Alexandria Police Chief charged with .19 DWI out of Arlington, Virginia car accident

David Baker, the Alexandria Virginia Police Chief was arrested on July 25, 2009 for DWI with a reported blood alcohol level of .19.  Chief Baker was involved in an automobile accident that sent at least one person to the hospital.  Chief Baker was placed on paid leave. This accident and arrest occurred in Arlington.  Chief Baker was in an Alexandria police department vehicle.

Bob Keefer: Harrisonburg Rockingham County Virginia VA DUI DWI & Drunk Driving Lawyer: Even North Carolina State Troopers get charged with DWI DUI & Drunk Driving

North Carolina State Trooper John C. Fogg was arrested in June, 2009 for driving while intoxicated after he was involved in a two car crash on the Durham NC Freeway.

Fogg blew a .17 BAC on the ECIR2 breath tester in use in North Carolina.  The ECIR2 is not as effective in detecting mouth alcohol as its predecessor the I-5000. 

Fogg is 40 years old and a North Carolina State Trooper since 2007.

Bob Keefer named to Virginia Super Lawyers in the field of DWI/ DUI Defense for 2009

Bob Keefer named to Virginia Super Lawyers in the field of DWI/ DUI Defense for 2009

Bob Keefer named to Virginia Super Lawyers in the field of DWI/ DUI Defense for 2009

Attorney Blog 2009-06-25 13:00:00

I am honored to be chosen by this group as a Super Lawyer in Virginia in the field of DUI/ DWI.  I will continue to do my best to represent my clients charged with this very serious offense.

I am honored to be chosen by this group as a Super Lawyer in Virginia in the field of DUI/ DWI.  I will continue to do my best to represent my clients charged with this very serious offense.

Attorney Blog 2009-06-25 13:00:00

I am honored to be chosen by this group as a Super Lawyer in Virginia in the field of DUI/ DWI.  I will continue to do my best to represent my clients charged with this very serious offense.

You Don’t Have to Be Driving to Be Convicted of Connecticut DUI

A ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court means that you don’t have to actually be driving to be convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in Connecticut.  The Supreme Court’s ruling, which was 5-0 in the case of Michael Cyr, showed that drunk drivers do not have to be driving their cars to be charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Michael Cyr had been arrested in Manchester in February 2005 after he was found in a parking lot near a bar.  Cyr had started his vehicle remotely and then sat in the driver’s seat intoxicated.  However, he never put the key in the ignition and did not drive anywhere.

The Appellate Court had thrown out Cyr’s conviction, but Supreme Court Justices have ordered to court to reinstate it and send the case back to Manchester Superior Court for sentencing.

Cyr, a 50-year-old Andover resident, faces a jail sentence of up to one year followed by a three year probation period.  This DUI offense would make it Cyr’s third DUI conviction, as he had prior convictions in 1997 and 1998.

According to Chief Justice Chase Rogers, “In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle.”

The phrase, “motive power,” comes from a 1939 Connecticut court decision, which defined what constitutes “operating” a motor vehicle.

Cyr’s case is one in many that have raised questions concerning the definition of operating a motor vehicle under Connecticut’s drunk driving laws.

Fairfax County Virginia DUI Machines Are Inaccurate

Earlier in March, Richmond, Virginia DUI defense attorney Bob Battle cast doubt regarding the accuracy of Fairfax County’s breath testing machines.  According to Mr. Battle, one of the machines used by the county, the 10-year-old Intoxilyzer 5000, has significant weaknesses.  Police officers and courts often use the results of this machine to convict a driver of driving under the influence (DUI) in Virginia.

Bob Battle was representing a driver accused of DUI, when he discovered the weakness in the Intoxilyzer 5000.  According to Mr. Battle, when he received the records of the machine, he found out that one of the motors had been replaced.  After further investigation, he discovered that Virginia had purchased a number of replacement motors from various companies and that they couldn’t even tell you what motor was in the machine.  Without knowing the details of the replaced motors, the entire Intoxilyzer 5000 can be inaccurate.

The Fairfax County, Virginia General District Court judge presiding over the case agreed to allow experts to test the accuracy of the breath machine.  However, the prosecution wanted to avoid the testing and offered to reduce the DUI charge to reckless driving, which allowed the motorist to keep his license.  The deal offered by the prosecution was too good to turn down, but Mr. Battle believes that the breath machine will be tested one day.

"I sincerely believe it's going to be like that scene from the Wizard of Oz.  Once they roll back that curtain, they're going to find that this machine is not the perfect machine they try make it out to be -- that this is an outdated contraption. That's why Virginia, when they contracted for the new replacement machines, one of the conditions was that it couldn't have this type of motor in it," said Mr. Battle.

Next Page »