Showing posts with label Amethyst House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amethyst House. Show all posts

NH House panel backs bill further punishing DWI arrestees


I recently found this article by Ted Siefer, the Union Leader's State House Bureau correspondent:
CONCORD – Repeat drunk drivers could be required to use an ignition interlock device when their driving privileges are restored under a bill backed unanimously by a House committee.

The House Transportation Committee voted 10-0 Tuesday to endorse Senate Bill 282, which was passed by the Senate in February.

The bill would allow the Commissioner of Safety to request an administrative hearing before returning the driver’s license or driving privileges to anyone who was convicted for drunk driving, aggravated drunk driving, reckless driving that involved alcohol, negligent homicide that resulted from drunken driving, or being a habitual drunk driver.

Under the bill, offenders could be required to use either a standard interlock or “enhanced” device, which takes a photo when users breathe into it, for a period of one to two years.

The bill is one of several being pushed by the Department of Safety this session in an effort to crack down on repeat drunk driving. Last month the Senate passed a House-passed bill, HB 482, which would require anyone who tries to circumvent an interlock device to use the enhanced device and face other penalties.

A full House vote on SB 282 has not yet been scheduled.

 Here's the official version of the proposed bill:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT authorizing the commissioner of safety to require the installation of an ignition interlock device as a condition of restoring driving privileges in certain instances.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Department of Safety Authority to Order Ignition Interlock Device Installation. Amend RSA 265-A by inserting after section 36 the following new section:
265-A:36-a Department of Safety Authority to Order Ignition Interlock Device Installation. The commissioner of safety may require an administrative hearing prior to the restoration of the license or driving privilege of a person whose license or driving privilege was revoked or suspended as the result of a conviction of any offense under RSA 265-A:45, RSA 265-A:2, RSA 265-A:3, RSA 265:79-a where alcohol was involved, RSA 262:19, or RSA 630:3, II, and, upon a finding that the safety of the person and of other users of the highways would be enhanced thereby, may order the person, as a condition of restoration of his or her license or driving privilege, to install an ignition interlock device in any vehicle registered to that person or used by that person, for not less than 12 months nor more than 2 years, subject to the same conditions and prohibitions as if the interlock was ordered by a court under the provisions of this subdivision.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.
(Note that this bill says nothing about "repeat offenders."  The Union Leader is the worst example of "journalism" I've ever encountered.  It's usually rife with factual, spelling, and typographical errors.)

I lost my driving privileges, due to a 1st Offense DUI in NH, for almost a year.  This was mainly due to the holy rollers at Amethyst Foundation punishing me for my "willfulness" (their actual words) in objecting to being forced to go to religious AA meetings.  During this period, I spent thousands on car rides to and from work (and mandated AA meetings). 

Bill 282 now provides additional hoops to jump through once you complete your aftercare:  an administrative hearing.  Administrative hearings, as I have posted before, are dangerous.  Unlike a criminal or civil court proceeding, administrative hearings do not afford the defendant much in the way of procedural protections.  Administrative hearings, in the name of judicial expediency and efficiency, often make quick, cursory, and subjective determinations.  See my previous post entitled:  "16 Red Flag Hearings: 14 Affirmed, 0 Reversed, 2 Remanded "


While restoring driving privileges on the condition that an ignition interlock device sounds reasonable (I would have gladly done this if it meant I could drive to work), it will likely open the door to further administrative requirements such as more aftercare being assigned, extra fees, and extended suspensions of driving privileges.  I see nothing in this bill that would restrain the administrative judges from doing this.

Further, ignition interlock devices (IIDs) are quite expensive.  In California the average cost for an IID is about $2.50 per day. Some companies additionally charge around $75-$100 for installation. You will also need to pay fees approaching $100 each month for the maintenance and calibration of your ignition interlock device.  Additionally, you will need to apply, and pay the fee, for a special IID license.  So, under NH Bill 282, the minimum one year IID could cost you around $1,300.

All this for a 1st Offense DUI, and after you complete your aftercare.  Again, my concern is that once forced into the administrative court hearing, you are relatively helpless to the whims of administrative judges, who, in the past, have not shown much leniency (or fairness, in my opinion).

A fairer version of this bill would allow the use of IIDs during the suspension period. Unless you live in Manchester or Concord, there is no public transportation.  Private rides cost $50-100, each.  Drivers on Craigslist are unreliable and sometimes dangerous.  Many people lose their jobs because they cannot afford this expense.  That's too harsh a penalty.

Not to the people at Amethyst Foundation, though, who will take glee in your suffering.  They are all former drunks who had to go through the same punishment, and will love to make you go through it, too.  Maybe, I'm sure they hope, you'll become a born-again Christian in the process, too.



Amethyst Foundation, Inc.'s 2010 IRS Form 990 -- More of the $ame

I've previously posted on the outrageous amount of money Amethyst Foundation, Inc., brings in, all tax-free.

Well, their IRS Form 990 for 2010 is now available and shows more of the same:
  • a whopping total revenue of $1,165,753.00, of which $1,161,774.00 is entirely program service revenue from the state.
And, apparently, Amethyst Foundation, Inc., operated in the red last year, with expenses of $1,185,201, including:
  • $557,353 in wages (!)  Really?
  • $76,623 for Director Bob Kelley's salary
  • $35,476 for office supplies (!!)  I saw one old HP inkjet printer when I was there.
  •  $109,868 for "all other expenses." 
And if you buy that, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.

My Post to the Ripoff Report on Amethyst Foundation, Inc.

I'm not sure why I waited this long, but I finally got around to posting my experience with Amethyst  Foundation, Inc., on the RipOff Report website:

Several years ago, the state of NH privatized its impaired driver intervention programs, or IDIPs.  They are now all run by private organizations, of which Amethyst Foundation, Inc (aka "Amethyst House") is the largest.  Supposedly a "non-profit," Amethyst Foundation, Inc., nets well over a million dollars a year, all of which is tax-free.  They list one employee, Bob Kelley, on their IRS statements.  NH law mandates that you go to the closest organization, which for most people in the state means going to Amethyst Foundation.  They have a virtual monopoly.  Additionally, to ensure that the "customers" continue to roll in, Amethyst Foundation employs several experienced, influential lobbyists that apply pressure on NH State Representatives to maintain strict penalties for DUIs.  Bob Kelley has a sweet scam going, and it's all legal.

I admittedly made a huge blunder resulting in a 1st Offense DUI.  Though I had already paid large court and administrative fines, I was resigned to doing the IDIP program which met once a week for four weeks.  I was not prepared for what I would encounter there.

Most of the people that work at Amethyst Foundation, almost without exception, seemed bitter with the hand that life had dealt them, had a hateful, puritanical streak, treated clients like garbage, and were all too happy to exact punishment for the slightest infraction.  I suspect that most were former heavy alcoholics who had gone through the highly religious Alcoholics Anonymous program to stop drinking (they "hit their knees" in AA-speak, found god, and got dry).  I suspect that their cognitive abilities were affected by their past alcoholism, rendering them absolutely incompetent at their jobs.  I was pressured from day one, and throughout the IDIP program, to attend AA and get a sponsor. 

I told them that AA has been ruled by both Federal and State Courts to be a religious organization for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.  Despite this, and the fact that this was my first DUI, they assigned six months of twice weekly mandatory attendance at AA meetings.  At each meeting, I was pressured to pray, listen to these people's ignorant, holier-than-thou, pseudoscience rantings based on the Big Book written by Bill W. (really, the radical puritan/evangelical Oxford group--google it).  At the end of every meeting, members hold hands and recite the Lord's Prayer.  Nonbelievers are treated with contempt, scorn, and pity--this was perhaps the most egregious of the insults.

I complained in writing, sent certified/return receipt requested, to Amethyst Foundation, Inc. throughout this procedure.  Most of my letters were ignored.  The responses I got dripped with contempt.  Mr. Kelley went so far as to even attempt to mislead me over the phone into exhausting my one administrative hearing so that I wouldn't have another one for a year.

In addition to attending AA meetings, I also had to see a Licensed Drug and Alcohol Counselor, or LDAC, weekly, for four to six months.  This person was also a hard-core AA true believer.  These meetings consisted of him, not trying to help me with any supposed alcohol problems, but with trying to convince of god's existence and how wonderful AA is.  I had to pay him for this privilege.

The LDAC told me that Amethyst Foundation, Inc., punishes people who complain by taking their licenses away permanently or effectively doing so by ordering extensive aftercare.  When I completed my initial aftercare of AA and LDAC meetings, I received a notice from the Department of Safety of an Administrative Hearing requested by Amethyst Foundation to permanently revoke my license.  This occured despite the fact the I attended, with verification, all required AA meetings, and obtained a positive evaluation by my LDAC.

Luckily, I had written to the Governor several weeks prior, whose staff then contacted the Head of the NH Dept of Health and Human Services.  I updated the Governor's staff on what Amethyst Foundation had done.  The NH Dept of HHS then reprimanded Mr. Kelley, including sending him a written notice that mandating AA attendance was illegal.  I got my license back within a week.

Supposedly, Amethyst Foundation has been ordered to stop all aftercare self help group attendance.  I doubt that they will do this.  The staff there are on a religious mission to save people by getting them to go to AA.  They are really religious prohibitionists that want to eliminate all alcohol use, not just merely prevent future DUIs.  History has shown that you cannot stop religious zealots.

Surprisingly, I'm really not angry at what happened.  I'm more saddened and disappointed that in this day and age such backward religious zealots can still do such harm.  I thought that we, as a country that so highly values individual rights and freedoms, had moved beyond that long ago.  Ironically, this occurred in NH, the "live free or die" state.  How hypocritical and ignorant some NH residents are.

Forced Worship Reaches 5,000 Hits

Visits to this website have reached over 5,000!

Lots of people are, apparently, still being assigned attendance at AA meetings as part of "aftercare" by Amethyst Foundation, Inc.  If this has happened to you, please note that:

Several Federal District Courts and State Courts, including the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, have ruled AA to be a "religious organization" for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Coerced attendance at AA as part of your aftercare is illegal.

Amethyst Foundation, Inc., will often try to direct you to attend a "self-help" group as part of your aftercare, knowing full well that the only self-help groups available in the state of New Hampshire are AA.  They will then respond to your complaints by stating that "you are not being required to attend AA and are free to attend any self-help group you can find."

Should this happen, immediately inform Amethyst Foundation, Inc., the Governor of New Hampshire, and the Director of the State of New Hampshire Dept of Health and Human Services in writing, by certified mail/return receipt requested.  This should solve your problem.

In the unlikely event that this does not provide relief, file, pro se,  for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

There is no reason to attend AA or any type of self-group as part of your "aftercare."  Yes, it was wrong to drive with a BAC over the legal limit.  But that does not justify your being punished by the religious zealots of Amethyst Foundation, Inc., REAP, Serenity House, and others of the "recovery industry" with forced participation at cult-like, religious AA meetings.

16 Red Flag Hearings: 14 Affirmed, 0 Reversed, 2 Remanded

Looking for Justice by holding a Red-Flag Hearing?  Don't Count On It

The Department of Safety, Bureau of Hearings, has posted a Compendium of Superior Court Cases.  Under "I. Substance Abuse Completion Requirements" there are listed sixteen red-flag hearings, or appeals of decisions made by Amethyst Foundation, REAP, or other administrators of IDIP programs.  Of those sixteen hearings, none were reversed.

"90 meetings in 90 days"
Keskula v. Beecher, 04-E-142, (Merrimack, Lewis, 07/19/04) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling by LADAC; Petitioned for, and after a hearing, Hearings Examiner entered as his disposition the indefinite suspension of Petitioner's driving privileges and further directed that he attend 90 self-held group meetings in 90 days, and securing a low-risk alcohol evaluation from a LADAC …; Petitioner disagreed; appeal filed; HELD: "The Hearings Examiner acted within his discretion in making the rulings and determinations … There is ample support for the conclusion that the required aftercare was warranted in this case."
Charming.   Ninety meetings in ninety days is an old AA slogan.  It is how new people ("pigeons" in AA slang) are recruited.  Like other cults, AA tries to insulate new member from the outside world during the period of indoctrination.  There's no evidence that this helps in maintaining sobriety at all.

Issues of effectiveness aside, ordering AA attendance, which this clearly is doing, is unconstitutional.

All of these courts have ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion or engages in religious activities:
  • the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984.
  • the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994.
  • the New York Court of Appeals, 1996.
  • the New York State Supreme Court, 1996.
  • the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997.
  • the Tennessee State Supreme Court.
  • the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996.
  • the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
  • the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996.
  • the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996.
  • the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, September 7, 2007. 
  • the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2006.
  • the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2005.
  • the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 2006.

The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to those rulings, or to change or over-turn those lower court decisions. By letting them stand, the Supreme Court has made them the law of the land.  

In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:
Alcoholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
— Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
Really, could the law be any clearer than that?


"Conflicting LADACs"
Reyno v. Beecher, 05-E-603,(Merrimack, Fitzgerald, 01/18/06) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling by LADAC; suspension sustained after hearing with conflicting testimony from more than one LADAC. Program disagreed with LADAC. Hearings Examiner held that Petitioner must follow program's recommendation. Court affirmed in a short one-line opinion.

Bastille v. Beecher, 05-E-055,(Rockingham, McHugh, 04/27/05) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling, suspension was sustained after hearing with conflicting LDACs. Director ordered counseling. Court ordered Petitioner to submit to a new LDAC evaluation. Evidence was sufficient to sustain order, but time was up and court ordered restoration after it reviewed additional submissions by petitioner about two weeks later.
The bottom line appears to be:  In a contest of opinion between an Amethyst Foundation/REAP/Serenity House LADC vs. your outside expert, you lose.


"The Court may not 'Second Guess' the Examiner's reliance on the Reports, as to what weight and credibility to assign them."

Gregoire v. Beecher, 04-E-0063, (Strafford, Smukler, 07/07/04) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling; did not comply and at a hearing, the Hearings Examiner ordered Petitioner to show compliance; Petitioner argues that although the examiner was correct in reaching the foregoing conclusions based on the evidence before him, the evidence upon which he relied was inaccurate. HELD: Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that the examiner's decision was unreasonable or unlawful. "The Court … may not second-guess the examiner's reliance on the reports or his determination, as to what weight and credibility to assign them."

Oeser v. Beecher, 02-E-50, (Cheshire, Groff, 8/19/02) AFFIRMED
After a hearing ordering aftercare, Petitioner appealed raising "the following five issues on appeal: (1) …sentence has been served and her license must be restored; (2) … was not granted a hearing; (3) … license must be reinstated after 1-year; (4) hearing violated … right to due process and the DOS regulations; (5) … counselor is unqualified and the tests used … to determine her risk of re-offending were unreliable." Court held: "clearly the statute provides for continued revocation of the license of a person convicted of a DWI offense beyond the 1-yr period, if the person fails to meet the further counseling requirements. The Court finds that there is no evidence the hearings officer failed to follow the departmental regulations in the conduct of the hearing, or failed to give … a full and fair hearing in complete accord with all constitutional requirements of due process. Finally, the Court finds that … has failed to establish as a matter of law that the counselor was unqualified or that the tests were unreliable. The Court finds that the hearings officer's acceptance of the counselor's opinions and recommendations for treatment were reasonable."

Ferris v. Beecher, 01-E-42, (Strafford, Mohl, 4/6/01) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling by CADAC; after hearing the Hearings Examiner agreed with the CADAC and concluded that petitioner's alcohol abuse problem was not under control and that he was at risk to be a repeat DWI offender; appeal filed; petitioner considers himself only a "problem drinker" and argues that his test scores were inaccurate because he answered the questions based on his life style habits in 1998 as opposed to the present, as directed to do by the CADAC. The Court held: once petitioner demonstrates compliance with the program and is not at risk to recidivate, he can then petition to be decertified as an Habitual Offender.
So not only will your expert witness be wrong, the court will too, and it must defer to the wisdom of the Amethyst Foundation/REAP/Serenity House LADC!  Nevermind that to be a LADC requires only a rudimentary training, and not even a high school diploma, which is driven by christian fundamentalist ideology that is unconcerned with issues such as fairness.  Retribution, punishment, and "saving you" for your own good is all that they are concerned with.

Please Tell Me Your Experiences With Amethyst Foundation, Inc.

Send Me Your Stories About Amethyst Foundation, Inc.

I would love to hear about people's experiences with Amethyst Foundation, Inc.  I know there must be many, many stories about this fraudulent operation.

Yet, there is no information on the web about Amethyst Foundation, Inc., at all.  Please pass your stories, good and bad, on to me and I will post them anonymously.

People deserve to know what they are getting into when they are ordered to go there.

Laws And Rules You Must Know If You've Been Arrested For DUI/DWI In New Hampshire

This is probably my most useful post. If you've been arrested for a DUI/DWI in New Hampshire you must arm yourself with knowledge of the laws and rules of "the game." If you do not, you will be helpless and operating blind. You will be at the mercy of people of both good and bad intentions, eager to give you poor advice. In the case of attorneys, this advice will be extremely expensive and not always correct.

Knowing the laws and rules will prevent you from greedy lawyers and abusive recovery industry workers who want to see you suffer and abuse their power. Time to go to law school!

The Difference Between Laws And Rules

Laws

A little legal history first. Law may be either common law or civil law. Common law is based on the decisions of courts under the doctrine of precedent, or "stare decisis." This judge-made law originated in England with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the power of King John to arbitrarily make laws and influence the court system. Most countries that had ties at one point to the British Empire, including the United States, use the common law system. The most well known examples of common law in the U.S. are the Supreme Court opinions, which establish the "supreme law of the land" on various issues. Common law systems also rely on statutes, passed by the state and federal legislatures, but may make less of a systematic attempt to codify their laws than in a "civil law" system.

Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law, the primary feature of which is that laws are written into a collection, codified, and not (as in common law) interpreted by judges. Most countries in the world today use the civil law system. Though common law also relies on statutes, the difference is that in common law those statutes are based on common law, whereas civil law statutes proceed from abstractions, formulate general principles, and distinguish substantive rules from procedural rules. In a civil law system, the courts are merely inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and just apply the law, with very little flexibility in interpreting it.

What's nice about a common law system is that legislators are limited in what laws they propose. If their laws conflict with judge-made law in court decisions, they can be challenged. Further, state legislators are also restrained in the scope of their law-making powers by federal law (both federal judge-made law and federal legislative law) under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. There's a constant tension between the courts and legislators, and the state and federal governments. This design of our government, created over two centuries ago, works extremely well.

In our common law system, statutes are the result of legislators who pass and codify laws consistent with binding judge-made law. New Hampshire state legislators compile and organize all of the statutes and have limited power to modify them. These are the laws that we, as citizens of New Hampshire, must comply with.

When you were arrested, you were suspected of violating statutory law (specifically Title XII Chapter 265-A:2), and your case was adjudicated in New Hampshire District Court. RSA 265-A:2 entitled you to a court trial involving all the protections such a proceeding affords: the rules of evidence, the high threshold of proof that the state must meet, subpoena power, etc. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, through witnesses, each and every element of the offense with with you are charged.  If it was a first Offense DUI, you are entitled to a trial by judge, but not by jury.  If it was an Aggravated DUI, 2nd Offense DUI, or subsequent offense, you are entitled to a trial by jury, but you may have to submit to a trial before a judge in the District Court first and then take an appeal to the Superior Court if you are convicted.

Rules

A rule is a different creature altogether, and more difficult to understand. The executive branch of state and federal governments cannot enforce and carry out every law by themselves. The President, for example, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."  Imagine the President himself single-handedly doing this. Instead, he delegates some of his executive power to cabinet members, executive departments, and administrative agencies. The governor of New Hampshire (or any other state) delegates his power similarly. 

The body of law that governs the administration and regulation of administrative agencies is Administrative Law. Such agencies are delegated power by the legislature (Federal or State) to act as agents for the executive (the President or Governor). Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights. Administrative agencies do this by creating rules, which have the effect of law.  If you break an rule of an administrative agency, you usually have to appear before an administrative board as part of a hearing, adjudged guilty or innocent, and punished.  The difference between the court and agency tribunals is that with an administrative agency tribunal,  the laws of evidence do not usually apply, you have fewer rights, you are adjudged by an board (not a judge or jury), and the punishments are less severe compared with the judicial courts.  The threshold of proof is lower:  the side with the burden need only show a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not, 51% probability).  Hearsay is allowed.  Hearing procedures may be altered at the discretion of the administrative board.  What this means for you, the defendant, is that you are not afforded the protections you would get in criminal court.  It's much more risky, but this is rationalized by the need for expediency and supposed lesser penalties (if loss of a your license for 2 years may be called that).

Examples of administrative agencies include:

Federal Administration Agencies:

Patent and Trademark Office, Bureau of the Census, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health

New Hampshire Administrative Agencies:

Boxing and Wrestling Commission, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Safety, Board of Acupuncture Licensing

(You can see how that the powers delegated by state legislators are more mundane compared with federal legislators, especially in New Hampshire.)

The State of New Hampshire Office of Legislative Services concisely define an administrative rule:
An administrative "rule" is defined as:
Each regulation, standard or other statement of general applicability adopted by an agency to:
  1. implement, interpret or make specific a statute enforced or administered by such agency or
  2.  prescribe or interpret an agency policy, procedure or practice requirement binding on persons outside the agency, whether members of the general public or personnel in other agencies.
"AGENCY" DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LEGISLATURE OR THE COURTS

The term "agency" is defined as:
Each state board, commission, department, institution, officer, or any other state official or group, other than the legislature or the courts, authorized by law to make rules or to determine contested cases.

RULES HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW

Rules shall be valid and binding on persons they affect, and shall have the force of law unless amended or revised or unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise.

Rulemaking is therefore lawmaking, in areas which the legislature has decided are too specific or too detailed to be handled by legislation. The legislature therefore delegates its lawmaking power to an agency by passing a law granting rulemaking authority to the agency to adopt rules in selected areas.
After you are convicted of a DUI/DWI in New Hampshire, you'll have entered the Administrative Law arena.

The Laws And Rules You Need To Know For Your DUI/DWI

A DUI/DWI involves a combination of Law and Administrative Rules from two Administrative Agencies (Department of Health and Human Services to "rehabilitate" you, and the Department of Safety, DMV, to keep our roads safe).  The laws and rules all refer to each other in one big, complicated mess.  The law is pretty straightforward and predicable as to the likely outcome.  The rules, however, are less protective of your rights, more open to discretion (and abuse), less predicable as to the likely outcome, and more confusing.

Laws

The laws that you need to know if you've been arrested for a DUI/DWI in New Hampshire are in TITLE XXI: MOTOR VEHICLES, CHAPTER 265-A: ALCOHOL OR DRUG IMPAIRMENT.  This is abbreviated to RSA 265-A, and this is how you will read it on all of the paperwork you receive.  RSA stands for "Revised Statutes Annotated."  Revised refers to the statute being the most up to date version--laws are constantly undergoing revision.  Annotated refers to the added notations to how courts have interpreted the laws.  RSA 265-A may be found here.


You will want to read almost every section of this Chapter.  IMPORTANT:  Print it out, keep it handy (i.e. by your nightstand), and read it multiple times, taking notes.


If it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to pull you over, obtained probable cause to arrest you for driving under the influence (i.e., you were driving, failed a field sobriety test, blew over 0.08 BAC or refused to blow at all), and you were properly arrested (read your Miranda rights), you don't have much of a chance in court.  You can usually obtain a free consultation with an attorney and sound him/her out to help determine this.


However, if you believe, and can provide evidence that, the stop was illegal, the tests were unreliable, or that your arrest was improper, you will want to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney and go to court.  All you need to do is show that there is a reasonable doubt, but the rules governing a criminal trial (i.e., what type of evidence/testimony is admissible and when, depositions, subpoenas, motions, etc...) are complicated and you will need an attorney for this.  Keep in mind that attorneys are very, very expensive.  Good ones cost over $300/hour and the hours add up fast.  By the time you even reach your District Court appearance your bill will be at least $4,000.  This is important to consider.  If your odds of prevailing aren't good, you are likely better off putting on a nice suit, cleaning up, and respectfully pleading guilty to the judge, asking for leniency if there are substantial mitigating factors in your favor.


If you plead guilty you will receive a Sentencing Order stating your plea, the fine amount (which you need to pay to the clerk then and there), and the duration of license suspension.  If it's your first DUI, the judge might, on the Sentencing Order, state that you may shorten the length of suspension by enrolling in an IDIP within 45 days.  Note that if you don't enroll in an IDIP by 45 days, you still must enroll and complete an IDIP before you get your license back.  So, you're going to have to do the IDIP one way or another.  Enroll within 45 days and lessen your suspension period.


Rules

This is where it gets confusing.  After you go through this, you'll understand why this particular executive power is delegated to someone else:
He-A.  Department of Health and Human Services:  Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
Saf-C.  Department of Safety:  Division of Motor Vehicles.

You have no doubt already heard from the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Even before your court date you should have received a Notice of Suspension/Revocation Action stating something like:
As a result of:
The Director of Motor Vehicles receiving a sworn report from a law enforcement officer alleging you submitted to a chemical test(s) that disclosed a drug/alcohol concentration in your system that met or exceeding the limit


all license/operating privileges are suspended/revoked for     X months.
It will go on to say that you can submit a written request for a hearing.  It also states what you must do to get your license back:
If no other suspension/revocation is in effect you may be considered for restoration of all license/operating privileges on XX/XX/XXXX, if you complete the following requirements:

1.  Any New Hampshire License you currently hold must be turned in immediately
2. There is a $100.00 License/Operating privilege restoration fee required if the suspension/revocation remains in effect over 15 days.  License/operating privileges by law cannot be restored if this fee is outstanding.
This is the first of two suspensions your will get:  the Administrative License Suspension (ALS).  It was suspended by Department of Safety's Rule Saf-C 2800 under New Hampshire Statutory Authority RSA 265-A:30.  You will want to read all of Saf-C 2800 and RSA 265-A:30 immediately upon receiving your notice of ALS because you have only 30 days in which to request an administrative hearing to contest it (i.e., if you believe that the stop was illegal, the sobriety test faulty, the arrest illegal, etc...).  If you do not request a hearing, in writing and in proper form, within 30 days, you forever forfeit this right.

Some attorneys find ALS hearings to be of great importance to the court DUI defense. Such hearings may result in overturning the ALS, can put you in a better plea-negotiating position in court, and may provide valuable testimony for the DWI trial, because at the ALS  hearing your attorney can cross-examine the State's witnesses, under oath, and on the record.


After your sentence is handed down in District Court, you will get another Notice Of Suspension/Revocation Action stating something like:
**Amended Notice**
This amended notice covers only specific information on the charge referenced.  You may have other outstanding administrative requirements that must be met in addition to the ones indicated herein before you can be considered for restoration.  Please refer to other suspension/revocation notice(s).

***  This notice takes effect at 12:01 AM on YY/YY/YYYY  ***


As a result of your conviction in the [deleted] District Court on YY/YY/YYYY for:
Driving While Intoxicated First Offense


All license/operating privileges are suspended for    Y months.
 It also states what you must do to get your license back:
If no other suspension/revocation is in effect you may be considered for restoration of all license/operating privileges on YY/YY/YYYY, if you complete the following requirements:
1.  You must submit a report showing successful completion of an approved IDIP or WIDIP.
2.  You must submit an SR-22 insurance certificate.
3.  There is a $100.00 license/operating privilege restoration fee required if the suspension/revocation remains in effect over 15 days.
This is the second suspension you get, your court-imposed license suspension.  The courts are done with you at this point, and have delegated execution of the suspension to the Department of Safety; Division of Motor Vehicles.  Your suspensions may run consecutively or concurrently.  If you refused a BAC test, these suspensions will run consecutively.  Usually, they will run concurrently.


Everything from now on will involve either the Department of Safety: Division of Motor Vehicles, or Department of Health and Human Services:  Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention.  You need to know their laws ("rules").  For example, if you want to contest the ALS hearing you need to read Saf-C 2800.  You will need to know He-A 700 or He-A 900 depending upon which Impaired Driver Program you have been mandated to attend (W/IDIP or Phase II).  I'll go into this in more detail below.


Post-Conviction Requirements For Restoration of License Privileges


This is where the rules get complicated and confusing and where there is a huge potential of discretion and abuse, particularly when it comes to fulfilling the Department of Health and Human Services requirements for rehabilitation.  The DHHS has rules that determine the process for rehabilitation.  

If this is your first DUI you must take the Impaired Driver Intervention Program (IDIP) or the Weekend Impaired Driver Intervention Program (WIDIP).  The rules that determine the procedure for fulfilling this requirement are in He-A 700, Impaired Driver Intervention Programs.  It is essential reading (so print it out and read it multiple times).


If this is your second DUI within the last ten years, or an Aggravated DUI, you must take the Phase II (or MOP) Program.  The rules determining this program are in He-A 900, Phase II Programs.



I will write in more detail about the He-A 700, 900, and the W/IDIP and Phase II programs in a later post.


Once you complete your program, you now move to the Department of Safety.  You will need to read the rules on reissuance of license.  These are in Saf-C 205.  Also, if you disagree with the assessments made by the LADCs running the W/IDIP or Phase II programs (which is highly likely), you will need to read about how to contest them.  The rules governing this process are in Saf-C 204.


Important Advice Regarding Whom To Trust For Advice

Do not trust Amethyst Foundation, Inc. or anyone running these programs for advice! 

They don't care.  They don't want to help you.  In fact, they want to PUNISH you.  Also, frankly, most of them are recovered drunks and are quite stupid.  Any statements they make to you, try to get in writing, because they lie and will deny having ever said it.

Do not trust your aftercare counselor for advice!   

Whereas, based on my experience, I do not believe them to be vindictive like the Amethyst Foundation people, remember, they are most likely former drunks with very little education.  To be a LADC, I'm not even sure you need a GED or HS diploma.   The requirements are here, and they don't state that a GED or HS Diploma is needed in their requirements.  So, these people are not very bright.  Never trust them for legal advice.  And even those with Master's degrees (MLADCs), I've found are not very intelligent.


Even if you have an attorney, you need to understand the laws and rules. 

This is just being a smart consumer and assuming responsibility for your future.  It's you that's losing your license for a most likely a very long time, not the attorney.  Except for being paid, the attorney might not care about your situation at all.  I hired an attorney from the best firm in New Hampshire and I later found out he was wrong about several issues.  He was also so naive as to trust the word of people at Amethyst Foundation and not get it in writing.  So be careful!  At the very least, make sure they have lots of experience dealing with DUIs in New Hampshire.

Good luck.  Next time I'll talk about the W/IDIP and Phase II Program procedure.  It consists of an intake, classes, assigned "aftercare", and maybe more.  You need to be very careful what you say and do at this point.

The Amethyst House of Mystery

State-mandated rehab for DUI offenders is a huge business.  These very profitable nonprofits lobby for, and receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding. They are virtually unregulated and unrestrained, and it's all perfectly legal.  In fact, it's condoned, all in the name of saving the poor victims of the "disease" called alcoholism.  These are the gateways to the coerced recovery industry--an industry that is largely blind to science and which makes billions of dollars a year, lining the pockets of mostly uneducated "experts such as "Licensed/certified Alcohol and Drug Counselors" (LADCs or CADCs) whose only required formal training for certification is a GED/High School diploma, 270 hours of classes or "training", and supervised "experience" (which can include filing and record keeping).

I'll post about these LADCs later, but I found them to be hardcore AA true believers:  all former alcoholics and fundamentalist Christians who believe alcoholism is a disease.  All DUI offenders suffer from this disease and the only cure is finding god (their god, the Christian one), praying, and following the twelve steps.  They are anti-intellectual, anti-science, intolerant and threatened by skepticism.  They drip with condescension, righteousness, stupidity, and anger.  They finally have some power (by the state and courts) and they validate their beliefs by breaking you and converting you to their religion (AA).  It is important for them to do this because their beliefs are all that they have.  They bottomed-out as drunks and drug-abusers, lost everything (including their dignity and self-respect), and rebuilt their entire psyches on the beliefs espoused by Christian Fundamentalism and A.A.  They are dangerous.

I'm sure a lot of people reading this think I have an axe to grind.  I do.  Not about being punished for my DUI.  I fully realize the danger I caused to society and understand I need to be either punished and/or rehabilitated.  The axe that I want to grind is being forced into a system of people like I describe in the paragraph above. 

Anyway, I diverge.  Let me tell you about the mysterious and very profitable New Hampshire court-mandated rehab industry:

One of the largest of these rehab corporations, Amethyst Foundation, Inc., happens to be the one I went to, here in the "live free or die" state.  All of this was a huge eye-opener to me, and it took a huge amount of digging to learn about it.  I suspect Amethyst Foundtion, Inc., and others corporations like it, are all making a great effort to keep a low profile.  (I can only imagine digging up the dirt on the larger topic of privatized correctional facilities, where drug rehab and AA are also deeply entrenched.)

So, I received the standard 1st offense D.U.I. sentence in New Hampshire:  a six month Administrative License Suspension and a nine month Criminal Court License Suspension, to run concurrently.  My nine month Criminal Court License Suspension was to be reduced to a three month suspension on the condition that I complete an Intoxicated Driver Intervention Program (IDIP) at a facility closest to my residence.

That sounded good to me.  I knew I wasn't an alcoholic.  The night of my DUI was the first time I had more than 2-3 drinks in the last six years.  I've gone weeks without any alcohol at all and didn't give a second thought of it.  Surely, I'd just quietly complete the IDIP program, and get my driving privileges back in six months.  I knew of friends that had gone through similar programs in other states and who had no problems.

According to Administrative Rule He-A 704 (based on Statutory Authority:  RSA 265-A:39), I had to take the IDIP classes at the facility closest to my residence or place of work.  The classes cost $460 and were held two nights a week for six weeks.  The facility was "Amethyst House" in Epping, NH.

I tried to learn more about Amethyst House.  All I could find on-line was a single stripped down website for Amethyst Foundation, Inc.  An address, contact info, description of the IDIP program, forms and photos were there.  What was strange was that there was no directory or any names listed.  I tried calling the phone number multiple times throughout the day, but always got a busy signal.  At 5:01 PM sharp no one picked up the phone.

Judging from the photographs on its website, the place looked like a dump:

I decided to do some investigating.

The Hoover's Business Directory listed Amethyst Foundation, Inc., and the name of two executives, Director Bob Kelley and Ellen Parker.  Apparently Amethyst has locations throughout the state; Salem, Portsmouth, Hanover, Claremont, and Epping.  Its Certificate of Revival of Incorporation, naming the Board of Directors and Officers, and place of business (Epping, NH) may be found here.

According to public financial records available at this site, Amethyst Foundation, Inc., of Epping, NH (Employee Identification Number 020363792), is a 509(a)(2) charitable organization whose activities include rehabilitating alcoholics, drug abusers, compulsive gamblers, etc...  It was ruled a 509(a)(2) nonprofit organization by the IRS in 04/1987.  For the tax year of 2006, they held $778,642 in assets and had an income of $1,134,922.  Organizations performing similar types of work, on average, held only $311,304 in assets and had incomes of $610,576.  According to this site, there are only 42 other 509(a)(2) organizations performing similar activities in the country.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is one, and is ranked as having the highest income for this tax period, at a whopping $41,775,641.  Amethyst Foundation, Inc., is ranked as the fifth at $1,134,922.

Amethyst Foundation, Inc.'s income for the fiscal year 2010 was $1,134,922, as indicated by their IRS Form 900.  On this form, the organization's stated mission was: 
"To disseminate information concerning the effects on human beings of ingesting ethyl alcohol and other drugs; to assist individuals in assessing their own personal relationships with alcohol; to identify those individuals with drinking problems and involve them in a[n] alcohol awareness school--the organization operates a court and state mandated school for driving while under the influence of alcohol."
A search of the public records indicates that the state of New Hampshire contracts with Amethyst Foundation, Inc., for significant amounts of money.  For the period from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, Amethyst Foundation, Inc., along with two other 509(a)(2) organizations, Serenity Place and Tri-County Community Action Program, shared $751,400 in tax payer money in the form of sole source contracts (one contract for $455,000 and one for $296,400).  Amethyst Foundation, Inc., has a registered lobbyist with the New Hampshire Legislature, Edward DuPont.  He's doing a very good job.  For one year, Amethyst Foundation, Inc., shared nearly one million dollars in sole source contract money--money provided by New Hampshire residents.

And because of Amethyst Foundation, Inc.'s IRS 509(a)(2) status, all of this income is tax free!  

I thought my IDIP program was expensive until I saw the prices for others offered by Amethyst Foundation:

Phase II (for 2nd Offenders), a seven day residential program......$1,550.00 
.....of which Amethyst keeps $1,300.00.
WIDIP ("Weekend Intoxicated Driver Intervention Program").........$585.00 
.....of which Amethyst keeps $485.00.
MOP ("Multiple Offender Program")...........................................$1,550.00
.....of which Amethyst keeps $1,300.00.

Of the $460 fee for the IDIP class, Amethyst keeps $410.

The state of New Hampshire gets the crumbs as administrative fees.

Amethyst Foundation does a big business, as I was later to find out.  The classes filled up quickly.  A lot of the "customers" were from out of state.  In fact, a LADC told me many are celebrities.  I was told Amethyst Foundation was the only residential facility in New England.

So, we have a nice, very profitable, "non profit" corporation that pays no taxes and receives a huge amount of taxpayer funds.  How much they charge is determined, not by the market, but by the New Hampshire legislature.  They do a huge business and, with ever stricter DUI laws, will never lack for customers.  What a sweet deal.