DUI Lawyers Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Bryan v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant in Virginia Beach sought review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed his conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants (DUI) as a second offense within 5 to 10 years of a first DUI conviction.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• Where a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction is within 5 years of a first DUI conviction, a defendant is required to serve 48 hours of the sentence imposed for the previous conviction. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270. To convict a defendant of a second driving under the influence (DUI) offense within 5 to 10 years of a prior DUI conviction, the prior offense must be charged and proven.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Brown v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant in Virginia Beach sought review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed his conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants (DUI) as a second conviction within 5 to 10 years of a first DUI conviction.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• Where a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction is within 5 years of a first DUI conviction, a defendant is required to serve 48 hours of the sentence imposed for the previous conviction. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270. To convict a defendant of a second driving under the influence (DUI) offense within 5 to 10 years of a prior DUI conviction, the prior offense must be charged and proven.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Amos v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Virginia Beach General District Court convicted defendant of driving while under the influence (DUI), second offense. The State also charged defendant with refusing to submit to a breath or blood test. Defendant appealed. The circuit court tried the case de novo. An issue was whether defendant's arrest was lawful under Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-81, permitting an officer to make a warrantless arrest for a crime committed in his presence.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-81 provides that an officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits a crime in the presence of the officer. Section 19.2-81 has been interpreted to require that the officer must have personal knowledge acquired by his personal senses that an offense was committed in his presence. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-100 defines "operator" or "driver" as every person who either (1) drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or (2) is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Sawyer v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant in Virginia Beach moved the court to dismiss the warrant charging him with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, on the ground that he had been twice placed in double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment because his operator's license was administratively suspended for seven days pursuant to the results of a blood alcohol test following his DUI arrest.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.The issue is whether a civil sanction, in application, may be so divorced from any remedial goal that it constitutes "punishment" for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis. The labels "criminal" and "civil" are not of paramount importance. It is commonly understood that civil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Delwin v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant in Virginia Beach sought review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed his conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants (DUI) as a second conviction within 5 to 10 years of a first DUI conviction.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• Where a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction is within 5 years of a first DUI conviction, a defendant is required to serve 48 hours of the sentence imposed for the previous conviction. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270. To convict a defendant of a second driving under the influence (DUI) offense within 5 to 10 years of a prior DUI conviction, the prior offense must be charged and proven.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Isaac v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant in Virginia Beach was charged with operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI), possession of a weapon as a felon and possession of illegal drugs. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress certain incriminating evidence challenging their admissibility.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.2(A) expressly limits the driver's implied consent to situations where he is arrested within two hours of the alleged offense. By interpolating the word validly into the statute, i.e. alcohol testing may take place when he is validly arrested within two hours of the alleged offense, an implied statutory suppression remedy is created for violations of other state statutes. As a general rule, however, violations of state statutory law do not trigger the state-law equivalent of the federal exclusionary rule unless the statute expressly provides for a suppression remedy.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.



These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Beach DUI Lawyers

Below is a sample case of traffic violation in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with a traffic ticket in Virginia and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged for a traffic violation in Virginia?

We have defended many traffic tickets in Virginia and we can help you as well.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic violation. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Lawrence v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach (Virginia), defendant was convicted on an amended indictment alleging that he violated Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-266, -270 by unlawfully and feloniously operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) after having been convicted of 2 other DUI offenses within 10 years. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270 enhances the offense and attendant punishment for driving under the influence (DUI) from a misdemeanor to a felony upon conviction of a third or subsequent offense committed within 10 years of an offense under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. The statute does not suggest that convictions for the requisite prior offenses must precede commission of the third or subsequent offense. Therefore, any third or subsequent DUI conviction within the period prescribed by Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270 triggers the enhanced punishment. Otherwise, an offender could commit multiple unlawful acts of driving under the influence of alcohol without fear of being punished for a felony merely because the offender could not be tried and convicted quickly enough between offenses. An interpretation of the statute that allows a defendant to violate it with impunity would be contrary to the clear legislative intent.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your traffic ticket. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• The determination of whether a given civil sanction constitutes punishment in the relevant sense requires a particularized assessment of the penalty imposed and the purposes that the penalty may fairly be said to serve. Simply put, a civil as well as a criminal sanction constitutes punishment when the sanction as applied in the individual case serves the goals of punishment...

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• In Virginia, when misdemeanor charges are initiated by warrant and a defendant is convicted of those charges in district court, he may appeal to the circuit court for a trial de novo. A trial on the same charges in the circuit court does not violate double jeopardy principles, subject only to the limitation that conviction in the district court for an offense lesser included in the one charged constitutes an acquittal of the greater offense, permitting trial de novo in the circuit court only for the lesser-included offense.

• The purpose of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391.2's administrative license suspension (ALS) requirements is civil in nature. The purpose of revoking A driver's license is not to punish the offender but to remove from the highways an operator who is a potential danger to other users. The ALS in Va. Code § 46.2-391.2 is a remedial sanction because its purpose is to protect the public from intoxicated drivers and to reduce alcohol related accidents and, therefore it does not constitute punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. Confirming this, the legislative history provides that The General Assembly was motivated by its desire to reduce alcohol-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries, and not to impose punishment.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Evidence of prior driving under the influence (DUI) convictions does not constitute the "traffic record" as contemplated by Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-943 where the offense charged under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 is a subsequent offense of DUI punishable under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270. Proof of such charge requires proof of the prior DUI convictions.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Where the trial judge on the record explains an apparent inconsistency in the verdicts, and where the explanation shows that the trial court's action was proper and that there was no unfairness, inconsistent verdicts would be sustained.

• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.2(A) (Michie 1996), deems a vehicle operator to have given the Commonwealth implied consent to alcohol testing if he is arrested on a drunk driving charge. Both the Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia Court of Appeals have found an implicit qualifier in the statute, holding that the consent can be implied only when the driver is validly arrested.
• For the crime of driving under the influence to be committed in the then-and-there presence of an arresting officer, the officer must either see or hear the accused actually driving or operating the vehicle. In addition, the presence requirement focuses only on the specific arresting officer. No police team approach can used to combine various officers' collective perceptions for purposes of an aggregate presence. A misdemeanor committed in one officer's presence, therefore, cannot be imputed to another officer, who actually makes the arrest, simply by relaying to him the relevant information.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• A trial court is entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence in its determination of an appellant's guilt. Circumstantial evidence is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Where the Commonwealth's evidence as to an element of an offense is wholly circumstantial, all necessary circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. However, the Commonwealth is not required to disprove every remote possibility of innocence, but is, instead, required only to establish guilt of the accused to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. The hypotheses which the prosecution must reasonably exclude are those which flow from the evidence itself, and not from the imagination of defendant's counsel.
• The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented. 

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• To obtain a conviction for driving under the influence pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266(i), the Commonwealth must prove that the accused was operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher. Thus, the ultimate fact that the Commonwealth must prove is the alcohol content at the time of the driving. The statutory language of § 18.2-266(i) provides the basis for a presumption that the blood alcohol concentration while driving was the same as indicated by the results of the subsequent test. Unless rebutted, however, the test results are sufficient to establish the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.
• The Due Process Clause does not prohibit the use of a permissive inference as a procedural device that shifts to a defendant the burden of producing some evidence contesting a fact that may otherwise be inferred, provided that the prosecution retains the ultimate burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• The construction of a statute presents a question of law that a reviewing court reviews de novo upon appeal. When a court construes a penal statute, the court must not add to the words of that statute, nor ignore the statute's actual words, and the court must strictly construe the statute and limit its application to cases clearly within the scope of that statute. Also, every part of a statute is presumed to have some effect and no part will be considered meaningless unless absolutely necessary.
• A reviewing court must assume that the General Assembly chose, with care, the words it used in enacting the statute, and it is bound by those words when it applies the statute.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Trials in the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach are in two phases as provided in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-943. In the first phase is the jury trial. In the second phase, after considering a defendant's record, the jury imposes sentence, upon which the trial court enters judgment. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-270. To convict a defendant of a second driving under the influence (DUI) offense within 5 to 10 years of a prior DUI conviction, the prior offense must be charged and proven.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.2, Virginia 's implied consent law, provides, in part, that (A) any person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 within three hours of the alleged offense; and (B) any person so arrested 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.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• In a trial de novo, a circuit court disregards the judgment of the district court, hears the evidence anew and may consider new evidence, and makes final disposition of the case as if the case had not proceeded to judgment in the district court. Once the trial de novo commences in the circuit court, the district court judgment is annulled, and is not thereafter available for any purpose.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.