Patrick Roland pled guilty to DWI. Although he had a prior DWI on his record, the plea bargain changed it to a “first” offense. This is a common plea bargain in DWI cases. From the prosecutor’s perspective it avoids the time and expense in taking the case to trial. The prosecutor also eliminates the risk of losing with no conviction at all. On the other hand, the advantage to the defendant is that it reduces the loss of license and avoids at least five days in jail.
DMV Decides to Require an Ignition Interlock, Even Though the Court Did Not
While the Court could have imposed an ignition interlock device, it did not. An ignition interlock is a breathalyzer attached to the ignition. In order to start the vehicle a driver must blow into the machine. He will not be able to start the car if there is any alcohol in his system.
However, while the Court chose not to require the ignition interlock device, that was not the end of it. The DMV can hold a hearing to decide if someone convicted of DWI must install an ignition interlock. In this case, a hearings office decided that Roland must use an ignition interlock for one year after he gets his license back.
DMV’S Ignition Interlock Decision is Almost Impossible to Reverse
Roland appealed on two different grounds but the New Hampshire Supreme Court shut him down. First, the Court could not dispute the wisdom of the hearings officer’s decision. This was especially true because they did not have a transcript of the hearing. The person making an appeal is responsible for obtaining a transcript if that is necessary for the Court to decide the appeal.
Roland also argued that the DMV should not hold the hearing until closer in time to when he gets his license back. The Court said that may be a good idea, but the statute gives DMV broad discretion in deciding when to have a hearing. The legislature, not the courts, should decide when DMV must hold a hearing. Until then, DMV can use its judgment.
Make Sure You Understand All of the Potential Consequences of a Plea Bargain
The moral of the story is that courts will practically never question DMV’s ignition interlock decision. DMV does not always impose the ignition interlock. But DMV has a written policy that states the circumstances when it will impose one. The experienced DWI attorneys at Cohen & Winters always advise clients who are convicted of DWI that they may face an ignition interlock. We also attempt to minimize the chances of this happening if at all possible. And, we have extensive experience representing clients at DMV hearings when necessary.
3 Responses
Can your law firm reverse an order to have an interlock device in a vehicle if I haven’t legally drove on the road for years at least 5 years I haven’t had a vehicle registered or on the road nor have I driven or attempted to drive however my new job is calling for transportation and I don’t currently have the means to pay for a car note& insurance rent &food along with an interlock device I’m 28 years old and a single mother I worked on restoring my credit so I can get into a decent apartment I need Help please hopefully this law firm will guide me in the right direction
The short answer is probably not but we’d be willing to speak with you to get the specifics about your requirement and see if there is anything that could possibly be done. If interested, use our contact form and a staff member will be in touch to set up a phone call.
https://www.cohenwinters.com/contact-us/
I was charged with my 1st dui a year ago and the dmv says im required to have an interlock. but my attorney made a plea deal that it ensure that the DHSMV records show my BAC above .15 was lowered. I have it signed by the judge involved in my case and my attorney is assuring me i dont have to have the interlock