Lawyers Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach Drunk Driving 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.

Williams v. Commonwealth

Facts:

In a reckless driving case in Virginia Beach police detective followed a car in which defendant was a passenger because it was being driven erratically. The driver of the car pulled into a church and school parking lot. When the detective confronted the driver in the parking lot, he smelled alcohol on his breath and arrested him for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and for reckless driving. While the detective was securing the driver outside the car, he noticed defendant making furtive gestures.

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:

• Probable cause to arrest is established by facts and circumstances which would lead a prudent person to believe that a suspect had committed or was committing an offense.
• When considering a sufficiency of the evidence question not properly preserved at trial, the appellant must do more than show that the Commonwealth failed to prove an element or elements of the offense. Otherwise, an appellate court would be required under the ends of justice exception to address the merits of every case where a defendant has failed to move to strike the Commonwealth's evidence as being insufficient to prove an element of the offense. Such a rule would obviate the requirement for making an adequate motion to strike or a contemporaneous objection that the evidence was insufficient. The exception therefore will not be invoked unless the evidence affirmatively shows that an element of the offense did not occur.

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 Drunk Driving 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.

Fisher v. Commonwealth

Facts:

After the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach, Virginia denied his motion to suppress, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea of driving under the influence (DUI), third or subsequent offense within 10 years, under Va. Code § 18.2-266. He then appealed, contending the trial court erred finding at the suppression hearing that the result of a preliminary breath test (PBT) was admissible and that probable cause existed to arrest him.

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:

• Under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-267, any person suspected by a police officer of driving under the influence is entitled to a preliminary breath test (PBT), and the officer must advise the suspect of his rights. If the PBT reveals that alcohol is present in the suspect's blood, the officer may arrest the suspect for driving under the influence, but the result of the PBT is not admissible at trial to prove the suspect's guilt. However, the results of the preliminary breath test may be admitted into evidence at a pretrial probable cause or suppression hearing. This is so because the legislature has recognized that a preliminary breath test is reasonably trustworthy to show that a person has consumed alcohol for purposes of determining whether probable cause exists to make an arrest.
• The function of the preliminary breath test under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-267 is to provide an independent means to determine and resolve questions concerning probable cause, but it does not supplant other methods for a police officer to determine probable cause. Under § 18.2-267(D), an officer may charge an individual with driving under the influence whenever the breath sample analysis indicates that alcohol is present in the person's blood. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 prohibits a person from driving or operating a motor vehicle while such person is under the influence of alcohol.

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 Drunk Driving 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.

Peterson v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Circuit Court of Virginia Beach (Virginia) convicting her of driving under the influence (DUI), second or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-266 and 18.2-270, 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(B)(2) governs repeat driving under the influence convictions between five and ten years after a prior offense either under Virginia law or any substantially similar laws of any other state. § 18.2-270(E).

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 Drunk Driving 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.

Evans v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Virginia Beach General District Court (Virginia) 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:

• Where a defendant's arrest for driving under the influence is unlawful, as in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-81, because the misdemeanor offense is not committed in the arresting officer's presence, when he is read his implied consent rights under the implied consent statute, his refusal does not constitute a violation of that statute, which requires that a defendant have been lawfully arrested to be subject to the statute's mandate.
• 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 Drunk Driving 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.

Richard v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appellant was convicted in Virginia Beach of aggravated involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-36.1(B), after his truck collided with a motorcycle. The court affirmed appellant's conviction. The trial court's admission of the results of a preliminary alco-sensor breath test was harmless error. The actual breathalyzer test, which was introduced into evidence without objection, indicated a higher concentration of alcohol than that obtained from the preliminary test. The trial court's admission of unrelated convictions for driving under the influence of (DUI) alcohol was also harmless error.

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:

• In a prosecution brought under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-36.1, the Commonwealth is required to prove a causal connection between the driver's intoxication and the death of another person. Generally, causation is an issue for the jury to decide.
• The proper legal standard for conduct punishable under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-36.1 is: any person who, as a result of driving under the influence in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266(ii), (iii), or (iv) unintentionally causes the death of another person, shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The statute in clear and unmistakable terms requires proof of causation, nothing more, nothing less.

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 Drunk Driving 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.

Frederick v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant contended that the Virginia Beach court erred in failing to dismiss his manslaughter indictment because that conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of U.S. Const. amend. V, and Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the driving while under influence (DUI) statute, under which defendant had been previously convicted, and the vehicular aggravated involuntary manslaughter statute required proof of different elements.

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:

• Drunken driving is not only unlawful in itself, but it tends to make a defendant's dangerous conduct more dangerous.
• A defendant's level of intoxication is relevant to a determination of the degree of the defendant's negligence: whether ordinary, gross, or wanton. It may serve to elevate the defendant's conduct to the level of negligence so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard of human life.

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 Drunk Driving 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.

Warner v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following the denial of defendant's motions to strike the evidence, the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach (Virginia) convicted defendant of drunk driving, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. 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:

• When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, an appellate court determines whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and the reasonable inferences fairly deducible from that evidence support each and every element of the charged offense. In so doing, the appellate court must discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences that may be drawn therefrom. The appellate court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court, sitting as the finder of fact in a bench trial, unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

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.

• In order to convict a defendant, it is necessary that the Commonwealth establish two things: (1) that defendant was operating or driving a motor vehicle, and (2) that he was under the influence of intoxicants at the time he was driving or operating it. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 makes it unlawful to drive or operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
• To prove that an accused is guilty of violating Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, it is not necessary to show that the vehicle was "moved" or "driven" from one place to another. The word "operate," as used in § 18.2-266, is not limited to movement of the vehicle. The prosecution need only show an accused was under the influence of alcohol, or had an excessive blood alcohol content, and while in that condition, was "in actual physical control of the vehicle."

• The implied consent law operates to permit the taking and testing of blood from an unconscious driver and that incoherence or unconsciousness does not constitute a refusal, reasonable or unreasonable, because consent is continuing. The taking of blood is permitted, but nothing suggests it is mandated.
• Test results from a breath or blood test are not necessary or required to prove driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• The result of a breath analysis is but auxiliary proof which may tend to corroborate evidence of the objective symptoms of intoxication. 

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.

• Under familiar principles of appellate review, an appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences fairly deducible from that evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the party that prevailed below.
• The results of a blood or breath test provided by the implied consent law, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.2, are admissible against an accused in a trial for driving under the influence of alcohol only so long as the accused has first been validly arrested. Absent a valid, timely arrest, the Commonwealth has no right to collect the blood or breath sample in the first place and, a fortiori, even less right to offer into evidence test results based on the sample. If an accused is not validly arrested prior to the taking of his blood, his consent for blood alcohol testing is not implied, and his actual consent based upon a belief, generated by the officer's recitation of the implied consent law, that he was bound to submit to a test is invalid. Thus, an untimely arrest results in exclusion of the certificate of analysis of the blood.

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.

• The implied consent law operates to permit the taking and testing of blood from an unconscious driver and that incoherence or unconsciousness does not constitute a refusal, reasonable or unreasonable, because consent is continuing. The taking of blood is permitted, but nothing suggests it is mandated.
• Test results from a breath or blood test are not necessary or required to prove driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 
• The result of a breath analysis is but auxiliary proof which may tend to corroborate evidence of the objective symptoms of intoxication.

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. § 19.2-294.1 provides that whenever any person is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving growing out of the same act or acts and is convicted of one of these charges, the court shall dismiss the remaining charge.
• Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862 provides that a person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit of forty miles per hour or more.

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. 

• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.3 provides that if an arrestee for driving under the influence refuses repeatedly to submit to blood or breath testing after being advised of the possible consequences of such refusal, no blood or breath samples shall be taken, and if charged with unreasonably refusing to submit to such testing, the arrestee may introduce evidence to try to establish that his refusal was reasonable.
• Where an arresting officer has probable cause to believe an incoherent or unconscious driver has violated Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol, the implied consent law, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.2, operates to permit the taking and testing of blood from that driver. Incoherence or unconsciousness does not constitute a refusal, reasonable or unreasonable, because consent is continuing.

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.
• The results of a blood or breath test provided by the implied consent law, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.2, are admissible against an accused in a trial for driving under the influence of alcohol only so long as the accused has first been validly arrested. Absent a valid, timely arrest, the Commonwealth has no right to collect the blood or breath sample in the first place and, a fortiori, even less right to offer into evidence test results based on the sample. If an accused is not validly arrested prior to the taking of his blood, his consent for blood alcohol testing is not implied, and his actual consent based upon a belief, generated by the officer's recitation of the implied consent law, that he was bound to submit to a test is invalid. Thus, an untimely arrest results in exclusion of the certificate of analysis of the blood.

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. § 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..

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.

• When considering a criminal conviction, an appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Viewing the evidence through this evidentiary prism requires the appellate court to discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.
• A DUI verdict finding an accused guilty "as charged" in a warrant citing Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 requires that an appellate court address on appeal both Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266(i) and (ii). 

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.

• Law enforcement personnel may not stop motorists in a wholly random and discretionary manner unless there is, at least, articulable and reasonable suspicion either that the operator is unlicensed, the vehicle is unregistered, or the operator or other occupant is subject to seizure for violation of law..

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. § 46.2-357 reads: B. Any person found to be an habitual offender under this article, who is thereafter convicted of driving a motor vehicle or self-propelled machinery or equipment in the Commonwealth while the order of the court prohibiting such driving is in effect, shall be punished as follows: 1. If such driving does not, of itself, endanger the life, limb, or property of another, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail for no more than ninety days and a fine of not more that $ 2,500, either or both. However, ten days of any such confinement shall not be suspended except in cases designated in subdivision 2 (ii) of this section...

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.