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
Archives for dc dwi lawyer
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
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 VIOLATION: LEGALITY OF STINGRAY: DC CRIMINAL LAW
The Court of Appeals in Prince Jones v. U.S., decided on September 21, 2017, considered and evaluated the legality of the police force use of cell site simulator commonly known as “stingray” without a search warrant. The Court in short concluded that deployment of “stingray” without a valid search warrant violated the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and evidence hence collected would be excluded as “fruits of a poisonous tree.” Prince Jones was convicted for sexual assault and robbery (stolen cell phones). The police force shortly after the incident deployed a cell tower simulator to pinpoint his location via his
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: IMMUNITY WHEN REQUIRED: DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in YOUNG v. U.S., decided on July 28, 2016, highlighted and analyzed factual circumstances in which granting immunity to a witness is required by the government. Mr. Young was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute (“PWID”) liquid PCP and was accordingly convicted at trial. Before trial, the defendant’s nephew indicated that if he were granted immunity from criminal prosecution – he would testify that he was the last person who drove the vehicle where the drugs were discovered. The government did not offer immunity and the trial court did not require as such and
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION: INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE
In NYIA GORE v. U.S., decided on August 18, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for destruction of property as the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion to suppression evidence based on 4th Amendment violations. The facts of the case stemmed from a domestic dispute where the appellant’s boyfriend complained of the appellant destroying his property inside a motel room that they shared. Officers responded to the scene and upon questioning the appellant and without express consent of the appellant entered the room searched and recovered destroyed property and consequently charged the appellant. The appellant’s
Read More
DC DUI LAWYER: LEAVING THE SCENE AFTER COLLIDING
The pertinent DC statute addressing driving a motor vehicle while under the influence also addresses leaving the scene of an accident after colliding because often drinking and driving results in accidents. Thus this blog addresses both of these offenses in detail enumerating the statutory/legal elements for both offenses separately. Specifically, the statute criminalizes damage to property as well as damage to an individual and also a domestic animal. That is, any person operating a vehicle that causes “substantial damage” to another property (vehicle) and leaves without either giving assistance or without leaving his name, place or residence, and identifying information
Read More
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL: PRIVATE V. PUBLIC: DC UNLAWFUL ENTRY STATUTE
The Court of Appeals in an opinion issued in FREY v. U.S., compared and analyzed the legal difference between unlawful entry upon a “private” property versus a “public” property. In reversing the defendant’s conviction for unlawful entry on May 5, 2016 – the Court held that she had entered a public section of the Library of Congress and thus was entitled to a jury trial warranting reversal. The District of Columbia unlawful entry statute makes a legal distinction between entry upon a private v. public property. Specifically, subsection (a) of the code prohibits unlawful entry into “any private dwelling, building, or
Read More
DC ASSAULT LAWS/PENALTIES: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
This blog outlines and analyzes the statutory language of the three main DC assault provisions: simple assault, aggravated assault and assault on a police officer. The simple assault statute includes both elements and penalties for assault and stalking as they are consolidated under the same statutory language specifically that a person commits a misdemeanor assault punishable by not more than 180 days imprisonment and/or a $1000.00 fine — if he/she unlawfully assaults or threatens another in a menacing fashion. The felony assault which raises the penalties to 3 years and/or $3000.00 in fines has all the elements of the simple
Read More
CONSTRUCTIVE DRUG POSSESSION: DC DRUG LAWYER
In PANNELL v. U. S., decided on April 7, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed a Possession of Control Substance (PCP) conviction and remanded for the conviction to be vacated as there was insufficient evidence to convict based on the theory of constructive possession. Here, the undercover Officer had pulled over a vehicle with two front seat occupants. Two PCP cigarettes were found in the middle console closer to the passenger side seat than the driver. Assuming based on that proximity that the cigarettes belonged to Pannell, he was arrested and charged while the driver without being searched was given
Read More