Southern Maine Criminal Lawyer Blog

Why you need a DUI specialist lawyer

Published on: February 28, 2012 | by Webb Law Firm

dui-attorney-300x236 Many people I talk to think a DUI is something any lawyer can handle. As an experienced DUI specialist lawyer I can tell you that is not true. I have many hours of specialized training that most lawyers do not have. The following case is a good example of why a specialist is needed.

The case is State v. Soucy, 2012 ME 16. Mr. Soucy was speeding and was upset after a fight with his girlfriend. He was stopped by police and given field sobriety tests. He had balance troubles on the balance tests and the HGN test showed jerking of his eyes. He was arrested and blew a 0.00 on the Intoxilyzer. The cop asked him if he took medications and he told him he took oxycodone and hydrocodone. Mr. Soucy told police he wasn’t impaired by drugs, just tired and sick with the flu. They called in a Drug Recognition Technician to perform a DRE test.

A DRE test is a battery of tests and examinations. The technician examines the subjects eyes, blood pressure, muscle tone, balance, temperature and and other things. (There is a lot of doubt in the scientific world about the reliability of these tests, but that is for another blog.) The test showed pinprick pupils, HGN, rigid muscles and bad balance.

GPS Tracking Devices – SCOTUS Decision

Published on: January 30, 2012 | by Webb Law Firm

The 4th Amendment has been resuscitated!! Hopefully you recall back in September of 2010, I wrote about GPS tracking devices and a recent decision from the District of Columbia Circuit (“GPS Tracking Devices – A Warrant or Not A Warrant – That is Now the Question”). Well, on Monday we got our answer; kind of….

In United States v. Antoine Jones, #10-1259 United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Scalia wrote the decision of the Court, that said the Government’s installation of the GPS tracking device on the suspect’s vehicle to monitor it’s movement was a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, and thus raised the issue of whether a warrant was required prior to the installation. I said “kind of….” because whether this search required a warrant was not answered.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the attachment of a GPS device was not a search, but did not define how long or if you could track the vehicle with or without a warrant and what violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court declined to opine on other details, like whether a warrant requirement applied to tracking cell phones. It appears that Justice Sotomayor was certainly ready to cast a much wider net and restrict government activity.

Supreme Court limits invasions of privacy

Published on: January 27, 2012 | by Webb Law Firm

supreme-court-300x237 This week the Supreme Court, in United States v. Jones, ___ US ___ (2012), decided that placing a GPS on a person’s car and tracking to movements is a search that requires a warrant. This is an important decision for several reasons. First, changes in modern technology make it easier for government to intrude on our privacy. Second, it made it clear that there are two ways to analyze when a search warrant is needed. Third, it shows that the Court may change its views of the Fourth Amendment as technology becomes more invasive of our privacy.

The facts were that Mr. Jones was suspected of drug dealing. Drug agents got a warrant to place a GPS on his car by a certain date in Washington, DC. They did not put the GPS on the car as specified in the warrant. Instead, they found the car in Maryland and put the GPS on the car after the warrant date. They tracked every move his car made for four weeks. Using the GPS information agents found evidence that arguably tied Jones to drugs and money. They charged him in a drug trafficking conspiracy.

Jones moved to suppress the evidence (prohibit the government from using it at trial.) He argued that placing the GPS on his car was a search, and that the search was illegal without a warrant.

OUI, DUI, or DWI in Maine: Now What? How to Find a Drunk Driving Lawyer Near Me

Published on: January 7, 2012 | by Webb Law Firm

Charged With OUI in Maine? Act Now to Protect Your License

All four Webb Law Firm attorneys posing outdoors against greenery.

If you have just been arrested, you may have searched for a drunk driving lawyer near me. In Maine, that charge has a different name. Operating under the influence – OUI – is the term Maine law uses. Maine's criminal code calls the offense Criminal OUI. Most other states use DUI or DWI. The name differs by state, and in Maine the charge reads OUI.

Your first step is to find a lawyer right away. Your driver's license faces automatic suspension before your court date. You have just 10 days to challenge that suspension. Evidence like cruiser video can disappear in weeks if no one asks the police to save it. Our Maine criminal charge FAQs cover the questions people ask most in that first week.

Changing a gun law won’t save lives

Published on: January 4, 2012 | by Webb Law Firm

guns-300x225 In yesterday’s paper there was an article about a shooting in Mt. Rainier National Park. There was a tragedy in the park. A young man, believed to be Benjamin Colton Barnes, had severe mental problems – possibly PTSD from service in Iraq. He shot several people near Seattle on New year’s Eve. He may also have been involved in another shooting incident that night. On New Year’s Day Barnes he fled to Mt. Rainier National Park.

Park police had a checkpoint set up to make sure people had chains because of the snowy conditions in the park. Someone blew through that checkpoint. One of the rangers followed that person. Another ranger, Margaret Anderson, set up a roadblock to stop the person who ran the checkpoint. As she was getting out of a vehicle she was shot and killed. Police believe Barnes was the shooter. Barnes was later found dead in the Park. The cause of death is believed to be hypothermia – he was found in a snowy stream in a T-shirt and jeans.

Before Barnes was found dead, rangers had rounded up all of the park visitors and evacuated them. They were afraid for their safety. Afraid that Barnes would try to kidnap or harm some of them.