Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

Arlington DUI Lawyers

1. Kleiman, Louis: * Felony & Misdemeanor Crimes, including: o Homicide o Armed Robbery o Arson o Assault o Burglary o Kidnapping o Theft (including by fraud or by contractor) * Traffic Offenses, including: o Driving under the Influence (DUI) o Vehicular Manslaughter o Reckless Driving o Hit & Run * Drug Offenses, including: o Trafficking o Manufacturing o Possession * Domestic Violence * Guns & Weapons Violations * Sex Crimes * White Collar Crimes
2. Hancock Law Practice: Virginia's penalties for DUI have increased in severity within the past several years to include mandatory jail time for certain types of offenses, even for first-time offenders. The following information will help explain the different aspects of a DUI/DWI charge, as well as your rights and the potential consequences.
3. DeVita, James: * DWI, Driving While Intoxicated- driving with an alcohol level above the legal limit as demonstrated by breath tests and blood alcohol tests * DUI, Driving Under the Influence- driving a vehicle when the driver's ability to drive is impaired by alcohol * Reckless Driving- (General) operating a vehicle in a manner which is dangerous to others (By Speed) driving at truly excessive rates of speed * Driving on a Suspended License- driving after a driver's license has been suspended due to an accumulation of points or violations * No Operators Permit- Driving without a driver's license or failing to have the license in your possession * Speeding- cases involving speeding violations tracked by radar, laser (lidar), pacing, Vascar (air patrol) * Aggressive Driving- traffic violations aggravated by reckless behavior * Leaving the Scene of An Accident- leaving the scene of an accident without stopping to give the other driver information concerning license, registration, and insurance * Other Traffic Violations- Improper Backing, Turning, Passing, Ignoring Traffic Signals * Restoring Driving Privileges- Restoring driver's licenses
4. Elfenbein, Adam: As with all legal cases, a DWI defense must be analysed based on the specific facts of the case.Ê There are, however, certain issues which are always important: (a) What is the blood alcohol count (BAC)?Ê Certain BAC counts carry mandatory jail time if there is a conviction.Ê (b)Ê Are there prior offenses?ÊJail timeisÊsubstantiallyÊadverselyÊaffected by prior convictions.Ê (c)ÊWhy did the police stop you?Ê If you were stoppedÊbecause you were driving badly or, much worse, because you were in an accident, thenÊthat may substantially adversely affect amount of jail time.Ê (d) How did you act towards the police officer?Ê Always be polite to the police.Ê ÊÊ ÊÊ Also bear in mind that it is entirely possible to go to jail for a traffic infraction even if it does not involve drinking.Ê In Northern Virginia particularly, reckless speed and driving on a suspended license can each result in a jail sentence.
5. Jeffrey Jankovich: Protect Your RightsÑTalk to a Lawyer Immediately If you have been arrested or charged with DUI, you need immediate legal help. The clock is ticking and youÕll soon find yourself in court and at an administrative hearing facing the temporary loss of your driverÕs license. You may think thatÊthe deck is stacked against you and you might as well give up. While it is true that you are in for a fight, donÕt give up yet.
6. Jefferey Kleger: Experienced with both state and federal crimes, including: driving while intoxicated, drug and narcotic crimes, theft offenses, weapons crimes, domestic violence, assault, juvenile offenses and sex offenses.
7. Jonathan Short: More than ninety percent of the people in the United States over the age of sixteen are licensed to drive, and there is often more than one car registered for each licensed driver. This data translates into trillions of miles driven each year, and millions of traffic law offenses. The criminal justice system would quickly be overwhelmed if each offense required a full criminal adjudication. Accordingly, traffic law violations have been divided into three categories-felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions or violations-with the lesser offenses handled in a more informal manner. Although many traffic offenses may not carry the same stigma and penalties as other, more serious crimes, even the lower-level offenses can result in significant fines, loss of driving privileges, and increased insurance rates. And the more serious offenses, or even some less serious violations if they are part of a series of violations by the same offender, can result in imprisonment. Thus, traffic charges should not be taken lightly. Experienced traffic law attorneys can explain the possible consequences of the various violations and represent those charged with traffic offenses throughout the resolution of the matter, taking some of the mystery out of the process and increasing the chances of the least serious outcome.
8. Philip Rhodes: You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
9. Albo & Oblon LLP: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) (DUI and DWI are the same offense in Virginia, unlike in many other states). This area of law is surprisingly complicated. The law occupies 42 pages of the Virginia Code. How can a lawyer really win a DUI / DWI case? Aren't these cases straight forward? There are numerous defenses to many, many cases. While, superficially, many cases look similar to one another, the details are often different. If you really want to learn many of the latest defenses in detail, buy the manual that we helped write for other lawyers. You can find it at Virginia CLE. Ask for the "Defense of Serious Traffic Cases in Virginia" manual. THE BREATH TEST: If a chemical test showing blood alcohol in excess of 0.08 is admitted into evidence and unrebutted, the Defendant will normally loose. Thus, experienced defense attorneys spend most of their time attacking the tests, trying to find some flaw or problem in the way the test was administered so as to have the test excluded from trial. The results of a breath test can be admitted into court via a certificate which recites, among other things, the results of the test, the name of the breath test operator and his qualifications, and the date and time of the test. This is generally how the Prosecutor will submit evidence of the breath test. However, if the certificate is not used, the actual breath test operator may testify in person. The breath or blood test must be excluded from evidence, explained away, or shown to be incorrect. As to the certificate, the law states that a blood alcohol level certificate, to be admitted, must trustworthy and that any flaws be beyond "substantial compliance." In other words, there cannot be any significant mistakes on the certificate. Any defect could render it inadmissible. As to the chemical test itself, the test is very complicated. It involves many steps that the breath test operator must perform correctly. On top of that, the machine must work properly so that it can calculate the breath alcohol level according to a complex chemical reaction and mathematical analysis. It is beyond the scope of this guide to describe every single way that a test can actually be attacked. But lawyers spend a great deal of time examining the qualifications of the breath test operator, the condition of the testing machine, and the general test procedures. In appropriate cases, an expert witness is used to show that one's blood alcohol level was below the legal limit at the time of the driving and only rose above the legal limit after the arrest. THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND DRIVING BEHAVIOR: Usually, a trial will be the police officer's word against the defendant's word as to how the defendant performed on the field sobriety tests. The police officer will undoubtedly testify that the Defendant did poorly on the tests. The defense attorney concentrates on what the defendant did well. For example, the police officer may testify that the defendant on the "Walk and Turn" test did not put his heal directly in front of the toe. The defense attorney would counter by showing that even though he may not have put his heal in front of his toe, he was able to walk a straight line turn around and walk back. As to the driving behavior, not all driving behavior shows that a person is intoxicated. For example, just because a person is traveling very fast does not necessarily mean that he is intoxicated. People speed every day without having an ounce liquor or alcohol in their body. Also, swerving may be due to looking at a map or dropping something on the floor while driving.
10. Bose Law Firm: Driving under the influence and drunk driving are synonymous terms under Virginia law. The government has the burden of proving its case "beyond a reasonable doubt," the same standard applicable to 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. 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, Loudoun county. Driving under the influence and drunk driving are synonymous terms under Virginia law as set forth in the Code of Virginia: ¤ 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc. 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 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. ¤ 18.2-266.1. Persons under age twenty-one driving after illegally consuming alcohol; penalty. A. It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 21 to operate any motor vehicle after illegally consuming alcohol. Any such person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.02 grams or more per 210 liters of breath but less than 0.08 by weight by volume or less than 0.08 grams per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article shall be in violation of this section. B. A violation of this section shall be punishable by forfeiture of such person's license to operate a motor vehicle for a period of six months from the date of conviction and by a fine of not more than $500. This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under ¤ 46.2-391.2. The penalties and license forfeiture provisions set forth in ¤¤ 16.1-278.9, 18.2-270 and 18.2-271 shall not apply to a violation of this section. Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be eligible to attend an Alcohol Safety Action Program under the provisions of ¤ 18.2-271.1 and may, in the discretion of the court, be issued a restricted license during the term of license suspension. C. Notwithstanding ¤¤ 16.1-278.8 and 16.1-278.9, upon adjudicating a juvenile delinquent based upon a violation of this section, the juvenile and domestic relations district court shall order disposition as provided in subsection B. The government has the burden of proving its case against a defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is the same standard applicable to 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. 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 ¤ 18.2-266 or ¤ 18.2-266.1. 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 or ¤ 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. 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 government's case in chief in the drunk driving context although it is often enough proof of reckless 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 2. Walking a straight line, heal-to-toe in one direction, turning around, and walking back in the opposite direction 3. Standing on one foot 4. Reciting the alphabet 5. Counting, usually backwards, from one number to another The scientific evidence in a 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. Attorneys often 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. 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. ¤ 18.2-268.9. Assurance of breath-test validity; use of test results as evidence. To be capable of being considered valid as evidence in a prosecution under ¤ 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of ¤ 18.2-272, or a similar ordinance, chemical analysis of a person's breath shall be performed by an individual possessing a valid license to conduct such tests, with a type of equipment and in accordance with methods approved by the Department. The Department shall test the accuracy of the breath-testing equipment at least once every six months. The Department shall establish a training program for all individuals who are to administer the breath tests. Upon a person's successful completion of the training program, the Department may license him to conduct breath-test analyses. Such license shall identify the specific types of breath test equipment upon which the individual has successfully completed training. Any individual conducting a breath test under the provisions of ¤ 18.2-268.2 shall issue a certificate which will indicate that the test was conducted in accordance with the Department's specifications, the equipment on which the breath test was conducted has been tested within the past six months and has been found to be accurate, the name of the accused, that prior to administration of the test the accused was advised of his right to observe the process and see the blood alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test, the date and time the sample was taken from the accused, the sample's alcohol content, and the name of the person who examined the sample. This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis. Any such certificate of analysis purporting to be signed by a person authorized by the Department shall be admissible in evidence without proof of seal or signature of the person whose name is signed to it. A copy of the certificate shall be promptly delivered to the accused. Copies of Department records relating to any breath test conducted pursuant to this section shall be admissible provided such copies are authenticated as true copies either by the custodian thereof or by the person to whom the custodian reports. The officer making the arrest, or anyone with him at the time of the arrest, or anyone participating in the arrest of the accused, if otherwise qualified to conduct such test as provided by this section, may administer the breath test and analyze the results. DWI is a class 1 misdemeanor in the Commonwealth of Virginia. A first time offense is punishable by up to one year in jail and/or up to $2500 in fines. Additionally, Section 18.2-270 of the Code of Virginia mandates entry into ASAP (Alcohol Safety Action Program) and a one-year revocation of the defendant's drivers license upon conviction for a first time offense. The sentence parameters for a second and third offense of DWI are more severe. A third offense may actually be charged as a felony offense. Note that even for a first time offense, there is mandatory jail time for certain BAC levels. ¤ 18.2-270. Penalty for driving while intoxicated; subsequent offense; prior conviction A. Except as otherwise provided herein, any person violating any provision of ¤ 18.2-266 shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum fine of $250. If the person's blood alcohol level as indicated by the chemical test administered as provided in this article was at least 0.15, but not more than 0.20, he shall be confined in jail for an additional mandatory minimum period of five days or, if the level was more than 0.20, for an additional mandatory minimum period of 10 days. B. 1. Any person convicted of a second offense committed within less than five years after a prior offense under ¤ 18.2-266 shall upon conviction of the second offense be punished by a mandatory minimum fine of $500 and by confinement in jail for not less than one month nor more than one year. Twenty days of such confinement shall be a mandatory minimum sentence. 2. Any person convicted of a second offense committed within a period of five to 10 years of a prior offense under ¤ 18.2-266 shall upon conviction of the second offense be punished by a mandatory minimum fine of $500 and by confinement in jail for not less than one month. Ten days of such confinement shall be a mandatory minimum sentence. 3. Upon conviction of a second offense within 10 years of a prior offense, if the person's blood alcohol level as indicated by the chemical test administered as provided in this article was at least 0.15, but not more than 0.20, he shall be confined in jail for an additional mandatory minimum period of 10 days or, if the level was more than 0.20, for an additional mandatory minimum period of 20 days. In addition, such person shall be fined a mandatory minimum fine of $500. C. 1. Any person convicted of three offenses of ¤ 18.2-266 committed within a 10-year period shall upon conviction of the third offense be guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence of any person convicted of three offenses of ¤ 18.2-266 committed within a 10-year period shall include a mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days, unless the three offenses were committed within a five-year period, in which case the sentence shall include a mandatory minimum sentence of confinement for six months. In addition, such person shall be fined a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000. 2. The punishment of any person convicted of a fourth or subsequent offense of ¤ 18.2-266 committed within a 10-year period shall, upon conviction, include a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year. In addition, such person shall be fined a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000. Unless otherwise modified by the court, the defendant shall remain on probation and under the terms of any suspended sentence for the same period as his operator's license was suspended, not to exceed three years. 3. The vehicle solely owned and operated by the accused during the commission of a felony violation of ¤ 18.2-266 shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. After an arrest for a felony violation of ¤ 18.2-266, the Commonwealth may file an information in accordance with ¤ 19.2-386.1. If the information is filed, the Commonwealth shall notify the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles that the property is subject to seizure. The Commissioner shall act upon such notification pursuant to the provisions for certification and notice applicable to a seizure under ¤ 19.2-375, except that the Commissioner shall serve the written notice of the seizure upon the registered owner and lienor in accordance with the requirements of ¤ 8.01-296. Any seizure shall be stayed until conviction and the exhaustion of all appeals at which time, if the information has been filed, the Commonwealth shall immediately commence seizure of the property in accordance with ¤ 19.2-386.2. An immediate family member of the owner of any motor vehicle for which an information has been filed under this section who was not the driver at the time of the violation may petition the court in which such information was filed for the release of the motor vehicle. If the immediate family member proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his immediate family has only one motor vehicle and will suffer a substantial hardship if that motor vehicle is seized and forfeited, the court, in its discretion, may release the vehicle. In the event the vehicle was sold to a bona fide purchaser subsequent to the arrest but prior to seizure in order to avoid seizure and forfeiture, the Commonwealth shall have a right of action against the seller for the proceeds of the sale. D. In addition to the penalty otherwise authorized by this section or ¤ 16.1-278.9, any person convicted of a violation of ¤ 18.2-266 committed while transporting a person 17 years of age or younger shall be (i) fined an additional minimum of $500 and not more than $1,000 and (ii) sentenced to a mandatory minimum period of confinement of five days. E. For the purpose of determining the number of offenses committed by, and the punishment appropriate for, a person under this section, an adult conviction of any person, or finding of guilty in the case of a juvenile, under the following shall be considered a conviction of ¤ 18.2-266: (i) the provisions of ¤ 18.2-36.1 or the substantially similar laws of any other state or of the United States, (ii) the provisions of ¤¤ 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, former ¤ 18.1-54 (formerly ¤ 18-75), the ordinance of any county, city or town in this Commonwealth or the laws of any other state or of the United States substantially similar to the provisions of ¤ 18.2-51.4, or ¤ 18.2-266, or (iii) the provisions of subsection A of ¤ 46.2-341.24 or the substantially similar laws of any other state or of the United States. F. Mandatory minimum punishments imposed pursuant to this section shall be cumulative, and mandatory minimum terms of confinement shall be served consecutively. However, in no case shall punishment imposed hereunder exceed the applicable statutory maximum Class 1 misdemeanor term of confinement or fine upon conviction of a first or second offense, or Class 6 felony term of confinement or fine upon conviction of a third or subsequent offense.
11. John Zwerling: Pleading the Fifth may have a catch. Court considers whether suspects can be forced to hand over incriminating papers. It is a protection the Founding Fathers created to safeguard against potential abuses of overzealous government prosecutors. The basic idea is that the government may not compel a suspect to provide incriminating evidence against himself. Now, the US Supreme Court is considering whether to approve a significant exception to this fundamental constitutional protection. Specifically, the court will decide whether prosecutors can use a grant of immunity to compel the target of an investigation to surrender incriminating documents, and then turn around and use those same documents to indict the still-immunized target.