Fairfax and Arlington Virginia police officers are diligent in traffic enforcement and use universal DUI detection methods taught in the Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Training Academy (Police Academy) in Ashburn, Virginia.  The training of these Fairfax and Arlington police officers is a key component in cases against defendants because they are generally the Government's primary witnesses in DUI cases.  

There is a distinction between DWI and DUI if you are charged in a federal court such as the U.S. District Court in Alexandria. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, the body of law under which federal officers usually charge defendants, DUI reflects a blood alcohol content (BAC) between .02 and .08. DWI reflects a BAC of .08 and above. 

There is no distinction between DWI and DUI in state courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia as there is in Maryland and other states. Virginia state courts include the courts of Fairfax county, Arlington county. 

Click here to Review Case Results including results of cases in Fairfax and Arlington

Attorney & Officer Bose

Police Officers	Attorney Bose is a Police Officer and Counsellor at Law (Attorney) trained in all aspects of DUI and criminal evidentiary matters.  Attorney Furlong, a former police officer and Attorney Bose analyze police procedures in your case from the stop to arrest.  Both Attorney Bose and Furlong are certified by the NHTSA to perform field sobriety tests and often scrutinize Government witnesses on their performance of these tests in the field.     Query: Did your arresting officer follow all procedural rules and standards prior to arresting you for DUI?  Was there enough evidence to arrest you for DUI or should a motion be filed to strike the evidence for lack of probable cause?  Were the Standard Field Sobriety tests performed to NHTSA standards?  Was the officer properly trained in DUI arrest and procedure?
Former Virginia Private Investigator	Attorney Bose a former private investigator  licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  He knows how to investigate and analyze cases.    Query: Does the witness in your Virginia DUI accident case have convictions which affects his truthfulness or veracity?  Is there something which may lead the Government witness to have a bias against you?  Are there witnesses with exculpatory evidence in your Virginia DUI accident case?
Former Prosecutors	Bose Law Firm lawyers  include Attorney Drewniak and Attorney Dischley - both former prosecutors who have handled felonies and misdemeanors on behalf of the Government.  Query:  How will the prosecutor's polices and state mandates affect your case disposition?  What will the prosecutor look at in determining whether to plead your case?
Science Training and Understanding of Scientific Evidence	Attorney Bose holds a Bachelor of Science degree with college coursework in chemistry, physics, organic chemistry, microbiology, and biotechnology.  This education is the basis of his understanding the Government's Expert Witness - the Toxicologist.  Attorney Bose speaks the jargon and understands the principles involved in scientific evidence. If there is a trial in one's DUI case and if the science of the blood or breath is attacked by the defense, there is a high probability of the government calling the Breath Section Chief to tender expert testimony.  Knowledge is power - particularly in the sciences.

Driving under the influence and drunk driving are synonymous terms under Virginia law as set forth in the Code of Virginia. 

Section 18.2-266 is termed the "adult Virginia DWI" section and it is the section charged for DWIs in Virginia state courts. For persons under the age of 21 charged with DWI, officers charge under a section of the Code termed "baby DWI." As stated below, the sentencing provisions of a baby DWI are very different from an adult DWI.

The government has the burden of proving its case against a defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt" in DUI | DWI cases because these cases are criminal cases.  This is the same standard applicable to all criminal prosecutions. In the drunk driving context, the government proves its case against a defendant by introducing the driver's (1) Driving Behavior (2) Appearance and Coordination, and/or (3) Scientific evidence of intoxication. 

More often than not, the prosecutor will place an emphasis on the BAC certificate (scientific evidence) to secure a conviction. This is because the prosecutor must simply introduce the BAC certificate indicating a BAC of .08 or higher for a presumption of driving under the influence. For this reason, as outlined below, it is important to advance any technical arguments against the BAC certificate (scientific evidence). Technical arguments are not available in all cases, but they are in some.

18.2-268.10. Evidence of violation of driving under the influence offenses.

A. In any trial for a violation of 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of 18.2-272 or a similar ordinance, the admission of the blood or breath test results shall not limit the introduction of any other relevant evidence bearing upon any question at issue before the court, and the court shall, regardless of the result of any blood or breath tests, consider other relevant admissible evidence of the condition of the accused. If the test results indicate the presence of any drug other than alcohol, the test results shall be admissible, except in a prosecution under clause (v) of 18.2-266 only if other competent evidence has been presented to relate the presence of the drug or drugs to the impairment of the accused's ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely.

B. The failure of an accused to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood is not evidence and shall not be subject to comment by the Commonwealth at the trial of the case, except in rebuttal or pursuant to subsection C; nor shall the fact that a blood or breath test had been offered the accused be evidence or the subject of comment by the Commonwealth, except in rebuttal or pursuant to subsection C.

C. Evidence of a finding against the defendant under 18.2-268.3 for his unreasonable refusal to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood shall be admissible into evidence, upon the motion of the Commonwealth or the defendant, for the sole purpose of explaining the absence at trial of a chemical test of such sample. When admitted pursuant to this subsection such evidence shall not be considered evidence of the accused's guilt.

D. The court or jury trying the case involving a violation of clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or a similar ordinance shall determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant from all the evidence concerning his condition at the time of the alleged offense.

Click here to Review Case Results

In introducing evidence of driving behavior, the prosecutor will generally call the police officer to testify about her observations of the driver prior to stopping the vehicle.  Often, police officers will refer to weaving, erratic turning, and excessive speed.  These observations are then argued by the prosecutor as evidence of driving under the influence of alcohol.  

Driving behavior alone; however, is not enough to prove a Virginia DUI case; however, it is often enough proof of reckless driving. This is important because attorneys will often try to reduce Virginia DUI cases to Reckless Driving as Reckless Driving does not carry the collateral penalties and stigma associated with Drunk Driving.  The police officer will often expand her testimony to include observations of the defendant upon the stop.  Blood shot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol, and slurred speech are indicative of intoxication and the prosecution will elicit this evidence from the police officer.

In addition to appearance, the police officer will also testify on the defendant's coordination or lack thereof.  This evidence will often rely on field sobriety tests conducted by the officer at the scene of the arrest.

Field Sobriety Tests include the following: 

1. Touching the tip of the nose with the forefinger 
2. Walking a straight line, heal-to-toe in one direction, turning around, and walking back in the opposite direction 
3. Standing on one foot
4. Reciting the alphabet 
5. Counting, usually backwards, from one number to another

Standard Field Sobriety Tests include only the Walk and Turn, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, and One-Leg Stand. 

Attorney Bose is a Police Officer and Counsellor at Law (Attorney) trained in all aspects of DUI and criminal evidentiary matters.  The Bose Law Firm team analyzes police procedures in your case from the stop to arrest.  The Bose Law Firm team often scrutinizes Government witnesses on their performance of these tests in the field and experts are often used to highlight key procedural flaws in testing.

The scientific evidence in a Virginia drunk driving case is premised on the use of Intoxilyzer Model 5000.  When a person is arrested for suspicion of drunk driving, her breath is used to determine the level of alcohol in her blood.  A defendant with a blood alcohol level of  .08 or more is presumed to be under the influence. This is a rebuttable presumption as noted in the Code section below.

18.2-269. Presumptions from alcohol content of blood. 

A. In any prosecution for a violation of 18.2-36.1 or clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of 18.2-266, or any similar ordinance, the amount of alcohol or drugs in the blood of the accused at the time of the alleged offense as indicated by a chemical analysis of a sample of the accused's blood or breath to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood in accordance with the provisions of 18.2-268.1 through 18.2-268.12 shall give rise to the following rebuttable presumptions:

Because there is a rebuttable presumption that a BAC of .08 or more reflects the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, attorneys must rebut the presumption with credible proof of sobriety.  Bose Law Firm attrorneys rebut the presumption with the use of experts in the field of medicine or toxicology.  Attorneys usually use experts in cases where the BAC is low - between .08 and .10. The use of experts for higher BACs is often reserved for cases in which the defendant has a medical condition such as diabetes that sometimes complicates the assessment of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Click here to Review Case Results

Attorney Bose holds a Bachelor of Science degree with college coursework in chemistry, physics, organic chemistry, microbiology, and biotechnology.  This education is the basis of his understanding the Government's Expert Witness - the Toxicologist.  Attorney Bose speaks the jargon and understands the principles involved in scientific evidence.

Counsel prior to the hearing date must scrutinize the use of the scientific evidence. As noted below, there are many burdens that must be met for the use of the BAC report against the defendant. Objections to the use of the BAC report must be made during trial. If the objections are not made in a timely fashion, the errors are deemed to have been waived at the trial.