DUI Crackdown Washington Dc Third Offense Mandatory Sentence

The incident occurred after the client attended a private dinner with former colleagues in a residential neighborhood of Northwest Washington D.C. 

Believing the distance to his home was minimal, he elected to drive rather than arrange alternative transportation, which resulted in a late night traffic stop by Metropolitan Police Department officers. 

Field sobriety tests were conducted, followed by a chemical breath test indicating a blood alcohol concentration above the statutory limit but below the aggravated threshold recognized under District law. 

The client was arrested and charged under D.C. Code § 50-2206.11, with repeat offense penalties implicated by his prior record.

Defense counsel conducted a detailed analysis of the client’s prior DUI history and confirmed that the prior offenses qualified as “prior offenses” under D.C. Code § 50-2206.01. As a result, D.C. Code § 50-2206.13(c) required the court to impose a mandatory minimum term of incarceration upon conviction. 

However, the statute permits suspension of any custodial term beyond the mandatory minimum where aggravating factors are limited and the defendant demonstrates credible rehabilitative intent.

This statutory structure formed the foundation for a mitigation focused sentencing strategy.

Immediately following arrest, the client voluntarily enrolled in a certified alcohol education and counseling program approved by the District’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. 

He obtained character references from employers and family members, maintained steady employment, and complied fully with all pretrial supervision requirements. 

These steps were presented to the court as evidence of genuine remorse and a reduced risk of future impaired driving.

Counsel emphasized that the incident occurred on low traffic residential streets, involved a short driving distance, and did not result in any collision, injury, or property damage. 

While these considerations did not excuse the offense, they were relevant to the court’s assessment of proportional punishment beyond the mandatory minimum incarceration required by statute.

After serving the mandatory minimum jail term, the client was placed on supervised probation subject to continued alcohol treatment, ignition interlock compliance upon license reinstatement, extended license restrictions, and ongoing court supervision. 

This structure allowed the client to avoid additional incarceration beyond the statutory minimum while remaining under substantial legal accountability consistent with District law.