Most people charged with Driving While Intoxicated (also commonly referred to as DWI, DUI or OUI) understand that they are facing a potential court imposed license suspesnion, a fine and potentially jail time. But what many people don’t realize is that they are also likely facing another license suspension that is completely separate from the court suspension. This is the “Administrative License Suspension” (ALS) that is imposed by the New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The DMV can impose an ALS in a DWI case where a person “refuses” to take a breath or blood test when requested by a police officer or when the person submits to a requested test and it shows an alcohol concentration of .08 or more. The most common reasons that people are unaware of the ALS case are that nobody really talks with them about it, they are confused by the process and/or don’t really read or understand all of the paperwork they are given by the police after they are arrested. Unlike the court case, where you are given a specific date to appear in court to answer the DWI charge filed against you, in the ALS case you are not given a date to appear at the DMV. In fact, a person is required to submit a request for an ALS hearing to the DMV within 30 days of their DWI arrest. If the person fails to request a hearing within the 30 days then they are deemed to have waived their right to a hearing on the ALS case and the applicable license suspension period is imposed without a hearing. The impact of the ALS case can be significant. The length of the ALS for a first offense is 180 days. The length of the ALS for a second or subsequent offense is 2 years. Additionally, if the underlying DWI case involves a refusal to submit to a test to determine your breath or blood alcohol content, then the ALS is required be consecutive to any suspension imposed by the court. Know your rights. You can contest and potentially negotiate a disposition in the ALS case. If you’re charged with DWI, consult with one of the attorneys at Shaheen & Gordon. Put our experience and knowledge to work for you.
From the category archives:
Criminal Defense News
Our criminal defense attorneys defend clients in matters large and small. Often, we see minor cases result in major concerns for clients and their families. For instance, as certain states, including Massachusetts, decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, New Hampshire continues to treat it as a crime and aggressively charge this offense. We defend professionals, college students and others over and over under these circumstances and often hear complaints regarding the scope of police searching. These events frequently occur on the roadside where a young driver is stopped for a garden variety speed violation, an officer or trooper claims to smell the odor of marijuana and seeks consent to search the vehicle. In other instances, we see a stop and arrest for reckless operation or DWI followed by a warrantless search of a vehicle and the discovery by police of marijuana or other contraband, leading to further criminal charges. It is worth understanding how such searches are possible. In New Hampshire, police are permitted to conduct an “inventory search” whenever they impound or tow a vehicle. Such searches are justified by courts as a way to protect an owner’s property while in the custody of police, insuring against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and guarding the police from danger. In order to conduct such searches, police departments must simply have in place neutral police policy permitting the search of impounded vehicles. In common practice, police use this process to rifle through the contents of a vehicle in search for contraband often finding modest amounts of marijuana. The consequences can be draconian – leaving people that are not criminals with criminal records. In different New Hampshire district courts, these cases are treated differently. Non-prosecution diversionary results are quite possible in some places, but in others, law enforcement continue to be ridged in demanding convictions. Defending such cases requires knowledge of the law enforcement agency involved, the court where the case is pending and how the law applies to any given set of facts. Shaheen & Gordon’s criminal defense attorneys understand the range of potential outcomes when defending marijuana and other drug offenses, how to spot legal and factual issues that can influence negotiations and be effective in court and work toward results that avoid negative collateral consequences such as criminal records when they are simply not necessary. With offices in Concord, Manchester, Dover and Nashua, New Hampshire, our attorneys have state-wide experience and an appreciation of how different jurisdictions react to these charges, experience that counts when trying to protect good people from criminal consequences.
Shaheen & Gordon’s criminal defense practice includes several defense attorneys that were once prosecutors. Our criminal defense practice group includes former prosecutors at the County, State and Federal level. As former prosecutors and now defense attorneys, we have seen time and again the value of our jury system, a system that in New Hampshire requires 12 jurors to unanimously agree that a Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting a Defendant of a crime. As defense attorneys, we were very concerned to learn that the New Hampshire House of Representatives is now taking up House Bill 1464, a bill which would do away with the requirement to have a unanimous jury prior to convicting in criminal cases. Simply stated, if applied, this would mean that the State could meet its burden of proof in criminal cases by convincing 11 out of 12 jurors of the Defendant’s guilt. This measure is plainly unconstitutional and comes with a frightening practical consequence. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the New Hampshire Constitution mandates that a jury of twelve must unanimously reach a verdict of guilty before a defendant’s liberty may be compromised. There is no doubt that this leaves prosecutors with a heavy burden, but there is no doubt that this burden is well worth it. A criminal conviction, especially to a felony, is a stigmatizing event, one that reshapes the life of the accused by dramatically limiting and, in some instances, eliminating educational and professional opportunities. More importantly, jail and prison sentences are often imposed for serious criminal offenses, resulting in separation from society as well as from the family of the accused. Very often, these penalties are completely appropriate. However, before a defendant’s liberty interest is taken, future altered and family taken apart, we ought to be very certain of his or her guilt. In order to bring a level of true confidence to such a grave determination, we have a jury system. It is a system where twelve people must agree unanimously on guilt and, where they do, appropriate and measured punishment ought to follow. Doing away with this requirement dramatically increases the risk of conviction. While this might make the lives of a prosecutor easier, it will also result in the risk of convictions of innocent people. That risk is too high to pay.