#Raleigh NC DWI Attorney

[amistadbailbonds]

Understanding DUI Arrests: What Happens After Being Pulled Over?

You are cruising down the road, the radio humming your favorite tunes, when suddenly, flashing red and blue lights appear in your rearview mirror. Your heart races as you pull over, trying to recall if you signaled that turn back there. But the officer's approaching your car with a different concern - suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI). Yes, Raleigh DUI bail bonds can help you get out of jail before your trial if you are arrested for a DUI offense, but have you ever wondered what happens after being pulled over for a suspected DUI? If you don’t, buckle up because we are taking you through a guide that sheds light on what follows a DUI arrest.

Initial Traffic Stop

Upon being pulled over, law enforcement officers typically observe the driver's behavior for signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. The officer may then request the driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. It's imperative to comply with these requests and remain respectful throughout the interaction.

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs)

If the officer suspects impairment, they may ask the driver to perform Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) to assess coordination and cognitive function. Common FSTs include the walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, and horizontal gaze nystagmus test. These tests aim to determine impairment, and refusal to perform them could result in consequences, such as license suspension.

Breathalyzer or Chemical Tests

Following FSTs, the officer might administer a Breathalyzer test or request a chemical test (blood or urine) to measure blood alcohol concentration (BAC). In many jurisdictions, implied consent laws necessitate compliance with these tests upon lawful arrest for DUI. Refusal may lead to immediate license suspension or other penalties.

Arrest and Miranda Rights

If the officer finds probable cause, they may arrest the individual on suspicion of DUI. Upon arrest, Miranda Rights are read, informing the person of their right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. It's crucial to heed these rights and avoid self-incrimination by consulting legal counsel before further interaction with law enforcement.

Booking Process

After the arrest, the individual is taken to a police station or jail for booking. This process involves documenting personal information, taking fingerprints and photographs, and temporarily detaining the individual until bail or a court appearance is arranged.

Court Proceedings and Legal Consequences

Once arrested, the legal process begins, the individual can get out of jail before their trial or wait for their trial. The defendant will face court proceedings, including arraignment, where charges are formally presented. Legal representation is vital at this stage to navigate the complexities of DUI laws and potential penalties, which may include fines, license suspension, mandatory education programs, community service, or even incarceration, depending on the severity and repeat offenses.

Conclusion

There’s no denying that understanding the post-pulled-over process during a DUI arrest is crucial, but it’s also vital to comprehend how you can get out of jail after you are arrested. The first step would be to apply for bail and pay the bail amount, and if you can’t pay the entire sum, DUI bail bonds in Raleigh, NC, can come in handy. 

Searching for DUI/ DWI bail bonds in Raleigh? The professionals at Amistad Bail and Immigration Bonds are always happy to help!

For More Details:  https://www.amistadbailbonds.com/understanding-dui-arrests-what-happens-after-being-pulled-over/

[wileynickelus]

An aggressive Raleigh DWI lawyer focusing on wake county driving while intoxicated criminal cases at an affordable rate. Contact DWI Attorney Wiley Nickel for a free consultation at 919-585-1486. North Carolina DWI lawyers Wiley Nickel & Kristi Haddock have experienced Wake County DWI lawyers and have knowledge of both criminal and civil law.

[kurtzandblumraleigh-blog]

Kurtz & Blum, PLLC

434 Fayetteville St. Suite 710 Raleigh NC 27601 United States (919) 832-7700 https://www.kurtzandblum.com/ info@kurtzandblum.com

At Kurtz & Blum, PLLC we aim to provide our clients with the highest quality of services possible. Our attorneys fight vigorously for your rights. Whether you have been charged with a crime or need an attorney to help with family divorce matters, the attorneys at our law firm will be able to assist you. Our experienced trial lawyers can help you with DWI, traffic, injury, and family law cases. If you are in need of an attorney do not hesitate, give our law firm a call today.

[trafficticketskissling]

Right-of-way

In North Carolina, there is no such thing as a right-of-way.  The statutes are written to say who must yield, not who has the right to go.  Below is a great article written by Shea Denning of the NC SOJ on the subject.

Two vehicles, one traveling east and the other traveling south, arrive at approximately the same time at an intersection that is not marked by traffic signs or lights. Which vehicle may enter the intersection first?

The driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. G.S. 20-155(a). Thus, at the intersection depicted in the image below, the purple vehicle must yield the right of way to the blue vehicle.

Two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, within the meaning of G.S. 20-155(a), when considering their distances from the intersection, their speeds and other circumstances, the driver of the vehicle on the left should reasonably apprehend danger of collision unless he waits until the vehicle on the right has passed. Dawson v. Jennette, 278 N.C. 438, 445 (1971). The right of way is not determined by a fraction of a second. Id.

What if the intersection is marked by a four-way stop, as depicted this next image?

If both vehicles arrive at the intersection at the same time, the rule noted earlier still applies. The purple vehicle on the left must yield the right of way to the blue vehicle on the right.

What if, at an intersection without traffic lights, two vehicles approach at approximately the same time from opposite directions? The rule in G.S. 20-155(a) does not apply to vehicles proceeding in opposite directions that meet at an intersection. Fleming v. Drye, 253 N.C. 545, 549 (1960). Either vehicle may proceed straight ahead or turn right. But what if, as in the image depicted below, the driver of the purple vehicle has signaled her intention to turn left? Who has the right of way?

In this circumstance, the driver of the purple vehicle must yield the right of way to the driver of the red car so long as that car is proceeding straight through the intersection or making a right turn. G.S. 20-155(b).

Now assume that the intersection requires a four-way stop. The purple car intending to turn left arrives at the intersection before the red car. Whether the purple car is required to yield the right of way depends upon whether it has already entered the intersection before the red car arrives at the stop sign. If it has, then the purple car has the right of way. That’s because the approaching vehicle must be within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard for the rule in G.S. 20-155(b) requiring the driver of a vehicle intending to turn left to yield to apply.

Next consider what happens when a vehicle approaches a traffic circle. A vehicle to the driver’s left is already in the traffic circle. Which vehicle must yield? The vehicle approaching the traffic circle must yield to the vehicle within the traffic circle. G.S. 20-155(d). As the DMV describes in its North Carolina Driver’s Handbook, “an entire traffic circle is an intersection.”

Thus, at the traffic circle depicted in the image below, the blue vehicle must yield the right of way to the red vehicle that is already in the traffic circle.

A driver’s failure to yield the right of way is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $100.  G.S. 20-176(a), (b).

[ethanhunt02511]

Mr. Knudsen has been a trial lawyer for almost 40 years. After almost 8 years as an Assistant District Attorney, he opened his private practice in 1987. To know more about dwi drunk driving attorney raleigh nc you visit:-https://dailygram.com/index.php/blog/716581/why-is-auto-accident-attorney-raleigh-the-best-service-provider/

[wileynickelus]

Experienced Larceny and Criminal Defense Lawyer Raleigh

Raleigh, NC Expungement Lawyers- Wiley Nickel

As soon as an NC Expungement has been granted North Carolina law states that you do not have to say you were ever arrested, charged or stood trial for the Expunged offense.  Read this very closely!  Under North Carolina Law: “no person as to whom such an order has been entered… shall be held thereafter under any provision of any law to be guilty of perjury, or to be guilty of otherwise giving a false statement or response to any inquiry made for any purpose, by reason for the person's failure to recite or acknowledge any expunged entries concerning apprehension, charge, or trial.”

For those who are eligible the process is fairly easy and straightforward.  It is unlikely that you will have to appear in court or even come to our office. Once you provide some basic information we will handle the rest.

After gathering preliminary information the Law Offices of Wiley Nickel will ensure that your NC expungement law is filed with the court and proceeds pursuant to the statutory provisions of North Carolina law. This process requires that your expunction be approved by a number of officials including a judge, district attorney, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, and the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.  Since an expungement requires the coordination of so many different parties, it is often a lengthy process and could require several months to complete. Our law firm will do everything possible to make sure your expungement proceeds as quickly as possible.

Larceny & Theft Crimes Raleigh Criminal Defense Lawyer - Wiley Nickel

Theft Crimes include numerous charges including larceny, concealment, and shoplifting. If you are convicted of a theft crime, you can face a wide range of penalties. The penalty one receives depends on a number of factors including the nature of the offense, the value of the property stolen and the defendant’s criminal history. A person convicted of a theft crime may also face negative social, educational and employment consequences. Because of the potentially severe penalties, it is important to speak to a Raleigh Criminal Defence lawyer at The Law Offices of Wiley Nickel, PLLC if you have been charged with a theft crime like larceny or shoplifting in Wake County, NC.

Contact a Raleigh Criminal defense lawyer from our office if you have been arrested or charged with a Theft Crime in Wake County North Carolina. You can reach Shoplifting Defense Attorney Wiley Nickel for a free consultation about your Wake County larceny charge. If you are charged with concealment in Raleigh you can reach our theft crimes lawyer.

North Carolina  Raleigh Criminal lawyer | High speeding ticket attorney

Comfort with your criminal defense lawyer is key.  When you’re looking for the best Raleigh criminal lawyer it’s important to find a law firm that cares about you and understand how hard it can be to face criminal charges – for many of our clients this is the first time they’ve been charged with a crime.  We will take the time to explain your options and make sure you understand the process.  We care about our clients and are always available to talk about issues involving your case. The firm’s criminal law experience and knowledge of the Wake County court system provide its clients with the best results-oriented defense against the accusations of the police.

A speeding ticket is often looked at as a minor offense, but it can have very serious repercussions on one's driving record. An individual's driving privilege can be revoked for at least 30 days if convicted of:

●       Driving 15 mph or over in a 55 on a road where the speed limit is 55 or above

●       Driving at a speed limit greater than 80 mph.

At The Law Offices of Wiley Nickel, we handle Wake County Speeding Tickets Attorney as well as other traffic violations. We strongly advise talking an attorney to discuss your possible options and to ensure your charges are handled in an appropriate manner.  If you are looking for a Wake County Speeding Ticket Lawyer contact attorney, Wiley Nickel, Kristi Haddock, or Melissa Botiglione at 919-585-1486 for a free consultation. The North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (NC DMV) can suspend a person’s license for a number of different reasons, including for certain speeding tickets.

Traffic Ticket Lawyer | Raleigh Traffic Lawyer | NC Speeding Ticket Lawyers

Do not pay a speeding ticket without talking to a lawyer. By paying your traffic ticket lawyer, you are pleading guilty and could have very severe consequences. Contact our Cary, North Carolina office to arrange a free consultation with traffic lawyer Wiley Nickel.  For many clients a reduction to the no-moving violation of improper equipment may be the best option. The all-inclusive cost to hire Raleigh Speeding Ticket Lawyer Wiley Nickel to handle your traffic ticket lawyer begins at $98. The flat rates do not include court costs and fines (those generally range from $188 to $263 for most speeding ticket cases).

While the DMV in your state will probably find out about the North Carolina traffic citation, the question of how the citation will affect your insurance depends on your local DMV and how your traffic lawyer Raleigh NC is handled.  It will very likely follow you back home so it’s important to deal with it promptly. I can appear on your behalf to help fix your ticket in order to keep your insurance rates low and to make sure the damage is lessened or eliminated.

Make sure your car insurance rates stay low by contacting a speeding traffic lawyer who knows how to handle speeding tickets and get the best possible outcome.  Losing your driving privilege is a very unpleasant experience and can possibly be avoided if you handle your case the right way.

[karlknudsenlawservice]

Mr. Knudsen has been a trial lawyer for almost 40 years. After almost 8 years as an Assistant District Attorney, he opened his private practice in 1987. To know more about DWI drunk driving attorney Raleigh NC you visit:-https://karlknudsenlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/dwi-drunk-driving-attorney-raleigh-nc.html

[kurtzandblumraleigh-blog]

undefined

Kurtz & Blum, PLLC

434 Fayetteville St. Suite 710 Raleigh NC 27601 United States (919) 832-7700 https://www.kurtzandblum.com/ info@kurtzandblum.com

At Kurtz & Blum, PLLC we aim to provide our clients with the highest quality of services possible. Our attorneys fight vigorously for your rights. Whether you have been charged with a crime or need an attorney to help with family divorce matters, the attorneys at our law firm will be able to assist you. Our experienced trial lawyers can help you with DWI, traffic, injury, and family law cases. If you are in need of an attorney do not hesitate, give our law firm a call today.

[trafficticketskissling]

Speedy Trial and Other DWI Issues

www.kisslinglaw.com

11/09/17

There were several new Court of appeals rulings handed down on DWI issues.  Read below the blog post by Shea Denning from the School of Government.

Habitual DWI. G.S. 20-138.5 makes it a felony for a person who has been convicted of three or more offenses involving impaired driving within ten years of the date of the latest offense to drive while impaired. Unlike the statute defining habitual felon status, which requires that each qualifying predicate felony be committed after the person has been convicted of the earlier felony, G.S. 20-138.5 does not require that the prior felonies occur in any particular sequence.

State v. Mayo. Glenn Mayo, Jr. was indicted for habitual impaired driving in December 2015, following his arrest a month earlier for impaired driving. The State alleged that Mayo had three prior convictions for offenses involving impaired driving that occurred within ten years of the November 2015 DWI:  a DWI conviction on September 30, 2015 in Johnston County Superior Court, and two DWI convictions on December 20, 2012 in Wake County District Court. Mayo argued on appeal that the habitual DWI indictment was invalid because two of the underlying convictions were on the same court date. He alleged that G.S. 20-138.5 was ambiguous because it did not address how to treat multiple convictions from the same date and that it should thus be construed in a similar manner to the habitual felon statute. The court of appeals rejected Mayo’s argument. Noting that G.S. 20-138.5 was silent about the timing of the three prior impaired driving convictions other than to require that they occur within the ten years before the latest offense, the court “decline[d] ‘to insert words not used’” by the legislature.  (Slip op. at 8.) The court further noted that it previously had ruled that the determination of what qualifies as a predicate conviction was carried out differently under the habitual impaired driving statute and the habitual felon law.  As a result, the court held that the defendant failed to show error in his habitual impaired driving indictment.

Corpus delicti. This Latin phrase comes up a lot in impaired driving accidents where the defendant confesses to driving, but no other witness saw him doing so. The traditional formulation of the corpus delicti rule requires that there be corroborative evidence, independent of the defendant’s out-of-court confession, to show that the crime occurred. The North Carolina Supreme Court has modified that rule for non-capital cases, permitting the State to rely on a defendant’s confession to obtain a conviction so long as there is strong corroboration of the essential facts and circumstances embraced in the defendant’s confession.

State v. Sawyers. Jason Sawyers was charged with impaired driving and other offenses after the Dodge Charger in which he and his girlfriend were traveling ran off the road, hit a tree, and landed in a ditch.  The first officer arrived about five minutes after the crash and found Sawyers seated in the driver’s seat and his girlfriend in the passenger seat. Sawyers, whose license was revoked, later admitted to another officer that he had been driving at the time of the accident. At the conclusion of the State’s evidence, Sawyers moved to dismiss the impaired driving charge on the basis that the State had to prove that the vehicle was actually “‘moving and running’” and the evidence merely established that he was “‘sitting in the passenger seat of a wrecked car.’” (Slip op. at 4.) The trial court denied the motion at that juncture and again when Sawyers renewed it at the close of all the evidence. Sawyers was found guilty and appealed, arguing, among other things, that the State failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence, independent of his admission that he had been driving, to prove that he was the driver. The court of appeals rejected Sawyer’s argument, which it characterized as founded upon “a common misunderstanding of the corpus delicti rule.” (Slip op. at 8.) The court explained that the rule was designed to guard against the possibility that a defendant will be convicted of a crime that never occurred—not to prevent the wrong defendant from being convicted of a crime that did occur. For that reason, a confession identifying the perpetrator of the crime is not subject to the corpus delicti rule.

The Sawyers court explained that State presented substantial evidence at trial to establish that immediately before the crash, the Dodge Charger was speeding down a curvy road. The first officer to arrive at the scene noted that both Sawyers and his girlfriend smelled of alcohol. This evidence satisfied the requirement that the State present evidence tending to show that the crime of impaired driving occurred. It was thus permissible for the State to rely upon the defendant’s confession to prove that he was the driver. Moreover, the court noted that witnesses saw the defendant get out of the driver’s side of the vehicle seconds after the crash and the girlfriend’s purse was found on the passenger floorboard, facts that tended to support the trustworthiness of the defendant’s admission.

Speedy trial. DWI cases often take longer than other misdemeanor charges to try. Delays may result from circumstances including (1) the time necessary to obtain the results of a chemical analysis of the defendant’s blood from a crime laboratory and to secure the attendance of the chemical analyst at trial; (2) litigation of motions to suppress and dismiss, which may be appealed from district court to superior court and are then remanded for entry of final orders in district court; and (3) the dismissal and re-filing of charges. Several appellate opinions address the merits of speedy trial claims filed by defendants based on such delays. A court considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial must assess and balance four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.

State v. Armistead. James Armistead was charged with impaired driving in Pitt County on September 3, 2011. On May 1, 2012, two days before his DWI trial was scheduled to begin, Armistead was sentenced in Beaufort County to imprisonment for a term of 108 to 139 months. Neither Armistead’s appointed counsel on the DWI charges nor the Pitt County prosecutor knew about the Beaufort County case. Because he was imprisoned, Armistead did not appear in court on May 3. The following September the prosecutor dismissed the DWI charge with leave to later reinstitute the proceedings.

Meanwhile, from prison, the defendant mailed letters in October and November 2012 requesting that charges pending against him in several counties be dismissed. Though some his correspondence related to the Pitt County DWI charge, there was no evidence that the clerk of court or district attorney in Pitt County received these letters. In November 2015, Armistead wrote again to the Pitt County Clerk of Court. The clerk received this letter and notified Armistead’s attorney, who notified the district attorney.  The prosecutor put the DWI case back on the calendar and it was tried in district court on January 28, 2016. The judge found Armistead guilty. Armistead appealed to superior court where he moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the four-year delay between his arrest and trial violated his right to a speedy trial. The superior court denied the motion. The case proceeded to trial before a jury, and Armistead was again convicted. He again appealed on the basis that he had been denied a speedy trial.

The court of appeals explained that the delay of four years was sufficiently long to trigger its examination of the remaining factors. As for the second factor, the court determined that the State could have avoided the delay in Armistead’s trial by simply searching the DPS database or another database routinely used by prosecutors. Because the State was negligent in its efforts to locate Armistead, the court weighed this factor in Armistead’s favor. The third factor—the defendant’s assertion of his right—was neutral in the court’s view since there was no evidence that Armistead’s correspondence reached the proper court officials or the prosecutor until three years after the first trial date. The court weighed the final factor, prejudice, in the State’s favor as Armistead failed to show that the pending charges affected his classification in prison or deprived him of a defense at trial. After balancing the four factors, the court determined that Armistead’s speedy trial rights had not been violated.

Admission of breath test results. When law enforcement officers obtain breath alcohol concentration results by following the procedures prescribed by statute and administrative regulation, the test results are admissible without the evidentiary foundation that would otherwise be required for such scientific evidence. To benefit from this lowered bar for admissibility, the State must show that the required procedures were followed. One of the requirements is that the test be administered by a person with a current permit issued by the Department of Health and Human Services authorizing the person to perform a breath test on the instrument that was used. G.S. 20-139.1(b)(2). Amendments to the DWI laws enacted in 2006 require courts to take judicial notice of the list of permits issued to the person who conducted the test, the type of instrument on which the person is authorized to perform tests, and the date the permit was issued. Id.

State v. Squirewell. Anthony Squirewell II was charged with habitual impaired driving. At trial, the state trooper who administered Squirewell’s breath test testified that he was certified to conduct breath tests on the instrument used to test Squirewell. He did not specifically state that he was certified at the time Squirewell’s test was performed. Squirewell argued at trial and on appeal that this testimony was insufficient to provide an adequate foundation for introduction of the breath test results. The trial court and the court of appeals rejected Squirewell’s argument.

Perhaps because the trial court did not take judicial notice of the trooper’s permit, the court of appeals did not rely upon the statutory judicial notice requirement. Instead, it cited older cases that list three ways in which the State can prove the test administrator had a permit: (1) by stipulation; (2) by offering the permit; or (3) by presenting other evidence.  The court then considered whether the trooper’s testimony in Squirewell’s case was adequate to show that he had a permit.  Although the trooper did not explicitly state that he had a DHHS permit on the day he conducted defendant’s breath test, the court held that his testimony that he was certified and that he carried out the test according to the Department’s procedures was adequate to lay the necessary foundation for the admission of chemical analysis results.

[inside919]

This just on... http://inside919.com/news/no-charges-for-nc-mom-who-killed-daughters-boyfriend-as-the-pair-fought-officials-say/

No charges for NC mom who killed daughter’s boyfriend as the pair fought, officials say

MORGANTON, N.C. (WBTV) — The District Attorney has decided there will be no criminal charges filed against a woman who shot and killed a man in Burke County early Thursday.

Deputies believe an altercation between the man and his girlfriend led to the shooting. The woman’s mother admitted to shooting the man, claiming it was in self-defense, according to deputies.

The DA says after looking at the evidence and talking to law enforcement he believes the shooting was justified.

According to the Burke County Sheriff’s Office, the shooting happened at a mobile home in the Shady Acres Mobile Home Park on U.S. Highway 64 in Morganton.

Deputies arrived at the home shortly before 1:30 a.m. and found 46-year-old Vernon Eugene Dale dead with a gunshot wound.

Two children were also inside the home when the shooting occurred, deputies say.

Deputies say Dale was served warrants Wednesday afternoon accusing him of assault by pointing a gun.

Neighbors say Dale had been in an altercation with a worker in the mobile home park recently and believe that’s where the charges stem from. It also is the reason, they said, why Dale and his girlfriend were being evicted.

Dale has a criminal history of drug and DWI charges. Michael Chisholm says he heard Dale’s truck drive in early Thursday morning.

“The tires were spinning and everything.” Ten minutes later he heard a single shot.

Copyright 2017 WBTV. All rights reserved.

WHAT OTHERS ARE CLICKING ON:

RALEIGH POLICE RESPONSE TIMES CALLED INTO QUESTION AFTER RECENT BREAK-IN, MURDER CALLS

NC PARENTS OF NEWBORN SHARE HEARTBREAKING STORY OF BABY’S DEATH

RALEIGH SWIM COACH ACCUSED OF SEX CRIMES WITH UNDERAGE ATHLETE

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: MINIVAN RUNS OVER PORTLAND WOMAN

VIDEO: MAN ATTEMPTS GETAWAY ON BACK OF 18-WHEELER, SHERIFF SAYS

[karlknudsenlawservice]

Mr. Knudsen has been a trial lawyer for almost 40 years. After almost 8 years as an Assistant District Attorney, he opened his private practice in 1987. To know more about DWI drunk driving attorney Raleigh NC you visit:-https://karlknudsenlawservice.wordpress.com/2020/10/02/dwi-drunk-driving-attorney-raleigh-nc-is-a-legal-saver-after-unusual-accidents/

[karlknudsenlawservice]

Mr. Knudsen has been a trial lawyer for almost 40 years. After almost 8 years as an Assistant District Attorney, he opened his private practice in 1987. To know more about DWI drunk driving attorney Raleigh NC you visit:-https://writer.zohopublic.in/writer/published/4khmofe307609adcb4839854584a4c12bc25a

[karlknudsenlawservice]

Mr. Knudsen has been a trial lawyer for almost 40 years. After almost 8 years as an Assistant District Attorney, he opened his private practice in 1987. To know more about DWI drunk driving attorney Raleigh NC you visit:-https://karlknudsenlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/auto-accident-attorney-raleigh-nc-is.html

[wileynickelus]

undefined

DWI Lawyer Raleigh NC| The Law Offices of Wiley Nickel | 919-585-1486

[wileynickelus]

Criminal Lawyers Raleigh NC |The Law Offices of Wiley Nickel|919-585-1486

Criminal Lawyers Raleigh NC has the experience that matters for criminal cases in the Raleigh area. Call Cary Criminal Lawyer Wiley Nickel for a free consultation at 919-585-1486. When your future and reputation are at stake an experienced Raleigh Criminal Defense The lawyer makes your rights a priority. Call 919-585-1486 for a free consultation. The Law Offices of Wiley Nickel is located in Cary, NC. North Carolina Expungement Lawyer.

[karlknudsenlawservice]

Mr. Knudsen has been a trial lawyer for almost 40 years. After almost 8 years as an Assistant District Attorney, he opened his private practice in 1987. To know more about auto accident attorney Raleigh NC you visit:-https://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/ca7-schenectady-ny/2020/11/Why-is-DWI-drunk-driving-attorney-Raleigh-NC-so-benefited-/1929313