Monthly Archives May 2018

IMPUTATION OF INCOME IN DIVORCE OR CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDINGS: WASHINGTON DC DIVORCE LAWYER

Often times in divorce or child support proceedings the court may be forced to impute income on one of the parties. There are circumstances in which imputation of income is legally warranted. If there is a judicial finding that a party is: Voluntarily unemployed, Due to bad faith or Deliberate effort to suppress income, and To avoid child support or other financial obligations The pertinent D.C. Code § 16-916.01(d)(10) specifically provides: If the judicial officer finds that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed as a result of the parent’s bad faith or deliberate effort to suppress income, to avoid or
Read More

BREATHALYZER DEVICE: CHALLENGING RESULTS IN COURT: DC DUI LAWYER

The most prevalent form of measuring intoxication by the law enforcement is the breathalyzer. The device is designed to measure the levels of alcohol in the lungs and not in the breath. Thus a sip of alcohol and testing right after would not and should not register any measurable levels of alcohol. Alcohol consumed however gets processed in the body. It gets absorbed from the mouth through throat and stomach and distributes into the bloodstream.  Alcohol­ is not digested upon absorption and remains chemically the same in the bloodstream. As the alcohol infused blood travels through the lunge membranes it contaminates
Read More

DC VOYEURISM STATUTE: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Castillo v. U.S., decided on March 8, 2018, once again addressed, defined and further expanded certain statutory provision and language of the Voyeurism Statute. Castillo, a cleaning employee of a restaurant, was accused of entering a women’s bathroom and peeping under a stall. On appeal from the conviction under the Voyeurism Statute he argued mainly that technically he was not ever in “a hidden observation post” as the Statute requires and that he had only entered the bathroom to start the cleaning process. The Statute in the pertinent part provides: (b) Except as provided in subsection
Read More