When driving around Roanoke, you will inevitably come upon scenarios where pedestrians enter on to the roadway. The general assumption amongst many is that the road belongs to motorists and that pedestrians should keep to the sidewalks everywhere except those areas designated for them to cross. That assumption is largely correct, yet as is the case with many laws, there are exceptions. Many have come to members of our team here at Robert F. Rider, PLC. after having been cited for not yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians wondering how they might challenge such a supposed violation. The key to doing so is understanding when and where you have the right-of-way.
If you failed a Breathalyzer test and face drunk driving charges, you might feel that there is nothing you can do to build your defense. Fortunately, this is far from true. Breathalyzers are less dependable measurement tools than many people realize, and many other factors may impact the validity of the results they produce.
When you choose to challenge the drunk driving charges that have been filed against you, the common answer you are likely to receive is that the numbers do not lie. If you registered a blood-alcohol content measurement above .08 on a breath test in Roanoke, that may seem to be all that is needed to prove guilt. Yet the potential inaccuracies inherent in such devices have been detailed on this blog in the past. If you are going to challenge the accuracy of a breath test, then you may need to be able to counter by showing that your actions did not reflect one who was legally drunk.
In Virginia and around the country many people might feel they are part of a group that is somehow under siege. This may be related to a social issue like sexual orientation or religious preference or it may be related to someone's status if they have been involved in particular events.
It may be easy for people in Roanoke to simply assume that anyone who allegedly drives after drinking has little thought or care for the safety of others. Of course, such an assumption requires believing that any person suspected of driving under the influence knew of the dangers that they were creating and chose to drive anyway. Oftentimes, that simply is not the case. Rather, one who is accused of DUI may have indeed believed themselves to be lucid enough to drive, or perhaps felt that they had little choice but to drive after attempting to make alternate arrangements.