|
Law Office of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway Salem, NH 03079 Telephone: (603) 893-0074 Fax: (603) 893-5022 info@byebyedwi.com |
Admitted in all state and federal courts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Representing clients in criminal defense matters, including narcotics charges, drunk driving charges, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Operating Under the Influence (OUI), and Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Representation of clients at Department of Motor Vehicles (NH) and Registry of Motor Vehicles (MA) hearings and appeals. |
DWI
CASE OF THE MONTH: FEBRUARY 2008
NOT
GUILTY DWI CASE RESULT: FEBRUARY 29, 2008
DRIVER CHARGED WITH DWI-2ND OFFENSE-DRIVER BLEW .14 TWICE
INTO THE BREATH HOSE AT THE POLICE STATION
DWI CASE EXAMPLE: POLICE
RECEIVED AN ANONYMOUS CALL ABOUT A DRIVER WHO WAS “ALL OVER THE ROAD”. POLICE SPOTTED THE DRIVER AND FOLLOWED
HIM UNTIL HE MADE SOME DRIVING MISTAKES.
AN OFFICER STOPPED THE DRIVER AFTER HE CROSSED THE YELLOW CENTER LINE
AND TOUCHED THE WHITE FOG LINE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LANE. AFTER SMELLING AN ODOR OF ALCOHOL AND
INTERROGATING THE DRIVER, THE POLICE ASKED HIM TO PERFORM THE ROADSIDE GYMNASTICS
KNOWN AS “FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS”. THE
DRIVER CHOSE TO PERFORM THE “FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS”, AND PREDICTABLY “FAILED”
THEM. THE POLICE THEN ARRESTED HIM AND CHARGED HIM WITH DWI. HE CHOSE TO BLOW INTO THE HAND-HELD
BATTERY-OPERATED ROADSIDE GADGET, WHICH SAID HE BLEW A .153. LATER, THE DRIVER ELECTED TO BLOW INTO THE BREATH
TEST HOSE AT THE POLICE STATION AND BLEW A .14 TWICE. HE WAS CHARGED WITH A DWI-SECOND OFFENSE.
READ
ON TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED…
NOT GUILTY VERDICT: FEBRUARY 29, 2008
Sponsored by www.ByeByeDWI.com
Please note-this is an example of
the disposition of a recent
After smelling the odor of alcohol, the officer ordered the driver to step out of his car for a “field sobriety test”. The driver decided to agree to the “tests”. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ROADSIDE RITUAL IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO. YOU ARE LIKELY TO FAIL THESE EVEN IF YOU ARE SOBER. The officer conducted the “pen test” which is also known as the “horizontal gaze nystagmus test”, or “HGN” test. This is a ritual in which the officer waives the pen and makes a conclusion that the driver is drunk based on the way his pupils move. Nearly everyone who takes this test in a DWI case has the same “score”: 6, which is a “failure”. This driver agreed to perform the pen test, which he predictably “failed”. Next the officer asked him to walk down a line in heel to toe fashion with his arms by his side. The driver “failed” this task too. Then the officer asked him to stand on one leg for 30 seconds, which the driver couldn’t complete either. The officer asked the driver to blow into a hand-held, battery-operated gadget that police use at the roadside to get additional evidence. The driver elected to blow into the roadside gadget, even though he didn’t have to. The gizmo said that the driver’s breath alcohol reading was a .153. The officer then arrested the driver and charged him with DWI.
At the station, the driver was asked to blow into another gadget designed to collect evidence against him. This one looks like a an old box with a hose on it. He elected to blow into the breath hose. The alleged result was a .14/.14. His record revealed a prior DWI conviction dating back several years but which could still be held against him. He was charged with DWI-Second Offense.
After the arrest, the driver hired Attorney Stevens to fight the DWI charge.
TRIAL: At the conclusion of this driver’s trial, he was found Not Guilty and cleared of these charges. In this case, his administrative license suspension was also previously dismissed, so his license was never suspended for this DWI charge at all.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY ON DWI-SUBSEQUENT CHARGE!!!
Attorney Stevens thanks God for this successful
defense!!!
TODAY’S SCRIPTURE:
“I can do all things through Him who
strengthens me”.
Philippians
4:13.
Contact Information:
If you leave a voice message or send an email,
please include ONLY the following information:
I will call you back at the earliest opportunity.
Do NOT include any specifics about your case in a recorded voice
message or email. We will discuss
that on the phone, and in greater detail in person.
Back to Top of This Page
Information in this column should not be construed as legal advice
and does not constitute an
engagement of the Mark Stevens Law Office, nor any attorney associated
with the Mark Stevens
Law Office. The information contained herein is of a general
nature and may not apply to any
particular set of facts and circumstances. Please bear in mind that
laws change frequently. We will
make an effort to update the information on a regular basis, but
are under no obligation to do so. No
part of this document, nor any information contained in this website,
may be disseminated without this
paragraph. This may be considered legal advertising.
Original Web Page Development by Randy Bone.
Copyright 2008, Attorney Mark Stevens, All rights reserved.
All brand or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or organizations.