Articles Posted in DUI

A Virginia man accused of driving under the influence (DUI) recently appealed his conviction in front of the Court of Appeals. The man argued that the lower court erred in finding that his appeal was not timely. He argued that although Virginia Code § 16.1-132 requires notice of appeals to be filed within ten days of the conviction, the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic tolled this requirement. However, in response, the Commonwealth contended, among other things, that the defendant waived his argument because he did not raise the issue in the circuit court. This case exemplifies the importance of abiding by the strict procedural and statutory laws surrounding Virginia DUI cases.

In this case, the court convicted the defendant in March 2020 and sentenced him to 60 days in jail, a fine, probation, and an alcohol program. The same day, in response to the pandemic, the Supreme Court suspended all court proceedings. In June 2020, the defendant filed an appeal of his conviction; however, the court entered a notice denying the appeal, citing the ten-day notice deadline. On appeal, the defendant contends that the ruling was inappropriate because of the Supreme Court’s emergency order.

Under Virginia Rule 5A:18, trial court rulings will not be considered as a basis for reversal unless “the objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling.” Exceptions only exist if the party can show good cause to enable the court to rule on the issue. To satisfy this rule, the objection must occur when the trial court “is in a position, not only to consider” the error but also rectify the effect. However, Code § 8.01-384(A) holds that litigants who are not given an opportunity to object to a ruling when it was made shall not have the absence of an objection prejudice them.

Police and prosecutors often cite and prosecute defendants for various crimes in response to conduct that they see as inappropriate or unlawful. Occasionally, prosecutors will seek convictions for a crime that contains elements not met by the defendant’s conduct. Juries are not perfect and prosecutors can be persuasive, sometimes obtaining convictions for crimes that are wholly unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. The Virginia Court of Appeals recently reversed the conviction of a woman who was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, finding that the elements of the crime were not actually proven by prosecutors at her trial.

The defendant in the recently heard case is a woman whose daughter called 911 from the backseat of the defendant’s car while being driven home. The daughter reported that her mother was driving erratically and that she was scared. Police arrived at the defendant’s house after she had made it home without incident, and performed field sobriety tests. The defendant was found to have a small amount of an anti-anxiety medication in her system, which she was legally prescribed. Police arrested the woman and charged her with DUI and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. At trial, the defendant was convicted only of the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The defendant appealed the verdict to the state court of appeals, arguing that the elements of the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor were not proven by the prosecution at trial. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the prosecution provided no evidence that the child was in need of any services that the government could provide, or that the child was in continuing danger without the court’s intervention. The high court agreed with the defendant, finding that the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor required that prosecutors prove that the minor was in danger without court intervention and that some type of services were necessary to protect the child from harm. Because the prosecution presented no evidence on these two elements of the crime, the conviction was reversed.

Traditionally, when a defendant seeks to challenge the legality of his arrest, he does so in a motion to suppress. In a motion to suppress, the court hears evidence about the recovery of the evidence in question and determines whether the state or federal constitution requires the suppression of the evidence.

However, in a recent case before the Supreme Court of Virginia, the court reversed the conviction of a defendant who was arrested for DUI. The facts of the case are straightforward: police attempted to stop a boater, who sped away and eventually ran ashore. The boater got out and ran. Law enforcement eventually caught him and ultimately charged him with operating a boat under the influence. The defendant refused a breath or blood test.

The defendant did not file a pre-trial motion to suppress. Instead, at trial, the defendant attempted to argue that his arrest was unlawful. However, the prosecution objected, claiming that the defendant waived his right to challenge the legality of his arrest by not filing a motion to suppress. The trial court agreed, prevented the defendant from challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, and then convicted him. The defendant appealed.

The Supreme Court of Virginia recently issued an opinion overturning an accused’s Virginia conviction for operating a vessel while under the influence. According to the record, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC) noticed the accused operating his boat without a white running light. When the VMRC attempted to stop the man, he accelerated, ran the vessel into the ground, and jumped out. After reaching the accused, the VMRC arrested him for operating a vessel under the influence. The accused refused to take a breath or blood test.

At trial, the man attempted to introduce evidence regarding the lawfulness of his arrest; however, the lower court found that he had forfeited his right because the law required him to do so before trial. Following a conviction, the accused appealed under Virginia Code § 29.1-738.2, contending that the trial court erred in denying him the ability to present evidence to support his challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest.

Under Virginia law, individuals who operate a boat consent to provide a blood sample if the person is arrested within three hours of the offense. In this case, the accused argues that this implied consent statute only applies if it is predicated upon a lawful arrest. In reviewing the matter, the court looked to prior case law which limited the application of the implied consent law to situations involving a valid arrest.

Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Virginia DUI case, requiring the court to consider the defendant’s claim that police illegally seized her outside her home. However, the court held that law enforcement was justified in approaching the defendant while she was in her car that was parked in her driveway.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a man standing with a group of people saw a car without its lights on making erratic movements. Once the car passed, the man hopped into his truck to follow the driver, thinking they may be intoxicated. The defendant, who was driving the car, stopped several times, but sped off when the man approached her vehicle. Throughout this “chase,” the defendant clipped a telephone pole with her car before pulling into her driveway.

The man called police from inside his car, which was parked across the street from the defendant’s home. He watched the defendant inside her car until police arrived, and then confirmed that police were investigating the right person.

Continue Reading ›

Getting pulled over by the police is stressful, even for those who have done nothing wrong. However, for drivers who have had a few drinks, the experience can be terrifying. One of the most common questions we get related to Virginia DUI offenses is what a driver’s rights are when it comes to refusing a breath test.

Under Virginia’s implied consent law, drivers agree to submit to a chemical test when a police officer suspects that they are intoxicated. Thus, legally, drivers do not have the right to refuse a breath test. However, a police officer cannot physically force a motorist to blow into a breathalyzer. If a driver will not take a breath test when requested, it is called a refusal.

The first step to understanding Virginia’s implied consent rule is to know the difference between the two types of Virginia breath alcohol tests. The first test, which is administered by police on the side of the road, is called the preliminary breath test (PBT). The results of a PBT are not admissible in court, and the purpose of a PBT is to help the officer determine if someone may be intoxicated. There is no punishment for refusing a PBT; however, doing so may prompt the officer to look a little closer for signs of intoxication that may justify a DUI arrest.

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Virginia DUI case involving the defendant’s motion to suppress. Specifically, the defendant argued that the officer who pulled him over did not have reasonable suspicion to do so, and the trial court should have suppressed evidence that was recovered as a result of the stop. However, the appellate court disagreed with the defendant’s argument, finding that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause, affirming the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, police received a “be on the lookout” call reporting a man driving towards Bowling Green in a small green sedan to go get more beer. An officer went to one of the three businesses in Bowling Green that sells beer, and observed a small green sedan pull into the parking lot. There was one man inside, the defendant, drinking from a can. As the officer pulled closer, the defendant drove off.

The officer followed the defendant. A few moments later, the defendant approached a red light. When the light turned green, the defendant waited six or seven seconds before proceeding. The officer initiated a traffic stop and, upon approaching the vehicle, noticed that the defendant had glassy eyes, slurred speech and that there were numerous containers of alcohol in the car. The defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with DUI.

Continue Reading ›