Southern Maine Criminal Lawyer Blog

OUI Under 21 Years of Age – Saco and Portland ME Criminal Lawyer

Published on: September 22, 2017 | by Webb Law Firm

By Saco ME and Portland ME OUI Super Lawyer John S. Webb With Over 25 Years of Courtroom Experience – Offering a Free Lawyer Consultation

Portland Maine Saco Criminal Lawyer John S. Webb
Under Maine Title 28-A, possession, consumption, or purchase of alcohol by a minor under 21 years old can cost up to $400 in fines (assuming it is a minor in possession first offense). Parents who allow minors in their control, or in a place under their control (main residence, beach house), to consume alcohol are facing a Class D crime, meaning that it is punishable by up to 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000. If the minor is less than 18 years old, then there is a mandatory fine of not less than $1,000 (for a first offense).

If a minor is found illegally transporting alcohol, they can face a fine up to $500 as well as have their driver’s license suspended for 30 days (again, assuming a first offense). Lastly, a minor found to have any alcohol at all in their bloodstream while driving (OUI Under 21) can have their license suspended for a year if the minor is alone in the vehicle – or two and a half years if they have a passenger under 21 in the car. They can then face even harsher punitive action if they are a .08 BAC or above.

Avoiding police manipulation of breath tests

Published on: August 4, 2017 | by Webb Law Firm

Police manipulate breath testing devices (breath alcohol machine) by controlling the way people blow into them. Usually, police officers tell a person taking an alcohol breath test to take a deep breath and to blow into the machine as long as possible. During the test the officers will encourage this by telling the test subject to “blow, blow, blow” until the person runs out of breath. The alcohol breath test results then produce a falsely high number.

The blow alcohol tester machines are designed to estimate your blood alcohol content or BAC by measuring your breath alcohol. To do this the machines must use certain assumptions about your temperature, blood particulate levels, and several other factors.

By far the most important factor is temperature. Henry’s Law says that the concentration of a substance contained in the gas found in the headspace over a liquid is directly proportional to the temperature at the point of exchange. In breath testing terms this means that the warmer your lungs are, the more alcohol will be in your breath, regardless of the concentration of alcohol in your blood.

DUI Marijuana Laws in Maine

Published on: August 14, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

DUI Marijuana Laws in Maine Even if you are not stoned, you can lose your license in Maine if you are convicted of DUI marijuana, also known as DUI weed. Maine drug law says that if there is probable cause to believe you are under the influence of some drug, and you show a positive test for a drug metabolite in your urine or hair tests, your driver’s license will be suspended.

The problem with this marijuana impaired driving law is threefold.

First, probable cause is a very low standard of proof. It isn’t even proof that something is more likely than not, it is a mere suspicion based on observed facts. How little proof is required? The case of State v. Webster, 2000 ME 115, the defendant made an illegal U-turn. When police stopped him he denied any recent drinking, but the officer smelled alcohol on his breath. The officer then gave Webster field sobriety tests which he PASSED. Despite passing the tests, Webster was arrested. His breath tested at a .10% alcohol.

State of Maine v. R.J.: OUI Defense

Published on: January 6, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

Blood / Alcohol Content (BAC):

.21%

Defense:

State of Maine v. W.G.: Refused Breathalizer Test

Published on: January 6, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

Blood / Alcohol Content (BAC):

Refusal

Defense:

State Of Maine v. J.R.: Gross Sexual Assault

Published on: January 5, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

Defense Attorney:

John Scott Webb

Offense:

State of Maine v. J.T.: Drug Trafficking

Published on: January 5, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

Defense Attorney:

John Scott Webb

Offense:

USA v. S. T.: Cocaine Trafficking

Published on: January 5, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

FEDERAL CASE

Defense Attorney:

John Scott Webb

State of Maine v. J.H.: Aggravated Assault

Published on: January 5, 2016 | by Webb Law Firm

Defense Attorney:

John Scott Webb

Offense:

A Breath Test is a Search

Published on: July 28, 2015 | by Webb Law Firm

breath-test-300x199-1

In 2013 the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), that a blood draw is a search requiring a warrant or a warrant exception. Since then I’ve been arguing that the same logic applies to a breath test. I based this argument on Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) that held a breath test is a search. Skinner did not address the warrant issue because of special circumstances associated with regulation of the railway industry. Up until now I’ve had little success. Judges are reluctant to change decades of practice, even if that practice was unconstitutional. Last week I finally won a round in this fight.

In last week’s case my client was given field tests and then asked to voluntarily come down and take a breath test. He asked the natural question, “What if I don’t want to?” The officer told him that he would be arrested and taken to jail if he didn’t agree to take the test. If he agreed to take the test the officer promised to bring him home and not to jail, regardless of the test result. I moved to suppress the breath test for a lack of a warrant or warrant exception.

In a motion alleging a warrantless search, the state has the burden of proving there was a valid warrant exception. Recognized warrant exceptions are search incident to arrest, consent, exigent circumstances and a few others. The Supreme Court, in Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), limited the search incident to arrest exception to the extent that it cannot apply to breath or blood tests. Exigent circumstances are situations where it is extremely impractical for the officer to obtain a warrant in time to conduct a meaningful search, or some sort of emergency. In my case the state did not argue exigent circumstances. It is unlikely that any such argument would have been successful. Instead they focused on consent.