New Hampshire Law Banning Cell Phone Use While Driving by Mark Stevens 603-893-0074

New Hampshire Hands Free Cell Phone Law. The new ban on making cell phone calls and texts, titled "Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving; Prohibition (RSA 265:79-c),  went into effect today, July 1, 2015 in New Hampshire.  Here is the law:

[RSA 265:79-c effective July 1, 2015.]
    265:79-c Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving; Prohibition. –
    I. (a) No person, while driving a moving motor vehicle upon a way or temporarily halted in traffic for a traffic control device or other momentary delay, shall use any hand-held mobile electronic device capable of providing voice or data communication, including but not limited to: reading, composing, viewing, or posting any electronic message; or initiating, receiving, or conducting a conversation; or initiating a command or request to access the Internet; or inputting information into a global positioning system or navigation device; or manually typing data into any other portable electronic device. An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a cellular telephone or other electronic device capable of voice communication in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section.
       (b) "Driving,'' for the purposes of this section, shall not include when a person is behind the controls of a vehicle that has pulled to the side of or off the road at a location where it is legal to do so and where the vehicle remains stationary.
    II. It shall not be an offense under this section for any person driving a motor vehicle upon a way:
       (a) To make use of a cellular telephone or other electronic device capable of voice communication to report an emergency to the enhanced 911 system or directly to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or emergency medical provider.
       (b) To use one hand to transmit or receive messages on any non-cellular 2-way radio.
       (c) To use a Bluetooth enabled or other hands-free electronic device, or a similar device that is physically or electronically integrated into a motor vehicle, for such a purpose to send or receive information provided the driver does not have to divert his or her attention from the road ahead. As used in this section, "hands-free electronic device'' means a mobile electronic device that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile electronic device, by which a user engages in conversation without the use of either hand; provided, however, this definition shall not preclude the use of either hand merely to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the telephone.
    III. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined $100 plus penalty assessment for a first offense, $250 plus penalty assessment for a second offense, and $500 plus penalty assessment for any subsequent offense within a 24-month period.
    IV. No person less than 18 years of age shall use a cellular or mobile telephone or other mobile electronic device, whether hands-free or not, while driving a motor vehicle in motion or temporarily stopped in traffic upon any way, except to report an emergency to the enhanced 911 system or any public safety agency. A person violating this paragraph shall be subject to the fines in paragraph III and license suspension or revocation under RSA 263:14, III.

Thoughts on this law:   Be careful while driving.  It is not a good idea to text and drive or be distracted in any other way while driving.  The safest thing to do is to pay attention to the road.  However, if you get stopped and the police question you about whether you were talking or texting, it is as unwise to admit to that as it is to admit to any other other crime or violation.

Furthermore, the last sentence of paragraph I (a) of this new law may be constitutionally challenged as it contains a presumption of guilt if the police see a phone in the "immediate proximity" of a driver's ear.  Firstly, "immediate proximity" is vague, and most importantly, we enjoy a presumption of innocence under our state and federal Constitutions, not a presumption of guilt.

Be careful out there, as the police now have one more tool to stop you with.

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2015

This blog post and blog constitute legal advertising.


Call Off the Dogs: When You Can't Be Held Up By the Cops for a "Dog Sniff". by Attorney Mark Stevens

Illegal Search and Seizure. Being stopped for a routine traffic citation is common occurrence, and it happens to ordinary citizens frequently.  The police sometimes try to morph the routine traffic stop into a generalized search as part of their "War on Drugs", often by threatening to "bring out a drug dog" if the driver does not consent to a search of her car for drugs or other contraband.

 In Rodriguez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court tethered police officers to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures and searches that occur when the police try to turn an ordinary traffic stop into a far more intrusive encounter. A traffic stop can become unconstitutional at the point that the police extend it beyond the time necessary to accomplish the initial reason for the stop.  In Rodriguez' case, for example, he was stopped for "swerving".  When the officer asked him why he swerved he said he avoided a pothole.  The officer issued Rodriguez a written warning for the swerve, then delayed Rodriguez at the roadside for seven or eight minutes until another officer with a drug sniffing dog arrived. The drug dog indicated that drugs were present and the police found a controlled drug: methamphetamine in Rodriguez' car.  The government argued that a 7 or 8 minute intrusion into a person's freedom was "de minimis".  it probably didn't feel that way to Mr. Rodriguez.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the government's argument, and held that an extension of a seizure after the mission of the initial stop had been accomplished (in this case a written warning), without reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity violated the Fourth Amendment and the Court reversed and remanded Rodriguez' case.  This holding may provide even greater protection than the current law in New Hampshire.  In one of the leading cases on how cases involving extensions of routine traffic stops are permissible under the New Hampshire Constitution, the New Hampshire Supreme Court noted that:

"On the other hand, requiring every police inquiry either to be related to the initial purpose of the Terry stop or to be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of additional criminal activity is unduly restrictive."
State v. MacKinnon-Andrews, 151 N.H. 19 (2004).  In Rodriguez, in contrast, the United States Supreme Court held that "Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures."

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2015

This blog post and blog constitute legal advertising.


Heads Up!!! Sobriety Checkpoints This Weekend in Manchester, New Hampshire April 24th and April 25th

Heads Up! This weekend Manchester Police will be conducting DWI Roadblocks and Sobriety Checkpoints in undisclosed areas around Manchester, New Hampshire on April 24th and April 25th. 

Here are a few tips if you find yourself caught in one of these traps over the weekend:1. Put Mark Stevens # in your phone now 603-785-6458 (24/7 & roadside). Might be a good idea if you need it later...
2. DON'T RUN, make any last minute U-turns, or try to dodge these. It will only end up making things worse.
3. You do not have to take the Field Sobriety Tests, You have the right to refuse them.

Know your rights, as well as knowing that the Constitution still protects you from before and after you are stopped by the police. Call for free initial consultation and case evaluation for your DWI, DUI, OUI, aggravated DWI or boating while intoxicated cases. 

Check out Attorney Stevens YouTube Channel for more videos like this one-

Have you been arrested for a DWI charge in New Hampshire? Were you trapped and captured in a police DWI roadblock?  The chances are greater than ever that your arrest occurred after an arrest in a DWI roadblock. The police call these "sobriety checkpoints" because that sounds somewhat less offensive to our Constitution's and our way of life; but they are what they are, and what they are, are roadblocks.

New Hampshire DWI laws and constitutional issues arising from DWI road blocks by New Hampshire DWI defense lawyer Mark Stevens. DWI roadblocks are a growing problem in New Hampshire. If you have been arrested for a DWI charge in New Hampshire call Attorney Mark Stevens to schedule a free consultation and initial case evaluation  (24/7)  603-893-0074 or 603-893-0261.  We look forward to speaking with you.

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens
Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022
info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com

Facebook Page Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Blogger WordPress YouTube


The Deliberations in the Aaron Hernandez Case by Attorney Mark Stevens 1-603-893-0074

Aaron Hernandez Murder Trial. The jury in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial has been deliberating for days now.  So what are they trying to decide?  The jury could find Hernandez not guilty of the murder charge and the weapon and ammunition charges, or they could find him guilty of the weapons charges but not the murder, or vice versa.

If they find Hernandez guilty of murder based on the Commonwealth's circumstantial evidence presented, they could find him guilty of first degree murder or second degree murder.  In Massachusetts, if the jury found that Hernandez was guilty of killing Odin Lloyd, they would then have to unanimously decide between a first degree murder or second degree murder conviction.  To prove first degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez killed Lloyd with deliberate premeditation, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or both.

The Massachusetts statutory definition of murder is found at Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, "Crimes Against the Person", Section 1, "Murder Defined" :

     "Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury."

A first degree murder conviction for Hernandez would result in a life prison sentence without the possibility of parole.  The jury alternatively could find Hernandez guilty of murder in the second degree.  If that was their verdict, Hernandez would receive a sentence of life in prison but would be eligible for parole after serving 15 years.  In Massachusetts, life sentence parole hearings are handled by the Life Sentence Unit of the Massachusetts Parole Board who prepare and schedule the Initial Hearing to determine whether the Board would grant parole.  Inmates facing an Initial Hearing before the full parole board while serving a life maximum sentence are entitled to counsel, and to present evidence favorable to the granting of parole.

Though the jury's job is not easy in any circumstantial murder case, it is perhaps more difficult in Massachusetts, where the jury could also find Hernandez guilty of murder under Massachusetts' somewhat confusing "joint venture" law.  In Hernandez' case, no murder weapon was recovered and there is no direct evidence of which of three men present at Lloyd's shooting actually killed him.  Mere presence at the scene by Hernandez, which his defense admitted, is not sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.  To prove Hernandez guilty by "joint venture", the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez knowingly participated in the crime, and that he did so with the intent required to commit that crime.  Mere presence or even failure to stop the crime is insufficient for a guilty verdict.

Weighing an entirely circumstantial case, even where there are some bad facts for Hernandez, won't be easy for the jury, particularly when they have to consider what. if any, Hernandez' role was in the killing, besides being merely present when it happened.  Likewise troubling may be the lack of any apparent motive for the millionaire tight end to throw away a promising NFL career.  

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
Admitted in Massachusetts and New Hampshire
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079


Happy St. Patrick's Day from Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Stevens (24/7) 603.893.0074

Wishing everyone a Safe and Police-Free St. Patrick's Day! 

If you or someone you know had an unwanted police encounter during the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade and festivities in Boston, you may be wondering whether or not you need a lawyer to help you fight these charges.  

Call Attorney Mark Stevens ([24/7] or roadside) at 603-893-0074 or 603-893-0261 to contact a qualified attorney who fights cases like these every day. Attorney Mark Stevens is located in Salem, New Hampshire but is admitted to practice in all New Hampshire and Massachusetts courts. Attorney Stevens will know what to do call now to set up your free consultation and initial case evaluation. 

For More Information on DWI Laws or Information on Attorney Stevens visit NHDWILaws.com or ByeByeDWI.comPrefer to Book a Free Consultation Online? Visit DWI Lawyer Mark Stevens at NHCrime.com and scroll to the bottom to fill out the consultation request form. We look forward to speaking with you.

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens 
          Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022 
 info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com  
Find me on Facebook

                            YouTubeWordPressFacebookTwitterLinkedInFacebook Page 


Commonwealth v. Fujita: Massachusetts SJC Rules Jury Lists to Be Made Public, January 27, 2015

Overlooked to an extent because of the concurrent Blizzard of 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") issued an historic opinion today in the case of Commonwealth v. Nathaniel Fujita. The Fujita case was a murder trial that resulted in a guilty verdict against Mr. Fujita for killing his ex-girlfriend.  This appeal, however, arose from the trial court's ruling on a motion from The Boston Globe to reveal the jury list, which contained the jurors' names and addresses from the trial, to determine whether the jurors would be willing to be interviewed by The Globe after they had rendered their verdict.

In Fujita, the SJC ruled that "the public's long-term interest in maintaining an open judicial process, as embodied in the United States Constitution and Massachusetts common law, requires that a list identifying the names of jurors who have been empanelled and rendered a verdict in a criminal case be retained in the court file of the case and be made available to the public in the same manner as other court records."    The Court noted that Massachusetts common law, tradition and trial practice, dating back to the Boston Massacre trials in 1770, has been that juror information be known to the public.  The Court noted that the names of the jurors who acquitted the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre were known to the public.  Another case cited but the Court was the 1806 trial of Thomas Selfridge, a Boston attorney accused of murder, on whose jury Paul Revere sat.   Paul Revere and the other jurors names were public information.

The Fujita ruling did not change the confidentiality of the juror questionnaires, which are confidential and are to be destroyed after the trial by the trial court pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 234A, sec. 23.  Today's ruling did, however, impose an affirmative duty on the trial courts to include a list of the names of the jurors empanelled in a criminal case as part of the court file to be made available to the public, "no later than at the conclusion of the trial".

Attorney Mark Stevens
Admitted in Massachusetts & New Hampshire
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079

Attorney Mark Stevens is a Salem, New Hampshire criminal defense lawyer.


Did you receive Bad Mail from the State? Don't Let Bad Mail Get You Down, Call NH Defense Attorney Mark Stevens for a Free Consultation 603-893-0074

Did you receive Bad Mail from the State Lab? 

Don't let bad mail get you down... 

Call an experienced attorney who can help you handle these frustrating legal matters. New Hampshire Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens is admitted to practice in all NH and MA courts. 

The consultation is free, call right now to schedule your free initial case consultation and find out what Attorney Mark Stevens can do to fight your case!

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark StevensTel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022 Email Mark | www.byebyedwi.com
YouTube Twitter LinkedIn Facebook
byebyedwi on facebook
Click links to be directed to ByeByeDWI: 


Motions to Change Venue in Criminal Trials by Attorney Mark Stevens 1-603-893-0074

The motion to change venue in the trial of accused Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gained recent significant attention. His second motion to change venue was denied by the trial court, Tsarnaev then appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay (delay) in jury selection and trial in order to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to change venue.  In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals denied his effort to stay the trial to argue for a change of venue.

The trial court relied heavily on the case of Skilling v. United States, a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to change venue, and in which the Supreme Court gave factors which should be considered on motions to change venue in criminal trials: 1). the size and diversity of the pool of potential jurors from which the jury pool would be drawn; 2). the nature and type of news media coverage of the case; and 3). the amount of time that had passed between the alleged crime or crimes and the trial date. Skilling lost his motion to change venue and lost that issue on appeal.

Skilling's case, however, was not a capital murder case; it was a white collar fraud case which was part of the Enron scandal.  A closer case to Tsarnaev's is the Timothy McVeigh case in the Oklahoma bombing, in which a motion to change venue was granted: Timothy McVeigh v. United States.  The trial court in McVeigh found that the "emotional burden of the explosion and its consequences" on those who lived in the area but were personally unaffected created "so great a prejudice against [the] defendants in the State of Oklahoma that they cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial", and granted McVeigh's motion to change venue for his capital murder trial.  His case was moved to Colorado for trial.

Tsarnaev's case presented a much stronger argument for a change of venue than McVeigh's, as the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals opined in the order denying Tsarnaev's motion to stay jury selection until the denial of his motion could be appealed: Order of First Circuit Court of Appeals, In Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev v. United States, January 3, 2015. As the dissenting judge wrote, "the entire city of Boston and its surrounding areas were victimized -- as evidenced by the city's virtual lockdown and the images of SWAT team members roaming the streets and knocking door-to-door in Watertown -- is compelling ".  Nonetheless, Tsarnaev's motion to change venue was denied and his trial has begun.

Arguably, if the denial of Tsarnaev's motion to change venue is ultimately upheld on appeal, it may make it impossible or close to impossible for successful motions to change venue in the future.  Curiously though, trying Tsarnaev in Massachusetts, which is not a death penalty state, may improve his chances of having jurors, who will decide whether he lives or dies, who are not willing to vote to kill him, regardless of how heinous the crimes.

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Admitted in Massachusetts and New Hampshire


Happy New Years Eve from DWI Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens (27/7) 603.893.0074

Happy New Years Eve from DWI Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens (27/7)  603.893.0074

Happy New Years Eve! Please drive safely. Please don’t drive drunk tonight; call a cab. If you ignore this advice and get arrested for DWI, call me tonight or today at 1-603-893-0074. Try to avoid unwanted police contact tonight by checking your lights, including plate lights before heading out tonight, and remembering to carry your driver’s license with you while driving. Avoid driving if you have any active arrest warrants out for you. Any equipment violation will get you stopped tonight because it’s New Year’s Eve. Take a cab if you need to or arrange for a designated driver before you start drinking. If you do run into any weekend arrests or issues with the police feel free to call at any time. Don’t wait until Monday! Call me at 1-603-893-0074 RIGHT NOW to plan your next steps.

If you are facing a DUI, DWI , aggravated DWI, “minor in possession”, “unlawful intoxication by a minor” “transportation of alcohol”, “conduct after an accident” (that means “leaving the scene of an accident”), “reckless driving”, ”simple assault” or other motor vehicle violation or criminal charges in a New Hampshire District Court or Superior Court, call Attorney Mark Stevens today at 1-603-893-0074 for a free initial consultation. Don’t wait! New Hampshire DWI laws, New Hampshire criminal laws, penalties and case examples. Also remember that under New Hampshire’s aggravated DWI law that if you cooperate and blow into the breath test machine when the officer requests it, you can end up in jail.

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark StevensTel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.comFacebook Page Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Blogger WordPress YouTubeFind me on Facebook







Wishing Everyone a Safe and Merry Christmas 
Salem, New Hampshire DWI Defense Attorney Mark Stevens

603-893-0074 (24/7)

Operating After Suspension for DWI / OUI by Attorney Mark Stevens 1-603-893-0074

Operating After Suspension Law.  Charges for operating after your license has been suspended carry harsh penalties.  The penalties are even harsher if your license has been suspended or revoked for operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs ("OUI") or driving while intoxicated ("DWI").  On December18, 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"), issued an opinion reversing a conviction for operating after suspension for OUI that might be helpful if you are facing a trial for an operating after suspension charge.

In Commonwealth v.  Oyewole, 467 Mass. 1108 (2014), the SJC granted further appellate review of a conviction for operating after suspension after a jury waived trial in District Court.  The SJC noted that the Commonwealth was obligate to prove four elements of the this charge beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain its burden of proof at trial: 1). that the defendant operated a motor vehicle; 2). that at the time of that operation the defendant's license to drive was suspended or revoked; 3). that the license suspension or revocation was pursuant to a violation of G. L. c. 90, sec 24 (the Massachusetts OUI law); and 4). "that the defendant was notified that his license was notified that his license was suspended or revoked".

In this case, the record supported findings that the defendant's driver's license had been revoked pursuant to an admission to sufficient facts that led to a Continuance Without a Finding ("CWOF") that resulted in a 60 day license revocation.  He was stopped within the 60 day revocation period.  He still had his driver's license with him at the time of the stop at issue, however, and the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had ever been notified of his license revocation, despite the prior OUI plea and CWOF.  There was no evidence at trial that the defendant's suspension was ever communicated to him, and the  defendant's conviction was overturned.

If you have been charged with operating after suspension or revocation, it is important to contact a criminal defense attorney immediately.  Call Attorney Mark Stevens today for a case consultation for your Massachusetts or New Hampshire charges at 1-603-893-0074.

Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Admitted to Practice in Massachusetts and New Hampshire

DISCLAIMER: This is legal advertising.  No attorney-client relationship is intended or created by this post.  


Happy Thanksgiving from Salem, NH DWI Lawyer Mark Stevens (24/7) 603.893.0074

Happy Turkey Day Everyone!  From Salem, NH DWI Defense Attorney Mark Stevens 1.603.893.0074 (24/7)

Just a reminder that all New Hampshire courts are closed on Friday November 28, however, the New Hampshire DMV's  will be open  on Friday 11/28/14,  the day after Thanksgiving.

Wishing everyone and their families a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday!  Please have a safe holiday. Remember, if you are traveling with loved ones this weekend make sure you  are prepared in advance by following a few simple safe driver tips.

Happy Thanksgiving

    The Law Office of Mark Stevens

Being Prepared for Holiday Travel:
  1. Check your tail and brake lights before leaving.
  1. Make sure your registration and license are easily accessible.
  1.  ****Make sure you have "Mark Stevens" added & saved to your address book in your contacts in case of an emergency***  1.603.893.0074 (24/7)
  1. Don't text &drive (general reminder)
  1. With lots of holiday travelers on the road, stay alert. (Especially after a big turkey dinner!!)

Arrested for DWI in New Hampshire?  Follow this Call to Action!

Call to Action:

Have you or a loved one been arrested? If you have, you’ve probably just endured the worst day of your life. Your anxiety level is probably the highest it has ever been. It is important right now that you promptly take steps to protect your rights.

The Law Offices of Mark Stevens represents people accused of DWI and other crimes. Call right now for a free initial consultation at 603-893-0074. In New Hampshire call 1-800-DWI-LAWS. We look forward to speaking with you.

DWI Defense LawyerCall DWI Lawyer Mark Stevens for a FREE Consultation and Initial Case Evaluation (24/7!) at  1.603.893.0074. We look forward to speaking with you.


New Hampshire Courts Closed for Veterans Day

Just a reminder that the New Hampshire State Courts and New Hampshire DMV's are closed tomorrow Tuesday November 11th, in honor of Veterans Day.  

Thank you to all of the Veterans who have served our country. 

 From The Law Office of Mark Stevens,

We Salute You. 

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens
Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022
Email Attorney Stevens ✉ byebyedwi.com

Facebook Page Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Blogger WordPress YouTube
Find me on Facebook


New Hampshire DWI Laws by New Hampshire Attorney Mark Stevens.

If you have been arrested in the state of New Hampshire or facing charges for OUI, DWI, DUI, or BWI-  Call the Law Offices of Mark Stevens for your free consultation and New Hampshire DWI case evaluation at 1-603-893-0074 today!



Busted at Keene Pumpkin Fest 2014?

Pumpkin Festival is a great annual tradition in Keene, New Hampshire  that draws thousands of local residents, students, and others to view prize winning pumpkins on display. In recent years, the cops have cracked down on alcohol related celebration at Pumpkin Fest.  Celebrate responsibly, and be careful, the man is everywhere looking for young people intoxicated or in the " unlawful possession of alcohol by a minor ".  If you get convicted of possession of alcohol or intoxication and you are under 21 you can lose your right to drive for 90 days on a first offense, even if you weren't driving when you got busted!

If you get busted at the Keene Pumpkin Festival, call Salem, New Hampshire Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens (24/7) to find out what your next step should be at : 1-603-893-0074 or visit us online at www.byebyedwi.com for more information. Call Attorney Mark Stevens @ 603.893.0074 (24/7) and Lawyer Up!


"The Pen Test" by Salem, NH DWI and Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens 603-893-0074

Pen Tests Go Wrong, Even When Officers Do Them Right

The Pen Test is the first of a series of so-called  "field sobriety tests," and is also called the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; a driver typically endures
this test at the roadside and is also commonly called the "HGN" or
"Gaze" test. This is performed by the officer holding a pen or his
finger about a foot from the driver's face, while waving it slowly
from side to side several times. The officer typically tells the
driver to stand with feet together with arms by your side, and
to follow his pen with eyes only (in other words, don't move your

The police are trained to call their pen a "stimulus" in order
to make the exercise sound more scientifically reliable than it is.
It is designed to check for a "jerking of the pupils" during the pen
wavings back and forth.   Most drivers assume they've passed "The Pen 
Test" because they complied with the officer's instructions to hold their 
head still.

However, contrary to assumption; any minor jerking of the
pupils can be caused by hundreds of reasons other than alcohol or
drug consumption, and will ultimately cause any driver to fail this
test. One thing to watch out for just before you unintentionally
oblige to "The Pen Test" is a request by the police to "check your
eyes". This sounds pretty innocuous, but it is really just a way to
get you to comply with the "The Pen Test" which you CANNOT be forced
to do. 


Call Attorney Mark Stevens to discuss your case and set up a free

consultation and initial case evaluation. Attorney Mark Stevens is

admitted to practice in all Courts in New Hampshire and

Massachusetts. The Law Office of Mark Stevens is located at 5 Manor

Pkwy. Salem, N.H. Attorney Stevens is available 24/7. Call now to set

up your free consultation and discuss your case. 603-893-0074 or visit

us at NHCrime.com to request an appointment. The consultation request

is located at the bottom of the page on www.NHCrime.com.

We look forward to speaking with you,


Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens

Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022
info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com

Facebook Page Facebook  WordPress YouTube