Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

Washington DC Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys

1. Bennowitz, David: Armed Robbery: The essential elements of armed robbery are: 1) the taking of property of some value from someone against that personÕs will; 2) from that personÕs immediate actual possession or from their person; 3) by force or violence, putting that person in fear, or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching; 4) taking the property away; 5) without right to the property, and with the specific intent to steal it; 5) while armed. Assault: Includes attempted batter and intent-to-frighten. The essential elements of assault are: 1) an attempt or effort, with force or violence, to injure another person; 2) that at the time the attempt or effort is made, there is an apparent present ability to injure that person; 3) that the attempt or effort is made voluntarily and on purpose, not by mistake or accident; and 4) that the conduct is not justified by the use of reasonable parental discipline. Attorney-Client Relationship: A critical relationship that must be based upon trust and consistent communication between a criminal attorney and his or her client. Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. One of the people involved in the agreement must do something for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. Criminal Defense Attorney (Criminal Attorney): A criminal lawyer licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia who specializes in defending people charged with or being investigated for committing crimes. DC Department of Corrections: http://doc.dc.gov/doc/cwp/view,a,3,q,491438,docNav,|30833|.asp DC Law Students In Court Program: One of the oldest and most highly regarded clinical programs in Washington, DC. Participants represent clients on adult criminal misdemeanor charges and juvenile criminal cases of all kinds in D.C. Superior Court. http://www.dclawstudents.org Drug Possession: The knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance. Drug Distribution: To knowingly and intentionally transfer or attempt to transfer a measurable amount of a controlled substance to another person. D.U.I./D.W.I.: ÒD.U.I.Ó means ÒDriving Under the InfluenceÓ of alcohol or a drug. To be found guilty of D.U.I., the government must prove that someone operated a motor vehicle while their blood-alcohol level was .08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood or was under the influence of another drug. ÒD.W.I.Ó means ÒDriving While Impaired.Ó To be found guilty of D.W.I. the government must prove that someone operated a motor vehicle while his/her ability to drive was so impaired by the consumption of alcohol that it impaired his/her ability to drive in a way that a reasonably prudent unimpaired driver would operate a motor vehicle.
2. Baldwin, Molina & Escoto: A DUI or DWI arrest can result in serious penalties including fines jail time, driver's license suspension and a criminal record. Each subsequent drunk-driving conviction increases your penalties until you have your driver's license revoked Ñ and you may end up in prison. Whether you are facing criminal charges for the first time or you have been arrested for driving under the influence before, you need to take these charges seriously. You can defend yourself against DUI/DWI charges.
3. Kathleen Voelker: In order to successfully counter a criminal charge, you need the able assistance of an aggressive litigator who possesses extensive experience and a deep understanding of all aspects of criminal law as they apply to your case.
4. Robinson & Koutesis: Following a DWI / DUI arrest, many people make the mistake of assuming that because their blood test or breathalyzer result put them over the legal limit, they have no hope of "beating the charges" against them. As a result, they often let too much time pass before hiring an attorney to help them or they simply do not fight and instead accept whatever plea the prosecutor is willing to offer.
5. Abraham Blitzer: Being arrested is a frightening experience. Facing a criminal charge--even a small one--can feel like a waking nightmare.
6. >Bruce M. Cooper: Getting charged with DUI or a related drunk driving offense in Washington, D.C., requires a solid defense from an experienced criminal defense attorney who knows how to protect your rights.
7. Allen Dale: The crime of drunk driving is generally defined in two ways: (1) having a blood alcohol content above the limit set by law, or (2) driving under the influence of alcohol. To find a person guilty under the first definition, a jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeded a certain amount. In most states the legal limit is .08 percent. Therefore, if it is proved that the person's BAC at the time of the incident was .08 percent or greater, he or she can be convicted of drunk driving, regardless of how much alcohol was actually consumed. As a practical matter, one drink would almost certainly not lead to a BAC of .08 percent or greater; generally, a person needs to have five drinks in an hour to develop a BAC of .08 percent. However, if there was something unique about the person or the drink, or other circumstance, one drink could raise the BAC above the legal limit. In contrast, the second definition does not refer to any particular BAC. It focuses on the driving behavior of the person; if it is impaired by the person's consumption of alcohol, he or she can be found guilty of drunk driving. Instead of presenting evidence of the BAC to a jury, the prosecution seeking a conviction under this definition generally presents testimony about the person's driving and consumption of alcohol. A police officer will often describe the impaired driving that lead him to pull the person over and the person's ability (or lack thereof) to perform field sobriety tests, such as walking a straight line. Evidence is also usually presented concerning the person's consumption of alcohol and if the jury then concludes that the prosecution has met its burden of proof, it will convict the person of drunk driving. A susceptible person may exhibit impaired driving after one drink and therefore be convicted of drunk driving.
8. Belsky & Purdum: The second category of traffic violations are known as "major offenses" and include, among other charges, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Driving Under the Influence of Drugs/Alcohol (DUI) and Driving on a Suspended License. If you are convicted of a major offense, you may be subject to imprisonment and/or a substantial fine. If you are charged with a major offense, you must appear in court. Unlike minor offenses, you cannot pay the fine to avoid going to court. Anyone charged with a major offense should be represented by an attorney. An attorney will have the legal know-how to object to evidence and questions, and is better able to offer to the court reasons why you deserve leniency if you are found guilty of the offense.
9. Jeffery Lewis: What defenses are available to you will depend on the unique circumstances of your arrest. Criminal/DWI Traffic offenses represent the only time most of us will be in court facing even the potential of time in jail. Although the specifics of the laws relating to DWI/DUI vary among the three neighboring jurisdictions of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, there are some generalities that will stand you in good stead in all three. First and foremostÑDo your absolute level best not to drive after you've been drinking, especially if you haven't eaten or if you have been drinking carbonated beverages with your alcohol. Both factors will speed up the absorption of alcohol into your bloodstream and get you drunker faster. While it may seem self-evident, it doesn't hurt to remind yourself of this so you can avoid being stopped. If you ARE stoppedÑCooperate! Being stopped by the police is a bad enough experience as it is. Antagonizing the officer or being cute will only get him or her annoyed. Being human, the officer will be tempted to take that frustration out on you in subtle ways that will not find their way into the police report and that will be difficult for you to prove. If you are tempted to be sarcastic, remember that the officer has a gun readily available and you don't (or shouldn't). Cooperation has its limits, though. Do NOT volunteer any information about what you have been drinking, how much, or how long ago. "I only had two beers, officer" will not help you either on the scene or in court. Q. What is the "legal limit"? A. The "legal limit" is the percentage of blood alcohol, usually determined by means of a breath test given on the scene, over which the statutes say you are intoxicated. In all three jurisdictions, that level is .08 per cent. This level means that if your BAC (blood alcohol content) is anything over that, you are presumed to have been intoxicated. If your BAC is lower than .08, you still can be convicted of an offense if the government proves that your driving behavior at the time demonstrated that your abilities were impaired. Note that in Virginia, if your BAC is over .20, there is a mandatory sentence of five days in jail, which the judge cannot suspend. Q. What if I am a first offender? A. Maryland and the District of Columbia have mechanisms through which you can attend classes and participate in programs that will result in the charges being dismissed. This may be done by way of a pretrial diversion program or by "probation before judgment." Virginia does not have pretrial diversion programs, and you WILL go to jail there if you are convicted of DWI with a BAC of over .20, even as a first offender. Q. What if I refuse to take the breath test on the scene? A. You have a right to refuse to take the test, but you would be foolish to do so. In Maryland and the District of Columbia, your driving privileges will be automatically suspended. In Virginia, you have the right to refuse to take a preliminary (pre-arrest) breath test. Once you are arrested, however, if you "unreasonably" refuse to consent to a breath test or blood test, your driving privileges will be revoked. In all three jurisdictions, if you go to trial, the government is allowed to present as evidence your refusal to take the test. In Virginia, testimony of your "unreasonable refusal" is admitted for the limited purpose of explaining why there is no breath test; it is not to be considered as evidence of guilt. Q. Will I go to jail if I plead guilty or am convicted after a trial? A. You might. Of course, the worse your driving record is, the more likely it is that a judge will consider a jail sentence. The one constant is loss of your license or driving privileges for some period of time. Under some circumstances you can get a restricted license, allowing you to drive to and from work or school, and to drive at work if your job requires it. In Virginia, you might be able to get the restricted license at the time the judge accepts your guilty plea. Or, the restricted license may be conditioned upon your completion of the jurisdiction's alcohol traffic safety program. In Maryland and the District of Columbia, this is done administratively, and not by the judge. Q. What if my BAC is over the limit? Do I have any defenses? A. Funny you should ask that. That's exactly what I'm here for. What defenses are available to you will depend on the unique circumstances of your arrest. We will sit down and go over how and where and why the police stopped you, who did what, who said what. It is entirely possible that there is something about the situation that will allow, or perhaps require, a finding or verdict of not guilty. Q. What about minor moving violations? What should I do if I am stopped? A. Often, if you are pulled over for a minor moving violation such as an illegal turn, the first thing the officer will say to you is "Do you know why I pulled you over?" There are some people who will tell you to play dumb at this point and say, "Why no, officer." After all, why incriminate yourself and make it easier for the officer in court? If you have a clean driving record, this can be the wrong approach. What you SHOULD do is look sheepish and say, "Yes, officer, that was pretty stupid of me." Once the officer runs your license through the computer and sees that you have a clean record, you stand a very good chance of being let go with a warning. If the case does go to court, the officer won't need your admission of guilt anyway. He or she will simply testify as to what happened. The purpose is to avoid ending up in court and having points on your license. If you can keep from going to court by swallowing your pride for 30 seconds, I consider that a pretty good investment. *NOTE* This is not an advisable approach if you are stopped for speeding. For one thing, your speedometer may be incorrect and need calibrating. For another, Virginia considers many instances of what would be "mere" speeding in other states as reckless driving, with much more serious consequences for your license.
10. Kindermannlaw: The 'roadside' or PBT cannot be used against you in a formal sense and you are within your rights to refuse the same. However, the stationary breathalyzer machine typically located at the police station can be determinative in terms of guilt or innocence. Know and Exercise Your Rights The following information is intended as a brief summation of your constitutional rights and is meant to offer helpful hints at how to effectively assert and protect those rights within the context of a police encounter. Of course, this information is no substitute for consultation with an experienced attorney. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states: ÒThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Ó The Fifth Amendment reads, in part, ÒNo person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .Ó These amendments provide the foundation for the rights that protect all U.S. Citizens from intrusive law enforcement practices. If an officer violates your rights, then any evidence discovered as a result of that violation must be suppressed from the evidence at trial. This is accomplished by filing a motion to suppress with the trial judge. Even if an officer obtained a warrant prior to searching, if that warrant is defective or not supported by probable cause, then the evidence must be suppressed. Often times, after the fruits of an illegal detention, interrogation or search are suppressed, the government is left with very little evidence and the charges are dismissed. 1. DonÕt Leave Contraband in Plain View Although law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before they can conduct a privacy-invading search, any illicit material that can be plainly seen by any person from a non-intrusive vantage point is subject to confiscation. An arrest and a valid warrant to search the rest of the area is likely to ensue. A ÒroachÓ in the ashtray, a pipe or baggie on the coffee table, or a joint being smoked in public are common mistakes, which all too frequently lead to arrests. 2. Never Consent Many individuals arrested on marijuana charges could have avoided that arrest by exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. If a law enforcement officer asks for your permission to search, it is usually because: (1) there is not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant; or (2) the officer does not feel like going through the hassle of obtaining a warrant. Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. If you do consent, you waive your constitutional protection and the officers may search and seize items without further authorization. If officers find contraband, they will arrest you. If you do not consent to a search, the officer must either release you or detain you and attempt to get a warrant. The fact that you refuse to consent does not give the officer grounds to obtain a warrant or further detain you. An officer can obtain a search warrant only from a judge or magistrate and only upon a showing of Òprobable cause.Ó Probable cause requires an officer to articulate information that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that evidence of that involvement can be found within the object of the search. There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement, which permit an officer to search an area without a warrant or consent under certain circumstances. The important thing for you to remember is never to consent to a search or talk with an officer if you want to preserve your rights. If an officer asks to search you or an area belonging to you or over which you are authorized to control, you should respond: ÒI do not consent to a search of my [person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, blood, etc.] I do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone). 3. DonÕt Answer Questions Without Your Attorney Present Whether arrested or not, you should always exercise the right to remain silent. Anything you say to law enforcement officers, reporters, cellmates, or even your friends can be used as evidence against you. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Your right to remain silent should always be exercised. 4. Determining if You Can Leave You may terminate an encounter with officers unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. If you cannot tell whether you may leave, you can ask officers, ÒAm I under arrest or otherwise detained?Ó If the answer is, ÒNo,Ó you may leave. An officer can temporarily detain you without arresting you if he has Òreasonable suspicionÓ that you are involved in criminal activity. An officer must be able at a later time to articulate to a judge objective facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that you were involved in criminal activity at the point that you were detained. Also, the officer may perform a Òpat downÓ or ÒfriskÓ on you during the detention if he has reasonable suspicion that you are armed. However, an officer may only reach into your pockets if he pats something that feels like a weapon. When an officer attempts to contact or question you, you should politely say: ÒI do not consent to this contact and I do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest I would like to go now (or be left alone).Ó If arrested, you should again refuse a search of any kind and refuse to answer any questions. At this point you should insist on speaking to an attorney as soon as possible. 5. Do Not Be Hostile; Do Not Physically Resist There are times when individuals politely assert their rights and refuse to consent to a search but the officers nonetheless proceed to detain, search, or arrest them. In such cases, it is important not to physically resist. Rather, you should reassert your rights as outlined above in section 2. 6. Informing on Others The police and prosecution often try to pressure individuals into providing information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of others. Threats and promises by police and prosecutors should be viewed with caution and skepticism. Decisions should only be made after consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney and examining oneÕs own conscience. Bill of Rights Photo Image
11. Marks & Katz: Surprise is a common response my clients have to their first arrest for driving while intoxicated. Sometimes the surprise is because the person is simply not guilty. Often, however, the person did drink over the legal limit, but just did not realize that it does not take much alcohol to make a person culpable of driving while intoxicated. One Too Many? - Defending Drunk Driving Cases DUI DWI DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED BY ALCOHOL DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED DRIVING IMPAIRED By Jonathan L. Katz Surprise is a common response my clients have to their first arrest for driving while intoxicated. Sometimes the surprise is because the person is simply not guilty. Often, however, the person did drink over the legal limit, but just did not realize that it does not take much alcohol to make a person culpable of driving while intoxicated. The penalties for driving while intoxicated can be harsh, including imprisonment and the loss of one's license for a lengthy period of time. With drinking and driving laws as stiff as they are, it is best to never risk driving after drinking more than a moderate amount of liquor, if even that much. It is commonly said that the body should not be expected to metabolize more than one drink (e.g., a 12-ounce beer, a 4-ounce glass of wine, or one ounce of liquor) per hour. Unfortunately, it is hard to get the benefit of the doubt from a police officer who smells liquor on a driver's breath, or who thinks a driver is acting intoxicated. Police are not experts in identifying drunk drivers, and drivers need to know their rights in dealing with the police. Even if a person has broken the drinking and driving laws, there is no reason for the driver to make a bad situation worse by providing unnecessary cooperation to the police. The police and prosecutor have the burden to prove a driver guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law; the accused walks into court presumed innocent. The driver should do whatever is honestly and legally possible to be found not guilty, and to get the most favorable sentence if found guilty. A driver should not help make the police officer's job easier if that only will increase the driver's risk of being treated harshly in court. When a driver is stopped by the police, the driver and the car's passengers should try to identify whether the driver did anything to justify being stopped. This information will be important for the arrested driver's attorney to argue in court that the police stopped the car illegally, and, therefore, to throw out any evidence beginning with the traffic stop. In general, a driver has no obligation to provide a police officer any information other than the driver's license and car registration. An arrested person's silence generally cannot be used against the person in a criminal trial. Police are trained to persuade people to answer their questions. People must remember, however, that police generally do not want to help suspects avoid a conviction. Once a police officer suspects that a driver has been drinking beyond the legal limit, the officer will likely ask the driver to step out of the car, and to perform a number of so-called field sobriety tests. These tests may include walking a straight line from heel to toe, standing on one leg with one's arms fully extended outwards, following the officer's pen or flashlight, counting backwards, and reciting the alphabet from the middle. The driver has no legal obligation to perform such tests, and, even if fully sober, the average person may very well perform poorly with some or all of these tests. Unfortunately, the police may be permitted to testify that the suspect refused such tests, and negative inferences might be unfairly drawn from such a refusal. A driver suspected of drinking too much may be asked to blow into the officer's portable alcohol-reading device. These devices are so inaccurate that their results are generally inadmissible in court. Finally, if still suspected of drinking too much, the driver will be taken to the police station, and will be asked to submit to a test of the suspect's blood alcohol level. Ideally, the driver should have the advice of a qualified attorney at this point about whether to take the blood alcohol test, because the many variables in making such a decision are too voluminous and sometimes minute to sufficiently cover in this or any other article. Unfortunately, many drunk driving arrests take place during the weekends and early morning hours when it is hard to reach a qualified attorney. In any event, if the suspect is able to reach an attorney, that should be the time also to talk about the advisability, permissibility, and availability of getting an expert witness onsite to check the accuracy of the testing as it happens. Different jurisdictions have a jumble of civil and criminal rules about sanctions for refusing to take blood alcohol tests, the weight that judges and juries may place on such refusals, and even rewards for blood alcohol results below a certain level (e.g., as of the updating of this article, Washington, DC, generally has a diversion program in Superior Court for first-time arrestees with blood alcohol levels below 0.15). For those who take a breath test at the police station, be ready to be asked to blow very hard into the machine; this certainly is unfair for people who physically are unable to blow forcefully. When the driver takes the breath test, the defense lawyer has more discovery and defenses to prepare, including: sufficiency of the rights read to the driver before the test is taken, including overcoming any language barriers with drivers who are not fluent in English; the time that elapses between the time of arrest and the time the breath test is offered; inferences of no intoxication that might arise from improperly advising the driver of the right to take or refuse the test and of the implications of such refusal or acceptance; an improperly administered test, and a low blood alcohol reading; the qualifications of the breath test technician; the accuracy of the breath testing equipment; and the willingness of the breath technician to permit the driver to reverse a refusal or agreement to take the test. The driver's defense counsel will demand or subpoena the breath technician's presence in court within the deadline established by the applicable court rules, to avoid the court's automatic admission of the breath test results into evidence. It is also vital to try to find ways around any per se drunk driving statutory provisions. Apparent intoxicated behavior often can be explained by such other circumstances as health problems, fatigue, personality, weather conditions, and traffic conditions. Sometimes, intoxicated behavior results from drugs in one's body. When the breath test result is low, and when the arresting officer still suspects foul play, the officer might then call in a drug recognition ("DRE") expert to try to establish that the driver was driving under the influence of drugs. Unless the arresting officer has found drugs in or around the driver, has smelled drugs, or has an admission that the driver has been using drugs, the prosecutor must rely on blood test results and/or circumstantial evidence. Defenses to the blood test results include that drugs can stay in the bloodstream long after they have any effect on driving; moreover, most of the defenses against the breath test results can be adapted to defending against the blood test results. Often, the drug recognition expert is a police officer who has minimal classroom training and on the job training in drug recognition, and little to no college training in this subject. A stronger argument can often be made against accepting the DRE as an expert than accepting the breath technician as an expert. Although bench trial judges may be willing to be more lax in qualifying the DRE as an expert, a stronger argument can be made against the prejudice of having the jury hear the DRE when the DRE's expertise is too much in question. If the DRE is allowed as an expert, often the DRE will make outrageous claims about circumstantial evidence that will provide strong ammunition for effective cross examination. The driver will be concerned not only with the criminal implications of a drunk driving arrest, but also about the possibility of administrative loss of the driver's license both after a conviction and through a parallel motor vehicle administration suspension hearing. Although administrative suspension defense issues can fill many pages, a few key considerations for defending at administrative hearings include: taking maximum advantage of the absence of opposing counsel at such hearings, including the inability of the government to respond to creative legal arguments; calling live witnesses, which can sometimes be more powerful than the opposition's presentation of mere documentary evidence; and seeking restricted driving privileges for the shortest amount of time, in the event that a suspension is ordered. No matter how draconian the states' drunk driving laws become, the defenses remain numerous and often powerful enough that "innocent" should continue to be a frequently heard plea for such cases.
12. Christopher Swaby: Constitutional Rights
13. Thomas Rand If you are arrested for drunk driving, you should find a lawyer as soon as possible. In Maryland, you only have ten days from the date of the DWI arrest to request an MVA hearing that could help prevent your license being suspended; if the request is made after ten days, there is no guarantee that your temporary license will not expire. If the request isn't made within thirty days, the suspension cannot be lifted or modified.
14. Calvin Steinmetz: If you have been charged with Driving While Intoxicated (or some variation of that charge) you could face jail, substantial fines, and/or loss of your privilege to drive. In some jurisdictions, we can help you get into programs which may lead to dismissal of the charges and allow you to keep your drivers license. We can also analyze the basis for the arrest and the tests used to charge DWI to see if there is a good challenge at trial to the charge.
15. Winelander Group: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) is considered a serious crime in every state
16. Stephen Jackson: You have the right to make the government prove each of the elements of the crime that you have been accused of committing beyond a reasonable doubt.