  Virginia DUI | DWI | Drunk Driving is a class one misdemeanor criminal offense carrying the possibility of up to one year jail time. 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 be considered a substance abuse issue and thus may trigger collateral issues in employment or employability.
"When I was going thorough the process of becoming an officer, there was extensive analysis of my past...the main questions were about substance abuse issues. DUI can kill a career even before it begins.There is no Probation Before Judgment in Virginia Courts. There is no second chance as in the Pennsylvania Courts. Virginia takes DUI really seriously." Sudeep Bose, Esq.
There is a distinction between DWI and DUI if you are charged in a federal court such as the U.S. District Court in Alexandria. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, the body of law under which federal officers usually charge defendants, DUI reflects a blood alcohol content (BAC) between .02 and .08. DWI reflects a BAC of .08 and above.
There is no distinction between DWI and DUI in state courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia as there is in Maryland and other states. Virginia state courts include the courts of Fairfax county, Arlington county, Prince William county, and Loudoun county.
Click here to Review Case Results
Attorney Bose is a Police Officer and
Attorney. As an officer, he is highly trained in all
aspects of DUI and criminal evidentiary matters. Attorney
Bose analyzes police procedures in your case from the stop to
arrest looking for holes in the government's
case. Attorney Bose is certified by NHTSA to perform
field sobriety tests and he is PBT certified. He has advanced
training in DUI arrests, drug interdiction, and interrogation.
Bose is also trained in vehicle speed assessment
processes. Attorney Bose is a human lie detector with advanced law
enforcement training in Interrogation. If the government
prosecutor or officer is lying in your case, Attorney Bose has the
skills to detect the deception without using any electronic
equipment. This training in Interview and Interrogation is
given to agents of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and other agencies. Query: Did your arresting officer follow all the police
procedural rules and standards prior to writing your ticket or
arresting
you? Attorney Bose a former
private investigator licensed in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. He knows how to investigate and analyze
cases. Query: Does the witness in
your Virginia DUI accident case have convictions which affects his
truthfulness or veracity? Is there something which may lead
the Government witness to have a bias against you? Are there
witnesses with exculpatory evidence in your Virginia DUI accident
case? Query: How will the
prosecutor's polices and state mandates affect your case
disposition? What will the prosecutor look at in determining
whether to plead your case? Attorney Bose holds a
Bachelor of Science degree with college coursework in chemistry,
physics, organic chemistry, microbiology, and biotechnology.
This education is the basis of his understanding the Government's
Expert Witness - the Toxicologist. Attorney Bose speaks the jargon and
understands the principles involved in scientific evidence.
Attorney Bose is Intoximeter certified. If there is a trial in one's DUI case and
if the science of the blood or breath is attacked by the
defense, there is a high probability of the government calling
the Breath Section Chief to tender expert testimony. Knowledge
is power - particularly in the
sciences. Driving under the influence 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. Click here to Review Case Results
In introducing evidence of driving behavior, the prosecutor will generally call the police officer to testify about her 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.
Driving behavior alone; however, is not enough to prove a Virginia DUI case; however, it is often enough proof of reckless driving. This is important because 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 officer will often expand her 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. 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. Field Sobriety Tests include the following: 1. Touching the tip of the nose with the
forefinger Standard Field Sobriety Tests include only the Walk and Turn, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, and One-Leg Stand. Attorney Bose is a 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. The scientific evidence in a Virginia drunk driving case is premised on the use of Intoxilyzer Model 5000. 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. Click here to Review Case Results Attorney Bose holds a Bachelor of Science degree with college coursework in chemistry, physics, organic chemistry, microbiology, and biotechnology. This education is the basis of his understanding the Government's Expert Witness - the Toxicologist. Attorney Bose speaks the jargon and understands the principles involved in scientific evidence. Counsel prior to the hearing date must scrutinize the use of the scientific evidence. As noted below, there are many burdens that must be met for the use of the BAC report against the defendant. Objections to the use of the BAC report must be made during trial. If the objections are not made in a timely fashion, the errors are deemed to have been waived at the trial.
|
||||||||||||||||||
Alexandria Offices near Federal Court:
2821 Duke Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Springfield Offices: 6354 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102 Springfield (Fairfax County), Virginia 22152 Email: appointment@boselawfirm.com Telephone: 703.926.3900 Toll Free: 877.372.2827 Facsimile: 800.927.6038 Copyright 1997-2010.
Bose Law Firm, PLLC |
||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Officer
Bose
Attorney
Dischley
Attorney Bose
