee or putting on makeup in a car. Several said that the law would be difficult or impossible to enforce. Still others argued that it was impossible to legislate away distractions.

''I have five children under the age of 8,'' said Assemblywoman Elizabeth O'C. Little. ''I drove around with them. That was distracting. How many people listen to books on tape and are so distracted they drive past their exit? You can't legislate against tuning your radio, drinking coffee or talking to children in your car.''

Assemblyman David R. Townsend Jr., an upstate Republican, pointed out that a person pulled over by a police officer would only have to claim that he or she was calling a doctor to avoid a ticket. ''This bill is totally unenforceable in a realistic world,'' he said.

Even supporters of the ban acknowledge that there is scant empirical evidence linking hand-held telephones to accidents."

From a simple ban to a complete ruination of lives via DUI, in 6 years and counting, we'll get there completely in about 3 more years. Watch and learn.

And this time, it's only on the word of a police officer, and we all know they never lie.

 

Very good point about the books on tape. That is how I pass my time in the vehicle. I would hope if they are going to be able to cite you for such a ticket they would have to show on a body camera or dash camera that you were indeed swerving and using a device while driving. Because at the end of the day a he said she said is going to be a nightmare for all parties involved.

 

You can listen to books on tape while you drive. You plug your phone into your car audio, start the book, and THEN start driving. Instead of doing step three before steps one and two.

As for food and makeup, the fact that there are multiple different types and degrees of distracted driving doesn't mean that we should keep them all legal. That's like saying that we should legalize drunk driving because Nyquil also impairs reaction times.

 

Yeah, lucky I have an Ipod hookup in my truck that will auto start my book where I left off when I turn it on so I don't have to worry about changing anything while driving.

I will admit that I have eaten when driving especially if it is a long cross country drive. It will be interesting to see how they will categorize everything on a scale of what will be more distracting vs least distracting.

https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/ucm079514.htm
This is a little outdated but its from the FDA talking about how even over the counter medicine can effect your driving. I don't know how a police officer would charge you for being under the influence of medicine but I suspect it would be hard to test for before it would no longer be detectable.

 

In the UK we have a similar law for the use of mobile phones. If you are caught using a phone while driving you will get 6 points on your licence (do it twice and you have to retake your test). If you have just learned to drive and are caught within the first 2 years of driving you will lose your licence immediately and have to retake your test. This law may sound harsh, but the law states that you can still use a phone with a Bluetooth headset, voice commands or a dashboard holder for your phone or built in handsfree equipment that most new cars have. I think that is acceptable.

Given how poor the standard of driving is nowadays in the UK, I welcome it to some extent: I do however have some reservations. The law is treating the symptoms rather than the cause of bad driving. The main reason for bad driving is that at least 50% of drivers on the roads are full blown imbeciles with no idea what they are doing. People who see to the end of their bonnet and no further, people who will not indicate when they change lanes, people who don't read road signs and then push in at the last minute when they realise they are in the wrong lane, Audi/BMW drivers et cetera.

The law would not be needed if we weeded out the bad drivers before they could get on the roads. What is really needed is a more rigorous driving test which actually teaches you how to drive: where to look, how to navigate, lane discipline, how to maintain your car and so on.

I understand your objections to the law in the US though, since you have to drive across far greater distances than we do. Texas alone is 3 times bigger than our entire country. As far as i'm aware most of your roads are relatively quiet outside of the major cities, so there is not a great deal of danger. Here almost all of our roads are jam packed full of traffic, especially in England which is grossly overpopulated for the infrastructure. Here dangerous driving is more likely to impact more people or cause an accident. Albeit one at lower speed. In my view you should just introduce new driving tests to help people learn to drive who are serious about doing so, and weed out the ones who don't really care enough.

 

Standardized field sobriety tests and drug recognition exams measure the impairment itself instead of the concentration of the particular impairing substance.

 

That's my whole point, it's a bad law when it's only based on the word of the arresting / citing officer, with no possible "excuse" allowed.

I know it sounds absurd, but traveling with your phone in the trunk may be the only defense.

"I couldn't possibly have been looking at my phone, as it's in the trunk".

Maybe a "trunk dock" like how those old CD changers used to live. You'd swap carts of CD's in the trunk changer.

Docking your smartphone in the trunk would keep the "distracting" smartphone display in the trunk, and move the view-able controls to the dash where they are designed to integrate into the drivers field of view with controls on the wheel.

No one will be tempted to pick up their smartphone and get distracted if it isn't in the cabin with them. Even in cradle on the dash it's too tempting to fiddle with, causing the driver to look away from the road, keep it in the trunk dock.

 

You know that this is no different than the majority of our traffic laws, from speed limits to tailgating prohibitions to running stop signs to seat belt laws to reckless driving laws?

 

The penalty being tied to DUI is the killer kick in the pants; it's the whole package that makes it unacceptable.

I hope there are legislators that realize this that are following up on removing these DUI aspirations from the law for distracted driving.

 

Have you actually looked at the law or are you just hung up on the name itself? DUII starts as a misdemeanor and rapidly escalates to a felony (in repeat cases or more extreme cases).

“DUI-E” in Washington isn’t even a misdemeanor. It’s an infraction (non-criminal) punishable with a $30 fine for the first offense and $60 fines for subsequent offenses.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bienn...enate Passed Legislature/5289-S.PL.pdf#page=1