Law Office of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Telephone: (603) 893-0074
Fax: (603) 893-5022
info@attorneymarkstevens.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 New Hampshire DWI case. It is by no means a guarantee of any particular result in any other case.

BASIC FACTS: A cell phone caller called in to the police and reported a “driver all over the road”.  A police officer followed the driver and watched him to see if he would make any driving mistakes.  The driver briefly crossed the yellow center line by about the width of a tire, and later touched the white line later down the road.  The officer pulled activated his blue lights.  The driver pulled his car over and waited for the officer to approach his window.  The officer demanded that the driver provide him with his license and registration.  The driver complied with this command.  The officer noted an odor of alcohol as well as an odor of French fries, which were visible on the front passenger seat.  At first the driver denied drinking anything at all.

            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.

www.1-800-dial-dui.com

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.