I want to walk through why these two cases are now in tension, and speculate honestly about what that might mean for anyone challenging Washington’s recidivist DUI firearm ban down the road. I will say up front that this is speculation. The U.S. Supreme Court has not touched McLellan, and nothing here is a prediction of how a future case will actually turn out.

Two Rulings, Same Month, Same Core Question

On June 11, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McLellan and Holloway v. Brown that the state can permanently bar someone from possessing a firearm after two DUI convictions within seven years under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D), with no individual finding that the person is actually dangerous. The majority held that the legislature can disarm an entire category of people based on their conviction history alone, reasoning that recidivist drunk driving has a “plausible link to physical violence” even without proof of violence in any specific case.

A week later, on June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Hemani that the federal government could not prosecute Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for owning a gun while regularly using marijuana, because the government showed nothing more than regular use and never showed he was actually dangerous or impaired when he possessed the firearm. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, holding that the government’s prosecution of a defendant under a statute prohibiting unlawful drug users from possessing a gun violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.

Gorsuch’s opinion is worth reading for more than the holding. To justify the law, the government analogized Hemani to a historical “habitual drunkard,” someone the founding generation would have considered too impaired to be trusted with a gun. Gorsuch turned that analogy back on the government using the founders themselves. He pointed out that John Adams drank hard cider with breakfast every day, James Madison reportedly went through a pint of whiskey a day, and Thomas Jefferson had three or four glasses of wine most nights. None of them, on the government’s own historical standard, would have qualified as a habitual drunkard properly disarmed for life. If regular, even heavy, consumption was not enough to strip the founders of their rights, the Court reasoned, it cannot be enough to strip a modern marijuana user of his. To state the government’s analogy, Gorsuch wrote, was to expose its deficiency.

Now imagine Adams, Madison, or Jefferson alive today, driving home after a day of their usual drinking. Whether they would have picked up two DUIs in seven years is impossible to say, but it isn’t hard to imagine. The more interesting question is what they would have made of a law that took their guns away over it, permanently, with no court ever asked whether they were actually dangerous to anyone.

It’s hard to imagine that they would have accepted it. These were men who spent their careers arguing that government should not get to punish you for what you might do, only for what you have done and been proven to have done. Madison helped write the Bill of Rights specifically to limit this kind of power, the power to decide ahead of time, without a hearing, that a whole category of people cannot be trusted with a right. That is what Gorsuch found objectionable about the federal drug-user gun ban in Hemani, and it is what Washington’s law does to recidivist drunk drivers. A founder who drank a pint of whiskey a day and kept his rights is not the kind of person who would have quietly handed them over because a legislature decided his record made him a future risk.

Both cases turn on the same underlying question: can the government strip someone of their Second Amendment rights based on a category they fall into, or does the Constitution require proof that this particular person is actually dangerous? McLellan answered that categories are enough. Hemani answered that they are not, at least on the record the government had.

The Washington Dissent Was Arguing the Hemani Position

This is the part that makes the timing notable. The four dissenting justices in McLellan, led by Justice Whitener, made essentially the same argument that won unanimously a week later in Hemani. The dissent argued that the history and tradition of firearm restrictions was limited to preventing violent behavior by people who were individually found to be dangerous, and that the State was depriving individuals of their Second Amendment right before they commit a violent crime, based only on the assumption that one day they might.

The contrast in rigor is also worth noticing. Gorsuch’s opinion in Hemani did the historical work directly, naming Adams, Madison, and Jefferson to show the government’s “habitual drunkard” analogy did not hold up against the actual founding-era record. The McLellan majority, by comparison, did not do anything close to that kind of specific historical accounting. It leaned on a “plausible link to physical violence” between DUI convictions and future gun violence, a phrase the dissent specifically challenged, prompting the majority to clarify what it meant in a footnote. That is a much softer standard than the one Gorsuch applied a week later, and it is the kind of looser reasoning that Hemani‘s sharper historical method seems built to reject.

The majority opinion even cited Hemani in a footnote, noting it was still pending at the U.S. Supreme Court when McLellan was decided. The Washington court did not have the benefit of the Hemani opinion when it ruled. It now exists, and the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court adopted maps closely onto the side that lost in Washington.

Where the Comparison Breaks Down

I want to be fair to the other side of this, because the cases are not identical and a future challenger would have real obstacles.

Hemani interpreted a federal statute, 922(g)(3), and rejected one specific historical analogy the government offered: comparing drug users to “habitual drunkards” who were so impaired they could not manage their own affairs. The Washington majority in McLellan relied on different historical analogs entirely, including surety and affray laws and the tradition of disarming people convicted of serious crimes generally. Hemani never addressed those analogs, and nothing in the opinion rejects them.

There is also a structural difference the McLellan majority leaned on directly: Hemani’s disarmament was based on an ongoing status, being a current drug user, while McLellan and Holloway’s disarmament was based on a criminal conviction that already happened. The majority drew a sharp line between status-based disarmament and conviction-based disarmament, and Hemani is a status case. A future litigant relying on Hemani would need to explain why that distinction does not save RCW 9.41.040, not just point to the result.

And critically, Hemani was explicit that its holding was narrow and tied to the government’s specific theory and specific record. It did not announce a general rule that categorical disarmament is unconstitutional. The government could still win a similar case with a different argument or better evidence.

These are not small obstacles, and any honest challenger has to deal with them. But they are obstacles to a specific argument, not a complete barrier against it.

What This Could Mean Going Forward

Hemani gives future Second Amendment challengers, including someone disarmed under Washington’s DUI statute, a stronger version of the argument the McLellan dissent already made and lost on. It is now backed by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion rather than four dissenting state justices. That does not mean RCW 9.41.040 is unconstitutional. The Washington majority anticipated and tried to distinguish exactly this kind of challenge by resting on convictions rather than status, and that distinction may well hold up. But the gap between “categorical disarmament needs no individualized dangerousness finding” and “categorical disarmament requires proof of actual dangerousness” just got a lot more contested at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and Washington’s law sits closer to the side that the Court rejected in Hemani than the McLellan majority would probably like to admit.

If you are someone who lost firearm rights under Washington’s DUI provision and you are considering a constitutional challenge or a restoration petition, this is exactly the kind of legal landscape shift worth discussing with an attorney. The argument is live. Whether it succeeds in any particular case depends heavily on the facts and on how the next court chooses to read these two opinions together.

The post Did the Supreme Court Just Undercut Washington’s DUI Gun Ban? Reading Hemani Against McLellan and Holloway appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

The case is McLellan and Holloway v. Brown, No. 103799-6, and its consequences reach well beyond the two men whose names are on it.

What the Case Was About

Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway both had multiple DUI convictions within seven years. When they applied for concealed pistol licenses, the state denied them under RCW 9.41.040 — a 2023 statute that categorically prohibits firearm possession by “recidivist drunk drivers.”

They challenged that law in Spokane County Superior Court, arguing that a blanket firearms ban — with no individualized finding that either of them posed a danger involving weapons — violated the Second Amendment. The trial court agreed that factual development was needed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi, which required some showing of credible threat to public safety before disarming someone.

The state appealed. Washington’s Supreme Court reversed the trial court.

What the Court Decided

Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Steven González concluded that the Legislature acted within constitutional bounds when it passed the 2023 law. The majority held that because the prohibition follows criminal convictions — not mere accusations — the state does not need to make an individualized dangerousness finding for each person. The historical tradition of disarming those who have demonstrated a pattern of reckless, dangerous behavior, the majority reasoned, is broad enough to include repeat drunk drivers.

The ruling means that under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D), any Washingtonian convicted of a second qualifying DUI offense within seven years is now prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

It’s worth noting that “DUI-related prior offenses” under the statute are defined broadly — they include physical control while under the influence, vehicular homicide, reckless driving and negligent driving when amended from an original DUI charge, and several other vehicle offenses involving alcohol or drugs, even if later amended to remove mention of alcohol or drugs or if prosecution was deferred.

The Dissent

Four justices — a substantial minority — did not agree. The 21-page dissent called the majority’s ruling a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenters argued that Rahimi required more: that before a person can be stripped of a fundamental constitutional right, there must be some connection between that person’s conduct and a danger involving firearms. Drunk driving, however dangerous, doesn’t supply that connection on its own.

That disagreement matters. It signals that this ruling is legally contested and may eventually face further challenge, potentially at the federal level.

How Rights Can Be Restored

The prohibition imposed by this statute is not necessarily permanent. Under the law, a person disarmed by a second DUI conviction may petition for restoration of firearm rights after five consecutive years of law-abiding behavior in the community.

That restoration process is a separate legal proceeding with its own requirements, and it is not automatic. If you are in this situation and want to understand your options, I handle firearm rights restoration cases in Washington.

What This Means If You Have a DUI — or Are Facing One

If you already have one DUI conviction in Washington and you pick up a second within seven years, you are looking at more than license consequences and possible jail time. You are looking at the loss of your right to own or carry a firearm, with no path back for at least five years.

That’s a serious collateral consequence that most people don’t think about when they’re sitting across from a prosecutor trying to resolve a case. It is exactly the kind of thing your attorney should be factoring into any plea discussions.

If you have a pending DUI charge and firearms rights matter to you, that conversation needs to happen early — before any resolution is reached. Prior DUI history, the definition of “prior offenses” under RCW 46.61.5055, and how a current charge is resolved can all affect whether the firearm prohibition attaches.

Where This Law May Go

This was a 5-4 decision. One of the five majority justices, Barbara Madsen, has since retired. The legal tension between this ruling and Rahimi‘s individualized-threat framework is real. It is possible this statute faces additional litigation — in Washington courts or in federal court — as Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to develop after Bruen and Rahimi.

For now, though, the law is what it is, and people in Washington need to plan around it.

Questions About Your Case?

If you are dealing with a DUI charge in Clark County or Southwest Washington, or if you have a prior conviction and want to understand how this ruling affects you, feel free to reach out. I practice criminal defense and firearms law and am happy to talk through your situation.

The post Washington Supreme Court Rules Two DUIs Can Cost You Your Gun Rights appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

The post Assault 4 Domestic Violence — Dismissed | Clark County, WA appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

Here’s the background, and more importantly, what it means for your case.

The backlog was a serious problem

For years, Washington’s DUI blood testing ran almost entirely through the Washington State Patrol lab. And the system couldn’t keep up.

At its worst, over 16,000 blood samples were sitting in a queue waiting to be tested. Results routinely took more than a year. That’s not just an inconvenience — it creates real legal problems. Cases get filed late. Evidence becomes harder to scrutinize as time passes. And people are left in legal limbo, not knowing what they’re actually being charged with or what the evidence against them even says.

Some of those delays raised legitimate due process concerns. Faster testing is genuinely better. But faster isn’t the same as simpler.

What the new law actually does

Washington now allows accredited private laboratories to process DUI blood samples. The WSP isn’t going away — they still oversee forensic toxicology, maintain the breath testing program, and keep records that often end up being central evidence in court. But private labs can now be part of the chain.

That’s a meaningful shift.

Why this matters in court

Most DUI cases come down to one of two things: a breath test or a blood test.

Breath tests use the Draeger Alcotest 9510, which is the standard machine across Washington. The State still has to show the machine was properly maintained, the required checks were done, and the officer followed the right procedures. If any of that breaks down, the result can be challenged.

Blood tests are more common in serious cases — accidents, very high BAC readings, or suspected drug impairment. Until now, most blood testing went through the WSP lab, and attorneys knew exactly what records to ask for and what to look for.

Private labs change that dynamic. Here’s how.\

The new legal questions this creates

Chain of custody gets more complicated. A blood sample may pass through several hands before testing is complete. Every single handoff has to be documented. If the documentation has gaps, that raises real questions about whether the sample was handled properly — or whether it was even the right sample.

Labs don’t all work the same way. Even accredited labs can use different equipment, different methods, different protocols. In close cases, those differences can matter more than you’d expect.

There are more records to chase down. With WSP, attorneys knew the paper trail. With a private lab, you’re now potentially looking at calibration records, analyst credentials, quality control logs, and internal testing procedures that have never been part of DUI litigation in Washington before. That’s more to review — and sometimes more places where something doesn’t add up.

Analyst testimony can get complicated. If a private lab ran the test, the analyst who did the work may be called to testify. That can affect how the State presents its case, and it creates opportunities that didn’t exist when everything ran through a single state agency.

The bottom line

Washington’s courts are still working through how this law applies in practice. We’re still early. What’s clear is that blood test cases are now more complex — more steps, more people involved, more records to examine.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing if you’re defending a charge. But it does mean the details matter more than ever.

If your case involves a blood test, this is an area that deserves a hard look. How the sample was collected, where it went, which lab tested it, what procedures they followed, and whether the documentation holds up — all of it is fair game.

If you have questions about a DUI charge, I’m happy to talk through the specifics of your situation.

The post Washington’s DUI Blood Testing Law Just Changed. Here’s What That Means If You’re Facing a Charge. appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

Starting April 1, 2026, a new Washington law gives drivers a way to avoid a license suspension by taking a safe driving course. The law is called House Bill 1244, and it was passed at the request of the Washington Department of Licensing.

This applies to drivers in Vancouver, throughout Washington, and even to tickets you receive in other states, which are often counted on your Washington driving record.

The Short Answer

If you are facing a 60-day license suspension for too many moving violations, you may be able to avoid it entirely by completing a DOL-approved safe driving course before the suspension starts.

This option is only available once every five years.

When Does Washington Suspend Your License for Tickets?

Washington will suspend your driver’s license for 60 days if you get:

• 3 or more moving violations in 1 year, or
• 4 or more moving violations in 2 years

This is called an accumulation of tickets suspension. This process is handled by the Washington Department of Licensing.

It is separate from a DUI suspension and applies to standard traffic violations like speeding, running a red light, or following too closely.

After the 60-day suspension ends, you are placed on a one-year probation period. If you receive another moving violation during probation, you will face an additional 30-day suspension.

You will also need to file proof of financial responsibility (SR-22 insurance) and pay a reissuance fee to reinstate your license.

What Changed Under HB 1244

Starting April 1, 2026, drivers who receive a notice of suspension have a new option.

Instead of simply accepting the 60-day suspension, you can complete a safe driving course approved by the Department of Licensing.

Depending on when you complete the course, you may be able to avoid the suspension entirely or shorten it.

This option is only available once every five years, so timing matters.

What If You Take the Course Before the Suspension Starts?

This is the best-case scenario.

If you complete the safe driving course before your suspension begins, the Department of Licensing can terminate the suspension before it takes effect.

In practical terms, you keep your license and avoid the 60 days off the road.

What If You Take the Course During the Suspension?

If the suspension has already started, you can still benefit—but not as much.

If you complete the course before the suspension ends:

• The suspension will still occur
• But it can end early
• Financial responsibility requirements will still apply
• You will need to obtain a new license

What If You Take the Course After the Suspension Ends?

At that point, the course does not help you avoid the suspension.

You will still need to reinstate your license, file proof of insurance, and pay the required fees.

The takeaway is simple: the earlier you act, the better the outcome.

The One-Year Probation Period

Whether you avoid the suspension or serve it, you will be placed on a one-year probation period.

During probation:

• Any new moving violation results in an additional 30-day suspension
• The safe driving course option does not apply to probation violations

This is important. If you use your one opportunity to avoid the initial suspension and then receive another ticket during probation, you will still face an additional 30-day suspension with no way around it.

Who This Does Not Apply To

This option is designed for standard traffic violations.

It does not apply to DUI suspensions, reckless driving, or other criminal-based suspensions.

If you are facing a DUI in Washington, this law does not apply, and you should speak with a DUI attorney about your options.

Why This Matters

A 60-day license suspension can affect your ability to work, take care of your family, and manage daily responsibilities.

This law gives drivers a meaningful opportunity to avoid that outcome—but only if they act quickly and make the right decisions.

What to Do If You Received a Notice of Suspension

If you received a notice from the Department of Licensing, do not wait.

Your options are better before the suspension starts than after. A quick consultation can help you decide whether to take the course, challenge the tickets, or pursue another strategy.

Talk to a Vancouver Traffic and DUI Attorney

If you are facing a license suspension in Washington and want to understand how the new 2026 law applies to your situation, I can help.

My office is in Vancouver, Washington, and I represent clients throughout Clark County and Southwest Washington in traffic, DUI, and license suspension matters.

Call (360) 975-4673 or use the contact form on this site to get in touch.

This article is general information about Washington traffic law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific case, consult a licensed Washington attorney.

The post How to Avoid a Washington License Suspension for Too Many Tickets – New 2026 Law appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

Do you have to start over? Install it again? Serve more time on it?

Thanks to a new Washington DUI law that took effect January 1, 2026, the answer is much better than it used to be.

The Short Answer

If you already completed your ignition interlock requirement while on deferred prosecution, you generally should not have to reinstall the device if your deferred prosecution is later revoked.

The time you already served counts.

What Is Deferred Prosecution?

A deferred prosecution is a treatment-based alternative to a DUI conviction in Washington. Instead of pleading guilty, you agree to a long-term treatment program with strict conditions, including installing an ignition interlock device (IID).

If you complete the program, the DUI is dismissed. If you do not, the deferred prosecution can be revoked and you are convicted.

The Old Problem

Before this law change, a revoked deferred prosecution could be a nightmare for drivers who had already done their time on the interlock.

You could complete a full year on the device, remove it, and move on with your life. Then if your deferred prosecution was later revoked, you could face a brand new IID requirement on top of what you already served.

For a lot of people, that felt like being punished twice for the same DUI.

What Changed Under ESHB 1493

Washington passed a new DUI law, House Bill 1493 (ESHB 1493), effective January 1, 2026.

Under the new law, the Department of Licensing no longer stacks a second IID requirement on top of what you already completed during deferred prosecution. Instead, the new requirement is treated as the same length as your original IID period.

Because of that, the time you already served is credited.

A Real-World Example

Here is how this plays out:

• You enter deferred prosecution
• You install an ignition interlock device for one year
• You complete the requirement and remove the device
• Later, your deferred prosecution is revoked and you are convicted

Under the current approach:

• The DOL may impose a one-year IID requirement on paper
• You receive full credit for the time you already served
• You do not need to reinstall the device
• You are treated as already in compliance

Why This Matters

This is one of the most practical improvements to Washington DUI law in recent years.

Before, people who made a mistake during deferred prosecution could face years of additional IID restrictions, even after already complying once.

Now, the result is more predictable. If you already completed your IID requirement, that time counts.

What You Should Do If You Are in This Situation

Every case is different. Your outcome can depend on:

• Whether your deferred prosecution has already been revoked
• How much time you served on the IID
• Your compliance history with the device
• How DOL processes your court record

Do not guess. A wrong assumption about your license or your interlock can cost you months of driving or unnecessary reinstallation fees.

Talk to a Vancouver DUI Lawyer

If you have questions about ignition interlock requirements, deferred prosecution, or your driver’s license after a DUI in Washington, I can help.

Call (360) 975-4673 for a consultation, or use the contact form on this site to reach me directly.

This post is general information about Washington DUI law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific case, consult a licensed Washington attorney.

The post Do I Have to Reinstall My Ignition Interlock if My Deferred Prosecution Is Revoked in Washington? appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

Washington’s DUI laws are changing significantly on January 1, 2026. These updates primarily affect how severe offenses, such as Felony DUI, are charged and sentenced.

As a Washington DUI defense attorney, I’ve broken down the biggest 2026 changes in clear, practical language so drivers know exactly what to expect.

1. Washington Extends the Felony DUI Lookback Period to 15 Years

Under current law, a person commits the crime of felony DUI or felony physical control if the person has three or more prior offenses within ten (10) years. Starting in 2026, the legislature extended the “look back” period from ten (10) years to fifteen (15) years.

Why this matters

• More DUI cases will be filed as felonies.
• Old DUIs that were previously “too old” to count may now be used.
• Penalties for felony DUI include prison time, lengthy probation, and long-term requirements.

It’s important to note that starting in 2026, the court can look back 15 years and use convictions prior to 2026 to charge a felony.

2. A New Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) for Felony DUI

Starting in 2026, the legislature created a special Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) in RCW 9.94A for some felony DUI defendants. This has been a change that is long overdue.

To qualify, an offender must be eligible and:

• Not have a prior conviction for vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, felony DUI, or felony physical control.
• Be convicted of felony DUI while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug.
• Be convicted of felony physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug.

Why this matters

This new sentencing option gives judges more flexibility and may reduce the amount of incarceration time for eligible defendants. It can be a powerful tool in negotiating felony DUI cases. Previously felony DUI’s were very difficult to negotiate and were often forced to trial.

3. More Flexible Penalties for DWLS 3rd in Connection with DUI Probation Violations

A change is coming that affects Driving While License Suspended in the Third Degree (DWLS 3) when it is connected to a DUI probation violation.

For each incident involving a violation of RCW 46.20.342(1)(c) (DWLS 3rd degree):

• The court has discretion not to impose a suspension if the driver provides proof the violation has been cured within 30 days.
• The court is not required to notify the Department of Licensing (DOL) if the violation is cured in time.

Why this matters

This allows people trying to stay compliant with the law to avoid unnecessary license suspensions, which helps them maintain employment and attend treatment.

What These Changes Mean for Drivers Facing DUI Charges in Washington

The 2026 amendments show a legislative focus on harsher penalties for repeat offenders (the 15-year lookback) while simultaneously providing limited therapeutic sentencing relief for eligible individuals (the new DOSA).

Coming Soon: We will be publishing two follow-up articles covering the other substantial 2026 law changes: one on Deferred Prosecution and another on Ignition Interlock Device (IID) and Roadside Testing rules.

Free Consultation: Talk to a Washington DUI Attorney About the 2026 Law Changes

If you have questions about how the new felony DUI laws might affect your case or record in Washington, contact us. We handle DUI and criminal defense cases throughout Washington and can explain exactly what the changes mean for your situation.

The post Major 2026 Changes to Washington DUI Laws: Felony Penalties, Sentencing Options, and Lookback Period appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

What Is Deferred Prosecution?

Deferred prosecution is a treatment-based alternative to a DUI conviction in Washington. Instead of going to trial and risking a conviction, a person can petition the court to enter a intensive, usually two-year treatment program, comply with strict conditions, and, if they successfully complete the program and follow all court orders, have the DUI charge ultimately dismissed.​

This option is aimed at people whose criminal conduct is closely tied to a substance use disorder or mental health condition. It is not a “get out of jail free” card; it requires long-term treatment, court monitoring, abstinence, and financial and lifestyle commitments.​

What Changes on January 1, 2026?

Under current law, a person generally gets only one deferred prosecution in their lifetime for DUI-related offenses. ESHB 1493 changes this rule by allowing a second deferred prosecution in limited circumstances, while also making other major adjustments to DUI penalties and procedures.​

Key changes taking effect on January 1, 2026, include:

• Certain drivers charged with a misdemeanor DUI or physical control will be able to petition for a second deferred prosecution, if they meet specific criteria.​
• The “lookback” period that can turn a DUI into a felony is extended from 10 years to 15 years, meaning older prior offenses can now more easily elevate a new DUI to a felony.​
• The law also adds new sentencing options and procedural changes for impaired driving cases, including a structured treatment and sentencing program for some felony DUIs.​

Who Can Get a Second Deferred Prosecution?

The new law does not open the door for everyone to get multiple deferred prosecutions. Instead, it creates a narrow pathway for a second chance for people who have demonstrated long-term success and have stayed out of serious trouble between cases.​

In general terms, a person may seek a second deferred prosecution starting in 2026 if:

• They are currently facing a misdemeanor DUI or physical control charge.​
• They successfully completed a prior deferred prosecution for a DUI-related offense.​
• That prior deferred prosecution was completed at least seven years before the new case, and the law requires that the earlier deferred prosecution was not within the recent 7-year window.​
• They do not have certain disqualifying priors, including vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, or felony DUI convictions.​

Importantly, if someone could have taken deferred prosecution on an earlier DUI but chose not to and instead took a conviction, they do not automatically gain unlimited new opportunities under this law. The statute is designed to give a second treatment-based opportunity to people who previously completed deferred prosecution and stayed law-abiding for a significant period, not to allow repeated use of the program in quick succession.​

What Stays the Same About Deferred Prosecution?

Even with the 2026 changes, many core features of deferred prosecution remain the same:

• Formal petition and evaluation: A person must file a formal petition in a court of limited jurisdiction under chapter 10.05 RCW and undergo a professional assessment (typically for substance use or mental health).​
• Treatment and conditions: The court can order a two-year treatment plan, abstinence from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs, compliance with treatment recommendations, ignition interlock in some cases, and other monitoring conditions.​
• Dismissal only after completion: The DUI charge is not dismissed immediately. Dismissal typically occurs years later, after proof of successful treatment completion and ongoing compliance with conditions.​
• Serious consequences if you fail: If someone fails the program or violates the court’s conditions, the court can remove them from deferred prosecution, enter a conviction, and impose sentence as if they had been found guilty at trial.​

Why Did the Legislature Add a Second Chance?

Lawmakers recognized that recovery from substance use disorder is often not linear and that some people who genuinely benefit from treatment may relapse years later. By allowing a carefully limited second deferred prosecution, the law aims to reduce repeat impaired driving, improve long-term public safety, and encourage engagement with treatment rather than purely punitive outcomes.​

At the same time, the legislature balanced this with stricter felony treatment for repeat offenders by extending the felony lookback period to 15 years. In other words, the system offers more treatment opportunities in some situations, but also tougher long-term consequences for people who repeatedly drive impaired.​

How These Changes Might Affect Your Case

If you are charged with DUI or physical control and you previously completed a deferred prosecution, your options in 2026 and beyond may be very different from what they were under the old law. The availability of a second deferred prosecution will depend on the specific dates of your prior case, your prior record, and whether you satisfy the new statutory criteria in chapter 10.05 RCW and the DUI statutes.​

Because these rules are technical and the stakes are high—including potential felony exposure under the extended 15-year lookback—it is crucial to get case-specific legal advice rather than relying on general information.

The post Washington’s New DUI Law in 2026: Second Deferred Prosecution and What It Means for You appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

As a criminal defense and firearms rights attorney who has handled thousands of cases involving gun rights restoration and firearms law compliance, I’m already seeing how these new regulations will affect law-abiding citizens and small business owners. Here’s everything you need to know about these changes and what they mean for your rights.

House Bill 2118: New Requirements for Licensed Dealers

Signed into law in 2024, HB 2118 imposes comprehensive new mandates on all licensed firearms dealers in Washington State. The requirements are extensive and costly:

Employee and Staffing Requirements

• All employees must be at least 21 years old
• Annual fingerprinting and background checks for all staff (not just initial screening)
• Ongoing compliance monitoring for personnel changes

Security and Surveillance Mandates

• Installation of comprehensive alarm systems
• 24/7 video and audio surveillance of all customer interactions
• Multi-year storage of surveillance footage
• Secure storage of all firearms inventory after business hours
• Upgraded physical security measures for premises

Reporting and Documentation Requirements

• Annual compliance reports to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office
• 24-hour response requirement for all firearms trace requests from law enforcement
• Immediate notification (within 24 hours) of any loss, theft, or unlawful transfer
• Certification of compliance under penalty of perjury

Insurance and Financial Requirements

• Minimum $1 million per incident general liability insurance coverage
• Proof of financial responsibility for potential violations
• Ongoing documentation of insurance compliance

The Real-World Impact on Washington Businesses

The financial and operational burden of these requirements is forcing difficult decisions across the state. Small businesses that have sold firearms for decades are reconsidering their future in the industry.

Stan’s Merry Mart in Wenatchee exemplifies the challenges facing dealers statewide. Like many sporting goods stores, they’re weighing the cost of compliance upgrades against the viability of continuing firearms sales. Some businesses, including Mill Pond Arms, have already announced permanent closures of their firearms departments.

One sporting goods manager I spoke with captured the frustration: “99% of our customers understand what’s happening with these laws — and most are angry about it.”

Perhaps most concerning is the mandatory audio recording requirement for all customer interactions. This provision raises serious questions about privacy rights and constitutional protections that extend beyond firearms law into fundamental privacy concerns.

What’s Next: House Bill 1163 and Permit Requirements

The changes don’t stop with dealer regulations. House Bill 1163, set to take effect November 1, 2026, will fundamentally change firearms ownership in Washington:

New Permit System

• Permits required for all firearm purchases (with limited exceptions)
• Court review procedures for denied permit applications
• Mandatory safety training certification for all permit applicants
• Background investigation process for permit eligibility

The “Poll Tax” Concern

Critics argue that HB 1163 functions as an unconstitutional “poll tax” on Second Amendment rights. The combined costs of permits, training, and administrative fees create significant financial barriers to legal gun ownership, potentially pricing out law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights.

Supporters describe these measures as “common sense gun safety legislation,” but the practical effect is to create multiple layers of bureaucratic and financial obstacles for legal gun ownership while doing little to address illegal firearm activity.

Constitutional Concerns and Legal Challenges

These laws raise significant constitutional questions that go beyond firearms regulation:

First Amendment Issues

• Compelled speech through mandatory reporting and certification requirements
• Privacy violations through mandatory audio surveillance of private conversations

Second Amendment Concerns

• Undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms
• Prior restraint through permit requirements
• Economic barriers that may violate equal protection principles

Due Process Questions

• Certification under penalty of perjury without clear standards
• Administrative penalties that bypass traditional due process protections

Protecting Your Rights: What You Can Do

Whether you’re a firearms dealer trying to navigate compliance or a gun owner concerned about these new restrictions, you have options:

For Licensed Dealers

• Compliance planning to meet new requirements while minimizing costs
• Legal review of policies and procedures
• Defense against regulatory violations or enforcement actions
• Challenge of unconstitutional provisions through appropriate legal channels

For Gun Owners

• Rights restoration if you’ve lost firearms privileges due to prior convictions
• Permit application assistance for HB 1163 requirements
• Defense against firearms-related criminal charges
• Constitutional challenges to overly burdensome regulations

Don’t Navigate These Changes Alone

The landscape of firearms law in Washington is changing rapidly, and the stakes are high. Compliance failures can result in criminal charges, loss of licenses, and permanent loss of rights. Constitutional challenges require experienced legal representation to be effective.

I represent firearms dealers and gun owners throughout Washington State in matters involving:

• License compliance and regulatory defense
• Criminal charges related to firearm possession or sales
• Restoration of firearm rights after disqualifying convictions
• Constitutional challenges to state and federal firearms regulations
• Business counseling for FFLs navigating new requirements

If you’re uncertain how these new laws affect your business or your rights, don’t wait until you’re facing enforcement action. Early consultation can prevent problems and protect your interests.

Contact Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law for experienced representation in firearms law matters. I’m here to help you understand your rights and navigate these complex new regulations.

The post Washington’s New Gun Laws Take Effect July 1: What Firearms Dealers and Owners Need to Know appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.

Here’s what you need to know if you’re hoping to clear a reduced DUI conviction from your record.

Understanding Reduced DUI Charges

In Washington, it’s common for DUI charges to be resolved through a plea agreement, especially for first-time offenders. The most frequent reductions are:

• Reckless Driving (RCW 46.61.500)
• Negligent Driving 1st Degree (RCW 46.61.5249)

Although these are less severe than a DUI, they still carry significant consequences: license suspensions, SR-22 insurance requirements, probation, and a criminal record.

Can These Convictions Be Vacated?

Yes—but under RCW 9.96.060(2)(e), Washington law imposes a special restriction:

If the conviction for Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving 1st Degree was reduced from a DUI or Physical Control charge, it cannot be vacated until 10 years have passed since the conviction date.

This differs from most other misdemeanors, which typically have a 3- or 5-year waiting period.

Eligibility Requirements After 10 Years

Even after the 10-year waiting period, you must meet standard conditions for vacating a misdemeanor:

• No new criminal convictions during the 10-year period.
• No pending charges at the time of filing.
• Completion of all sentence terms, including probation and fines.
• No active no-contact or protection orders.

What If the Charge Wasn’t Originally a DUI?

If your Reckless or Negligent Driving 1st Degree conviction was not reduced from a DUI or Physical Control charge, shorter waiting periods apply:

• 3 years since completion of sentence for most misdemeanors.
• 5 years for offenses involving domestic violence.

However, prosecutors and courts may review the case history, including police reports and original charges, so preparation is key.

Why Vacating a Reduced DUI Matters

Vacating your conviction:

• Removes the record from public view.
• Allows you to legally state you have not been convicted of the offense.
• Improves job and housing opportunities.
• Reduces barriers to professional licensing.

The Process: What to Expect

• Confirm eligibility: Wait 10 years and ensure no new convictions.
• Prepare and file a motion in the court where you were convicted.
• Serve notice to the prosecuting attorney.
• Attend a hearing, if required by the court.
• If granted, the court will issue an order vacating the conviction.

Work With an Attorney

Vacating a reduced DUI conviction is not automatic. Courts may examine the original police report and consider whether vacating the record serves the public interest. A skilled attorney can:

• Present your case clearly and persuasively.
• Handle all procedural steps.
• Avoid delays or denials due to technical errors.

Clear Your Record—The Right Way

If it’s been 10 years since your Reckless or Negligent Driving conviction—and it stemmed from a DUI—now may be the time to clear your name. I’ve helped hundreds of clients in Washington vacate old convictions and move forward.

Call today for a free consultation to see if you qualify.

The post Can You Vacate a Reckless or Negligent Driving Conviction Reduced from DUI in Washington? appeared first on Vancouver WA Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Lawyer - Kris Carrasco Attorney at Law.