Maine State Bar
Justia Lawyer Rating
National College for DUI Defense
National College for DUI Defense
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
Avvo
MTLA
AV Preeminent

Defense Attorney: John Scott Webb, Esq.

Offense: Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI)

Maximum Sentence: 364 days in jail

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Defense Attorney: John Scott Webb, Esq.

Offense: Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI)

Maximum Sentence: 364 days in jail

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Defense Attorney: John Scott Webb, Esq.

Offense: Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI)

Maximum Sentence: 364 days in jail (minimum 90 day license suspension, $500.00 fine)

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

So what does the Supreme Court’s decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico mean for the country at large? The answer is that no longer can scientific evidence be introduced into a case as if it were non-testimonial evidence. Testing and subsequent analysis of forensic evidence, far from being rote, requires a level of scientific expertise that, on occasion, may come into question. It is therefore imperative that whoever performs testing on any manner of sample must be made available for testimony so that the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions may be fully investigated. Although this doesn’t pose much of a problem for us here in Maine, many larger states may find themselves in a predicament now that highly technical and crucial forensic evidence can not be presented to the court as though it was generated by some nameless pencil-pusher.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

no-drink-drive-220x300I cannot tell you the number of people I talk to who say, “Well, the breath test says I blew over .08, so there is nothing I can do, right?” Wrong! What most people do not understand is that breath tests do not measure your blood alcohol level. Breath tests estimate your blood-alcohol level. They do that by using a lot of assumptions that assume everyone is the same. Do you really think everyone is the same? Hint: the answer is “no.”

This is Part I of a series of blogs about the assumptions that form the basis of breath testing, and why those assumptions are flawed. A breath test can be off, way off. While they are right much of the time, they are unfortunately wrong at the wrong times. As a result, innocent people are convicted of DUI.

I will start with explaining how breath testing is supposed to work. After that I will talk about the problems that occur. If there is something particular any reader would like me to comment on about breath testing, please let me know.

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Bullcoming v. New Mexico in favor of the Petitioner. The details of this otherwise mundane DWI/DUI case are as follows: Bullcoming, when initially pulled over on the night of the bad incident, refused to take a breath alcohol test. As a result, a blood alcohol test was ordered, which later was introduced as evidence.

The rub, however, is that the results of the blood alcohol test were presented as a business record, meaning that someone other than the forensic investigator which analyzed the blood sample could testify to its accuracy and veracity. Bullcoming argued that the evidence was instead testimonial, and that the Confrontation Clause would therefore be applicable. Although the New Mexico Supreme Court did indeed agree that the blood analysis was testimonial evidence, it ruled that it was admissible without the testimony of the forensic analyst who tested the sample. This ruling was reversed when brought before the Supreme Court, who voted 5-4 in favor of Bullcoming. Congratulations to my friend and colleague Justin McShane, Esq. (@JustinMcShane) who was one of the amici that filed a brief in support of Bullcoming with NACDL/NCDD.

Next week: What does this mean for us?

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

canadian-flag-300x199Many people do not realize that a DUI or other misdemeanor conviction in the United States can bar you from entering Canada. Folks who head to Canada on vacation are sometimes turned away at the border because a member the family has a DUI conviction. People on business trips, or hunting and fishing trips face the same problem.

If you have a conviction for DUI, operating after license suspension, leaving the scene of an accident, dangerous driving or many other misdemeanor charges, you are “inadmissible” under Canadian immigration law. If that is your only criminal conviction in your life you are inadmissible for 10 years. After that you are deemed rehabilitated.

If you have two or more convictions you must apply for rehabilitation with the Canadian government. It is a pretty involved process that requires you to submit a lot of documents and a fee. Processing takes up to a year. You cannot apply for rehabilitation until five years after the last action flowing from the second conviction.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

police It is always surprising that so many people are stopped by the police and arrested for DUI when the  reason they were stopped in the first place had nothing to do with DUI. I think more DUI arrests result from vehicle defects then from weaving.

The Fourth Amendment says that the police cannot stop you anytime they feel like it. They have to have a reason to stop you. The amount of evidence police must have to stop you depends on the situation. There are two levels of evidence that justify a stop. These are Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion, and Probable Cause.

Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion is the amount of evidence necessary to justify a belief that a person might be violating the law. That belief must be reasonable in the circumstances and based on evidence to support that reason. The officer must be able to articulate that reason as the reason for the stop.  Also the reason for the stop must be related to the subsequent investigation. This means that the officer cannot just invent a reason as a pretext. The police cannot stop you on a mere hunch.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information