Getting a Good DUI Lawyer

Finding the Right Attorney is Very, Very Important

When I was arrested for DUI, a lot was at stake: jail time, huge fines, etc... I went to one of the most reputable law firm in New Hampshire. It would seem a logical choice, but I ended up getting crappy representation from an inadequately supervised junior associate who was too afraid and insecure to admit when he didn't know something.  I trusted him because he worked for a highly respected law firm. This was a mistake. I ended up making wrong, uninformed (and expensive) decisions--some of which I actually had to correct for him by filing court paperwork later. To add insult to injury, the guy was a former cop who just dripped with a snarky, judgmental, "you deserved it, so stop whining" attitude. I really felt ripped off.

My advice to anyone looking for a lawyer to is surf the web and look for attorneys that show a passion for criminal defense work in general, and DUI defense in specific. DUI laws are grossly unfair and extremely punitive. Because of hysterical MADD lobbying groups and religious AA prohibitionists, state legislators, district attorneys, sheriffs and other elected officials are pressured to enact and enforce ridiculous DUI laws.

Good attorneys know this, and they know that good citizens are being unfairly punished and need good representation. Their passion will show in their websites. A good DUI lawyer will blog about DUI laws, defenses, and legislation, etc... and I'm sure they would have done a better and cheaper job then the jerk I hired.

Here are some sites that impressed me. I wish I had checked them out:

Eugene C. Struckhoff, III, Lothstein Law Office, PLLC, Concord, New Hampshire

Gene Struckhoff ("Citizen, Lawyer"), a graduate of Harvard Law who has been defending individuals since 1969, has a long essay entitled "The Importance of Defending DWI/DUI Cases." I couldn't help but be impressed with this.

Mark Stevens, The Law Offices of Mark Stevens, Salem, New Hampshire

Mark Stevens specializes in DUI representation and is extremely experienced at it, as indicated by his online attorney profile. He went to law school at Massachusetts School of Law, which is not a very good law school. But the truth is that law school really doesn't teach you how to be an attorney, practicing law does.  Getting into Harvard Law really only shows that you got (very) good grades as an undergraduate and scored (very) high on the LSAT.  Stevens looks good, and his passion for what he does is evident.

Daniel Hynes (aka, "The NH DWI Guy"), The Law Offices of Daniel Hynes, Nashua, New Hampshire

I was very impressed with Hynes's plucky attitude. He's gotten great reviews on Google and Yahoo. He does mainly DWI cases and has a lot of experience. His passion for his work comes across in his website videos, his online guidebook to DWI defenses, and extensive website DUI-related material. I feel that anyone who takes the time to write and make available content like this has a passion for what he does, and would likely do a great job defending you. He also seems aware of and sensitive to the expense of representation.  Hayes went to University of Albany (Criminology Major) and then to Western New England Law School.  Again, Western New England Law is not Harvard Law, but I'm not sure how meaningful the difference is in reality. 

Ryan Russman, Russman Law Offices, Exeter, New Hampshire

Russman looks very experienced and accomplished. A graduate of Suffolk Law and author of two books on DUI defense, he offers extensive resources on his website and is impressive. As a semi-finalist in both the ABA National Trail competition and Suffolk Law third year moot court competition, he's probably a great attorney if you have to go to trial.  He has great customer reviews, too.

I'm sure there are other great attorneys out there. You should look for someone who specializes in DUI cases, is smart, and is passionate. Passion is indicated to me by the degree of intellectual curiosity shown on their websites and their accomplishments. The attorneys above have written books on DUI defenses, have specialized training in DUI law, and even teach CLE courses on this stuff.  They have taken the time to create excellent websites.

Keep in mind that if you go to the firms above, you may very well be represented by a supervised, junior attorney. But be careful. Get assurances that they are competent and well supervised.

Though the attorney I hired worked for an impressive law firm, and was under the supervision of one of it's partners, he was a joke (an expensive one).

 Do you know of a good attorney?  If so, email me!

After Your D.U.I. Arrest--Part II

If you refused your B.A.C. test, or consented and had a B.A.C. level at or above 0.08 g Ethanol/100 ml, you've received an Administrative License Suspension.  This suspension was anywhere from 180 days to 2 years, depending upon your driving record.  If you refused your B.A.C. test, any criminal suspension will run consecutively.  If you consented, any criminal suspension will run concurrently.  Additionally, criminal court judges will likely impose a stiffer sentence on someone who refused a B.A.C. test.

Given this, why would anyone refuse a BAC test?  Findings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that those who refused received higher fines and longer jail terms.  New Hampshire residents refused more than any other state's drivers: Almost one-quarter (22.4 percent) who were arrested refused to submit to a BAC test.  I have no idea why New Hampshire residents show such poor legal judgment.

There are four possible DWI/DUI charges.  Which one you are charged with, and the penalty, will be indicated on your Complaint. The most basic charge, DUI, is classified as a class B misdemeanor and a crime. Although you cannot go to jail for a simple first-offense DUI conviction, both DUI 2nd offense and aggravated DUI each carry the possibility of a year in jail. If you are charged with felony aggravated DUI based on serious bodily injury (including to yourself), you face up to seven years in prison; a fourth-offense DUI is also a felony.

A regular, first-offense DUI conviction is punishable by a fine of between $500.00 and $1,200.00, plus a standard penalty assessment of 20% of the amount of the fine, and a mandatory minimum license loss of ninety days, with a maximum loss of two years. The minimum license loss that the Court may impose is nine months, but six months of that period may be suspended by the Court if you enter into a mandatory alcohol treatment program within forty-five days of the date of your conviction.

In certain unusual circumstance such as having a prior DUI on your record within the last ten years (even though you are not formally charged with DUI, 2nd offense), you face substantially higher minimum penalties plus a seven-day residential treatment program. If you are under twenty-one years of age at the time of the offense, you face a minimum revocation of one year, and if you are under twenty, in addition to the one year minimum imposed by the Court, you face and additional loss that can vary from twenty to ninety days, depending on your prior record.

Upon conviction of any DUI offense, you also must complete a state-approved DUI training course prior to restoration of your license or operating privilege. For a first offense DUI, you must attend and complete a state-approved 20-hour program and any recommended aftercare, including attendance at AA and/or further alcohol treatment. Some of these programs meet in the evening, some on weekends.  This state-approved program is called an Impaired Driver Intervention Program, or IDIP.

Again, if this is your first DUI offense, and you complete an IDIP program, your criminal court license suspension will be reduced from nine months to three months...in theory.  It turns out that though the IDIP  program is only 20 hours, the aftercare that is assigned usually ends up being longer than the original nine month non-reduced suspension.

Oh, and you'll end up paying $460 for the IDIP program and hundreds for assigned aftercare.

My next post will be about the Alcohol Treatment Centers that run IDIP programs.  The people who run them are, in general, stupid, incompetent, former alcoholics, now turned fundamentalist Christians via Alcoholics Anonymous.  They will teach you that you are powerless to your disease of alcoholism and that the only cure is through God.  

Welcome my friend, welcome to the machine.

This Is Likely Perfectly Legal, Because No Alcohol Is Involved

Sean Symons videotaped this texting driver.  The driver continued to text even after coming to a stop, apparently oblivious what had happened.  He hit two cars.

I'm not sure what state this is, but likely the most this driver will get is a ticket for reckless driving and that's only because there is videotaped evidence he was texting.  Had he been drinking it could have been felonious aggravated DUI with mandatory prison time, tens of thousands of dollars in fines and attorney fees, loss of driving privileges for at least five years, and a lifetime criminal record.

Groups like MADD focus entirely on drinking (as few as a couple beers) and driving, while they ignore what are arguably just as dangerous activities:  speeding, aggressive driving, distracted driving, drowsy driving, dangerous police chases, older drivers who have impaired vision or reflexes, poorly trained drivers, operating a vehicle with poor brakes or tires, improperly loading vehicles, unsafe towing practices, and dangerously designed cars.

When a MADD leader was asked about how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care." On CNN's Crossfire, the President-elect of MADD refused to discuss cell phones and the traffic fatalities they cause. She said "We're not here to talk about cell phones. We're here to talk about alcohol." Following more questions about how cell phones impair driving, the MADD leader snapped "I'm not going to talk about cell phones." Similarly, a MADD lobbyist was quoted on the program as saying "I don't care about deaths from cell phones."  (MADD Pushes for New Measures. CNN Crossfire, aired June 28, 2002.)

Perhaps MADD's lack of concern for deaths caused by cell phone results from the fact that the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) gave free wireless phones to MADD chapters throughout the country along with free airtime. As the President of MADD exclaimed, "This is a tremendous shot in the arm for our organization."  (Bouvet, S. CTIA joins MADD to Aid Victims of Drunk Drivers with Phones, Airtime (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) CTIA press release, January 19, 1998; Sundeem, M. Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2002 State Legislatures Update. Denver, CO: National Council of State Legislatures, 2002.)
.

D.U.I.--The Punishment Does Not Fit The Crime

I'd like to make this perfectly clear:  When I consumed too much alcohol and operated a motor vehicle I broke the law.  Specifically, I broke the criminal law, which is defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is prohibited by the state because it is held to threaten, harm or otherwise endanger the safety and welfare of the public, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on those who breach these laws.   I could  have caused an accident that night in which someone got hurt.

It was stupid and irresponsible and I deserve punishment.  I am genuinely remorseful and ashamed of my actions.  I would like nothing more than to assure society that this will never happen again and take any appropriate, reasonable punishment for my actions.  However, I feel the punishment for DUI is too severe, ineffective, and misguided.

Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each.

• Retribution is the idea that criminals ought to be punished in some way and made to suffer.  This is "eye for an eye" idea (although the Old Testament was actually preaching moderation here--take no more than an eye.)  
• Deterrence is punishment aimed at preventing the same crime from reoccurring, either individual (individual deterrence) or by society at large (general deterrence).  It's often very hard to prove a particular punishment has a deterrent effect.  I.e., capital punishment certainly has a specific deterrent effect (the criminal is dead and won't recommit the crime), but experts are conflicted over whether it has a general deterrent effect.
• Incapacitation is simply keeping the criminal physically separated from society to prevent future harm.
• Rehabilitation is transforming the criminal into a valuable, productive member of society.
• Restitution is repaying any damages to individuals that were harmed in the committing of the criminal act.

Punishment for a DUI is certainly retributive.  Posted bond, fines, costs, and license reinstatement fees. In addition, you may have to pay probation fees, the cost of mandatory drug and alcohol assessment and counseling, and the cost of any associated monitoring like an ignition interlock device or continuous alcohol monitoring, lost work time, and attorney fees. You can also expect to pay much higher automobile insurance rates, often for years after your license is reinstated.  Illinois is one of the few states providing an official estimate of average DUI costs. The typical Illinois DUI conviction costs the drunk driver $14,660.

The severe retributive punishment is certainly an individual deterrent.  Most offenders I met were not aware of the retributive costs of a DUI prior to their arrest, and, when combined with society's acceptance of drinking, and lack of information of what a DUI arrest entails, indicates that there exists little general deterrent effect.

Punishment for a first offense DUI in New Hampshire results in loss of license for six months.  This is a form incapacitation.  For second offense DUI's some state impose prison sentences.

Rehabilitation is a component of DUI punishment, though it is neither a significant nor effective one, and this is the issue which prompted me to create this blog.  First, all offenders are assumed, and later, diagnosed to be alcoholics by Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors, or LADCs.  In some states they are called Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselors, or CADCs.  In New Hampshire to be a LADC all you need is a high school diploma or G.E.D. and completion of a certification program.  The certification program consists of 270 hours of training, followed by 6000 hours of "supervised alcohol and drug abuse work experience."  There are tons of online schools available.

The problem with LADCs is that most, if not all, of them in New Hampshire are former alcoholics who espouse religion-based recovery programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous.  They are "true-believers" in A.A. and the power of Jesus to cure your "disease."  All the ones I've met have been of below-average intelligence, hateful, and on a power trip.  They see an alcoholic in everyone.  They have succeeded when they get you to admit that you are an alcoholic (I've actually seen a devious grin form on a LADC upon someone's "breaking.").  Then they require that you join and take part in AA as part of your "aftercare."

This is not rehabilitative.  AA has been shown to be largely ineffective.  Multiple studies have shown that the success rate of AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) are between 3-7%.  According to Harvard Medical School, the spontaneous remission rate for alcoholism is 5%.   Nor is imprisonment rehabilitative.  Placing DUI offenders in cells with violent criminals is a recipe for breeding more violent criminals.  (Note:  In prisons, AA attendance is often used as an implied condition of good behavior early parole, even though the explicit requirement of AA for this purpose has been ruled unconstitutional.)

In addition to being ineffective, Alcoholics Anonymous is faith-based and relies entirely on one's belief in a higher power to cure oneself of alcoholism.  A staple of the A.A. meeting is holding hands at the end and chanting the Lord's Prayer in unison.  The higher power, make no mistake, is Jesus.  AA is a evangelical organization, and almost all (85-93%) of the alcohol treatment programs in the U.S. that D.U.I. offenders are mandated to attend are based on AA.  And after attending alcohol treatment programs, many, like myself, are required to attend months of AA meetings in order to get my license back.  This is unconstitutional.  It violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This was the First Amendment.  In other words, it's what the founding fathers thought was the most important right of an American citizen--to be free of Federal Laws that in any way establish religious activity or inhibit religious activity.  The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, allowed the courts to eventually prohibit similar State laws:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  Since then, it is unconstitutional for any State to enact laws that coerce or inhibit religious activity.