Democrat House Candidate Slams Into Parked Cars

Police car blue siren light flashing — Photo: klauscook / Shutterstock

A police camera caught a statehouse candidate saying she drank wine, then pleading to go home after a five-car crash.

Story Snapshot

Police video shows Krista Perez admitting to drinking wine before driving.
Court records describe a chain-reaction crash into multiple parked cars.
Perez declined field sobriety tests and failed to complete breath samples.
A judge found probable cause for a driving under the influence charge.

What police recorded and what the court did

Police body camera footage shows Washington state House candidate Krista Perez tell an officer she had wine before driving. Reports quote her as saying she had “one glass of wine.” The same reporting says officers noted a strong smell of alcohol. After the crash, police say several vehicles were damaged in a chain reaction. Tacoma Municipal Court Judge Steve Krupa reviewed the case and found probable cause to support a driving under the influence charge and a refusal enhancement.

Officers tried to conduct field sobriety tests. Perez repeatedly declined or said she did not understand the instructions. She also did not provide proper breath samples after coaching at the station. That set up an alleged refusal for the breath test. The video, as described, shows Perez distressed and confused after the arrest, including sobbing and praying in the back seat of a squad car. Those details fueled attention far beyond Tacoma’s courthouse.

What the defense says and what the evidence does not show

Perez pleaded not guilty in Tacoma Municipal Court. Her legal team points to the presumption of innocence and that no court has tested the video yet. The public reporting so far does not include a chemical blood-alcohol result. That gap matters for the charge but does not erase other evidence, like the crash, the odor, the statements, and the refusal claim. Washington law also allows a refusal to be used as evidence at trial, which is why prosecutors lean on it.

Breath-test refusals and field test refusals often shape public opinion more than they should. Field tests help establish probable cause. They are not a number and do not prove a blood-alcohol level. The absence of a confirmed chemical reading leaves room for argument, but it does not end the case. Jurors often hear the total picture: driving behavior, damage, demeanor, and any recorded statements. That is the common path in impairment trials when a clear number is missing.

How Washington’s rules raise the stakes

Washington’s system treats refusal as admissible evidence. The state’s bench guidance is clear on that point. That means jurors can hear a refusal alongside testimony about the crash and the odor. It also means a driver can face license penalties apart from what a judge or jury decides on the crime itself. The policy aim is simple: deter impaired driving and push drivers to provide a sample. That is tough medicine, but it reflects public-safety first thinking.

Krista Perez — Washington Democratic House candidate charged with DUI after a Tacoma crash; bodycam shows her tearful arrest weeks after winning her primary. Story: https://t.co/r8aI057c3I

— CancelPeople.com (@cancelpeoplenow) September 17, 2026

American conservative values line up with the core legal steps here. Equal rules, applied the same, no special passes. Voters should expect accountability when a crash harms others’ property, and they should expect due process to run its course. The facts as reported align with common sense: a multi-car crash, an admission to drinking wine, refusal to test, and a judge finding probable cause. The court, not the clip, should decide guilt. The law, not spin, should drive the outcome.

What to watch next

Three things will decide how this ends. First, any further records, like full police reports or complete body camera logs, could add context on timing, speed, and behavior. Second, any machine logs or later toxicology, if they exist, would either sharpen or soften the impairment claim. Third, the defense may challenge how tests were explained and administered. Until then, the case rests on a familiar mix of crash facts, officer observations, and a refusal that the law lets a jury hear.