The Court of Appeals in Maddux v. D.C, decided on July 25, 2019, considered whether the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to DUI after sentencing. Before sentencing the burden on the defendant is “a fair and just reason” while after sentencing the burden elevated to “to correct manifest injustice, that is, justice demands withdrawal in the circumstances of the individual case. Maddux’s central argument was that the Magistrate Judge pushed and coerced plea bargaining by threatening to detain him pending trial and pre-trial while making clear he would be treated as a first-time offender with a
Read More
Archives for dc dui lawyer
MENS REA NEEDED FOR LEAVING AFTER COLLIDING CONVICTION: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER:
The Court of Appeals in Crawford v. D.C. decided on September 6, 2018, reversed a conviction for Leaving After Colliding (“LAC”) due to lack of sufficient evidence for the conviction. The appellant had argued specifically insufficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element of the offense, which requires that: The appellant “know[] or ha[ve] reason to believe that his . . . vehicle has been in a collision.” D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c (a). Factually, the appellant was observed by the Police Officers with his vehicle abutting the car in front of him in the parking space and it appearing that
Read More
HANDGUN LICENSING REQUIREMENTS LESS RESTRICTIVE NOW: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: WASHINGTON DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals in Hooks v. U.S., decided on August 30, 2018, in effect modified the DC handgun licensing requirements to be consistent with the D.C Circuit Court Decision in Wrenn. The DC Statute currently applicable to licensing is codified under D.C. Code § 22-4504 (a) and provides: The Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (“Chief”) may, upon the application of a person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the District of Columbia, or of a person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the United States and a license to
Read More
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (E-SCOOTER): ARREST-ABLE? VERY MUCH SO … DC DUI LAWYER
The Personal Mobility Devices are becoming prevalent and turning into a significant commuting and recreational use device/vehicles. There is the BYRD electric scooter, LIME, SKIP, etc. The legal issue is whether these devices are categorized as vehicles subject to the DUI/DWI Statute and enforcement or there is an exception. The short answer: they are categorized as vehicles subject to DUI/DWI arrest but not a motor vehicle subject to chemical testing submission. The DC Driving Under the Influence Statute provides that: No person shall operate or be in physical control of any vehicle in the District While the person is intoxicated;
Read More
MARIJUANA BREATHALYZER DEVICES: DC DUI LAWYER
The current DC DUI laws although provide details regarding alcohol consumption and corresponding penalties associated with BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) — are silent on marijuana use, level thereof, and driving a motor vehicle while under influence of marijuana. The DUI Statute clearly penalizes and provides minimum sentence for schedule I drugs: Specifically the Statute provides: A 15-day mandatory-minimum term of incarceration shall be imposed if the person’s blood or urine contains a Schedule I chemical or controlled substance as listed in § 48-902.04, Phencyclidine, Cocaine, Methadone, Morphine, or one of its active metabolites or analogs. However there is no mention of
Read More
DUI REMAND: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeal in TOWNSEND v. DC on May 31, 2018, remanded a DUI (“Driving Under Influence”) conviction based on erroneous admission of scientific evidence. Townsend was found behind the wheels of a running car partially on a curve, and on the wrong side of a street by the police officers. As she appeared under the influence and incoherent, the officers had administered several field sobriety tests to determine or to establish drug or alcohol use. The standardized field sobriety tests performed were: Walk and turn test: To place the right foot on a line and the left
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
4TH AMENDMENT: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES: WARRANTLESS EXCEPTIONS: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures: Specifically the 4th Amendment provides: THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURED IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST ANY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. Over the years the Supreme Court has carved out numerous search exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. These exceptions are: 1. CONSENT Knowing and voluntary consent to the search
Read More
DC Voyeurism Statute: Recent Court of Appeals Decision
The DC Court of Appeals in David Thomas v. U.S., on October 12, 2017, issued an opinion on a conviction pursuant to the DC Voyeurism Statute, which provides: D.C. Code 22-3531 (c)(1) in pertinent parts provides: (c)(1) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, it is unlawful for a person to electronically record, without the express and informed consent of the individual being recorded, an individual who is: (A) Using a bathroom or rest room; (B) Totally or partially undressed or changing clothes; or (C) Engaging in sexual activity. The Defendant in this case was convicted for taking nude photographs of his
Read More
Warrantless Use of Cell-Phone Tracking Surveillance Technology by Law Enforcement
Increasing number of cases involving the law enforcement agencies’ warrantless use of cell phone tracking devices has recently promulgated the need for regulations that would address escalating privacy concerns. Metropolitan Police Department has already signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) enabling the agents to keep all the cell-phone surveillance data private. Commonly known as a Stingray, these detection surveillance devices act as a wireless cell-phone tower broadcasting a strong signal allowing for the Stingray to connect to any cellular device in close vicinity. Consequently, the Department of Justice issued new guidelines preventing the federal agents
Read More