A painful increase in auto insurance rates is generally anticipated when you are convicted of DUI. In most jurisdictions, and certainly in Nevada, most insurance companies will not insure a driver within 7 years of a DUI conviction without that individual securing what is known as an SR-22. Drivers need an SR-22 to reinstate their suspended licenses following a Nevada DUI and certain other traffic violations. An SR–22 is a “certificate of financial responsibility” statement issued by a driver’s auto insurance company. After a DUI, an SR22 is required for three (3) years following a license suspension.
Latest News
In the past, DUIs were not really considered serious so it would be fine if someone had a couple of drinks,
whereas nowadays, DUIs are taken much more seriously.
First time DUIs and a second DUI in Nevada are misdemeanors. In the past this was not really considered
a big deal. But, groups like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, focused the spotlight on drunk driving
because even though it is a misdemeanor, it is considered the most serious of misdemeanors, as is
domestic violence.
DUI is considered a progressive crime, meaning that the penalties become more severe for a 2nd time
and 3rd time DUI. For a first time DUI, the person would be looking at a minimum of two days in jail, with
a maximum of six months.
They would be able to do 48 hours community service in lieu of the jail time, although we are usually able
to resolve the case and have the client get credit for time served for the 48 hours, meaning the person
would not need to do it.
It was a more serious situation if it was a second time DUI within seven years, because that would be a
minimum of 10 days’ jail and a maximum of 6 months. The fines would be higher and the person would
be required to put a breath interlock device in their car and they would lose their license for 1 year.
In regards to the progressive nature of the crime, a third time DUI within seven years would be considered
a felony and the penalties would be 1 to 6 years a fine ranging from $2,000 to $5,000, the person would
lose their license for three years, and it would be non-probationable, so the person would have to go to
prison.
They would have to spend one to six years in the Nevada state prison, although the people who were
convicted of a third time DUI would be segregated and they would not be housed with killers and people
who committed sexual assault or people who had used violence against somebody else, but the fact is
that a prison is still prison.
Case Study
I handled a case recently in which my client was previously convicted of a DUI. He went to a casino and
valet parked. When he came out, his BAC was over a 0.20 and the valet parking attendant told my client
he should not get in the car because he would be driving drunk. My client insisted he wanted to get in the
car. The attendant called the police, and the police officer told my client that he would arrest him if he got
in the car after drinking.
There was some dispute as to what really happened, because my client claimed he went into the car just
to get his cell phone charger but he did not drive, whereas the officer claimed my client did get into the
car and that he drove but he did not even get out of the parking lot. He drove 20 feet so the officer arrested
him.
This was a situation where as far as I was concerned, the officer did not see any bad driving so he did not have reasonable suspicion to pull the client over. But, of course, the DA said he did. It was a second time DUI. We were able to resolve the case by my client pleading to a second time DUI and they did a stay of adjudication. The sentencing was more severe than usual, but that was part of the give and take.
I felt that the most important thing was to prevent him from being convicted of a DUI, so he needed to go
to DUI school, the victim impact panel and pay a fine, which is how it is for every DUI case. He also needed
to undergo a chemical dependency evaluation because it was a second time DUI, and he would have to
follow whatever the recommendations were from the evaluator. This particular client was from out of state
and they did not have the people who were certified by the state of Nevada to do the chemical
dependency evaluation. We agreed on a deal that in order to successfully complete his probation, he
would have to go to Alcohol Anonymous for one day per week for six months.
At the end of the day my client was convicted of reckless driving, which was a non DUI disposition and,
instead of a second time DUI which would have been a mandatory 10 days in jail. The third DUI within 7
years is a felony.
Most people who come to me say they were not actually drunk and they were doing fine. The way the
statute is written, you do not need to be falling down drunk to be deemed under the influence of alcohol.
People generally think they did the roadside tests, field sobriety tests (FSTs) fine. But often they don’t know
how they actually performed. Alcohol affects people’s judgment. Their recollection may not be the way it
really happened. People often say the police had no reason to pull them over because they were driving
fine. Sometimes they are right, often they are not.
Many people have the mindset that it is “only” a DUI, not a criminal case. People need to understand that
a DUI is actually a criminal case, although if we were able to resolve it as a non-DUI disposition, like reckless
driving that is much less serious than a DUI, then it would be considered a traffic offense instead of a
criminal case.
People also have the misconception that their case would be dismissed if they were pulled over and made
to do all these tests but no one had read them their Miranda rights. Miranda protects people from making
incriminating statements when they are already in custody, whereas the law in Nevada and in most states
says that DOING THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS IS NOT TESTIMONIAL.
If they did not read the person their Miranda rights, they would not be able to use the person’s actual
statements, if they made any incriminating statements while in custody. But, they would still be able to
use other evidence such as witness statements, blood analysis and the officers’ observations.
Let us suppose someone was pulled over, arrested for a DUI and were on their way to jail. In this situation
they would be considered as being in custody. If the officer had not read the Miranda rights, even if the
person made incriminating statements i.e. that they were driving, they had a lot to drink and rammed into
a parking meter. These statements are incriminating, we would be able to get those statements
suppressed.
It is never advisable to take the roadside tests. You cannot be forced to do them and you have a right to
refuse. Most of the time, police will try and bully you into taking the tests. They’ll also have a portable
breath tester at the scene and they will ask you to blow into that. You are not required to do this either.
The Nevada case called Byars vs. State codified a Federal law which said that if one doesn’t consent to a
blood draw, then the state must get a warrant before they obtain one. In Nevada, you have a constitutional
right not to submit to a blood test without a warrant. That’s the good news. If you don’t submit, by the
time they get a search warrant and they do take your blood, if it is over two hours, then that helps your
criminal case. If they are not able to get the chemical tests within that time frame, they cannot use it to
prove that your blood alcohol level was over 0.08.
Unfortunately, in 2015 the Nevada legislature passed the law that said if you do not consent to a chemical
test, such as a breath or blood, and are suspected of driving under the influence, in addition to any other
penalties, your license will be revoked for one year.
In a DUI case, if you don’t take the test, that increases your chances of winning. That’s the criminal case.
However, if you don’t take the test, then you will lose your license for an additional year after the 90 day
revocation that you will get if you are convicted of a DUI or lose the DMV hearing.
If you are going to take the rest, the blood test is more accurate than the breath test. So if you know you
do not have a lot of alcohol in your system, take the blood test. If it’s close to the 0.08 limit, the blood can
be retested, and often, it will come back a little less. If it comes out less, it can’t be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that your blood alcohol level was over a 0.08 at that time.
An attorney would generally resolve such cases so that it’s a non-DUI disposition. A common disposition
in a case where there is a witness problem or the blood alcohol level is close to the limit would be a “stayed
of adjudication.” This is how a stayed adjudication works. You would plead guilty to your first time DUI, the
court would not enter the conviction. You would need to do the minimum DUI requirements including
attending DUI School and a victim impact panel (VIP), both are required by statute in all DUI cases. The VIP
is a two-hour seminar put on by people whose lives have been adversely affected by a drunk driver.
The DUI school can be done in-person or online, which I recommend because it takes less time. Also, you
will need to pay a fine. If you can’t afford it, you may do community service and you’ll be paid $10 an hour.
So instead of paying $500, you could do 50 hours of community service but it is recommended that people
pay the fine as it’s much less onerous.
In addition, there may be other requirements, such attending AA once a week for a period of time along
with community service. If you successfully complete all requirements and stay out of trouble then you
will be able to withdraw your plea and enter a plea to reckless driving, which is not a DUI. That doesn’t
subject you to the possibility of a second time DUI.
In California, the laws are different than Nevada. They have something called a Wet Reckless, which means
if your DUI is reduced to reckless driving and it is considered a wet reckless, if you are convicted of another
DUI, that wet reckless becomes a DUI for enhancement purposes. In both California and in Nevada, if you
are convicted of a DUI three times within seven years, the third time becomes a felony which carries a
non-probationable penalty of 1 to 6 years in Nevada state prison.
A DUI lawyer who knows how to defend your rights is necessary if you have been arrested for a DUI. If you have been charged with a DUI, you could be facing some extremely severe penalties including loss of your license, fines, and jail time. These Las Vegas DUI cases can become quite complex, and it is important to have an experienced DUI attorney on your side to help protect your interests and guide you through the process.
At Law Offices of Mace J. Yampolsky, we have helped thousands of clients throughout Las Vegas who have been charged with DUI. I have more than 30 years of experience in these cases, and I know what it takes to build a successful defense on your behalf.
When a law enforcement official stops you on suspicion of drunk driving, the law dictates specific rules that must be followed leading up to and during the stop. Any violation of these procedures can constitute a violation of your rights, which can seriously weaken the prosecution’s case against you.
When you hire my firm, I will closely examine your case to determine if your rights were respected at all times. If they were not, I will immediately seek to have your charges dropped, or at least reduced. I will pursue every legal option available to find weaknesses in the evidence against you, including the following:
- Whether the law enforcement official had reasonable suspicion to stop you
- If the breath test was properly administered
- If the person who administered the breath test was qualified to do so
- If the breathalyzer equipment was accurate and working properly
By statute, the punishment for conviction of a first time DUI requires a minimum of two (2) days in the Clark County Detention Center (or in the corresponding City Jail if charged by the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, etc.). In practical reality, many persons arrested and charged with DUI will serve anywhere from a handful of hours to a day in jail—first time DUI arrestees with no prior criminal record are often granted an “O.R.,” or an “own recognizance release,” for which no bail must be posted, at the time when their impairment has faded away. When DUI cases are resolved in Court, more often than not, prosecutors will negotiate in such a way so that credit time served will be granted for any remaining “mandatory” jail time prescribed by statute.
DUI involving death or substantial bodily harm (SBH) is a felony. The penalty is 2 to 20 years in the Nevada
State Prison. The sentence is non-probationable. If you are convicted of DUI with death or SBH, you will
go to prison. If you were in an auto accident and killed someone, or injured someone really badly so they
had to go to the hospital or there was a broken bone and you have alcohol in your system, you will be
charged with DUI with death or SBH.
The interesting thing about a misdemeanor DUI is that if the driver was in an accident even if it was not
his fault could be convicted. It would not matter if the accused was rear ended. If the police determined
that a driver had consumed alcohol then they would have probable cause to arrest him no matter who
caused the accident.
There would need to be proximate cause that the accused caused the accident to be convicted of DUI
with death or SBH. For example, the driver would be the proximate cause of the accident if they rear
ended someone going 90 miles per hour and that person was killed.
The accused would not be considered the proximate cause of the accident, and they could not be
convicted of DUI with death or substantial bodily harm in a situation in which they were driving correctly
but then someone on the other side of the road crossed the median and it resulted in a head on collision
and that person died.
The accused could be convicted of some other offense such as failure to use due care or something like
that, but they would not be looking at mandatory prison time.
I recently handled a case involving my client and his friend who were out drinking. They were both over
the limit. My client was about a .12, whereas the other person was a .34. My client was driving and they
had a car accident which resulted in a rollover. The passenger did not have his seatbelt on so he was
killed. It may seem that the reason he was killed was because he did not have his seatbelt on. However,
that issue has been litigated and just because someone does not buckle their seatbelt doesn’t mean that
he or she was responsible for their own death.
In this particular case, my client was driving around a curve and driving properly. He was in a little two
seater Mercedes. He told the passenger to put his seat belt on. The passenger was in the process of
putting it on when he hit the steering wheel and they had the accident. It was a rollover. My client had a
concussion and he was injured, but he was wearing his seatbelt, whereas the passenger died because he
was not wearing his seatbelt.
My client was charged with DUI involving death and SBH because his blood alcohol was over the limit, 1.2.
The legal limit is .08. It looked pretty bad. I believed the probable cause of the accident was the fact that
the passenger had hit the steering wheel. When a vehicle is in an accident, the seatbelt freezes where it
is. If the seatbelt was not used at all, it would freeze in the opening position, whereas if it was buckled, it
would freeze there.
In this particular case, the seatbelt was frozen halfway. It was close to the steering wheel. This
corroborated my client’s testimony. I hired an accident Reconstructionist who examined everything and
believed, as I did, that the passenger’s behavior when he hit the steering wheel; caused my client to lose
control of the vehicle. That was the proximate cause of accident.
I was able to get my client a non-DUI disposition for felony reckless driving. He did not go to prison.
It would be considered a DUI if the person was driving, meaning they were in actual physical control of a
vehicle when their blood alcohol was 0.08 or more, or if they had any prohibited controlled substances in
their blood.
They could also be convicted of a DUI if they were driving under the influence of alcohol to any degree,
however slight, if it rendered them incapable of driving safely. This means people could be convicted of a
DUI even if their blood alcohol level was lower than a 0.08.
The blood alcohol test results would be inadmissible if the test was taken two hours after the person had
been driving, although it appears that the state gets two bites of the apple. In addition to the criminal case,
there is a DMV hearing. The administrative law judge (ALJ) decides whether there is “Clear and Convincing
evidence” that you were driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is a lesser standard of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that is used in a criminal case. The DMV does not care about the 2-hour rule.
So you could resolve your DUI case as a non-DUI disposition and STILL lose your license for 90 days based
on the ruling of the ALJ.
Stereotypical DUI Defendant In Nevada
Anyone can get a DUI; it could be a man, a woman, someone young or someone old, although most of
DUI clients are generally male.
Around 80% of DUI cases involve males. It is interesting because if a man and a woman, who weigh the
same, drank the exact same amount of alcohol, the woman’s blood alcohol level would be higher because
women’s bodies generally carry more fat, and because of that, the alcohol stays in the fat longer and the
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) will be higher.
Prescription Drug DUI In Nevada
Another thing people do not realize is that they could be under the influence of a prescription drug even
if they had a valid prescription. Hydrocodone and many other legally prescribed drugs can affect a person’s
perception. However, if there are no other drugs or alcohol in your system, and the prescription drug is
in the therapeutic range, we are usually able to resolve your case so it is not a DUI. Nevada law has
something called a rebuttable presumption, meaning that if someone had a controlled substance in their
blood at certain levels then it would be presumed the person was driving under the influence. These levels
are very low for marijuana and a lot of other drugs.
It is rebuttable because if the person had a prescription for 40mg of Hydrocodone every day, but they
only had 20mg in their system when they were pulled over, then that would be within the therapeutic
range and it would defeat the presumption.
Unfortunately, sometimes the person might have consumed much more than prescribed. For example,
around 200mg of Hydrocodone, which is five times the limit prescribed per day so this would not rebut
the presumption that the person was under the influence. Sometimes the prosecutors would be more
flexible even if the person was over the prescribed limit of medication, than if they were under the
influence of marijuana, cocaine, heroin or something like that.
In Nevada the legal limit is a 0.08, so someone who the police can prove was driving or in actual physical
control whose blood alcohol concentration was over a 0.08 could be convicted of a DU. However, the
breath test has an error factor of up to 10%, meaning it could be 10% higher, or 10% lower. So if someone
is a .09 or less, we would use that in our argument that the prosecution would not be able to prove that
the blood alcohol level was 0.8 or more beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a very high standard that is
used in all criminal cases.
We would typically resolve this kind of case as a stay of adjudication. The client would actually plead guilty
to a DUI, but the court would “stay the adjudication”. The guilty plea would NOT be entered into the record.
So if anyone checks, your case would still be pending. Then you would need to complete certain
requirements; usually attend and complete a DUI school, attend a Victim Impact Panel (VIP) which is
basically a seminar in which people tell you how their life has been adversely affected by a drunk driver
(i.e. My sister was rear ended by a drunk drive and she broke her arm), pay a fine, stay out of trouble and
possibly do some community service. If you successfully complete these requirements your case would
end up as reckless driving. This is NOT a DUI conviction. But the flip side is, if you do not successfully
complete, you will be convicted of a DUI.
If a client took a blood test and the blood alcohol level was 0.085, then he or she could have the blood
retested because it sometimes might come back lower. Some clients have a much higher blood alcohol
level. According to Nevada law, if the blood alcohol level was in fact over a 0.18, then in addition to the
other penalties we would need to get a chemical dependency assessment.
The person would be interviewed by a psychologist to determine whether or not the person had an
alcohol problem or what other requirements they may need as part of their sentencing. They would
typically want people to go to AA once a week or maybe even twice a week depending on the blood alcohol
level and the history of the individual’s driving record and previous incidents involving alcohol.
Blood Tests Are Only Valid If Taken Within A Certain Time Frame
The chemical test for alcohol would need to be done within two hours from the time of driving. The alcohol
test would not be admissible in court if it was not done within those two hours. The 2 hour time limit does
not apply to drugs.
I handled a case involving a motorcycle in which my client actually came back to the scene of the accident
because his friend wiped out on his motorcycle. When the officer arrived, my client was standing with his
motorcycle. He was not driving and by the time they took the blood alcohol level it had been over two
hours.
There was another witness for this incident, who had seen both motorcycles. She said the other
motorcyclist passed unsafely, whereas my client did not. I asked whether there had been any bad driving
by my client, and she said no.
They were not able to convict my client of a DUI because the blood alcohol level was not admissible
because it was taken more than 2 hours from driving. I went to trial on this. I spoke to the officer ahead
of time and told them they would not be able to prove their case. All I wanted was for the DA to reduce it
to a reckless driving conviction. The cop would not agree. So we went to trial and I won.
Yes, if the case has some defects from the prosecution’s standpoint, such as they did not have the chemist
who did the test, the blood alcohol level was tested more than two hours after the arrest, the officer did
not see the person driving, there was a missing witness or the client was home or someplace else when
they drank more. In this situation, even though their blood alcohol level was over the limit it would be
difficult to prove what the BAC was at the time of driving. In these cases, we are often able to resolve the
case so it ends up as reckless driving instead of DUI.
Charges Or Punishments Can Be Reduced In DUI Cases Under Certain Circumstances
There is actually no hard and fast rule, but it seems that between 60% and 75% of my clients end up with
their charges being reduced to reckless driving.
Potential clients ask me about this all the time, and I tell them what I think their issues are, i. e. that the
officer did not see them drive so they could not place them behind the wheel, their blood alcohol level
was taken over two hours after they were driving so the police did the test improperly and therefore they
did not have probable cause to arrest them. This is just my opinion which may or may not be shared by
the judge.
Clients often ask me if I could guarantee them a reckless driving charge and I tell them that firstly under
the cannons of ethics of a lawyer I could not guarantee a result. However, I have had success with their
situation.
There is another favorable disposition we get for clients when they are charged with a second time DUI.
Under the law the penalties include installing a breath interlock device in their car. They must blow into it
prior to driving or the car will not start. If there is any alcohol in their system, the car will not start. And
they would need to spend at least 10 days in jail.
We plead to a second time DUI for enhancements, but it would be a first for penalties. This means they
would not have to do the 10 days in jail, only 2 days or 48 hours community service. Usually we can get
the community service waived. They would not need to install the breath interlock device, or do the ten
days, but it would be a second for enhancement.
This means that if the client was convicted of another DUI and it was the third time within seven years,
then the DUI conviction that was the first for penalties would be a second time DUI conviction for purposes
of enhancement, and the person would therefore be looking at a felony.
It is the luck of the draw, because I can sometimes go through two weeks in which every case I handle will
be a reckless driving. But sometimes two weeks will go by and I cannot get any of them reduced to a
reckless driving. It is impossible to predict because each case is different.
Plea Bargains In A DUI Case
The offer by the DA usually is not that great during the first trial setting, so we would typically continue it.
Sometimes the offer would not get better, but many times it does. The DA may give a more favorable offer
if something happened that weakens his case, i.e. witness moved away, a chemical technician moved away
or died, and in that case the offer gets better and our client pleads to a stay of adjudication. When the
case is finished, they would end up with a reckless driving conviction as opposed to a DUI.
Stayed Adjudications
We like this result but the case will certainly end up as a reckless driving charge, if the client did what he
was supposed to do. There is an expression ‘The key to the jailhouse is in your hand.” Usually if the client
does not complete all of the requirements in addition to a DUI conviction, they usually would spend some
time in jail. But the client himself determines whether he goes to jail or not. This is called a “Stay of
Adjudication”, and it works by the client pleading guilty to DUI, but the DUI would not be entered, so in a
way it would be floating out there in cyberspace. Anybody who tried to look for it would see that the person
had been charged with DUI, but they would not be able to see whether they had been convicted.
The client would typically need to fulfill the requirements for a first time DUI, meaning they would have to
go to DUI School and attend a victim impact panel (VIP), pay a fine and stay out of trouble (no further
arrests).
The victim impact panel is essentially a seminar in which people talk about how they had been adversely
affected by a DUI. Victims would tell stories about how they got a back injury because they were rearended
by a drunk driver, so they ended up having to go to therapy for six months etc. It is mandatory to
attend the victim impact panel, and you must be physically present. Unlike the DUI School, you cannot do
the VIP online.
Nowadays computers have become very sophisticated, and a recent development has enabled DUI school
classes to be completed online. A fine would be imposed, and a first time DUI would cost somewhere
between $580 to $1,175. The stay out of trouble component would require the person to stay out of
trouble during the probation. No further arrests and no additional criminal violations. There couldn’t be
any arrests for DUI or anything else. It would be okay if the person was cited with a minor traffic ticket.
Usually the court will impose a suspended sentence for around 30 days, but there would be no jail time
as long as the person did everything, although they would usually need to spend 6 months in in custody
if they were arrested for another DUI.
Ignition Interlock Device
A breath interlock device would be installed in the car. The person who was driving must breathe into it
to make sure there was no alcohol in their system prior to drving. If there is, the car would not start. This
device is also expensive to install, it is actually a huge hassle.
It would be a huge mistake to try to handle a DUI case without proper legal representation by an attorney
who knew what they were doing. When clients talk to me about wanting to handle their DUI themselves, I
ask them whether they would operate on themselves, because if the answer to that is no, then they should
not try to handle their DUI case themselves either.
Hiring An Experienced DUI Professional Versus Handling The Case Oneself
Firstly, anyone should never represent themselves. There is a saying that if a lawyer represents himself he
has a fool for a client. Even a DUI lawyer, who was accused of driving under the influence, should hire
someone else, and that is what I would do. Thankfully, I have never been convicted of a DUI or been in
that situation.
It would not be a good idea to have a general lawyer, or even someone who handled criminal cases but
did not do DUIs, because there may be defenses and ways to handle the case that an experienced DUI
lawyer would know, whereas even an experienced criminal lawyer who did not have the expertise in a DUI
case may miss.
I tell my clients they should not go to a foot doctor for a heart problem, which is why they would need a
specialist.
Defending The Case Through A Public Defender
Regarding hiring a PD, or public defender, the good news is that public defenders are free, although the
bad news is the person would never know which public defender they would get. Some public defenders
may be good whereas some may be not so good.
The other reason why people really should not have a public defender handling their DUI case is because
the public defender would only represent them for the criminal case, not the DMV hearing which is a a
civil proceeding so the public defender would not represent them for that portion of the case.
I have often seen the public defender do a great job so the client was not convicted of a DUI, but then no
one went to the DMV hearing because the client did not realize the PD would not handle the DMV hearing
and they needed to go. Unfortunately, they ended up with their license revoked for 90 days, which could
have been avoided.
The public defender could not represent him on a civil case or the DMV hearing, which is considered an
administrative proceeding, not a criminal action. He did not get the opportunity to defend himself, which
is why it would generally not be a good idea to have a public defender represent you in a DUI case or if
they did have a public defender represent them, they could hire another experienced DUI lawyer to just
handle the DMV hearing. But it is usually better to have 1 lawyer handle the entire case.
Law Offices of Mace J. Yampolsky Criminal Defense Las Vegas Discuss 2019 Changes To Nevada’s Domestic Violence Laws
DV and DUIs are the most serious misdemeanor crimes in the state of Nevada. A conviction of first-time offense carries mandatory jail time (2 days to 6 months) however there were important 2019 Changes To Nevada’s Domestic Violence Laws. When we resolve the matter we can usually work around the jail time and with get the DA to waive it or have the client to community service instead. It is my understanding that DV incidents are the most prevalent for the police, approximately 40% of the 911 calls to the police involve domestic violence. Both DV and DUIs are progressive crimes if you are convicted within 7 years of a prior offense. The penalties are stiffer. Mandatory jail time of at least 10 days. Also, a third time DV or DUI carries a mandatory, non-probational prison sentence.
In Nevada, domestic violence is generally a violent confrontation between two people who are related by blood or marriage or who are dating or living together. (However, the law recently changed and confrontations between siblings are not considered domestic violence anymore, just simple battery) The confrontation may involve hitting, pushing, assault, threats, or emotional abuse.
The penalties for first time domestic violence are imprisonment for two days to six months, 48 to 120 hours of community service, 26 sessions of domestic violence counseling and a fine of between $200 and $1,000. As stated above additional convictions within 7 years have harsher penalties
In Nevada, until recently there is no right to a jury trial for all misdemeanors. However, the law recently changed. On September 12th, 2019, in the case of Christopher Anderson. The Nevada Supreme court ruled that the offense of misdemeanor domestic violence is a serious offense and the right of a jury trial is triggered. Nevada Law now limits the right to bear arms for a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
This a huge benefit for Defendants. A jury will probably be more sympathetic to the facts of the offense.: the prior history, the credibility of witnesses and other factors that judges may discount. The district attorneys handle jury trial all the time. But the City attorneys do not. This puts the city at a disadvantage. The City of Las Vegas has reacted by not charging domestic violence anymore, just simple battery which does not limit the right to bear arms. This means if one is convicted there is no requirement that one attend 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling an no limitation by the State of one’s right to bear arms.
If one is convicted of a felony such as a third time domestic violence or battery domestic violence by strangulation there are much more severe penalties, including prison time. For these reasons, it is crucial that those accused hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer. At Law Offices of Mace J. Yampolsky Criminal Defense Las Vegas, we have successfully handled hundreds of DV cases, both misdemeanors and felonies. Call us if you have any questions at (702) 385-9777, visit us here, or send us a message on our contact form.
To learn more about domestic violence in Nevada and how our firm can help you, please read more about domestic violence cases here.
Being Charged In State Court Or Federal Court
In state court, depending on the facts, the attorney is usually able to resolve a case so that the charge is eligible for probation and his client doesn’t spend any time in prison. In federal court, the penalties are much more severe. There are mandatory minimum sentences. The Federal sentencing guidelines (FSG) calculate a range of punishments. Your criminal history and the offense level will determine how long someone will spend behind bars. Obviously the more serious the crime and the more extensive the criminal history, the longer the sentence will be. Judges are not bound by these guidelines. They can sentence you to more time or less or even to probation, but usually, they will follow the FSG.
In federal court, if you are convicted of a white-collar crime such as wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, or any other similar crimes, you will go to prison. So, the way your case is handled makes a huge difference. We will fight to keep the case in state court so the possible outcome is not as severe. It is much easier to resolve the case so that your client does not go to prison.
There is also another type of court called Municipal court which handles misdemeanors committed within the actual city itself. Those cases are heard in Las Vegas Municipal Court, Henderson Municipal Court, and North Las Vegas Municipal Court. The most serious crimes that the municipalities face are misdemeanor DUIs and misdemeanor domestic violence cases. For a felony or a gross misdemeanor charge, even if it takes place within the city, municipal courts do not have jurisdiction, so it would be prosecuted by the State or by the Clark County district attorney’s office.
Oftentimes, when someone is arrested within city limits for something such as possession of drug paraphernalia (a misdemeanor) or possession of cocaine (a felony), the paraphernalia charge will be handled in the municipal court whereas the felony charge will be prosecuted in justice court even though it’s part of the same incident.
When this happens, attorneys like to do what’s called a ‘Global Resolution’ and resolve both cases at the same time. That’s obviously better for the client. Usually, when it’s a drug case and is a straight possession charge as opposed to possession with intent to sell, attorneys are able to knock down the charges to a misdemeanor and in a best-case scenario, have it dismissed.
Oftentimes, attorneys also do something called a ‘Deferred Adjudication,’ which means that the client who was charged with the felony will usually plead to the misdemeanor charge and then the court will withhold adjudication, which means they won’t enter it as a conviction. Generally, the client will need to complete some requirements, such as completing drug counseling, paying a fine, and community service. If everything is successfully completed, then the case will ultimately be dismissed.
Once the case is dismissed, a record can then be sealed. Sealing a record is a separate procedure. It’s a civil procedure in which you obtain your criminal record, also called scope, which shows that you were arrested and what you were charged with. The criminal record will also show that the case was resolved and dismissed. However, if anyone were to look, they would see that you were charged with a crime. This is when the procedure of Sealing The Record would be beneficial.
Preliminary breath tests are not always accurate and no machine, nor operator of a machine, is beyond error. There are several ways in which a BAC test may give an artificially higher reading as the machine’s measurements can be rendered inaccurate by failure to calibrate the machine properly and timely. Similarly, some dental fillings have been demonstrated to increase erroneously the BAC result the machine provides. In short, all is not lost with a BAC result in excess of the legal limit. The inquiry simply cannot end there. Various other seemingly innocuous things can affect the reading of the machine, such as a low carb diet (Atkins/Keto); the machine reading and registering mouth alcohol and concluding an inaccurately high reading; GERD and/or acid reflux disease (the “gurgles” as we called it when were kids); and too many others to list here. If any of the above arguably applies in your case, there may be some play in the numbers.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer. The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer. There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer. The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer. The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
There are some caveats, such as challenging whether or not you were in “actual physical control” of the vehicle at the time the suspicion arose, but the long and short of it is that refusing a Breathalyzer test often carries with it consequences, including a potentially longer period of revocation of your driver’s license.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.
The State of Nevada, much like every other state in the United States, has an implied consent law which effectively states that by virtue of availing oneself of the roads, freeways, traffic signals, and so forth, an individual IMPLIEDLY consents to a test of their breath and/or blood upon reasonable suspicion of impairment by a law enforcement officer.