Posts Tagged ‘Dwi Attorneys’

George pleaded guilty to his fourth DWI in 10 years, assault on a police officer and driving on a revoked license. Loudoun Circuit Court Judge James Chamblin imposed the four-year sentence.

A DWI offense is a very serious crime.

The SRIS Law Group Virginia DWI attorneys can defend you against any type of DWI charge.

Our Virginia DWI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of DWI charge.

Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia DWI lawyer in Virginia.

Tweet This Post

Defendant charged with DWI under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1)

Defendant charged with DWI under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) had no Sixth Amendment right to jury trial because § 4.23(a)(1) was petty offense, that defendant would have been subjected to additional penalties if he had been charged under Virginia’s recidivism statutes was irrelevant, and possible aggregation of penalties did not render offense serious.

A DWI offense is a very serious crime.

The SRIS Law Group Virginia DWI attorneys can defend you against any type of DWI charge.

Our Virginia DWI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of DWI charge.

Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia DWI lawyer in Virginia.

Tweet This Post

Plaintiff’s 30-day period of administrative license revocation

Where plaintiff’s 30-day period of administrative license revocation did not constitute a criminal punishment, his later prosecution on the charges of driving while impaired was not enjoined due to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

A DWI offense is a very serious crime.

The SRIS Law Group Maryland DWI attorneys can defend you against any type of DWI charge.

Our Maryland DWI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of DWI charge.

Contact a SRIS Law Group Maryland DWI lawyer in Maryland.

Tweet This Post

Virginia DUI Lawyers

Defending DUI Cases in Virginia

Virginia State & Virginia Federal Courts

Free Initial Confidential Consultation

SRIS, P.C. Virginia DUI/DWI defense lawyers defend clients charged with Virginia DUI/DWI Charges in Virginia State & Federal Courts

FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS/COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS/LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

A night out on the town can turn into your worst nightmare. Doesn’t matter whether it is called a Virginia DUI (driving under the influence), Virginia DWI (driving while intoxicated) or drunk driving.

If you have been charged with a DUI in Virginia, you life is going to be in turmoil. It starts with a night in jail and an administrative suspension of your license for seven (7) days and that is only the beginning.

Now you are faced with the prospect of finding a Virginia DUI lawyer who is capable of defending you and making sure you don’t become just another DUI conviction.

The Virginia DUI/DWI attorneys of SRIS, P.C. are experienced Virginia DUI defense attorneys. Most of them are former prosecutors. One of the Virginia DUI defense attorneys is even a former Virginia State Trooper.

Another SRIS, P.C. Virginia DUI defense lawyers is a former federal prosecutor.

Consequences of a  DUI in Virginia:

A Virginia DUI is at a minimum a class 1 misdemeanor in Virginia. The maximum penalty for a Virginia class 1 misdemeanor is 12 months in jail, 12 months loss of your driving privilege in Virginia, $2500 fine and 6 points on your Virginia driving record. Virginia DUI State Law 18.2-266

On top of that you will have to attend and successfully complete a Virginia ASAP program & get an SR-22 high risk insurance.

Depending on how high your BAC was at the time of the offense, you may face mandatory jail time.

A conviction for a DUI may result also in the loss of your security clearance and if you drive for a living (truck drivers who possess a CDL), you may even loose your job.

When you are facing all these possibilities, you cannot afford to take a chance on the choice of your Virginia DUI defense attorney.

You need a Virginia DUI defense law firm that has the experience and trial skills to defend you. SRIS, P.C. is that firm.

From the moment you talk to one of our Virginia DUI defense attorneys, you can be rest assured you are talking to experienced Virginia DUI attorneys.

SRIS, P.C. is not a “one man” law firm pretending to be a Virginia DUI defense law firm. Learn more about our DUI/DWI defense attorneys.

Were you charged with a DWI on the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Fort Meyer, Quantico, Fort Belvoir, Fort Lee, Fort Eustis or Fort A.P. Hill?

Then you have been charged with a federal DWI case and it is essential that you get the help of an experienced federal DWI / DUI defense lawyer. A DUI in US District Court is a lot more serious than an DUI in state court.

Our Virginia DUI defense team is made up of experienced Virginia DUI lawyers who know how to defend a DUI in Virginia.

Our DUI attorneys understand that due to the stress of a Virginia DUI charge, you need a Virginia DUI lawyer who is going to be available to respond to you quickly.

At the Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., our dui attorneys in Virginia will do their very best to return all calls within eight (8) hours.

The (VA) Virginia DUI attorneys of SRIS, P.C. represent clients throughout Virginia state courts & Virginia federal courts including but not limited to:

Arlington County, VA, Alexandria City, Albermarle, Amherst, Bedford, Botetourt, Centreville, Gainesviile, Caroline County, Chesapeake, Charlottesville, Charlotte, Chesterfield, Centreville, Dinwiddie, Fairfax County, VA, Fredericksburg, Gloucester, Spotsylvania, VA, New Kent County, Norfolk, Newport News, Glen Allen, Halifax, Henrico County, Hopewell, Hampton, Harrisonburg, Amelia, Fluvanna, Hanover, Goochland, Quantico, VA, Fort Myer, Fort Belvoir, Fort Lee, Fort Eustis, Fort A.P. Hill, Franklin, Fauquier, Montgomery, Nelson, Prince William, Powhatan, Leesburg, Louisa, Lynchburg, Loudoun County, Manassas, Petersburg, Pittsylvania, Danville, Portsmouth, Prince George, Rappahannock, Richmond City, Roanoke, Radford, Stafford County, Southampton County, Shenandoah, Staunton, Sussex, Virginia Beach City, Woodbridge, Williamsburg, Alexandria Federal Court, Richmond Federal Court, Norfolk Federal Court, Newport News Federal Court, Roanoke Federal Court, Abingdon Federal Court.

Tweet This Post

VIRGINIA DWI ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

VIRGINIA DUI ON MILITARY BASES

If you have been charged with a DUI or DWI on federal land such as the George Washington (GW) Memorial Parkway, Blueridge Parkway or on Fort Meyer, Quantico or Fort Belvoir or on any other military base, you need a Virginia DUI lawyer who is experienced in handling drunk driving offenses in federal court.

The Virginia DUI attorney you contemplate retaining to assist you must be experienced in handling criminal and traffic matters and also must be familiar with the federal  courts such as Alexandria Federal Court, Roanoke Federal Court, Abingdon Federal Court, Norfolk Federal Court & Richmond Federal Court.

 The Virginia DUI & DWI defense attorneys of SRIS, P.C. have offices in Fairfax, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Virginia Beach.

Our Virginia DUI & DWI attorneys of SRIS, P.C. concentrate on DUI & DWI defense.

If you wish to consult a SRIS, P.C. Virginia DUI attorney or DWI lawyer, please simply contact us via phone or by filling out our on-line form.

A Virginia DUI lawyer or DWI attorney of SRIS, P.C. will gladly consult with you regarding your matter.

You can meet us at one of our offices in Virginia.

• FREDERICKSBURG
• FAIRFAX
• RICHMOND
• MANASSAS
• VIRGINIA BEACH
• LYNCHBURG

Tweet This Post

Virginia DUI Laws

VIRGINIA DUI LAWYER & DWI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

WE REPRESENT CLIENTS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS

Virginia DUI & DWI laws Information Page

Welcome to the Virginia DUI & DWI laws Information Center, sponsored by SRIS, P.C. The Virginia DUI & DWI defense attorneys of SRIS, P.C. have offices in Fairfax, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond, Virginia Beach. Our Virginia DUI & DWI attorneys of SRIS, P.C. concentrate on DUI & DWI defense.

If you wish to consult a SRIS, P.C. DUI attorney or DWI lawyer, please simply contact us via e-mail, phone, or by filling out our on-line form. A DUI lawyer or DWI attorney of SRIS, P.C. will gladly consult with you regarding your matter.

FAIRFAX OFFICE:
4008 Williamsburg Court
Fairfax, Virginia 22032
Phone: (703) 278-0405

RICHMOND OFFICE:
7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Phone: (804) 201-9009

MANASSAS OFFICE:
8551 Sudley Road
Manassas, Virginia 20110
Phone: (703) 278-0405

VIRGINIA BEACH OFFICE:
900 Commonwealth Pl, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464
Phone: (757) 512-5002

LYNCHBURG OFFICE:
102 Oakley Ave.
Lynchburg, Virginia 24501
Phone: (434) 509-4004

To obtain a general overview of DUI, and DWI defense, please click here

To learn more about the laws pertaining to DUI, OUI, and DWI defense in Maryland or Massachusetts, please click on the state.

Special Note: If you have been charged with a DUI or DWI on federal land such as the George Washington (GW) Memorial Parkway, or on Fort Meyer, Quantico or Fort Belvoir or on any other military base, you need a Virginia DUI lawyer who is experienced in handling drunk driving offenses in federal court. The attorney you contemplate retaining to assist you must be experienced in handling criminal and traffic matters and familiar with the federal system.

Please click on any of the State of Virginia Driving Under the Influence and Driving While Intoxicated Laws to learn more about them:

DUI LAWS: Adults

DUI Laws: Underage Possession & Penalties

Laws of Virginia driving under the influence of alcohol

DUI laws: Adult (top)

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Drugs (DUI)

Penalties

Transporting Children While Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Vehicle Impoundment

Administrative License Revocation

Open Container

VA Code §18.2-266 – DUI of Alcohol and Drugs. (top)

When operating a motor vehicle, boat or water craft in Virginia, you are legally considered driving or operating under the influence if your blood alcohol content (BAC) is 0.08% or higher. You may be considered under the influence with a lower BAC if your ability to operate a motor vehicle, boat or water craft is impaired. If your driving is affected because your are under the influence of any drug, you may face the same penalty as driving under the influence of alcohol.

VA Code § 18.2-270 – DUI Penalties (top)

A second DUI offense within five years in Virginia carries a mandatory jail sentence of at least five days and up to 30 days. A third DUI offense will be prosecuted as a 6 felony. If your BAC is 0.20% or higher at the time of the first or second offense, you face additional mandatory jail time.

VA Code § 18.2-270 – Transporting Children While Driving Under the Influence. (top)

You are subject to a extra penalty in Virginia if you have children under age 18 in the motor vehicle when you are driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There is an additional fine of up to $1000 and up to 80 hours of community service for second conviction.

VA Code § 46.2-301.1 – Vehicle Impoundment (top)

The vehicle you are driving in Virginia will be immediately impounded or immobilized for 30 days if you are caught driving after your license has been suspended for an alcohol-related offense. The court can impound the vehicle for an additional 90 days following conviction. The owner of the vehicle may petition the court for release of the vehicle. Anyone who knowingly permits operation of their motor vehicle by a person known to have a revoked or suspended license for an alcohol-related offense can be charged with a 1 misdemeanor.

VA Code §46.2-391.2- Administrative License Revocation (top)

Your driver’s license in Virginia will be automatically revoked by the arresting officer for seven days if your BAC is 0.08% or higher or if you refuse to take a breath test. You no longer have the option of requesting a blood test instead of a breath test for an alcohol related offense.

VA Code §18.2-323.1 – Open Container (top)

You may be charged with drinking while operating with an open container of alcohol in Virginia if your are stopped by law enforcement and you have an open container of alcohol in the passenger compartment and the contents have been partially removed, and you exhibit signs that you have been drinking. The passenger area means the area designed to seat the driver and passengers and any area within the driver’s reach, including an unlocked glove compartment.

DUI Laws: Underage Possession & Penalties (top)

Equal Penalties

Zero Tolerance for Under 21

Ignition Interlock System

Persons to Whom Alcoholic Beverage May Not Be Sold

Underage Possession of Alcohol

Purchase Alcohol for Underage Persons

Drinking/Possessing Alcohol on School Grounds

Misrepresentation of Age

VIRGINIA IS TOUGH – on underage drinkers driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Now more than ever, Virginia school officials and college campus police are enforcing the law on underage possession of alcohol. A conviction for underage possession in Virginia can result in any or all of the following possible consequences. Suspension from the academic institution, expulsion or disciplinary actions, etc. Also, a conviction for underage possession in Virginia can result in car insurance rates being raised for the convicted individual. Some car insurance companies are raising the rates of car insurance as high as $5000 per year for those who are convicted of underage possession. Please contact a Virginia lawyer of the Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. to determine what options you have if you are charged with underage possession in Virginia.

Virginia Code §18.2-266.1 – Equal Penalties (top)

Persons under age 21 who drive while under the influence of drugs or with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher in Virginia are subject to the same penalties as persons age 21 or older.

Virginia Code §18.2-266.1 – Zero Tolerance for Under 21 (top)

If your are under age 21 in Virginia, and you drive with a BAC of at least 0.02% but less than 0.08% in Virginia, you will receive a fine of up to $500 and a six-month driver’s license suspension.

Virginia Code §18.2-270.1 – Ignition Interlock System (top)

If convicted of a second DUI offense within five years of a first offense in Virginia, you will lose your license for three years. You must use an ignition interlock for six months for more on every motor vehicle you own or co-own whether you apply for a restricted license (after one year) or a full license (after three years, applies to both adult and under 21)

Virginia Code §4.1-304 – Persons to Whom Alcoholic Beverage May Not Be Sold (top)

If you sell alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in Virginia, you are subject to a fine up to $2,500 and 12 months in jail.

Virginia Code §4.1-305 – Underage Possession of Alcohol (top)

If you are under age 21 and you are in possession of an alcoholic beverage in Virginia, you face a fine of up to $2,500 and 12 months in jail.

Virginia Code §4.1-306 – Purchase Alcohol for Underage Persons (top)

If you purchase alcoholic beverages for a person you know to be under age 21 in Virginia, you face a fine of up to $2,500 and 12 months in jail.

Virginia Code §4.1-309 – Drinking/Possessing Alcohol on School Grounds (top)

Drinking or possessing alcoholic beverages on public school grounds in Virginia can result in a fine of up to $1000 and six months in jail.

Virginia Code §4.1-305B – Misrepresentation of Age (top)

If you are under age 21 in Virginia and you use or attempt to use an altered, fictitious or simulated document or student ID to establish a false age in an attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages you will:

be fined at least $500 but not over $2,500

be required to perform at least 50 hours of community service

face up to 12 months in jail, and

be subject to suspension of your driver’s license for up to 12 months

Query: Laws of Virginia driving under the influence of alcohol (top)

Penalty for driving while intoxicated; subsequent offense; prior conviction

Penalty for driving while intoxicated in Virginia; subsequent offense; prior conviction

Court or jury may consider defendant’s prior traffic record before sentencing

Refusal of tests; penalties; procedures

Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood

Presumptions from alcohol or drug content of blood

Transmission of blood test samples; use as evidence

Forfeiture of driver’s license for driving while intoxicated

Administrative suspension of license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle

Refusal of tests; issuance of out-of-service orders; disqualification

A person who 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 in Virginia as indicated by a chemical test administered is under the influence of alcohol,

VA Code § 18.2-270. Penalty for driving while intoxicated; subsequent offense; prior conviction (top)

Offense

Sentence of confinement

Mandatory minimum confinement

Mandatory minimum fine

1st DUI in Virginia

Class 1 misdemeanor

BAC 0.15 – 0.20

Five days

$250

BAC More than 0.20

10 days

2nd DUI

within less

than 5 years

Not less than 1 month nor more than 1 year

Twenty days

BAC 0.15 – 0.20 additional period of 10 days

$500

BAC More than 0.20

Additional period of 20 days

2nd DUI in Virginia

within 5- 10

For not less than one month

Ten days

BAC 0.15 – 0.20 additional period of 10 days

$500,

BAC More than 0.20

Additional period of 20 days

Class 6 felony

3rd DUI in Virginia

committed

within 10 years

90 days

3rd DUI in Virginia

Committed

within 5-years

6 months

$1,000

4th or

subsequent DUI in Virginia offense within 10-

years

otherwise modified by the court, 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 3 years.

one year

$1,000

VA Code § 18.2-270. Penalty for driving while intoxicated in Virginia; subsequent offense; prior conviction (top)

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 first 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 first 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 first 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.
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 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.

VA Code § 46.2-943. Court or jury may consider defendant’s prior traffic record before sentencing (top)

The term “traffic offense” when used in this section shall mean any moving traffic violation described or enumerated in subdivisions 1 and 2 of § 46.2- 382, whether such violation was committed within or outside the Commonwealth according to the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The term “prior traffic record” when used in this section shall mean the record of prior suspensions and revocations of a driver’s license, and the record of prior convictions of traffic offenses described in the foregoing provisions of this section.
When any person is found guilty of a traffic offense, the court or jury trying the case may consider the prior traffic record of the defendant before imposing sentence as provided by law. After the prior traffic record of the defendant has been introduced, the defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence limited to showing the nature of his prior convictions, suspensions, and revocations.

VA Code § 18.2-268.3. Refusal of tests; penalties; procedures (top)

A. It shall be unlawful for a person who is arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance to unreasonably refuse to have samples of his blood or breath or both blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood as required by § 18.2-268.2 and any person who so unreasonably refuses is guilty of a violation of this section.
B. When a person is arrested for a violation of § 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1 or, subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance and such person refuses to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for testing as required by § 18.2-268.2, the arresting officer shall advise the person, from a form provided by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court, that (i) a person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway in the Commonwealth is deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood, (ii) a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, (iii) the unreasonable refusal to do so constitutes grounds for the revocation of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of the Commonwealth, (iv) the criminal penalty for unreasonable refusal within 10 years of a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated or unreasonable refusal is a Class 2 misdemeanor, and (v) the criminal penalty for unreasonable refusal within 10 years of any two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated or unreasonable refusal is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The form from which the arresting officer shall advise the person arrested shall contain a brief statement of the law requiring the taking of blood or breath samples, a statement that a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, and the penalties for refusal.
C. The arresting officer shall, under oath before the magistrate, execute the form and certify, (i) that the defendant has refused to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for testing; (ii) that the officer has read the portion of the form described in subsection B to the arrested person; (iii) that the arrested person, after having had the portion of the form described in subsection B read to him, has refused to permit such sample or samples to be taken; and (iv) how many, if any, violations of this section, § 18.2-266, or any offense described in subsection E of § 18.2- 270 the arrested person has been convicted of within the last 10 years. Such sworn certification shall constitute probable cause for the magistrate to issue a warrant or summons charging the person with unreasonable refusal. The magistrate shall attach the executed and sworn advisement form to the warrant or summons. The warrant or summons for a first offense under this section shall be executed in the same manner as a criminal warrant or summons. If the person arrested has been taken to a medical facility for treatment or evaluation of his medical condition, the arresting officer may read the advisement form to the person at the medical facility, and issue, on the premises of the medical facility, a summons for a violation of this section in lieu of securing a warrant or summons from the magistrate. The magistrate or arresting officer, as the case may be, shall forward the executed advisement form and warrant or summons to the appropriate court.
D. A first violation of this section is a civil offense and subsequent violations are criminal offenses. For a first offense the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of one year. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.
If a person is found to have violated this section and within 10 years prior to the date of the refusal he was found guilty of any of the following: a violation of this section, a violation of § 18.2-266, or a violation of any offense listed in subsection E of § 18.2-270, arising out of separate occurrences or incidents, he is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor and the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of three years. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.
If a person is found guilty of a violation of this section and within 10 years prior to the date of the refusal he was found guilty of any two of the following: a violation of this section, a violation of § 18.2-266, or a violation of any offense listed in subsection E of § 18.2-270 arising out of separate occurrences or incidents, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of three years. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

VA Code § 18.2-268.2. Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood (top)

A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in § 46.2-100, in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance within three hours of the alleged offense.
B. Any person so arrested for a violation of clause (i) or (ii) of § 18.2- 266 or both, § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given. The accused shall, prior to administration of the test, be advised by the person administering the test that he has the right to observe the process of analysis and to see the blood-alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test. If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused.
C. A person, after having been arrested for a violation of clause (iii), (iv), or (v) of § 18.2-266 or § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance, may be required to submit to a blood test to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood. When a person, after having been arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266 (i) or (ii) or both, submits to a breath test in accordance with subsection B or refuses to take or is incapable of taking such a breath test, he may be required to submit to tests to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood if the law-enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs, or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

VA Code § 18.2-269. Presumptions from alcohol or drug content of blood (top)

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.

VA Code§ 18.2-268.7. Transmission of blood test samples; use as evidence (top)

A. Upon receipt of a blood sample forwarded to the Department for analysis pursuant to § 18.2-268.6, the Department shall have it examined for its alcohol or drug or both alcohol and drug content and the Director shall execute a certificate of analysis indicating the name of the accused; the date, time and by whom the blood sample was received and examined; a statement that the seal on the vial had not been broken or otherwise tampered with; a statement that the container and vial were provided or approved by the Department and that the vial was one to which the completed withdrawal certificate was attached; and a statement of the sample’s alcohol or drug or both alcohol and drug content. The Director shall remove the withdrawal certificate from the vial, attach it to the certificate of analysis and state in the certificate of analysis that it was so removed and attached. The certificate of analysis with the withdrawal certificate shall be returned to the clerk of the court in which the charge will be heard. After completion of the analysis, the Department shall preserve the remainder of the blood until 90 days have lapsed from the date the blood was drawn. During this 90-day period, the accused may, by motion filed before the court in which the charge will be heard, with notice to the Department, request an order directing the Department to transmit the remainder of the blood sample to an independent laboratory retained by the accused for analysis. The Department shall destroy the remainder of the blood sample if no notice of a motion to transmit the remaining blood sample is received during the 90-day period.
B. When a blood sample taken in accordance with the provisions of §§ 18.2- 268.2 through 18.2-268.6 is forwarded for analysis to the Department, a report of the test results shall be filed in that office. Upon proper identification of the certificate of withdrawal, the certificate of analysis, with the withdrawal certificate attached, shall, when attested by the Director, 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. On motion of the accused, the report of analysis prepared for the remaining blood sample shall be admissible in evidence provided the report is duly attested by a person performing such analysis and the independent laboratory that performed the analysis is accredited or certified to conduct forensic blood alcohol/drug testing by one or more of the following bodies: American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB); College of American Pathologists (CAP); United States Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); or American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT).
Upon request of the person whose blood was analyzed, the test results shall be made available to him.
The Director may delegate or assign these duties to an employee of the Department.

VA Code § 18.2-271. Forfeiture of driver’s license for driving while intoxicated (top)

A. Except as provided in § 18.2-271.1, the judgment of conviction if for a first offense under § 18.2-266 or for a similar offense under any county, city, or town ordinance, or for a first offense under subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train in the Commonwealth for a period of one year from the date of such judgment. This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.
B. If a person (i) is tried on a process alleging a second offense of violating § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, or any substantially similar local ordinance, or law of any other jurisdiction, within ten years of a first offense for which the person was convicted, or found guilty in the case of a juvenile, under § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 or any valid local ordinance or any law of any other jurisdiction substantially similar to § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 and (ii) is convicted thereof, such conviction shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train in the Commonwealth for a period of three years from the date of the judgment of conviction and such person shall have his license revoked as provided in subsection A of § 46.2-391. The court trying such case shall order the surrender of the person’s driver’s license, to be disposed of in accordance with § 46.2-398, and shall notify such person that his license has been revoked for a period of three years and that the penalty for violating that revocation is as set out in § 46.2-391. This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2- 391.2. Any period of license suspension or revocation imposed pursuant to this section, in any case, shall run consecutively with any period of suspension for failure to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken as required by §§ 18.2-268.1 through 18.2-268.12 or §§ 46.2-341.26:1 through 46.2- 341.26:11.
C. If a person (i) is tried on a process alleging a third or subsequent offense of violating § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, or any substantially similar local ordinance, or law of any other jurisdiction, within ten years of two other offenses for which the person was convicted, or found not innocent in the case of a juvenile, under § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 or any valid local ordinance or any law of any other jurisdiction substantially similar to § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 and (ii) is convicted thereof, such conviction shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train in the Commonwealth and such person shall not be eligible for participation in a program pursuant to § 18.2-271.1 and shall, upon such conviction, have his license revoked as provided in subsection B of § 46.2-391. The court trying such case shall order the surrender of the person’s driver’s license, to be disposed of in accordance with § 46.2-398, and shall notify such person that his license has been revoked indefinitely and that the penalty for violating that revocation is as set out in § 46.2-391.
D. Not withstanding any other provision of this section, the period of license revocation or suspension shall not begin to expire until the person convicted has surrendered his license to the court or to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to, and shall have no effect upon, any disqualification from operating a commercial motor vehicle imposed under the provisions of the Commercial Driver’s License Act (§ 46.2-341.1 et seq.).

VA Code § 46.2-391.2. Administrative suspension of license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle (top)

A. If a breath test is taken pursuant to § 18.2-268.2 or any similar ordinance and (i) the results show a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath, or (ii) the results, for persons under 21 years of age, show 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 or (iii) the person refuses to submit to the breath test in violation of § 18.2-268.3 or any similar ordinance, and upon issuance of a petition or summons, or upon issuance of a warrant by the magistrate, for a violation of § 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, or 18.2-266.1, or any similar ordinance, or upon the issuance of a warrant or summons by the magistrate or by the arresting officer at a medical facility for a violation of § 18.2-268.3, or any similar ordinance, the person’s license shall be suspended immediately or in the case of (i) an unlicensed person, (ii) a person whose license is otherwise suspended or revoked, or (iii) a person whose driver’s license is from a jurisdiction other than the Commonwealth, such person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth shall be suspended immediately. The period of suspension of the person’s license or privilege to drive shall be seven days, unless the petition, summons or warrant issued charges the person with a second or subsequent offense. If the person is charged with a second offense the suspension shall be for 60 days. If not already expired, the period of suspension shall expire on the day and time of trial of the offense charged on the petition, summons or warrant, except that it shall not so expire during the first seven days of the suspension. If the person is charged with a third or subsequent offense, the suspension shall be until the day and time of trial of the offense charged on the petition, summons or warrant.
A law-enforcement officer, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, shall serve a notice of suspension personally on the arrested person. When notice is served, the arresting officer shall promptly take possession of any driver’s license held by the person and issued by the Commonwealth and shall promptly deliver it to the magistrate. Any driver’s license taken into possession under this section shall be forwarded promptly by the magistrate to the clerk of the general district court or, as appropriate, the court with jurisdiction over juveniles of the jurisdiction in which the arrest was made together with any petition, summons or warrant, the results of the breath test, if any, and the report required by subsection B. A copy of the notice of suspension shall be forwarded forthwith to both (a) the general district court or, as appropriate, the court with jurisdiction over juveniles of the jurisdiction in which the arrest was made and (b) the Commissioner. Transmission of this information may be made by electronic means.
The clerk shall promptly return the suspended license to the person at the expiration of the suspension. Whenever a suspended license is to be returned under this section or § 46.2-391.4, the person may elect to have the license returned in person at the clerk’s office or by mail to the address on the person’s license or to such other address as he may request.
B. Promptly after arrest and service of the notice of suspension, the arresting officer shall forward to the magistrate a sworn report of the arrest that shall include (i) information which adequately identifies the person arrested and (ii) a statement setting forth the arresting officer’s grounds for belief that the person violated § 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, or 18.2-266.1, or a similar ordinance or refused to submit to a breath test in violation of § 18.2-268.3 or a similar ordinance. The report required by this subsection shall be submitted on forms supplied by the Supreme Court.
C. Any person whose license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended under subsection A may, during the period of the suspension, request the general district court or, as appropriate, the court with jurisdiction over juveniles of the jurisdiction in which the arrest was made to review that suspension. The court shall review the suspension within the same time period as the court hears an appeal from an order denying bail or fixing terms of bail or terms of recognizance, giving this matter precedence over all other matters on its docket. If the person proves to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the arresting officer did not have probable cause for the arrest, that the magistrate did not have probable cause to issue the warrant, or that there was not probable cause for issuance of the petition, the court shall rescind the suspension, or that portion of it that exceeds seven days if there was not probable cause to charge a second offense or 60 days if there was not probable cause to charge a third or subsequent offense, and the clerk of the court shall forthwith, or at the expiration of the reduced suspension time, (i) return the suspended license, if any, to the person unless the license has been otherwise suspended or revoked, (ii) deliver to the person a notice that the suspension under § 46.2-391.2 has been rescinded or reduced, and (iii) forward to the Commissioner a copy of the notice that the suspension under § 46.2-391.2 has been rescinded or reduced. Otherwise, the court shall affirm the suspension. If the person requesting the review fails to appear without just cause, his right to review shall be waived.
The court’s findings are without prejudice to the person contesting the suspension or to any other potential party as to any proceedings, civil or criminal, and shall not be evidence in any proceedings, civil or criminal.
D. If a person whose license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended under subsection A is convicted under § 18.2-36.1, 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, or 18.2-266.1, or any similar ordinance during the suspension imposed by subsection A, and if the court decides to issue the person a restricted permit under subsection E of § 18.2-271.1, such restricted permit shall not be issued to the person before the expiration of the first seven days of the suspension imposed under subsection A.

§ 46.2-341.26:3. Refusal of tests; issuance of out-of-service orders; disqualification (top)

A. If a person arrested for a violation of § 46.2-341.24 or § 46.2- 341.31, after having been advised by a law-enforcement officer (i) that a person who operates a commercial motor vehicle on a public highway in the Commonwealth is deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood or breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood, (ii) that a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, and (iii) that the unreasonable refusal to do so constitutes grounds for the issuance of an out-of-service order and for the disqualification of such person from operating a commercial motor vehicle, then refuses to permit blood or breath samples to be taken for such tests, the law-enforcement officer shall take the person before a magistrate. If he again refuses after having been further advised by the magistrate (i) of the law requiring blood or breath samples to be taken, (ii) that a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, and (iii) the sanctions for refusal, and declares again his refusal in writing on a form provided by the Supreme Court, or refuses or fails to so declare in writing and such fact is certified as prescribed below, then no blood or breath samples shall be taken even though he may later request them.
B. The form shall contain a brief statement of the law requiring the taking of blood or breath samples, that a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, and the sanctions for refusal; a declaration of refusal; and lines for the signature of the person from whom the blood or breath sample is sought, the date, and the signature of a witness to the signing. If the person refuses or fails to execute the declaration, the magistrate shall certify such fact and that the magistrate advised the person that a refusal to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken, if found to be unreasonable, constitutes grounds for immediate issuance of an out-of-service order prohibiting him from driving a commercial vehicle for a period of twenty-four hours, and for the disqualification of such person from operating a commercial motor vehicle.
C. If the magistrate finds that there was probable cause to believe the refusal was unreasonable, he shall immediately issue an out-of-service order prohibiting the person from operating a commercial motor vehicle for a period of twenty-four hours and shall issue a warrant or summons charging such person with a violation of § 46.2-341.26:2. The warrant or summons shall be executed in the same manner as criminal warrants. Venue for the trial of the warrant or summons shall lie in the court of the county or city in which the criminal offense is to be tried.
D. The executed declaration of refusal or the certificate of the magistrate, as the case may be, shall be attached to the warrant and shall be forwarded by the magistrate to the court.
E. Then the court receives the declaration or certificate together with the warrant or summons charging refusal, the court shall fix a date for the trial of the warrant or summons, at such time as the court designates.
F. The declaration of refusal or certificate under § 46.2-341.26:3 shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant refused to allow a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood. However, this shall not prohibit the defendant from introducing on his behalf evidence of the basis for his refusal. The court shall determine the reasonableness of such refusal.

The Virginia attorneys and Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., is located in Fairfax, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond and Virginia Beach but our sphere of activity is statewide.

Our Virginia DUI lawyers & DWI attorneys and staff speak various languages, including English, Tamil, Spanish, French, Arabic, Hindi, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Telugu.

For more information or to make an appointment with SRIS, P.C., please call, send an e-mail or complete the on-line form

We Are a Designated Debt Relief Agency under Federal Law. We Provide Legal Assistance to Consumers Seeking Relief Under the Bankruptcy Code.

Tweet This Post

MARYLAND TRAFFIC ATTORNEY

DEFEND CLIENTS CHARGED WITH DUI/DWI IN MARYLAND

Maryland DUI – DWI laws Information page

A night out on the town can take a fun night and turn it into one of the most horrible experiences of your life. Simply put, a night of drinking even in moderation can result in you having your first and only contact with the law. The experience will most likely leave you shaken and terrified. Our goal is to help you with information about some of the laws in Maryland regarding DUI & DWI.  If you think you still need help after reading this page and you probably do, then call us at 888-437-7747 or feel free to email us. We will get back to you the very same day within 8 hours, Monday – Friday. The Maryland DUI & DWI attorneys of of SRIS, P.C. have offices in Rockville & Baltimore . If you wish to consult a SRIS, P.C. DUI lawyer or DWI attorney, please simply contact us by calling our toll free number, via e-mail or by filling out our on-line form. A Maryland lawyer who is extremely experienced in handling DUI or DWI charges in Maryland will consult with you regarding your matter and advise you of your options. Call us today .

Note: Maryland parents of children whose children have been charged with a DUI / DWI / or underage possession of alcohol should be aware that courts are no longer treating people under the age of 21 who are consuming alcohol lightly. In fact, some institutions of higher learning are expelling students who are convicted of underage possession of alcohol.

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND OFFICE: Inner Harbor Center 400 East Pratt Street, 8th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone (240) 399-0304

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND OFFICE: One Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Phone: (240) 399-0304

To obtain a general overview of DUI, OUI, and DWI defense, please click here

To learn more about the laws pertaining to DUI, OUI, and DWI defense in Virginia or Massachusetts, please click on the state.

Maryland DUI / DWI Facts (top)

• What’s the difference in DUI and DWI?
• What about Breathalyzer Tests?
• What are Field Sobriety Tests?
• What are the Open Container Laws?
• What if you have Multiple DUI / DWI Convictions?
• What if your have a License Suspension in Maryland?
• What if you have a Occupational Licenses?
• Getting The Legal Help You Need
• At SRIS, P.C. we guarantee you the following:

The following are some of the State of Maryland Laws for DUI, DWI, and OUI offenses. Click on any of the following laws to learn more about them.

• Driving while under the influence or impaired
• Drinking while driving prohibited
• Alcohol or drug offenses; revocation
• Impoundment or immobilization of vehicles
• Other penalty; ignition interlock system
• Prohibited conduct
• Misrepresentation of age
• Underage possession
• Obtaining for underage consumption
• Furnishing for or allowing underage consumption
• Alcohol prohibited
• Maryland DUI / DWI Facts

MARYLAND LAWS

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-902. Driving while under the influence or impaired (top)

(a)(1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
(2) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while the person is under the influence of alcohol per se.
(3) A per son may not violate paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection while transporting a minor.
(b)(1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while impaired by alcohol.
(2) A person may not violate paragraph (1) of this subsection while transporting a minor.
(c)(1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while he is so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that he cannot drive a vehicle safely.
(2) It is not a defense to any charge of violating this subsection that the person charged is or was entitled under the laws of this State to use the drug, combination of drugs, or combination of one or more drugs and alcohol, unless the person was unaware that the drug or combination would make the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle.
(3) A person may not violate paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection while transporting a minor.
(d)(1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while the person is impaired by any controlled dangerous substance, as that term is defined in § 5-101 of the Criminal Law Article, if the person is not entitled to use the controlled dangerous substance under the laws of this State.
(2) A person may not violate paragraph (1) of this subsection while transporting a minor.
(e) For purposes of the application of subsequent offender penalties under § 27-101 of this article, a conviction for a crime committed in another state or federal jurisdiction that, if committed in this State, would constitute a violation of subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section shall be considered a violation of subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-903. Drinking while driving prohibited (top)

(a)(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) “Alcoholic beverage” means a spirituous, vinous, malt, or fermented liquor, liquid, or compound that contains at least 0.5% alcohol by volume and is fit for beverage purposes.
(3)(i) “Passenger area” means an area that:
1. Is designed to seat the driver and any passenger of a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in operation; or
2. Is readily accessible to the driver or a passenger of a motor vehicle while in their seating positions.
(ii) “Passenger area” does not include:
1. A locked glove compartment;
2. The trunk of a motor vehicle; or
3. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, the area behind the rearmost upright seat or an area that is not normally occupied by the driver or a passenger of the motor vehicle.
(b) This section applies to a motor vehicle that is driven, stopped, standing, or otherwise located on a highway.
(c) A driver of a motor vehicle may not consume an alcoholic beverage in a passenger area of a motor vehicle on a highway.
(d) Notwithstanding Article 2B, Title 19 of the Code or any other provision of law, the prohibition contained in this section applies throughout the State.

MD Code, Transportation, § 16-205. Alcohol or drug offenses; revocation (top)

(a) The Administration may revoke the license of any person who:
(1) Is convicted under § 21-902(a) or (d) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, while under the influence of alcohol per se, or while impaired by a controlled dangerous substance; or
(2) Within a 3-year period, is convicted under § 21-902(b) or (c) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person cannot drive a vehicle safely and who was previously convicted of any combination of two or more violations under:
(i) § 21-902(a) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or while under the influence of alcohol per se;
(ii) § 21-902(b) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol;
(iii) § 21-902(c) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person cannot drive a vehicle safely; or
(iv) § 21-902(d) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by a controlled dangerous substance.
(b) The Administration:
(1) Shall revoke the license of any person who has been convicted, under Title 2, Subtitle 5 of the Criminal Law Article, of homicide by a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, impaired by alcohol, or impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol, or a controlled dangerous substance; and
(2) May not issue a temporary license to drive for any person whose license has been revoked under item (1) of this subsection during an administrative appeal of the revocation.
(c) The Administration may suspend for not more than 60 days the license of any person who is convicted under § 21-902(b) or (c) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person cannot drive a vehicle safely.
(d) The Administration may suspend for not more than 120 days the license of any person who, within a 3-year period, is convicted under § 21-902(b) or (c) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person cannot drive a motor vehicle safely and who was previously convicted of a violation under:
(1) § 21-902(a) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or while under the influence of alcohol per se; (2) § 21-902(b) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol;
(3) § 21-902(c) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person cannot drive a motor vehicle safely; or
(4) § 21-902(d) of this article of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by a controlled dangerous substance.
(e)(1) In this subsection, “motor vehicle” does not include a commercial motor vehicle.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the Administration shall suspend for 1 year the license of a person who is convicted of a violation of § 21-902(a)of this article more than once within a 5-year period.
(3) On receiving a record of a conviction of a person for a violation of § 21-902(a) of this article more than once within a 5-year period, the Administration shall issue to the person a notice of suspension of the person’s license that:
(i) States that the person’s license shall be suspended for 1 year; and
(ii) Advises the person of the right to request a hearing under this paragraph.
(4) After notice under paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Administration shall suspend a person’s license under this subsection if:
(i) The person does not request a hearing;
(ii) After a hearing, the Administration finds that the person was convicted of more than one violation of § 21-902(a) of this article within a 5-year period; or
(iii) The person fails to appear for a hearing requested by the person.
(5) The Administration shall, within 90 days of the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension, issue to the person a notice, unless this notice requirement was waived at a hearing described in paragraph (4) of this subsection, that:
(i) States that the person shall maintain for not less than 3 months and not more than 1 year, dating from the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension, an ignition interlock system on each motor vehicle owned by the person;
(ii) States that the Administration shall impose a restriction on the person’s license that prohibits the person from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system for a period of not less than 3 months and not more than 1 year, dating from the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension; and
(iii) Advises the person of the right to request a hearing under this paragraph.
(6) After notice under paragraph (5) of this subsection, or a waiver of notice, the Administration shall order a person to maintain for not less than 3 months and not more than 1 year, dating from the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension, an ignition interlock system on each motor vehicle owned by the person and impose a license restriction that prohibits the person from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system if:
(i) The person does not request a hearing;
(ii) The Administration finds at a hearing that the person owns one or more motor vehicles and that no financial hardship, as described in paragraphs (7) and (8) of this subsection, will be created by requiring the person to maintain an ignition interlock system on each motor vehicle owned by the person; or
(iii) The person fails to appear for a hearing requested by the person.
(7) If the Administration finds at a hearing that maintenance of an ignition interlock system on a motor vehicle owned by the person creates a financial hardship on the person, the family of the person, or a co-owner of the motor vehicle, the Administration:
(i) Shall impose a restriction on the license of the person for not less than 3 months and not more than 1 year, dating from the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension, that prohibits the person from driving any motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system; and
(ii) May not require the person to maintain an ignition interlock system on any motor vehicle to which the financial hardship applies.
(8) An exemption under paragraph (7)(ii) of this subsection applies only under circumstances that:
(i) Are specific to the person’s motor vehicle; and
(ii) Meet criteria contained in regulations that shall be adopted by the Administration.
(9) If a person requests a hearing and the Administration finds that the person does not own a motor vehicle at the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension, the Administration shall impose a restriction on the license of the person for not less than 3 months and not more than 1 year, dating from the expiration of the 1-year period of suspension, that prohibits the person from driving any motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system.
(10) Each notice and hearing under this subsection shall meet the requirements of Title 12, Subtitle 2 of this article.
(11) This subsection does not limit any provision of this article that allows or requires the Administration to:
(i) Revoke or suspend a license of a person; or
(ii) Prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system.
(12) A suspension imposed under this subsection shall be concurrent with any other suspension or revocation imposed by the Administration that arises out of the circumstances of the conviction for a violation of § 21-902(a) of this article described in this subsection.
(f)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Administration may modify any suspension under this section or any suspension under § 16-205.1 of this subtitle and issue a restrictive license to a licensee who participates in the Ignition Interlock System Program established under § 16-404.1 of this title.
(2) The Administration may not modify a suspension and issue a restrictive license during a mandatory period of suspension described in subsection (e) of this section.
(g) When a suspension imposed under subsections (c), (d), or (e) of this section expires, the Administration immediately shall return the license or reinstate the privilege of the driver, unless the license or privilege has been refused, revoked, suspended, or canceled under any other provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law.

MD Code, Transportation, § 27-111- Impoundment or immobilization of vehicles (top)

In this section, “police department” has the same meaning indicated in § 25-201 of this article.

(b)(1) For the purpose of impounding or immobilizing a vehicle under this section, the police department may use its own personnel, equipment, and facilities or, subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, use other persons, equipment, and facilities for immobilizing vehicles or removing, preserving, and storing impounded vehicles.
(2) A police department may not authorize the use of a tow truck under paragraph (1) of this subsection unless the tow truck is registered under § 13-920 of this article.
(c)(1) As a sentence, a part of a sentence, or a condition of probation, a court may order, for not more than 180 days, the impoundment or immobilization of a solely owned vehicle used in the commission of a violation of § 16- 303(c) or (d) of this article if, at the time of the violation:
(i) The owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle; and
(ii) The owner’s license was suspended or revoked under § 16-205 of this article.
(2) Among the factors that a court may consider in determining whether to order an impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle is whether the vehicle is the primary means of transportation available for the use of the individual’s immediate family.
(3)(i) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle may not be ordered under this section, if the registered owner of the vehicle made a bona fide sale, gift, or other transfer of the vehicle to another person before the date of the finding of a violation of § 16-303(c) or (d) of this article.
(ii) The registered owner of the vehicle has the burden of proving that a bona fide sale, gift, or other transfer of the vehicle has occurred.
(d)(1) The registered owner of a vehicle impounded or immobilized under this section is responsible for all actual costs incurred as a result of the immobilizing of the vehicle, or the towing, preserving, and storing of the impounded vehicle.
(2) The court may require the registered owner of a vehicle impounded or immobilized under this section to post a bond or other adequate security to equal the actual costs of immobilizing the vehicle, or towing, preserving, and storing the vehicle, and providing the notices required under subsection (f) of this section.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police department that impounds a vehicle by taking the vehicle into custody or immobilizes a vehicle under this section promptly shall return possession or use of the vehicle to the registered owner of the vehicle on payment of all actual costs of immobilizing the vehicle, or towing, preserving, and storing the impounded vehicle, and providing the notices required under subsection (f) of this section.
(e) If a court orders the impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle under this section, the court shall provide for the execution of the impoundment or immobilization by a police department.
(f)(1) If a court orders the impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle under this section, the police department that executes the immobilization, or the impoundment by taking the vehicle into custody, shall, as soon as reasonably possible and within 7 days after the police department executes the court order, send a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing a postmark from the United States Postal Service, to:
(i) Each registered owner of the vehicle as shown in the records of the Administration; and
(ii) Each secured party, as shown in the records of the Administration.
(2) The notice shall:
(i) State that the vehicle has been immobilized, or impounded by being taken into custody;
(ii) Describe the year, make, model, and vehicle identification number of the vehicle;
(iii) Provide the location of where the vehicle is immobilized or the location of the facility where the vehicle is impounded;
(iv) Include the amount of the actual costs of immobilization, or towing, preservation, and storage of an impounded vehicle;
(v) Include the amount of the actual costs of the notices required under this paragraph; and
(vi) Provide that, if an impounded vehicle is not reclaimed as required under this subsection, within 10 days after the date specified in the court order, the impounded vehicle will be considered an abandoned vehicle and subject to the provisions of Title 25, Subtitle 2 of this article.
(3) If an impounded vehicle is not reclaimed within 10 days after the date specified in a court order under this section, the vehicle shall be considered an abandoned vehicle subject to the provisions of Title 25, Subtitle 2 of this article.
(g)(1) This section may not be construed to prohibit a lienholder from exercising its rights under applicable law, including the right to sell a vehicle that has been impounded or immobilized under this section, in the event of a default in the obligation giving rise to the lien.
(2)(i) A lienholder exercising the right to sell a vehicle that has been impounded or immobilized under this section shall notify, in writing, the police department with custody of the vehicle of the lienholder’s intention to sell the vehicle.
(ii) The notice shall be accompanied by copies of documents giving rise to the lien and shall include an affidavit under oath by the lienholder that the underlying obligation is in default and the reasons for the default.
(iii) On request of the lienholder and on payment of all costs required under this section, the vehicle shall be released to the lienholder.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, the rights and duties provided by law to the lienholder for the sale of collateral securing an obligation in default shall govern the repossession and sale of the vehicle.
(4)(i) The lienholder may not be required to take possession of the vehicle before a sale of the vehicle.
(ii) The proceeds of any sale shall be applied first to the actual costs of immobilization, or towing, preservation, and storage of an impounded vehicle, and the actual costs of the notices required under subsection (f) of this section, then as provided by law for distribution of proceeds of a sale by the lienholder.
(5)(i) If the interest of the owner in the vehicle is redeemed, the lienholder shall, within 10 days after the redemption, mail a notice of the redemption to the police department who impounded or immobilized the vehicle.
(ii) If the vehicle has been repossessed or otherwise lawfully taken by the lienholder and the time specified by a court order under this section has not expired, the lienholder shall return the vehicle within 21 days after the redemption to the police department who impounded or immobilized the vehicle.
(h) This section does not affect the requirements of Title 25, Subtitle 2 of this article regarding abandoned vehicles.

MD Code, Transportation, § 27-107. Other penalty; ignition interlock system (top)

(a) In this section, “ignition interlock system” means a device that:
(1) Connects a motor vehicle ignition system to a breath analyzer that measures a driver’s blood alcohol level; and
(2) Prevents a motor vehicle ignition from starting if a driver’s blood alcohol level exceeds the calibrated setting on the device.
(b) In addition to any other penalties provided in this title for a violation of any of the provisions of § 21-902(a) of this article (“Driving while under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of alcohol per se”), or § 21-902(b) of this article (“Driving while impaired by alcohol”), or in addition to any other condition of probation, a court may prohibit a person who is convicted of, or granted probation under § 6-220 of the Criminal Procedure Article for, a violation of § 21-902(a) or § 21-902(b) of this article from operating for not more than 3 years a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system.
(c) If the court imposes the use of an ignition interlock systems a sentence, part of a sentence, or a condition of probation, the court:
(1) Shall state on the record the requirement for, and the period of the use of the system, and so notify the Administration;
(2) Shall direct that the records of the Administration reflect:
(i) That the person may not operate a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system; and
(ii) Whether the court has expressly permitted the person to operate a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock system under subsection (g)(2) of this section;
(3) Shall direct the Administration to note in an appropriate manner a restriction on the person’s license imposed under paragraph (2)(i) or (ii) of this subsection;
(4) Shall require proof of the installation of the system and periodic reporting by the person for verification of the proper operation of the system;
(5) Shall require the person to have the system monitored for proper use and accuracy by an entity approved by the Administration at least semiannually, or more frequently as the circumstances may require; and
(6)(i) Shall require the person to pay the reasonable cost of leasing or buying, monitoring, and maintaining the system; and
(ii) May establish a payment schedule.
(d) A person prohibited under this section or Title 16 of this article from operating a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system may not solicit or have another person attempt to start or start a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system.
(e) A person may not attempt to start or start a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system for the purpose of providing an operable motor vehicle to a person who is prohibited under this section or Title 16 of this article from operating a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system.
(f) A person may not tamper with, or in any way attempt to circumvent, the operation of an ignition interlock system that has been installed in the motor vehicle of a person under this section or Title 16 of this article.
(g)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person may not knowingly furnish a motor vehicle not equipped with a functioning ignition interlock system to another person who the person knows is prohibited under subsection (b) of this section or Title 16 of this article from operating a motor vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock system.
(2) If a person is required, in the course of the person’s employment, to operate a motor vehicle owned or provided by the person’s employer, the person may operate that motor vehicle in the course of the person’s employment without installation of an ignition interlock system if the court or the Administration has expressly permitted the person to operate in the course of the person’s employment a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock system.

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-125- Prohibited conduct (top)

Possession of open container

(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, an occupant of a motor vehicle may not possess an open container that contains any amount of an alcoholic beverage in a passenger area of a motor vehicle on a highway.
(2) A driver of a motor vehicle may not be subject to prosecution for a violation of this subsection based solely on possession of an open container that contains any amount of an alcoholic beverage by another occupant of the motor vehicle.

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-113. Misrepresentation of age (top)

An individual may not knowingly and willfully make a misrepresentation or false statement as to the age of that individual or another to any person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages or engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, for the purpose of unlawfully obtaining, procuring, or having unlawfully furnished an alcoholic beverage to an individual.

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-114. Underage possession (top)

An individual under the age of 21 years may not possess or have under the individual’s charge or control an alcoholic beverage unless the individual is a bona fide employee of the license holder as defined in Article 2B, § 1-102 of the Code and the alcoholic beverage is in the possession or under the charge or control of the individual in the course of the individual’s employment and during regular working hours.

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-116. Obtaining for underage consumption (top)

An individual may not obtain an alcoholic beverage from any person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption by another who the individual obtaining the beverage knows is under the age of 21 years.

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-117. Furnishing for or allowing underage consumption (top)

Prohibited–Furnishing alcohol

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person may not furnish an alcoholic beverage to an individual if:
(1) the person furnishing the alcoholic beverage knows that the individual is under the age of 21 years; and
(2) the alcoholic beverage is furnished for the purpose of consumption by the individual under the age of 21 years.

Prohibited–Allowing possession or consumption of alcohol

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, an adult may not knowingly and willfully allow an individual under the age of 21 years actually to possess or consume an alcoholic beverage at a residence, or within the curtilage of a residence that the adult owns or leases and in which the adult resides.

Exceptions

(c)(1) The prohibition set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the person furnishing the alcoholic beverage and the individual to whom the alcoholic beverage is furnished:
(i) are members of the same immediate family, and the alcoholic beverage is furnished and consumed in a private residence or within the curtilage of the residence; or
(ii) are participants in a religious ceremony.
(2) The prohibition set forth in subsection (b) of this section does not apply if the adult allowing the possession or consumption of the alcoholic beverage and the individual under the age of 21 years who possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage:
(i) are members of the same immediate family, and the alcoholic beverage is possessed and consumed in a private residence, or within the curtilage of the residence, of the adult; or
(ii) are participants in a religious ceremony.

MD Code, Education,§ 26-103. Alcohol prohibited (top)

(a)(1) Unless locally approved by the county board of education, a person may not drink or possess any alcoholic beverage on the premises of any public school .
(2) A person who drinks or possesses any alcoholic beverage and causes a public disturbance at any elementary or secondary school athletic contest may not refuse to comply with a request by a law enforcement officer to stop drinking and causing the public disturbance. If the person complies with the first request, he may not be charged under this paragraph.
(b)(1) Any person under 18 years of age who violates the provisions of this section shall be issued a citation and be subject to the dispositions for a violation under Title 3, Subtitle 8A of the Courts Article.
(2) Any person 18 years old or older violating the provisions of this section shall be issued a citation and be subject to § 10-119 of the Criminal Law Article.

DUI & DWI & OWI in Maryland:

You’ve probably heard the terms DUI, DWI or perhaps even OUI. But what exactly do they mean?

“DWI” stands for “driving while impaired.”
“DUI” represents “driving under the influence.”
“OUI” is “operating under the influence.”

All three terms essentially mean the same thing: Operating a motor vehicle after consuming enough alcohol to register a specific blood-alcohol level.

Most states set the level at 0.10, although some states have or are considering lowering the level to 0.08. In Maryland, there are actually two blood alcohol level standards:

A blood alcohol level in Maryland of 0.08 or higher will result in a DUI (Driving under the influence) arrest. Having a BAC level in Maryland of 0.07 will result in an arrest for DWI (driving while impaired).

What’s the difference? (top)

DUI / DWI Penalties in Maryland

A DUI in Maryland (BAC of 0.08 or higher) carries with it a minimum of 45 days motor vehicle license suspension, a fine of up to $1,000, 12 points on your driving record and a possible jail term of one year. This is just for the first offense!

A DWI in Maryland (BAC of 0.07) is a slightly lesser offense. But only slightly. Your drivers license can be suspended for up to 60 days (no minimum) you can be fined up to $500, and receive a possible two month jail term. Plus you’ll get 8 points on your driving license.

Breathalyzer Tests (top)

In Maryland, taking a breath test is mandatory if the officer suspects you’ve been drinking and driving. If you refuse, that fact can now be admitted into court as evidence of DUI guilt. Even if you weren’t intoxicated, the law will treat you as if you were – with the same penalties applying.

Remember – in Maryland as in all the other states, driving is not a right but a privilege. The state can revoke that privilege for any legal reason it so chooses.

Field Sobriety Tests In Maryland (top)

A field sobriety test is used by an officer in Maryland to help determine if, in his or her opinion, you are under the influence of alcohol and should be arrested for drunk driving.

The officer may place you through a series of balance tests like walking an imaginary line or leaning back with eyes closed, coordination tests like counting on your fingers or touching a finger to your nose while your eyes are closed, or mental tests requiring you to recite the alphabet or count backwards.

If you fail these tests, it’s viewed as additional evidence of your guilt. Again in Maryland – taking these tests are not discretionary.

There are defenses to these field sobriety tests. In one such case, a police officer ordered an obese and disabled man to take a “walk and turn test.” The man failed. At trial, it came out the police officer had no idea that the test he gave was in direct contradiction of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) manual standards for overweight or physically impaired individuals. The defendant was acquitted.
Open Container Laws In Maryland (top)

Basically, open container laws mean just what they imply: You can’t have or posses any open alcoholic beverage container, or consume any alcoholic beverage in the passenger area of a motor vehicle. (Store that bottle in your trunk!)
Multiple DUI / DWI Convictions In Maryland (top)

Briefly, they aren’t very pretty. A second DUI in Maryland increases the fine to $2,000 and possibly two years in jail. A second DWI offense can cost you up to $500 in fines and a one year jail term.

If you strike out a third time in Maryland, you’re in a whole new world of hurt. Expect a mandatory jail term, a felony conviction on your records, a lengthy alcohol education program, the possibility of having an ignition interlock device attached to your car, and even more restrictions placed on your freedom and movements.

License Suspension in Maryland (top)

If you’ve been charged with a DWI or DUI in Maryland, you only have 10 days from the date of arrest to request a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) hearing. If you don’t request the hearing, or miss the ten day window of opportunity, your license will be automatically suspended.

Even if you were arrested in another state other than Maryland for a DUI or DWI offense, if you have a Maryland license, you’ll still need to get an MVA hearing to protect your driving privileges. Maryland is one of the 45 states sharing information about DWI and DWI arrests and convictions.

Occupational Licenses In Maryland (top)

In Maryland, you may still be able to get an “occupational license” even if your drivers license has been suspended. These are available under many different circumstances. The judge must find that an “essential need” exists, such as school or job commuting. The license is restricted as to routes, areas and times.

Getting The Legal Help You Need In Maryland (top)

As you see, DUI or DWI offenses in Maryland are nothing to fool around with. If you’ve been charged with Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Impaired, it’s essential you have competent and experienced legal help.

At SRIS, P.C. we guarantee you the following: (top)

There is no charge for the initial consultation with a DUI or DWI lawyer to discuss the facts of your case.
All costs, fees, and charges are made clear beforehand, so there are never any surprises or hidden costs later on down the line.
There is always a written retainer agreement, specifying all details and payments expected.

Hiring a DUI lawyer or DWI lawyer to defend a drunk driving case in Maryland is an important decision. There’s a lot at stake. We know no matter how many cases we’ve handled, or whom we’ve represented before, the only case that matters to you is yours.
You should feel comfortable with every aspect of your relationship with one of our qualified DUI or DWI lawyers, including the financial arrangements. A highly qualified DUI / DWI lawyer is just a toll-free phone call away.

The Maryland DUI attorneys and Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., are located in Rockville & Baltimore but our sphere of activity is statewide. Our Maryland attorneys and staff speak various languages, including English, Tamil, Spanish, French, Arabic, Hindi, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Telugu.

For more information or to make an appointment with SRIS, P.C., please call, send an e-mail or complete the on-line form.

We are a Designated Debt Relief Agency under Federal Law. We Provide Legal Assistance to Consumers Seeking Relief Under the Bankruptcy Code.

Tweet This Post

Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys Defending Clients Charged With Virginia (VA) DUI, Maryland (MD) DUI, Maryland (MD) DWI & Massachusetts (MA) DUI & Massachusetts (MA) OUI

The Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. has been defending drunk driving offenses in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts for many years. In the process of defending clients charged with a DUI in Virginia, DUI in Maryland, DWI in Maryland, DUI in Massachusetts or an OUI in Massachusetts our drunk driving defense attorneys have been asked a number of questions about DUI, DWI or OUI charges.

Our drunk driving defense attorneys have compiled a list of the most FAQs here in an endeavor to answer the questions we are most commonly asked. We hope you find this information and if you think that either you or a loved one needs the help from one of our Virginia DUI attorneys, Maryland DUI lawyers, Maryland DWI attorneys, Massachusetts DUI lawyers or Massachusetts OUI attorneys, please do not hesitate to call us. We are very experienced at handling DUI/DWI/OUI & DUID cases in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.

If you ever need to reach us, we have offices in Virginia, Maryland and Massachusetts in the following locations:

• Virginia Offices – Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Manassas, Richmond, Virginia Beach & Lynchburg.
• Maryland Offices – Rockville & Baltimore
• Massachusetts Office – Boston

You can also learn more about the attorneys who defend DUI cases by visiting our attorneys page.

The following are the most common questions and topics involving Driving Under the Influence:

• DUI (Driving Under the Influence)
• What Determines DUI?
• Defining “Under the Influence”
• Driving Is A Privilege – Not A Right
• Refusing to Take A Sobriety Test
• Constitutional Considerations
• Defining Driving
• “3 Strikes And You’re Out”
• Penalties for DUI Convictions
• What Exactly Is a Motor Vehicle?
• Defining a Highway
• Sobriety Checkpoints
• Field Sobriety Testing
• HGN Testing
• Divided Attention Testing
• Walk and Turn (WAT) Test
• One-Leg Stand (OLS) Test
• Alternative Testing Methods
• Drawing Blood & Consent
• Blood Test Search Warrants
• Invalidating Breath Tests

Here is a short discussion on each type of penalty:

• Fines
• Incarceration – Jail Time
• Attending DUI Classes or AA Meetings
• Community Service
• Home Monitoring Programs
• Suspension, Revocation or Restriction of Drivers License
• Restitution
• Ignition Interlock Devices
• Vehicle Impoundment
• Revocation vs. Suspension
• Prior DUI Convictions
• Implied Consent

DUI (Driving Under the Influence) in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

You probably know this as drunk driving. The legal definition is “driving a motor vehicle on a road or highway while under the influence of an intoxicating substance.” It sounds simple enough, but surprisingly there’s a large gray area involved.

What Determines a DUI in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts? (top)

There are several factors involved when determining if a person has been driving while drunk or under the influence.

• Was the person actually “driving” as defined by the law?
• What type of vehicle was the person driving?
• Was the person on a road?

And the most important factor:

• Was the person legally intoxicated?

This last point is central to determining if a person was indeed involved in a DUI, and presents the biggest challenges in both defending and prosecuting this offense.
DUI statutes (laws) try to overcome this “intoxication” issue by relying on devices that measure a person’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). The proof is in the numbers – if the device used indicates a certain BAC percentage is present, the person is presumed intoxicated.

Defining “Under the Influence” in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

This is the crux of the issue. “Was the driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs when operating or driving the motor vehicle?”

The exact standards used and laws governing DUI’s differ from state to state. However, regardless of the standard or law, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt the driver was violating the DUI law when driving the vehicle, and the amount of alcohol or drugs involved was enough to endanger him or her self or the public at large.

To establish guilt or innocence, witness testimony (including police officers) can be used, along with sobriety tests performed on the scene.

However, since witness observations are clearly subjective and could interfere with an effective prosecution, a DUI offense is often prosecuted under a per se statute, where the actual BAC level (.08 to 0.1 depending upon the state) determines whether or not the driver was “under the influence.” (Per se means that the act itself is inherently illegal, without the need for other verification.)

Thus if the BAC measuring device says you’re under the influence – that’s all that’s needed to prosecute.

If the measuring device does indicate a BAC level over the legal limit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove he or she was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

One way to do this is to prove the device or methods used to administer the blood alcohol test was inaccurate or faulty. The driver charged (defendant) can also introduce evidence, such as their own testimony or that of other witnesses, as well as chemical tests, that may rebut the presumption of guilt indicated by the BAC testing device.

Driving Is A Privilege – Not A Right in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

In most states, if you’re arrested for a DUI offense, your license may be automatically revoked or suspended. Since driving is considered a privilege and not a right, the state can basically suspend or revoke those privileges for any legal reason they so choose. Due process does require a hearing to determine whether sufficient cause exists to revoke or suspend a license to drive.

In fact, while a trial judge is authorized to revoke a person’s driving privileges, only the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is authorized to revoke the actual license.

Even though some state statutes try to blur this distinction, courts can only prohibit driving and may not actually suspend a license. However, once the court orders the defendant not to drive, the matter is all but moot. The defendant can be held in contempt of court if caught driving without an approved restricted license.

This confusion spills over to the arresting officer. It’s unclear whether a law enforcement officer may legally seize or confiscate a DUI offender’s license.

Most states do have statutes stating the DMV is authorized to suspend a driver’s license upon sufficient evidence that an offense has been committed for which mandatory revocation of license is required upon conviction.

The above point is not in dispute. It still does not authorize a policeman or other municipal law enforcement officer to seize a person’s driver’s license for a traffic offense in violation of a municipal ordinance or a rules-of-the-road violation.

Refusing to Take A Sobriety Test in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Since driving is a privilege, states have what is called “implied consent” laws. If you are granted a license, you implicitly give your consent to sobriety testing when suspected of drunk driving.

Generally speaking, refusing to take BAC test to determine if a driver is over the legal limit can have both civil and criminal consequences.

Refusing to take the test itself can be a separate criminal matter, as well as increasing the penalties for the original drunk driving offense.
Many states have codified the admissibility of evidence in an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. The language of one statute specifies:
“If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a chemical test, evidence of refusal shall be admissible in any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”
In other words, refuse to take the test and you are automatically presumed guilty.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of such provisions, state courts may modify or limit the law’s application based on state’s constitution or judicial interpretations.

One such court has actually restricted this automatic admission of refusal evidence to situations in which the DUI defendant denies being given the opportunity to take a chemical test, claims that the test results actually showed the defendant was not guilty, challenges to the actual testing itself or to the arresting officer’s credibility.

Also, some states dictate a person must be warned by the police officer beforehand of the consequences of refusing to take a sobriety test. If a warning wasn’t given, the refusal evidence would not be admissible. Frequently, the state’s implied consent statute determines if the refusal can be admitted as evidence or not.

Constitutional Considerations in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

There are two provisions at question here: A person’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and their right to due process

Not going into the complex (and sometimes convoluted) reasoning involved, the bottom line is this:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the admission of an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

The court stated the Fifth Amendment privilege only protects the individual from being compelled to provide evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, and does not apply to “real or physical” evidence. Blood alcohol test are considered real or physical evidence, and so do not receive protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Likewise, the Supreme Court ruled there is no coercion involved when an individual is arrested for a DUI drunk-driving offense and is requested to submit to a blood alcohol test.

A driver who has been arrested for a DUI drinking/driving offense has the “choice” of submitting to a blood alcohol test, which may yield incriminating results, or refusing the test and taking the consequences: License revocation and the admission of that refusal as evidence in a criminal trial.

Because a suspect does not have a constitutional right to refuse chemical testing, the DUI defendant cannot claim that a warning was constitutionally required.

In other words, it’s the classic “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” scenario.

(Even though the Fifth Amendment doesn’t protect the actual refusal to take the test, statements made by the defendant may be protected. In states where there is no specific statutory obligation concerning DUI testing, the defendant’s lawyer could successfully stop the defendant’s refusal to submit to field sobriety testing from being introduced as evidence in a trial. As we said, the law is both complex and convoluted!)

As mentioned, most states have made it a separate crime to refuse taking a blood alcohol test. The purpose of these laws is “to encourage all suspected drunk drivers to take the breathalyzer test…”

The penalties imposed as a result of a conviction for refusing the test are in addition to the penalties imposed of being convicted of the original DUI drinking/driving offense. Plus, by refusing to take the test – upon conviction, the penalties for the original offense may also be increased as a result (including mandatory jail time).

Even if the defendant if found NOT GUILTY of the original DUI offense, they can still be prosecuted for refusing to take the sobriety test!

Defining Driving in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

It might stand to reason that in order to be prosecuted for driving under the influence, one actually has to be driving the motor vehicle – or does it?

Driving is actually defined under two major categories: “Driving or Operating” and exercising some type of control over the vehicle even though it’s not moving.
Some considerations: What does it mean to have “domination or regulation” of a vehicle? Is keeping the vehicle stopped but with the motor still running count? Even though the vehicle isn’t moving, many courts have determined that actual physical control does include a person sitting in a motionless vehicle with the engine running. It’s even been held that sleeping in a car with the engine running fulfils the legal criteria for driving!
Some courts have even taken this to the extreme – upholding convictions and license suspensions where the person was just sitting in a vehicle and the engine was NOT running.
However, there are many jurisdictions where the law requires the person actually steering or exercising control over the vehicle while it was in motion. In fact, steering a towed vehicle has been determined by many courts to constitute “driving” under the law.

There are cases where a person has been charged with a DUI, even when they weren’t observed driving the vehicle. Single vehicle accidents are an example of this (like smashing your car into a tree, and then walking – or stumbling – away from the car before the police arrive.)

While the accused may not actually be operating the vehicle by the time officers arrive, the surrounding circumstances may point to that conclusion. (Sort of like that famous Presidential defense: What the definition of “is” is.)

Since the officer may use statements from the accused to determine if he or she was indeed operating the motor vehicle in cases where they were not directly observed doing so, it’s always best to say as little as possible.
Responsibility doesn’t always end with just the driver. Some statues extend the element of control to the owner or custodian of the vehicle as well. If the owner knows – or reasonably should have known – that a person had a BAC over the legal limit, and still allows them to operate the vehicle – the owner too can be charged with a violation of the DUI statutes.

There is one case where the law is unambiguous: Every time a driver is driving a vehicle on a road or highway, it is always held the driver is “driving,” “operating,” and “in control” of the vehicle.

Only when a vehicle is not actually moving under its own power, may a person raise the issue of whether or not he or she was “driving” or “in control” of the vehicle. Courts have developed a list of factors in determining whether the defendant was “driving” a motionless vehicle on public property.

1- Was the defendant conscious or unconscious?
2- Was the defendant asleep or awake?
3- Was it day or night?
4- Was the defendant trying to move the vehicle?
5- Was the defendant parked on private property or on a public road?
6- Was the defendant in the driver seat?
7- Were there other occupants in the vehicle?
8- Were the headlights on or off?
9- Were the windows up or down?
10- Was the defendant capable of driving the vehicle?

Essentially, the courts have held that while a someone may be in control of a vehicle and capable of driving it, they’re not technically “driving” if they’ve pulled the vehicle over to the side of the road to avoid driving under the influence. It seems courts have shown some compassion for defendants who’ve taken positive action to sober up and avoid a dangerous DUI situation.

“3 Strikes And You’re Out” in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

This trend in DUI sentencing increases the penalties for multiple offenders. Under these new laws, multiple offenses within 5 or 7 years are no longer misdemeanors – but treated as a felony. It’s even being considered by many states to eliminate the time period altogether – charging multiple DUI offenses as a felony during the defendant’s entire lifetime.

Penalties for DUI Convictions in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

If convicted for a DUI offense, the penalties can be quite severe. The stated purpose of these penalties is to reduce the number of drunk driving incidents, thereby increasing highway safety and reducing traffic fatalities. However, one unstated purpose is punishment, pure and simple. DUI punishment has become alarmingly strict over the past decade and only promises to become even more harsh.

Sentences may include fines, jail time, community service, restitution, suspension or revocation of the driver’s license and mandatory rehabilitation programs.

The punishment/s received depends upon a number of factors. However, in recent years state legislatures have passed minimum statutory penalties mandating specific sentences. These mandates take discretion out of the hands of a judge and imposes a standard, across the board penalty, regardless of the specific circumstances.

Other factors include the degree of discretion (if any) left to the judge, formal or informal sentencing guidelines, whether the defendant has any past convictions and the judge’s perception about whether the defendant is likely to commit further transgressions.

A qualified, experienced attorney is crucial during a DUI trial. Intimate familiarity with the penalties authorized or mandated by law, as well as the various sanctions that can be imposed is absolutely necessary for effective representation at sentencing.

Here is a short discussion on each type of penalty:

Fines in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Someone convicted of a DUI offense can expect to pay a fine of a few hundred to several thousand dollars. However, the real impact goes far beyond this payment. Insurance premiums are sure to rise, and a person may lose their job as well as a consequence of driving drunk. In some instances, divorce or other family issues come as a direct result of a DUI conviction.
There can be defenses to paying these fines however. Courts have ruled if a defendant does not have the resources to pay, the fine in question is excessive and therefore, constitutionally prohibited.

The Supreme Court has even ruled jailing an indigent defendant, where the offense would otherwise not be punishable by incarceration, solely because he or she is too poor to pay a fine violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Incarceration – Jail Time in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

A convicted DUI defendant may be ordered to spend time in jail. This can be from one day to several months in prison. Jail time may be increased if the defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test, fought with the arresting officer, has had prior DUI convictions or if someone has been victimized (hurt or injured) by the drunk driver offender.
Probation

If allowed by statute, a person convicted of a DUI offense may be offered some form of conditional probation. This is generally due to the massive overcrowding in the prison system, and not out of compassion for the defendant. Probation may be accompanied by restitution, fines, or repayment of court costs.
Because the stated point of probation is to foster and encourage rehabilitation, conditions that are neither reasonably related to that purpose nor necessary to the protection of public safety have been overruled as an abuse of sentencing discretion. Also, if the probationary period is greater than the maximum jail term a defendant could have received, that also has been held to be unlawful.

Attending DUI Classes or AA Meetings in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Alcohol rehabilitation programs (ASAP – Alcohol Safety Action Program) or treatments should absolutely be considered before sentencing for three very good reasons: First, the client may need it. Second, the sentencing judge may look more favorably upon a defendant who has taken positive, proactive steps to control his or her drinking problem. Three, a better suited treatment program may be established for the client’s individual personal and work-related needs.
If a defendant waits until after sentencing, they’ll be forced to accept the court’s recommendation, including frequency of visits and the specific facility to attend.

Community Service in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Unless it is manifestly unreasonable, community service has been held to be lawful as a condition of probation or suspension of sentence. Some state statutes allow for the performance of public work in lieu of restitution or jail time.

Statutes that permit community service require the court to set a specific number of hours of service the offender must perform, as well as performing the service under the eye of an appropriate agency. An experienced attorney’s help here is quite valuable, since they will know what programs are available and can make proper and timely recommendations to the court on their client’s behalf.

Home Monitoring Programs in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

This is where a person is sentenced to home confinement, rather than a jail cell. If permitted by statute, this saves the state large sums of money that would otherwise be needed to supervise, house, feed and clothe the inmate. There are various electronic devices to ensure the home confinement is followed, as well as any other specific monitoring guidelines (such as prohibitions on consuming alcohol).

Despite the obvious convenience and frugality of these systems, many states still refuse to use them.

Suspension, Revocation or Restriction of Drivers License in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

If a person is convicted for a DUI offense, one of the most common results will be a suspension or revocation of the person’s drivers license. In some cases a restricted driver’s license may be issued, allowing the convicted offender limited driving privileges, such as to and from work. These are generally limited to cases where “undue hardship” would result from failure to issue such a restricted driving permit.

Restitution in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

State laws regularly authorize restitution as a condition of probation. Restitution is an interesting legal concept. Since restitution is not a fine, its amount is not limited by the statutory maximum fine. Since it is not a debt, it’s not dischargeable in bankruptcy. And even though it’s not placed in the same category of civil damages, restitution payments already made may be off-set against a subsequent award of civil damages for the same act.

Courts vary as to the types of damages for which restitution may be ordered, and to whom it may be given; although there is general agreement that the defendant’s criminal act must have caused the loss. Out-of-pocket losses such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of wages and funeral expenses have all been upheld. The defendant may be required to pay interest on the restitution award if it is found he victim was actually deprived of the use of any money as the result of the defendant’s criminal offense.

Some states define “victim” to include any person who has suffered loss as the result of criminally injurious conduct. These statutes have allowed restitution payments for supporting a deceased victim’s dependents as well as to the victim’s parents. For the most part, courts are reluctant to order restitution to a third party without explicit authorization by law.

Courts require an inquiry into the defendant’s ability to pay before restitution is imposed. However, at least one court has held a restitution order imposed on an indigent defendant was not an unreasonable probation condition, since the defendant’s finances could improve during the probationary period and probation could not be revoked solely for nonpayment.

Ignition Interlock Devices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

These are additional sanctions imposed by some states, ordering some offenders to install an ignition interlock breath alcohol device on their cars. These devices require the driver to blow into a breath analyzer. The device tests for alcohol – and if an illegal amount is detected, the car won’t start.

Vehicle Impoundment in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Some state laws require the DUI arrestee’s vehicle to be impounded. This does pose problems with due process, since a person is still technically innocent until proven guilty. In some cases, upon conviction the vehicle may even be forfeited and sold at public auction, with proceeds going to the state. Impoundment is said to be on of the most effective punishments in stopping DUI defendants from committing similar transgressions – at least in that particular vehicle.

Revocation vs. Suspension in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Revocation and suspension go hand in hand with DUI convictions. Often confused as the same thing, they are distinctly different. For that reason, driving on a revoked license is a separate offense from driving on a suspended license. Revocation of a license is defined as “a formal action to terminate a license, which cannot thereafter be renewed or restored, but only replaced upon application for a new license.”

Suspension, on the other hand is less severe and results only in the temporary withdrawal of a person’s driving privileges.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is required to revoke a person’s license upon receipt of final conviction for the offenses of manslaughter or vehicular homicide resulting from operation of a motor vehicle, and driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Prior DUI Convictions in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

If prior DUI convictions exist, a prudent and experienced DUI lawyer will absolutely challenge them. A prior conviction must have met due process requirements: The rights to counsel, jury trial and confrontation of witnesses must have been fulfilled or have been knowingly and competently waived.

Implied Consent in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Under the implied consent law, any person operating a motor vehicle is deemed to have already consented to a DUI chemical test. The implied consent law serves as a means for gathering evidence against a DUI defendant. Although the implied consent law is legal, it fails to mask the law’s fundamental fallacy: That a driver’s mere presence on a state’s highway indicates an agreement to submit to a chemical test for drugs or alcohol upon the lawful request of a police officer.

National DUI laws operate under the mistaken belief that revocation keeps DUI offenders from driving. This belief flies in the face of reality, ignoring the fact that revocation doesn’t keep DUI offenders from driving.

Currently, the federal government funds grants to states that implement certain DUI prevention programs. As a direct result, many states have implemented summary driver’s license suspension systems into their implied consent statutes for both failure of a chemical test and refusal to take a test. Under the guise of justice and public safety, states have managed to circumvent a suspected DUI offender’s constitutional rights and legally discourage refusal of chemical testing.
DUI lawyers attempt to remind courts that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Also, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Although valid arguments have been raised regarding these rights in DUI cases, they have been repeatedly and routinely ignored. Again, it seems the courts have rejected the letter of the law when it comes to constitutional rights vs. the interest of the state.

As we mentioned beforehand, many states require a police officer to provide the DUI suspect with some form of warning or advisory. In this situation, DUI lawyers have argued that a refusal to submit to the test prior to knowledge of the consequences of that refusal should not be allowed to provide a basis for the suspension of the driver’s license.

This “prior-knowledge” caveat is important since most states have enacted some form of implied consent law that requires license revocation upon refusal to submit to chemical testing. Some states require detailed and specific warnings while others remain silent on the issue.

Where an implied consent statute does require a specific warning, DUI lawyers have met with success by challenging the penalty resulting from a refusal when warnings were not properly given. If the consequences of a refusal are serious enough, courts do compel strict adherence to the legal requirements.
Naturally, the consequences of refusal hinge on whether the DUI suspect submits to or refuses chemical testing. In cases where DUI suspects submit to chemical testing without being fully informed of how the test results may be used against them, the courts split as to whether these results should be suppressed or not. In the past, this argument has gone both ways.

Implied consent legislation has increasingly adopted the automatic administrative license revocation for failing a chemical test. In these jurisdictions the prosecution need prove only that a motorist had a specified blood or breath alcohol level. State legislatures have recognized the obvious conflict of interest a DUI suspect may have in “choosing” to take the test or not. In order to make it bit more palatable, the duration of the license suspension imposed for failing the chemical test is usually shorter than the suspension imposed for refusing to take one in the first place.

What Exactly Is a Motor Vehicle in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts? (top)

Every DUI statute prohibits an intoxicated person from driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The problem arises where the law fails to explain exactly what they mean when they reference a motor vehicle. Ultimately, if the statute is not specific enough, the final determination is left up to the courts.

Most DUI laws use the terms “vehicle” and “motor vehicle.” The Uniform Vehicle Code uses the term “vehicle.” Obviously, the term “vehicle” is much broader in scope than specifically referencing a “motorized” vehicle.

For example, one court rejected an argument that the defendant’s automobile stuck in the mud and thus immobile was not a vehicle. Some statutes define a vehicle as a device to transport people; hence an industrial road roller would not be considered a vehicle.

Still, courts have determined that most devices with a motor satisfy the “vehicle” definition. Golf carts and farm tractors have been held to be vehicles even though they do not strictly transport people. On the other hand, bicycles, horses and snowmobiles have been held to be vehicles in some states, but not others. (Perhaps riding a horse while drunk should be classified as cruelty to animals!)

Whether a vehicle is operational may also be a deciding factor in trial. As a general rule, when a vehicle is incapable of operation, it is held not to be a vehicle for purposes of the DUI statute. A conviction was reversed where it was undisputed that the car in which the defendant was sitting was inoperable due to mechanical problems. However, a vehicle’s inoperability is not always a “get out of jail free” card. In one such case a conviction was upheld even though the vehicle was out of gas but near a gas station. The court held that the situation made it “reasonably capable of operation.” (Perhaps the gas station had unusually long pump hoses!)

Defining a Highway in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

A highway is typically defined as the “entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place of any type where any part thereof is open to public use for purposes of vehicular traffic.”

So what exactly is “public use?” The essential feature here is that a space or area not confined to privileged individuals or groups whose eligibility is decided by some predetermined criteria, is considered public. For example, a taxi cab employee parking lot posted as “no trespassing” was held not open to public use and thus not a highway within the definition of the law. Similarly, a store parking lot restricted to employee and customer use was not a designated “open to public” parking area and thus was also not a highway under the terms of the DUI statute.

However, parking lots for apartment buildings have generally been held to have sufficient “public use” to come within the highway definition, regardless of the fact that they are restricted to tenants and their guests. Condominium parking lots open to the public fall into the same category. Parking lots to social clubs, bars and banks have all been held subject to the DUI laws. However, testimony must be presented showing the nature of the parking lot to uphold a conviction.

On occasion, because the legislature did not specifically include them within the statutory definition of “highway,” parking lots were excluded from DUI laws. Also, some states have actively excluded parking lots from the legal definition of “highway’” In one instance a court refused to include it in a person’s prosecution for driving with a suspended license. In fact, a conviction was actually reversed where the offense occurred within an alley, since the term “highway” was not sufficiently defined in the state’s felonious driving statute.

Sobriety Checkpoints in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Sobriety checkpoints waver on a razor thin edge between legitimate public safety and infringement upon a citizen’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Many states consider sobriety checkpoints constitutionally valid, while others do not.

The primary stated purpose of DUI sobriety checkpoints is to promote public safety and protect possible DUI offenders from the consequences of their own actions. Sobriety checkpoints appear to have become a favorite of law enforcement officials, as they have increased in frequency on many public roads. There is legitimate concern that these tactics merely anesthetize the general public to the loss of their individual rights. Anything can be construed to enhance the public safety, thus any reason to stop and search can be deemed valid and lawful.

It’s little surprise that courts generally find these checkpoints are a valid exercise of police power.
There are certain caveats in place, however. Usually frisking a driver is prohibited, unless the officer has a clear, valid and factual basis for believing that the driver in question was armed and dangerous.

If you have been charged with a DUI, DWI or OUI in Virginia, Maryland or Massachusetts, please do not hesitate to contact us. Our attorneys take great pride in the qualtify of defense we provide our clients and we are here to hlep you.

Field Sobriety Testing (FSTs) in in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is a series of three tests developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These tests are aimed at determining if there is probable cause to believe a person is intoxicated, and thus liable for arrest.

Police officers should undergo a program of formal training developed by the NHTSA in order to successfully use these methods. Doing so enables them to become more skillful at detecting DUI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects when testifying, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through IACP – the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The three SFST tests are:

• the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)
• the walk-and-turn
• the one-leg stand

These tests should be administered methodically, objectively evaluating the suspect’s measured responses.

HGN Testing in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Horizontal gaze nystagmus is an involuntary jerking of the eyeball which occurs naturally as the eyes gaze to the side at high peripheral angles. However, alcohol impairment exaggerates this effect. Also, when intoxicated, there is breakdown in the smooth and accurate control of eye movements.

In the HGN test, the officer slowly moves an object (pen or small flashlight) horizontally across the suspects field of vision, twelve to fifteen inches from the subject’s face and slightly higher than eye level, looking for three indicators of impairment in each eye:

1) Can the eye smoothly follow a moving object,
2) Is there a distinct jerking movement when the eye is at maximum deviation, and
3) Is the angle of this jerking movement onset within 45 degrees of center.

If, between the two eyes, four or more clues appear, the suspect likely has a BAC of 0.10 or greater. NHTSA research indicates these tests are accurate in approximately 77% of suspects. These tests are also indicators for using seizure medications, phencyclidine and a variety of inhalants, barbiturates and other depressants.

When conducting this test, the officer should check for both equal tracking ability and equal pupil size. Lack of equal tracking or equal pupil size may indicate blindness in one eye, a glass eye, or a medical disorder or possible injury. The officer should discontinue the HGN test if these symptoms appear and may need to seek medical assistance for the individual if a medical disorder or injury appears to exist – especially after a vehicular accident.

Divided Attention Testing in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

The walk-and-turn test and one-leg stand test are what’s known as “divided attention” tests. Most unimpaired people should be able to easily perform these tasks. Basically, they require a suspect to listen to and follow instructions while performing simple physical movements. People who’ve been drinking usually have difficulty in dividing their attention between simple mental tasks and physical movements.

Walk and Turn (WAT) Test in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

In the walk-and-turn test, the subject is directed to take nine steps, heel-to-toe, along a straight line. After taking the steps, the suspect must turn on one foot and return in the same manner. The examiner is looking for seven specific indicators:

1) Can the suspect keep their balance while listening to the instructions (some suspects are so drunk they literally fall over while standing!)

2) Does the suspect begin walking before the instructions are finished,

3) While walking, must the suspect stop to regain balance,

4) While walking, does the suspect touch heel-to-toe or not,

5) Do they need to balance themselves using their arms,

6) Do they lose balance while turning, or

7) Do they take an incorrect number of steps?

NHTSA research indicates that 68% of individuals who exhibit two or more indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.10 or greater. However – this does mean it has a “false positive” reading of almost 1/3 of all persons tested! This test also discriminates against those people with minor physical problems that wouldn’t affect their driving abilities but would skew the sobriety test against them.

One-Leg Stand (OLS) Test in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

In the one-leg stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousands (One thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. This is usually for 30 seconds.

These are the four indicators of alcohol or drug impairment:

1) Swaying while balancing,
2) Balancing with one’s arms,
3) Hopping to maintain balance, and
4) Putting their foot down.

NHTSA research again indicates that 65% of individuals who exhibit two or more such indicators will have a BAC of 0.10 or greater. But then, this also indicates the same level of false positives – fully 1/3 of all persons tested. And as before, people with various physical limitations (obese persons for instance) will find it close to impossible to perform correctly.

The effectiveness of these field sobriety tests in court testimony depends upon the total number total of negative indicators exhibited. The greater the number of indicators, the more convincing the testimony. Because these Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are administered according to national standards and is supported by significant research, they have greater credibility than mere subjective testimony.

Alternative Testing Methods (top)

As mentioned, certain suspects such as physically disabled persons, are unable to perform the SFST. In such cases, some other tests are employed, such as counting aloud, reciting the alphabet or finger dexterity movements.

Several appellate court decisions have indicated that in administering a test requiring answers other than routine information-giving to someone in custody, (such as requiring them to indicate the date of their fifth birthday), a Mirada warning must first be given. (Which begs the question – if they correctly answer with just their month and date and not the specific year, is that considered valid?)

Drawing Blood & Consent in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

It is not unusual to come upon a case where the DUI suspect refused to take a blood alcohol test and blood was drawn anyway. In these instances, objections are made to keep the results of these blood tests from being entered as evidence at their trial on 4th Amendment search and seizure grounds, due process under 5th Amendment and 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Usually courts deny the 5th Amendment claim against self-incrimination on the grounds that evidence in a DUI blood sample is physical and scientifically testable, and not communicative or testimonial, the latter being what the 5th Amendment specifically protects.

The 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure is another matter. Courts generally agree taking of blood from a suspect falls squarely within the confines of 4th Amendment. Having said that, if the procedure does not jeopardize the DUI suspect’s health, it is generally considered reasonable, and thus legally permissible.

The key issue here is whether or not the defendant was under arrest at the time the blood was drawn. Federal courts have held if the DUI suspect is under arrest, forced blood tests are permissible.

Blood Test Search Warrants in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

Some courts have required police to obtain a search warrant before drawing the DUI defendant’s blood. The government has successfully countered these restrictions by arguing blood alcohol dissipates over time and this expediency negates the necessity for a search warrant. Also, the suspect may have left the hospital before the warrant could be obtained.

Compulsive blood draw is usually held invalid if other tests such as a breathalyzer test could have been performed in lieu of this more invasive method. Other factors, such as the time lapse between arrest and ordering the blood test, not taking the proper steps to inquire about the DUI defendant’s medical care or “jumping the gun” and ordering the test even though the DUI defendant would soon be released and be available for a blood draw anyway, all come into play.

However, reality is reality. Courts apparently have no qualms with the methods law enforcement has gone to in forcing a DUI arrestee to provide a blood sample. Some examples: Allowing police to place pillows over the heads of kicking and fighting DUI defendants, using stun guns after the suspect has been subdued, incorporating choke holds around the DUI defendant’s neck; and using batons or night sticks to beat the suspect into submission.

Although some courts have had problems with some of these more aggressive methods police have used, they usually hold that if medical personnel take the sample, the reasonableness requirement is met – even though there have been exceptions here as well in very egregious circumstances.

In one case, the court held that before a compelled blood sample could be taken by medical personnel, the state must prove: 1) there was probable cause to believe the accused committed either aggravated assault or vehicular homicide while under the influence, 2) urgent circumstances existed to forego the warrant requirement, 3) the test selected by the officers was reasonable and competent for determining blood-alcohol content and 4) the test had to be performed in a reasonable manner.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has held police may not use unreasonable force in obtaining a blood sample. If a suspected DUI driver refuses to submit, his driving privileges may be revoked.

Although the implied consent statute relates solely to the breath tests for DUI suspects, courts have cited the statute to lay the foundation for other rulings. For example, in determining whether the use of force in drawing blood is reasonable, three points are weighed:

1) the severity of the offense,
2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of others, and
3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest

Invalidating Breath Tests in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts (top)

If the suspect has a condition that would clearly invalidate the breath test data, the breath test will not be admissible in court.

If a DUI subject’s breath registers the presence of interference on two or more successive breaths, a valid breath sample is deemed impossible to perform. At this point, the only remaining option would be a blood draw.

Some things that could interfere with conducting a valid test are: Certain types of dental work, or wearing jewelry or ornamentation piercing through the tongue, lips, cheek or other soft tissues in the mouth. Prior to taking the test, the subject will be required to remove the objects. If that is not possible, then the courts have determined that under the implied consent laws forced blood sample tests are permissible.

The SRIS Legal Team in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts

DUI laws in Virginia, DUI/DWI Laws in Maryland & DUI/OUI laws in Massachusetts are strictly enforced and an experienced SRIS, P.C. Massachusetts, Maryland or Virginia DUI attorney can help protect your rights in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. In fact, some states require police provide you with a list of local DUI defense lawyers.

Your chances of successfully making defense arguments or finding mistakes that may have been made in your arrest are much greater if you have a SRIS, P.C. Massachusetts OUI lawyer, Maryland DWI attorney or Virginia DUI attorney assisting you. If you are faced with a DUI charge in Virginia, DUI/DWI in Maryland or DUI/OUI inMassachusetts, a SRIS, P.C. DUI lawyer is your best bet for avoiding or reducing the penalties or imprisonment you face.

At SRIS, P.C. we have some of the most qualified and talented DUI defense attorneys in the nation. Our job is to protect your rights.

If you’ve been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Virginia, Maryland or Massachusetts, please make an appointment with one of our DUI defense attorneys. Don’t wait until it’s too late to mount a defense. DUI’s are nothing to fool around with in Virginia, Maryland or Massachusetts. Get the best legal advice you can.

You can visit us at one of our offices located in Virginia, Maryland or Massachusetts or you are welcome to call us at 888-437-7747, email us or contact us by filling out one of our fast online form.

Although our DUI defense lawyers are licensed to handle DUI/DWI/OUI & DUID cases in Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia & Massachusetts, we only defend DUI cases in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts at the present time.

Our Massachusetts, Maryland & Virginia DUI defense lawyers and staff who defend drunk driving cases speak the following languages in addition to English: Tamil, Arabic, Hindi, Telugu, French, Spanish, Malaysian, Cantonese & Mandarin.

Tweet This Post

DWI In Maryland?

Charged with a DWI in Maryland?  A DWI in Maryland is a very serious charge.  You need an experienced DWI lawyer in Maryland to defend you against a DWI in Maryland.

Contact the SRIS Law Group Maryland Attorneys if you have been charged with a DWI in Maryland.  888-437-7747.

Tweet This Post