Judge orders interlock, home detention and $1,000 bail for DUI suspect in Lake Forest Park

At a special hearing in Lake Forest Park Municipal Court, a judge set bail at $1,000 and ordered ignition-interlock installation, electronic home detention and alcohol monitoring for defendant Norman GuzmE1n Madrigal.

The judge said she reviewed the sworn probable-cause declaration and field evidence and concluded there was probable cause to charge GuzmE1n Madrigal with driving under the influence for an incident on Feb. 5. The prosecutor told the court the defendant had prior DUI convictions and that a portable test produced a reading of "0.312," noting the defendant had refused a formal BAC test. The prosecutor argued the combination of the reading and prior convictions made the defendant a danger to the community and asked for $15,000 bail.

Defense attorney Jeff Mackie told the court he had reviewed the charges with his client and that the defendant's recent employment as a construction worker made a high bail especially burdensome: "No objection to alcohol monitoring or electronic monitoring," Mackie said, and the defense asked the court to set bail at no more than $1,000 so the defendant could continue supporting his family.

The judge accepted the defense's position on amount and imposed conditions if the defendant is released: an ignition interlock must be installed on any vehicle he drives; he must enroll in electronic home detention with an ankle monitor; he must submit proof of interlock installation by 5 p.m. the following Wednesday; he must abstain from alcohol and nonprescribed drugs; and he may not drive unless he has valid license and insurance. The judge said the defendant would remain in custody until the monitoring equipment was in place and bail was posted and instructed court staff to provide paperwork and vendor contact details to the defendant in custody.

The judge identified Secured Court Solutions as the vendor the court uses to install monitoring equipment and said the company would be notified to coordinate installation at the jail. The judge warned that any violation of conditions would prompt a return to custody.

Finally, the judge set a follow-up appearance described in the transcript as a formal reading of charges on Monday at 9:45 (the transcript lists the date as Feb. 9 at 9:45) and said the defendant must appear whether in custody or released. The record shows the hearing concluded after court staff prepared paperwork for delivery to the jail.

The transcript contains an internal date inconsistency: it opens by indicating the hearing is in February "the 26" while a later line schedules a hearing listed as Monday, Feb. 9 at 9:45. The court file should be checked for the official scheduled date.