DWI Program Cuts Spell Longer Sentences for Multiple Offenders

As a result of seventeen state job cuts in Laconia, some DWI offenders will be spending more time in jail than their judge required.

New Hampshire state laws surrounding DWI offenses are very strict. Individuals convicted of multiple or aggravated DWI charges must serve their sentence within 21 days of conviction.  This type of sentence comes with a contingency that they must serve at least ten days in jail, seven of which must be spent in an intervention program for offenders.

New state budget cuts and resulting job losses, however, have closed the state-run Multiple Offender Program (MOP), based in Laconia, giving convicted individuals no choice but to serve more time in jail or find alternative options.

Privately run intervention programs are certainly available to offenders, but many of these cost more than $1,000 in up-front fees.  This means that individuals who are unable to pay these private costs may have to spend up to 30 days in jail instead.

The Laconia job losses come as a result of statewide budget cuts. Nancy Rollins, the associate commissioner of health and human service, said it was a difficult decision to cut MOP.  To assist individuals, Rollins said the state may offer to pay the up-front costs of private programs and collect the costs from the offenders after the treatment has ended.

No definite plans are in place, however, and Rollins says the state is working hard to find a good working alternative to the previously state-run program.  To assist in this transition, many courts are withholding sentencing.

In 2008 there were 2,732 DWI cases in New Hampshire that involved multiple or aggravated offenses.  Seventy five percent of those cases were handled by MOP.  Now that the program is gone, government officials will be working hard to find feasible alternatives that appease the court as well as maintain an efficient system to handle these DWI cases.

For a video on this news topic, visit http://www.wmur.com/news/21341593/detail.html

Case Study 3

Case 3

Michael M. was charged with Aggravated DWI. He crashed his car and flipped over. The police arrived on the scene and had him perform a battery of field sobriety tests. The officer determined that the observations on the HGN, Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand test indicated he was impaired. He was subsequently arrested and took a blood test that revealed a .17 Blood Alcohol Level.

At the DMV hearing, I was able to exclude the .17 result as the State had failed to provide the sample to him within the statutory time frame and they had failed to preserve the second sample. I made a motion to exclude the blood test and the Court threw out the result. After the State rested I moved to dismiss, stating that the State had failed to prove that the observations of the officer were as a result of impairment by alcohol and not the crash. The Court agreed.

DWI Case Study 2

DWI Case 2

Robert R. was charged with a second offense of driving while intoxicated and aggravated DWI. He was stopped for going the wrong way up a one-way street. The officer ordered my client out of the car and had him perform two field sobriety tests. After the tests were completed, Robert R. was arrested and subsequently submitted to a breath test. The results indicated he had a Blood to Breath Alcohol level of a .23–almost three times the legal limit of .08.

At the DMV hearing, I was able to exclude the Breath Test because the Certification for the Intoxilyzer was not properly filled out. The DMV dismissed the State’s petition to revoke his license for two years.

At trial in the District Court, I attacked the field sobriety tests as not accurately portraying my client’s sobriety. The client had a large laceration on his foot and his balance was affected by his injury. I also attacked the police for failing to administer a complete battery of tests to rule out other possible causes for his performance. Additionally, I was able to exclude the breath result; again, the State was unable to establish that the .23 result was accurate when the certification records reflected an error.

Cases taken from DWI Attorney Russman’s website

Contact Attorney Russman for a free case review

DWI Case Study 1

DWI Case 1

Melissa B. was charged with her third DWI offense. She was stopped because she crossed the yellow line twice and the white line once. After the stop, she performed three field sobriety tests: the HGN (also known as the “eye test,”) the walk and turn test, and the one leg stand test. According to the arresting officer, she failed all three. Once taken to the police station and refusing to take a breath test; her license was automatically suspended per New Hampshire DWI laws.

At the DMV hearing on the refusal, I was able to discredit the officer’s testimony through cross-examination on the field sobriety tests. Ten days after the hearing, the DMV issued an order dismissing the license suspension, citing that the officer did not have a reasonable basis to order a test. The case proceeded to trial in the District Court. At the conclusion of the State’s case, I moved to dismiss because the State had failed to properly provide the foundation for the prior convictions. The Court dismissed the Case as the State had failed to meet its evidentiary burden.

Cases taken from DWI Attorney Russman’s website

Contact Attorney Russman for a free case review