|
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. |
CASE OF THE MONTH
Sponsored by ByeByeDWI.com
DRIVER INVOLVED IN SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT WITH FLAT TIRE, FAILS 3 “FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS”, THEN BLOWS .23 ON PRELIMINARY BREATH TEST
BASIC FACTS: Defendant gets a flat tire and officer finds the defendant next to his car in a driveway. The officer immediately interrogated the defendant about drinking and asked the defendant to take “field sobriety tests”. The defendant agreed to take the field sobriety tests. The officer claimed that the driver needed assistance to walk to the rear of the vehicle. The driver performed the typical battery of roadside gymnastics: the HGN test (this is where the officer directs the driver to “follow-the-pen” and then determines that the driver is drunk because his eyes twitch slightly while following the pen), the “heel to toe test” and the “one-leg-stand test”. The driver allegedly fails all the tests. The officer directs the defendant to take a “preliminary breath test”, a hand held device kept in police cars for such occasions. Like most preliminary breath testing devices, this one produced no printout and the only place the “result” is only stored is in the officer’s memory. The defendant allegedly blows a .23. The officer arrested the driver and charged him with DWI.
At the police station, the officer asks the defendant if he will take another breath test. The defendant asks him if he can speak to a lawyer or his parents before deciding. The officer denies these requests. The defendant then agrees to take the test and the officer begins the 20 minute observation period required prior to administering a breath test for alcohol. After a few minutes, the defendant asks again if he could speak to a lawyer or his parents. Somehow annoyed by this request, the officer “determines the defendant to be a refusal” never gives him the chance to take another breath test.
TRIAL OUTCOME: Attorney Stevens moved to suppress the alleged results of the preliminary breath test and the alleged refusal. The Trial Court granted both motions. The case then went to trial after the state insisted on a DWI charge. The state would not agree to reduce the charge. After trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY!
RESULT: NOT GUILTY VERDICT!!!
Attorney Stevens thanks God for this
successful defense!!!
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 2005, Attorney Mark Stevens, All rights reserved.
All brand or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or organizations.