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

DC VOYEURISM STATUTE: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Castillo v. U.S., decided on March 8, 2018, once again addressed, defined and further expanded certain statutory provision and language of the Voyeurism Statute. Castillo, a cleaning employee of a restaurant, was accused of entering a women’s bathroom and peeping under a stall. On appeal from the conviction under the Voyeurism Statute he argued mainly that technically he was not ever in “a hidden observation post” as the Statute requires and that he had only entered the bathroom to start the cleaning process. The Statute in the pertinent part provides: (b) Except as provided in subsection
Read More

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER

D.C Code §23-110, the main statutory language for ineffective assistance of counsel provides for the judicial officer an authority for reversal of sentence due to “denial or infringement” of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Specifically, if the court finds that: (1) The judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, (2) The sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, (3) There has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, The court may vacate under these circumstances the conviction and set aside the
Read More

4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Miles v. U.S., decided on March 29, 2018, reversed gun related charges and conviction due to defendant’s 4th amendment violations. An anonymous 911 call and tip formed the basis for the Terry stop which led the arrest and seizure of weapons. The tip provided by a concerned citizen described a man wearing a blue army jacket with characteristics similar to Mr. Miles’s shooting a gun in the air. Miles argued on appeal that: The 911 tip was not sufficiently corroborated at the scene and thus was not shown to be reliable. That his flight from
Read More

DC COLLABORATIVE REPRODUCTION PROCESS: LEGAL ELEMENTS

The collaboration reproduction process either through the “gestational surrogate” or via insemination for intended parents create a labyrinth of legal issues that would need to be addressed incrementally. Intended parents are the individuals who put the process in motion, married or unmarried, who have committed in writing and otherwise to be the legal parents of the child to be born. The intended parents would need to file a petition of parentage for a legal declaration by the court. The Court will have jurisdiction when: The intended parent or the surrogate is a District resident ; Who have actually resided in
Read More

DISCOVERY RULES IN THE DRUG CASES: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DRUG LAWYER

The Court of Appeal in Buchanan v. U.S., decided on August 3, 2017, remanded a Possession with Intent to Distribute (PWID) Marijuana case due to the government’s lack of compliance with the specific scientific discovery requests by defense as deemed to be material on appeal. Specifically, the defendant had requested these documents in preparation for trial from the government pursuant to Rule 16, which provides for discovery of specific information within the government’s control such as: books, papers, documents, photographs, which are material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense. The defense with the assistance of an independent chemist and affidavits
Read More

DC LEAVING AFTER COLLIDING STATUTE: DC COURT OF APPEALS

The Court of Appeals in Cherry v. District of Columbia decided on July 27, 2017, revered and remanded the defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident after colliding and expanded and defined the statutory language. Cherry’s car had collided with the wall adjacent to a convenient store. Cherry had exited his car and initially walked toward the convenient store while police officer were already at the scene. He had initially failed to identify himself but had later (about 12 minutes) after the accident had come forward and identified himself as the driver of the vehicle and to the police
Read More

DE FACTO PARENT DEFINED; THIRD PARTY CHILD CUSTODY STATUTE

The third party custody statute in DC enables an initial filing or intervention by the third party in the ongoing proceeding under the following conditions: THIRD PARTY CUSTODY I. A parent who has provided primary care of the child for the past three years consents and supports the third party custody motion; or that: II. The third party has: Lived in the same household as the child for the past 4 out of the 6 months prior to the filing of the complaint; If the child is under 6 months, then for the half of the child’s life; and The
Read More

DIVISION OF PROPERTY: DC DIVORCE

In the District of Columbia the material assets would be distributed and apportioned in a manner that is: Equitable, Just, and Reasonable The issue of division of property during marital dissolution is one of the most conflicting and complex areas in a divorce process as oftentimes the opposing parties disagree on what constitutes as sole and separate versus marital property. In the District of Columbia, the division of marital property is at the sole discretion of the Judge. The court considers all material assets including but not limited to: Business interests Investments, including foreign Stock options Nigh net-worth estates Antiques
Read More

4TH AMENDMENT: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES: WARRANTLESS EXCEPTIONS

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures: Specifically the 4th Amendment provides: THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURED IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST ANY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. Over the years the Supreme Court has carved out numerous search exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. These exceptions are: 1. CONSENT Knowing and voluntary consent to the search
Read More