Find a DWI DUI Drunk Driving Lawyer in your state.

Fairfax DUI Lawyers

• Mark Yeager: After a defendant is convicted, he may file a motion for an acquittal. An acquittal is a formal certification of innocence or a finding of not guilty. Typically, the basis for filing a motion for an acquittal is that the evidence does not support the verdict.
• Thomas Haddock: A person commits the offense of criminal mischief when he or she intentionally or knowingly and without the consent of an owner: (1) damages or destroys the owner's property; (2) tampers with the owner's property, which tampering causes loss or inconvenience to the owner; or (3) makes markings, inscriptions, or drawings on the owner's property.
• Lopez, Meleen & Sprano: Whether a DUI Conviction Makes an Alien Eligible for Expedited Deportation The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits deportation of an alien convicted of an "aggravated felony," which can include "a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." In line with this provision, aliens convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in states which characterize a DUI conviction as a crime of violence have been subjected to automatic deportation, even if they have been legally residing in the U.S. for years. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently barred deportation of an alien convicted of DUI pursuant to the aforementioned INA provision. In November 2004, the Court held in Leocal v. Ashcroft that state DUI offenses that do not require proof of any mental state, or require only a showing that an individual acted negligently in operating the vehicle, are not crimes of violence for purposes of expedited alien deportation.
• Dominick Pilli: The U.S. Supreme Court has generally interpreted the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" to impose a warrant requirement upon police officers who wish to perform a valid search or arrest. However, the Court has carved out some exceptions to the warrant requirement, which make certain "seizures" constitutionally permissible in the absence of a warrant. One exception that the Court has recognized is for investigative detentions based on less than probable cause. In 1968, the Court established a notable exception to the warrant requirement in Terry v. Ohio for investigative detentions based on less than probable cause (i.e., sufficient reason based on known facts to believe a crime has been committed).
• Bevis Law Offices: Any weakness or flaw in the prosecution's case can and should be pressed to obtain a dismissal of the charge if possible, or in many cases a more favorable outcome than might otherwise be expected.
• Hale, Hassan, Carlson & Penn: ...the recent change in the law which took the choice of blood or breath test away from drivers (Va. Code 18.2-268.2) made a claim of physical inability to take a breath test relevant and material, and put the burden of going forward with such evidence on the defendant.
• Smith & Greene: The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that criminal defendants have a right to the assistance of counsel. Courts have interpreted this to mean that criminal defendants have a right to an attorney during all critical stages throughout the criminal process. In addition, before a defendant is permitted to proceed to trial without a lawyer, the challenges and dangers of doing so must be "rigorously conveyed" to the defendant.
• Cuccias Law Office: Since the Miranda decision, the Supreme Court has issued 40 to 50 decisions that are related to or clarify Miranda. Although one notable 2000 decision, Dickerson v. United States, placed the general validity of Miranda under the judicial microscope, most of these decisions have essentially carved out exceptions, allowing the admissibility of confessions where the general principles under Miranda would hold otherwise. For instance, in 2003, in Chavez v. Martinez the Supreme Court held that if a suspect makes a confession but is never actually prosecuted, there is no constitutional violation for failure to read the Miranda warnings.
• Ronald Smith: You have the right to be arraigned without unnecessary delay - usually within two court days - after being arrested. You will appear before a judge who will tell you officially of the charges against you at your first arraignment. At the arraignment, an attorney may be appointed for you if you cannot afford one, and bail can be raised or lowered. You also can ask to be released on personal recognizance, even if bail was previously set. If you are charged with a misdemeanor, you can plead guilty or not guilty at the arraignment. Or, if the court approves, you can plead nolo contendere, meaning that you will not contest the charges. Before pleading guilty to some first time offenses, such as drug possession in small amounts for personal use, you may want to find out if your county has any drug diversion programs. Under these programs, instead of fining you or sending you to jail, the court may order you to get counseling which can result in dismissal of the charges if you complete the counseling. If misdemeanor charges are not dropped, a trial will be held later in a General District Court of law. If you are charged with a felony, however, and the charges are not dismissed, the next step is a preliminary hearing.
• Mark Yeager: 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, or (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. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).
• Stephen Guss: If you have been accused of a criminal offense or have been arrested, your constitutionally liberty interests are at stake. You will want an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect those rights for you.
• MacDowell & Associates: One of the most often committed crimes is "Driving Under The Influence" (DUI).  Approximately 1.5 million people are convicted every year of this offense.  You should have no doubt that it is a serious offense and it can greatly affect your life.  A DUI offense can have long-term ramifications upon your employment, upon your insurability, and upon your quality of life for years to come. The Virginia statutes permit a jail term, and in many situations, such as a .20 BAC or above, or in accident cases you may be required to serve a jail term.  Under Virginia law, a twelve (12) month suspension of your right and privilege to operate a motor vehicle is mandatory.  However, you may receive a restricted operator's license to drive to and from work, to and from school, to and from medically necessary travel. Many people erroneously believe that there are no defenses to a DUI charge if their blood alcohol level is over the .08 presumptive level.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  There are hundreds of sound defenses and many cases are won if your legal representative carefully reviews the facts for your case.  At a minimum, you should always consult with an attorney.  It is important that you understand the long term ramifications of the case and the range of penalties for your particular case.
• Sris Law Office: Finding oneself involved in the legal system can be a stressful, frustrating and intimidating experience. An experienced and skillful attorney can provide the assurance and guidance necessary to successfully navigate the legal process. 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 (or judge) 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.
• Carter & Obregon: The basic thrust of the drunk driving laws is that they are to prevent operation of a powerful machine when a person is too intoxicated to have adequate control of the machine. The intoxication element is proven by one of two methods: (1) showing a certain level of blood alcohol or illegal drugs, or (2) showing that the person was impaired. The first method is the one most often used. It does not rely on anyone's observations of the defendant's conduct, but rather on the results of a blood or breath test. A common statutory scheme requires a person suspected of being drunk or drugged while driving to give a sample of his or her breath or blood for testing. This so-called "implied consent" comes about because the statute provides for it whenever a person gets a driver's license. Once the sample is given, it is analyzed by a machine that measures the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood. One common limit for blood-alcohol content is .10 percent, although in recent years there has been a push to lower that limit to .08 percent. Any person who tests over the limit is legally intoxicated. The only way to challenge the charge is to show that there was some failure in the test procedure, such as a malfunctioning machine, improper sampling, foreign substances in the mouth (in the case of a breath test), or improper preservation of the evidence. Proof of impairment may also be based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. This type of proof is based on eyewitness testimony, statements of the defendant, and circumstantial evidence. The actual amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is irrelevant, since the focus is on whether the ability to drive has been impaired. Standard police tests for impairment, called "field sobriety tests," include having the defendant walk a straight line with one foot placed precisely in front of the other, closing the eyes and standing with arms held out from the body and touching the tip of the nose when instructed, reciting the alphabet, and counting backwards. Other signs of impairment come from the officer's observations of the defendant's driving, which often lead to the stop. Driving too fast or too slowly, weaving from lane to lane, and going through stop signs have all been used as evidence of impairment. A statement by a driver about how much he or she had to drink, and how recently, can also be used as evidence of impairment when supported by testimony about the probable effects of that amount of alcohol ingested at that time on a person's physical abilities.
• Lance Gardner: There is not a bright-line rule establishing precisely what is and what isn`t probable cause. However, what has become apparent is that a finding of probable cause requires objective facts indicating a likelihood of criminal activity. A police officers hunch, with nothing more, will not satisfy the requirements.
• Edward Gross: Edward Gross & Associates, P.C. represents clients in the State and Federal Traffic Courts of Northern Virginia. Our goal is to vigorously defend and protect our clients' legal rights. We work with experts, including toxicologists. Traffic defense has been a regular part of the law firm's practice since 1980. We understand the Federal, State and Local statutes and attend Continuing Legal Education classes to stay current with the law.
• Timothy McGary: The DWI laws are lengthy and complex. They prescribe a set of procedures to which the police must "substantially comply" or the case could be lost. An attorney who deals with these laws on a regular basis is familiar with these procedures, and knows what to do when they are not followed.
• Scott Nolan: For a driver over the age of twenty-one in Virginia, there is a legal presumption that if your blood alcohol content is above .08%, you are intoxicated. However, When your blood alcohol level is between .05% and .08%, you may still be convicted of DWI. In this case, the blood alcohol level is just one piece of evidence that the court may consider, along with others, such as the testimony of the arresting police officer.
• Michael Rieger: If your case involves a possibility of imprisonment, loss of license privileges, or a large fine, it is recommended that an attorney is absolutely necessary to protect you and your interests. A qualified attorney can assist you in all stages of your criminal or traffic defense. An attorney can help you decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty, prepare you and all necessary witnesses, investigate all facts about your case, and help you decide how to best proceed. Whether your plea is guilty or not guilty, an attorney can decide how best to defend your case, put all appropriate facts into evidence, possibly work out an agreement with the prosecutor, and ensure that all relevant circumstances are presented to the judge for maximum benefit to your case.
• Richard Camaur: Under Virginia Code §18.2-268.9, a chemical analysis of a person's breath must be performed by an individual who is licensed to conduct a breathalyser test. This licensing requirement includes all police officers monitoring our roadways who administer a "road-side" breathalyser test. The equipment must be approved by the Division of Forensic Science of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. This Division is also responsible for testing the accuracy of the breath-testing equipment at least once every six months. The statute mandates that all individuals who administer the breathalyser tests must undergo a minimum of forty-hours of instruction on the operation of the equipment and administration of the tests.
• James Fisher: Virginia's current minimum Blood Alcohol Level, which implicates drunk driving charges (or Driving While Intoxicated)  is .08.  Scientific authorities suggest that one can reach this level fairly soon, thus it is always better to plan ahead and designate a sober driver for your evening if alcoholic beverages are on the evenings agenda.
• Surovell Markle Isaacs & Levy PLC: DWI has become one of the most problematic offenses one can be charged with today. Depending on your weight, you can reach a .08 blood-alcohol-content (B.A.C.) by consuming less drinks than you may think. DWI's carry a seven-day administrative license suspension if you test a .08 B.A.C. on a breathalyzer and a mandatory one-year license suspension if you are convicted for a first offense. After that, one faces fines and possible jail time, not to mention the difficulty in obtaining a restricted license. As of July 1999, a third DWI within ten years is now a felony! These consequences do not begin to even approach the thousands and thousands of dollars of insurance expenses and headaches a DWI conviction causes over the ensuing years.