Articles Tagged with prosecutions

Breathalyzer

Breathalyzer

In August of 2012, the District of Columbia City Council, with little public comment, amended DC’s DUI/DWI law. Among the many changes included doubling mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat offenders and cases with high chemical scores. Another change included doubling the maximum penalty for first offenders from 90 days to 180 days. The law also added additional situations in which mandatory minimum jail applied and lowered the blood alcohol score from .08 to.04 for individuals who possess a commercial driver’s license. Buried in the law included provisions that made DC’s hit and run law much broader. Many of the changes brought DC’s DUI law closer to the trend among most states who have created harsher penalties.

However, many of the changes were either arbitrary or say more about local institutional politics than public policy. One major arbitrary and ridiculous change to the law is a provision that bars individuals facing mandatory minimum jail time from serving that time on the weekends. Under the old law, judges routinely when forced to sentence individuals to mandatory jail time allowed them to serve that time on the weekends.

Continue reading

One of the first questions clients often ask me when charged with a DUI is: What are the chances the government will dismiss my case?sign-no-alcohol-1231362-m

I always answer the same, with a resounding “Zero.”  That’s because prosecutors in the District of Columbia take DUI enforcement extremely serious.  The DC Office of the Attorney General will aggressively prosecute every DC DUI arrest—lack of evidence, havoc on an individual’s livelihood, mitigating circumstances all be damned.

The example that most exemplifies the government’s policy towards DUI prosecutions is about a colleague of mine who had a client that blew a literal 0.00 on the breathalyzer machine.  My colleague requested that the government dismiss the case.  The government refused because the officer suspected the client was under the influence of drugs.  When a urinalysis came back months later that revealed the client had no drugs in her system, my colleague requested that the government dismiss the case.  The government refused and stated that the officer suspected the client had taken “inhalants,” which go undetected in urine tests.  That is the kind of uphill battle defense lawyers face in trying to convince the government to abandon a meritless (or at least questionable) prosecution.

Continue reading