Source: http://roanokevirginiatrafficlawyer.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:18:53+00:00

Document:
The work of a traffic lawyer is to help you get out of the troubles you face. The troubles can start with a small ticket to imprisonment for committing an offence while driving. Abiding by the law is important. If you do not follow the law, you will get a ticket. Many people get a shock when they receive a ticket. They do not even know what went wrong. It is after they look at the ticket to find out that they break the law. You may cross a road while driving where you are not allowed to cross it. For example, if you are driving and you cross the road with a solid yellow line, you are breaking the law. It means you break the rules. If you are in Roanoke Virginia, you should know that crossing over is a crime where there is a solid yellow line on the road. In such a case, if you see that the ticket is a huge amount, you should take legal help. These road signs and signals are important. Many people fail to follow these signs and end up having a ticket.
The ticket may not be a big problem, but the problem is when the state adds points to your DMV record. If you commit an offence such as reckless driving, it will remain on your record for 11 years. A small wrong turn may be on your record for two years. Once you receive a ticket for breaking the law, make sure that you do not do the same offence again. The next time you face charges, you will have to pay double fine and may also have more punishments such as cancelation of your license.
The only way to get out of trouble when you are facing heavy traffic charges is by hiring an expert lawyer. Make sure that you find the best and the most reliable attorney in Roanoke. Virginia imposes strict and immediate punishments for breaking the laws. Also, if you receive a ticket and do not pay within the specified time, the court will charge you with another offence. So, you should hurry and pay the ticket or hire an attorney who will help you get away with the charges.
There are several penalties for breaking laws while driving. You can face both the administrative and criminal penalties. You may have to pay a heavy fine. The judge may refer you to an administrative program for the next year. You may not be allowed to drive for a specific period. Above all, it will ruin your driving record.
To get out of trouble, you should hire expert traffic lawyers. Hire the expert lawyers who know the Virginia laws and rules for traffic. They will handle your case with proficiency. They will make sure that you do not face a maximum penalty or even get away with the full pardon. They will try their best.
This appeal by the VA Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is from an order of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County (trial court) that set aside the revocation and suspension of Roger Eulis Hale’s (appellee) “driver’s license, registration certificate and license plates,” and ordered that they be reinstated. For the reasons stated, we reverse the decision of the trial court.
Appellee held a VA operator’s permit. On April 13, 1991, while in Bristol, Tennessee, he was arrested and charged pursuant to Tennessee law with “driving under the influence by consent.” On April 24, 1991, a Tennessee court convicted him of “driving under the influence.” Based upon that conviction, the DMV administratively revoked appellee’s VA operator’s permit. That revocation action is the subject of this appeal.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether substantial evidence in this record supports the revocation order issued by the DMV. See Code § 46.2-410; Code § 9-6.14:17; Turner v. Jackson, 14 Va. App. 423, 429-30, 417 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1992). To answer that question, we must determine (1) whether the record establishes that appellee was convicted of driving under the influence in Tennessee, and (2) if so, whether Tennessee’s statute prohibiting such conduct parallels and substantially conforms to Code § 18.2-266, the VA statute that prohibits driving under the influence.
The record reveals an affidavit of complaint that shows appellee’s signature on a plea of guilty to the offense of “DUI.” Further, the Tennessee Orders and Judgment document identified appellee’s conviction as a “DUI” conviction. Additionally, the Tennessee ct, upon review, declined to amend or modify appellee’s conviction order. This record clearly establishes that appellee pled guilty to and was convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicants.
Violation of § 18.2-266 . . . .
Thus, when the record establishes a valid out-of-state conviction, as it does in this case, we need only compare the elements of the two statutes. If the elements “parallel and substantially conform,” the requirements of Code § 46.2-389 are satisfied, mandating an automatic license revocation by the DMV. We must now determine whether Tenn. Code § 55-10-401, the statute that prohibits driving while under the influence of intoxicants in Tennessee, parallels and substantially conforms to Code § 18.2-266, which prohibits driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated in VA.
It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent or more by weight by volume as indicated by a chemical test administered in accordance with the provisions of § 18.2-268, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely.
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state of Tennessee, or on any streets or alleys, or while on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any other premises which is generally frequented by the public at large, while under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system.
Although the Tennessee statute does not contain the language, “impairs his ability to drive . . . safely,” with respect to drug offenses, we find that proof under Tennessee’s statute that a person is “under the influence of any intoxicant” is sufficiently comparable to proof under Code § 18.2-266 that the person’s ability to drive safely is impaired. “Another state’s law regarding driving while under the influence of intoxicants or drugs need not substantially conform in every respect to Code § 18.2-266.” Cox v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 328, 331, 411 S.E.2d 444, 446 (1991). 1The legislature clearly anticipated differences in other state’s statutes as it merely required that such statutes “substantially” conform to a like state law. Thus, we find that Tenn. Code § 55-10-401, under which appellee was convicted, parallels and substantially conforms to Code § 18.2-266, and that the revocation of appellee’s driver’s license by the DMV, pursuant to Code § 46.2-389, was proper.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial ct is reversed and the order of the DMV reinstated.
The trial judge held that Tennessee’s driving under the influence statute did not parallel and substantially conform to Code § 18.2-266, Virginia’s driving under the influence statute. 2Consequently, the trial judge ruled that the Department could not have properly used the Tennessee conviction as a basis upon which to revoke Hale’s license to drive. I would affirm the judgment.
The Tennessee charging document in this record recites that a Tennessee police officer stopped a pickup truck and arrested the driver for “DUI.” The document further states that because Hale was a passenger and owned the truck, the officer also arrested Hale and charged him with “DUI by consent.” The abstract of conviction from Tennessee indicates that Hale was charged with “driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or drugs by consent and possession of marijuana.” It further indicates that Hale was convicted of “DUI.” The abstract does not specify, however, whether the “DUI” conviction was based upon driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The lack of specificity is significant because the Tennessee statutory elements proscribe drug and alcohol offenses in a like fashion. However, the v statute does not. The Tennessee statute prohibits “any person … to drive … any automobile … while under the influence of any intoxicant.” Tenn. Code § 55-10-401. That prohibition parallels and substantially conforms to the Virginia statute that prohibits “any person to drive … any motor vehicle … while … under the influence of alcohol.” Code § 18.2-266 (ii).
The Tennessee statute addresses drug offenses in the same manner as it addresses alcohol offenses. It prohibits “any person … to drive … any automobile … while under the influence of … marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system.” Tenn. Code § 55-10-401. However, the v statute contains an additional element that must be proved for drug offenses. It prohibits “any person to drive … any motor vehicle … while such person is under the influence of any … drug … to a degree which impairs his ability to drive.” Code § 18.2-266 (iii) (emphasis added). Thus, in Virginia proving only that a driver is under the influence of a drug does not suffice to prove the offense.
The difference in the elements that must be proved under the Tennessee statute, on the one hand, and under the Virginia statute, on the other, is substantial. A conviction may be had under the Tennessee statute merely by proving that the driver was driving under the influence of any intoxicant. Proving only those elements will not suffice in Virginia. Under the Virginia statute, the evidence must further prove that the driver was impaired to a degree that affected the driver’s ability to drive. With such a fundamental difference, the statutes are not “parallelling and substantially conforming” within the meaning of Code § 46.2-389. See Shinault, 228 v. at 272, 321 S.E.2d at 654. “In other words, if a person may be convicted of an offense under another jurisdiction’s statute for conduct which might not result in a conviction under Code § 18.2-270, the statutes are not ‘substantially conforming.'” Cox v. Commonwealth, 13 v. App. 328, 330-31, 411 S.E.2d 444, 446 (1991).
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial ct. Accordingly, I dissent.

References: § 46
 § 9
 v. 
 § 18
 § 18
 § 46
 § 55
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 v. 
 § 55
 § 18
 § 46
 § 18
 § 55
 § 18
 § 55
 § 18
 § 46
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v.