  Bose Law Firm
attorneys fight Virginia DUI cases with technical, legal and
procedural arguments in
the courts of Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Loudoun,
Herndon, and Falls Church. See our Case
Results. Attorney Bose was a police officer
trained in Advanced DUI Detection and was on DUI Task Forces as a police
officer in the DC Metropolitan area. Now, he is available
to use his Skills and Knowledge from the Other Side to assist you
with your DUI case.
Watch our
informative videos above on Virginia DUI Law. There is a 6
video series on the playlist listed above. Simply search "Bose Law
Firm" on YouTube.com if you cannot access YouTube from your current
computer. You will benefit from watching the videos as they are
not simple attorney ads.
The
Bose Law Firm was formed in 1998. There are many new firms in
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Alexandria. There is only one Bose Law
Firm. This Firm is data driven and offers
education and tips via numerous videos and articles. Review our case
results and conduct your due diligence on Virginia DUI attorneys
carefully. Cost, reputation, training, and experience are
all critical in choosing a DUI lawyer. Bose Law Firm costs are
reasonable and aggressive commensurate with its long history since
1998.
"You get what
you pay for in this world" is a common phrase. Attorneys of the
Bose Law Firm are no longer young and have been around the proverbial
block several times. Attorney Bose and his team are not afraid to
try cases and not afraid to present novel arguments. Bose lawyers
are always available for free consultations and second
opinions at 703-926-3900
24/7.
Virginia DUI | DWI |
Drunk Driving is a class one misdemeanor criminal offense carrying the
possibility of up to one year in jail. Virginia DUI and DWI are
interchangeable terms in state courts. If you have a security
clearance or are otherwise a sensitive employee in the world of
government, healthcare, management, finance, you must understand your
rights and ramifications of an allegation of DUI. A
Virginia DUI conviction may (highly probable) be considered a
substance abuse issue and thus may trigger collateral issues in employment
or employability.
Bose Law Firm employs a
team approach in every DUI case. Attorneys of the Firm meet in case
strategy sessions to review case files and discuss defenses in all
upcoming cases. This team oriented approach helps Bose Law Firm
attorneys identify legal, procedural and evidentiary issues which help you
to defend your case.
Click for the BLF YouTube Video Channel Police officers are the Government's primary witness in DUI cases. Police Officers are certified in the police academy on all aspects of arrest, criminal procedure, DUI field sobriety testing, and speed assessment procedures. If you are in Federal Court in Alexandria, your police officer is likely a Federal Officer trained in FLETC. If your case is in State Court (a County like Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun or Prince William, your cop was likely trained in Ashburn, Virginia at the local police academy. Attorney Bose, being a former police officer, was trained in the same standards and processes as the primary witness against you - the cop who stopped you! Tap this knowledge base.
Driving under the influence (DUI) and drunk driving are synonymous terms under Virginia law as set forth in the Code of Virginia. 18.2-266: It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v). For the purposes of this article, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth. Section 18.2-266 is termed the "adult Virginia DWI" section and it is the section charged for DWIs in Virginia state courts. For persons under the age of 21 charged with DWI, officers charge under a section of the Code termed "baby DWI." As stated below, the sentencing provisions of a baby DWI are very different from an adult DWI. The government has the burden of proving
its case against a defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt" in DUI | DWI
cases because these cases are criminal cases. This is the same
standard applicable to all criminal prosecutions. In the drunk driving
context, the government proves its case against a defendant by introducing
the driver's (1) Driving Behavior (2) Appearance and Coordination, and/or
(3) Scientific evidence of intoxication. More often than not, the prosecutor will place an emphasis on the BAC certificate (scientific evidence) to secure a conviction.This is because the prosecutor must simply introduce the BAC certificate indicating a BAC of .08 or higher for a presumption of driving under the influence. For this reason, as outlined below, it is important to advance any technical arguments against the BAC certificate (scientific evidence). Technical arguments are not available in all cases, but they are in some. 18.2-268.10. Evidence of violation of driving under the influence offenses. A. In any trial for a violation of 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of 18.2-272 or a similar ordinance, the admission of the blood or breath test results shall not limit the introduction of any other relevant evidence bearing upon any question at issue before the court, and the court shall, regardless of the result of any blood or breath tests, consider other relevant admissible evidence of the condition of the accused. If the test results indicate the presence of any drug other than alcohol, the test results shall be admissible, except in a prosecution under clause (v) of 18.2-266 only if other competent evidence has been presented to relate the presence of the drug or drugs to the impairment of the accused's ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely. B. The failure of an accused to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood is not evidence and shall not be subject to comment by the Commonwealth at the trial of the case, except in rebuttal or pursuant to subsection C; nor shall the fact that a blood or breath test had been offered the accused be evidence or the subject of comment by the Commonwealth, except in rebuttal or pursuant to subsection C. C. Evidence of a finding against the defendant under 18.2-268.3 for his unreasonable refusal to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood shall be admissible into evidence, upon the motion of the Commonwealth or the defendant, for the sole purpose of explaining the absence at trial of a chemical test of such sample. When admitted pursuant to this subsection such evidence shall not be considered evidence of the accused's guilt. D. The court or jury trying the case involving a violation of clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or a similar ordinance shall determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant from all the evidence concerning his condition at the time of the alleged offense. DEFENSE TIP: --------ATTACKING THOSE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND REASON FOR THE STOP IS CRUCIAL TO FIGHTING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST. IF THE ARREST IS BAD, THE WHOLE CASE GETS QUASHED!----------- In introducing evidence of driving behavior, the prosecutor will generally call the police officer to testify about his observations of the driver prior to stopping the vehicle. Often, police officers will refer to weaving, erratic turning, and excessive speed. These observations are then argued by the prosecutor as evidence of driving under the influence of alcohol. Police training during the NHTSA portion of the academy teaches young officers the cues to drunk driving. Ask Attorney Bose or Dischley to show you the training manual. The observations of the officers must to attacked and cross-examined in order to win.
Driving behavior alone is not enough to prove a Virginia DUI case; however, it is often enough proof of reckless driving. This is important because Bose Law Firm attorneys will often try to reduce Virginia DUI cases to Reckless Driving as Reckless Driving does not carry the collateral penalties and stigma associated with Drunk Driving. The police officers will often expand their testimony to include observations of the defendant upon the stop. Blood shot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol, and slurred speech are indicative of intoxication and the prosecution will elicit this evidence from the police officer. These observations must be attacked in order to win the DUI case.
In addition to appearance, the police officer will also testify on the defendant's coordination or lack thereof. This evidence will often rely on field sobriety tests conducted by the officer at the scene of the arrest. The Standard Field Sobriety Tests from NHTSA are the following: 1. Walk and Turn 2. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, and 3. One-Leg Stand. Often, officers will get it WRONG and conduct all sorts of unreliable testing protocols on unsuspecting DUI suspects. Attorney Bose has cross examined officers asking people to - Touch the tip of the nose
with the forefinger (Completely
Unreliable) Attorney Bose is a former Police Officer and Counsellor at Law (Attorney) trained in all aspects of DUI and criminal evidentiary matters. The Bose Law Firm team analyzes police procedures in your case from the stop to arrest. The Bose Law Firm team often scrutinizes Government witnesses on their performance of these tests in the field and experts are often used to highlight key procedural flaws in testing. Remember, attacking the Observations and Field Testing is crucial to striking the certificate and quashing the prosecutor's case! It has been done and we have done it! DEFENSE TIP: --------IF THE PROSECUTOR IS ABLE TO GET PAST THE ATTACK ABOVE, ALL IS NOT LOST. THE FOCUS IS NOW ON ATTACKING THE BREATH OR BLOOD CERTICATE. IF THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THE CERTIFICATE WAS BAD, THE CERTIFICATE WILL BE QUASHED! ----------- The scientific evidence in a Virginia drunk driving case is premised on the use of a breath machine. When a person is arrested for suspicion of drunk driving, her breath is used to determine the level of alcohol in her blood. A defendant with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more is presumed to be under the influence. This is a rebuttable presumption as noted in the Code section below. 18.2-269. Presumptions from alcohol content of blood. A. In any prosecution for a violation of 18.2-36.1 or clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of 18.2-266, or any similar ordinance, the amount of alcohol or drugs in the blood of the accused at the time of the alleged offense as indicated by a chemical analysis of a sample of the accused's blood or breath to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood in accordance with the provisions of 18.2-268.1 through 18.2-268.12 shall give rise to the following rebuttable presumptions: (1) If there was at that time 0.05 percent or less by weight by volume of alcohol in the accused's blood or 0.05 grams or less per 210 liters of the accused's breath, it shall be presumed that the accused was not under the influence of alcohol intoxicants at the time of the alleged offense; (2) If there was at that time in excess of 0.05 percent but less than 0.08 percent by weight by volume of alcohol in the accused's blood or 0.05 grams but less than 0.08 grams per 210 liters of the accused's breath, such facts shall not give rise to any presumption that the accused was or was not under the influence of alcohol intoxicants at the time of the alleged offense, but such facts may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused; (3) If there was at that time 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume of alcohol in the accused's blood or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of the accused's breath, it shall be presumed that the accused was under the influence of alcohol intoxicants at the time of the alleged offense; or (4) If there was at that time an amount of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood, it shall be presumed that the accused was under the influence of drugs at the time of the alleged offense to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to and shall not affect any prosecution for a violation of 46.2-341.24. Because there is a rebuttable presumption that a BAC of .08 or more reflects the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, attorneys must rebut the presumption with credible proof of sobriety. Bose Law Firm attrorneys rebut the presumption with the use of experts in the field of medicine or toxicology. Attorneys usually use experts in cases where the BAC is low - between .08 and .10. The use of experts for higher BACs is often reserved for cases in which the defendant has a medical condition such as diabetes that sometimes complicates the assessment of driving under the influence of alcohol. The Bose Law Firm has attacked calibrations and maintenance of Breath Tests and Blood Test protocols for the past 12 years. Tap our knowledge! HOW COULD A DUI CONVICTION IMPACT ME? If you have a security clearance, or if you are the process of trying to obtain one, a DUI can affect you. DUI is an indication of substance abuse. If you are a police officer or in the process of applying for a position as a police officer / LEO (law enforcement officer), most law enforcement agencies will not even consider you for a position as an LEO if you are convicted of Virginia DUI. If you are in the process of trying to become a United States citizen, a Virginia DUI conviction could have a negative impact on that process by elongating the time for the government to conduct your background check. Since the DUI|DWI is a criminal offense, you must divulge this conviction on the proper forms for immigration purposes - particularly if there was an arrest. WHAT DO I DO? So what do you do if you are one of the hundreds of people every year who get charged with Virginia DUI? Fight the case on legal, procedural, and scientific grounds. Watch the DUI Video below for some "Insider Secrets." VIRGINIA DUI|DWI DEFENSES Bose Law Firm attorneys have gray hair. They have been around the proverbial block and are not new to the battles in Court.
DEFENSE TIP: "BUT JUDGE, I HAVE A CLEAN RECORD, I PAY MY TAXES AND THIS IS MY FIRST DUI" --------IS NOT A DEFENSE! YOU WILL LOSE BIG IF YOU USE THIS AS A DEFENSE TO VIRGINIA DUI! Click for Bose Law Firm Case Results
"You get what you pay for in this world" is a common saying. Attorney Bose is no longer young and has been around the proverbial block several times. He and his team are not afraid to try cases and not afraid to present novel arguments. He is always available for free consultations and second opinions at 703-926-3900.
|
Sudeep
Bose 
