Coco, a 17-year veteran of the police force, was working in the Special Investigations Unit and was driving a police-issued unmarked Nissan Pathfinder when the vehicle allegedly hit the teens from behind and then left the scene without stopping. Coco turned himself into police four days after the incident. Internal affairs is investigating the incident, but reported that Coco violated several police policies, and is currently facing two felony charges.

The Victims

Coco allegedly struck 18-year old Dean Drukker and 17-year old Noah Hickman as they were walking through the Bedford neighborhood about 9:20 p.m. Drukker suffered a concussion and Hickman suffered a broken elbow. Both boys were treated at the hospital and later released. Both boys are Bedford High School seniors and close friends. The boys reportedly told police they had seen the Pathfinder leaving a certain residence prior to the accident, reports the Concord Monitor.

Investigations into the Hit-and-Run

Officers interviewed the owner of the residence and were told that Coco was a guest at the home that evening. The police also reportedly found the Pathfinder, then parked at Coco’s residence, had damage to the hood, bumper and headlight. A plastic piece of lens from the scene of the accident matched the Pathfinder’s damaged lens. A fabric impression that matched the clothes Drukker was wearing when struck was also found on the front bumper of the SUV, the Concord Monitor reported.

Hillsborough County Attorney Patricia LaFrance said in a statement that, “In this case, obviously because it involves an off-duty Manchester police officer, we want to make sure people understand there’s no favoritism. We’re investigating this as we would any conduct-after-an-accident and we want the public aware of that,” the Union Leader reported. LaFrance said Coco was off duty at the time of the accident, though she would not say if he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident or how many passengers he was carrying.

Coco appeared in Merrimack County District Court and was released on $20,000 bond. He is set to appear in court on April 16.

LaFrance said the case will be referred to a prosecutor from outside Hillsborough County.

Civil Commitment Law

The civil commitment law was designed to keep sexually violent predators from being released after completing treatment, if they are likely to reoffend. County attorneys receive notification when an inmate who has committed an applicable crime nears their release date. If the attorney is concerned that the inmate has not been successfully rehabilitated, a multidisciplinary team of psychologists and psychiatrists who specialize in sexual offenses is brought in to review the case. If the inmate is deemed to be a sexually violent predator by a jury, their sentence can be extended in five-year increments.

However, if a jury decides the inmate is not likely to re-offend, the inmate is released. Unfortunately, the predator law does not include other options such as supervision or alternative sentences that could help with an inmate’s transition back into society.

Predator Law Evidence Limited, Funding Challenging

Another issue with the predator law is limited evidence. Prosecutors are finding that a primary piece of evidence, the Static -99R, a risk-based assessment used by psychiatrists to determine the chances of recidivism, is being limited by judges, rendering the assessment nearly useless. Attorneys are looking to lawmakers to establish a standard for the assessments and expert opinion.

Filing a civil commitment petition is an expensive process, costing nearly 10 times more than most cases at $30,000 largely in part because of the time experts put in reviewing case files and offering testimony; an expense that many offices haven’t budgeted for.

While lawmakers expected to make changes to the law in time, as it was used and any problems defined, its limited use has prevented all but the most minor tweaks. In fact, the law has only been used 34 times since its inception, resulting in 11 predator reviews since 2007.

Senate Approves SB 180

Sponsored by Senators Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) and Peter Bragdon (R-Milford), the bill will create a victim compensation fund that will receive $3 million a year from fines and penalties collected by the Bureau of Securities Regulation and other agencies. According to the bill, victims would file to claim for half of their financial loss up to $500,000, Forbes reports.

Supporters of the fund say that victims of Financial Resources Mortgage of Meredith should be compensated for their loss because the New Hampshire Attorney General, the Bureau of Securities Regulation, and the Banking Department failed to stop the fraud and failed to follow up on red flags. Bragdon called it a “complete failure of state government.”

Democrat Senator Sylvia Larsen (Concord) agreed that the state government should have done more to halt the fraudulent activity, but stressed that the fund would be “reimbursing people for what were very, very risky investments,” the Seacoast Online reported. D’Allesandro said the aim of the fund was to ‘right wrongs’ not “restore every dollar” to investors. However, according to the article, opponents of the bill fear it will establish a precedent.

According to Forbes, a court order that specifies the amount of entitled restitution must be obtained by each victim prior to filing a claim. Limitations are also in place that will prevent anyone taking part in the fraud from seeking restitution, as well as those who profited or would have profited from the fraud. Claims can be filed for losses that occurred after January 1, 2006.

Opponents of HB 451

HB 451 would have repealed the current law that requires a permit to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee did not support the bill, and voted 14-4 in favor of killing the bill, followed by a 226-144 House vote against the bill.

Opponents of the bill said that it would have nullified New Hampshire’s reciprocity agreement with some states that currently allow those with concealed carry permits to carry in other states. Democrat Rep. Renny Cushing, (Hampton) said that the “current law in the state of New Hampshire requiring a permit from the local community selectmen or local police is working. It’s a good policy we have in place and I suggest we keep it.”

In Support of HB 451

In Vermont and other states that have a ‘constitutional carry’ policy, convicted felons and others who are banned from owning guns are not able to carry firearms. HB 451 would have continued to bar them from gun ownership. Republican Rep. John Burt (Goffstown) said “The bad guys never have permits. It’s just funny that way. But the government says we the good guys must have permits.” Burt said that he supported the bill because he believes in his “God-given right to own a firearm,” and said that law- abiding citizens should not be required to seek a permit from the local police chief, town selectmen, or government body, the Union Leader reported.

Personal Liberty at Issue in New Bill

State Rep. Mike Hebert (R-Vernon, Guilford) tells the Reformer that he knows there are personal liberty issues surrounding the bill, and acknowledged that there are actually a “multitude of issues,” with the bill. However, it is his hope that it brings about important discussions regarding how threats made by persons with mental health issues are handled.

Hebert, who introduced the bill in February with three others, said he understands the bill is controversial and that some parts may need to be amended, but he hopes it would allow authorities to act quickly when a situation with a mentally ill person occurs. “This would allow an officer to look at a situation and make a determination that, maybe it’s in your best interest or for your personal safety to be examined.”

Applicable Situations are Far Reaching

The reach of the proposed bill extends from schools and public places into the homes of Vermont residents. In fact, bill would apply to basically any emergency situation “where a certification by a physician is not available without serious and unreasonable delay, and when personal observation of the conduct of a person constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a person in need of treatment, and he or she presents an immediate risk of serious bodily injury to himself or herself or others if not restrained.” Thought he bill says authorities should apply for a warrant for an immediate examination, they do not have to wait to get the warrant before putting the person in “temporary custody” and transporting them to “the nearest designated hospital.” Further authorities would be able to “enter a residence or other premises where the person is reasonably believed to be located in order to apprehend and take the person into temporary custody.”

The bill would require that hospital staff wait for the warrant before starting an examination unless safety issues make it necessary for physicians to begin. However, if the court does not grant a warrant, or if the examining physician does not find the person in need of treatment, the person must be immediately released.

Expert Input Needed

Hebert says that police officers would need training as to prevent the bill from being abused. He also says that he is looking forward to hearing from experts regarding the provisions of the bill during legislative hearings.

About the Russman Law Office

The experienced and committed law firm of Russman Law fights for the rights of New Hampshire citizens and advocates for victims of personal injury. If you or someone you love needs personal injury representation we encourage you to contact our office for a free consultation.

Consequences of drinking and driving apply equally to state officials who are charged with upholding the law. According to a report in the Eagle-Tribune, former New Hampshire attorney general Peter Heed admitted to driving while intoxicated late last month. Heed, who resigned as attorney general in 2004, was arrested on January 10th for suspicion of drunk driving. Because of Heed’s close connection to the state judiciary, his arraignment was postponed until a neutral judge could be found to hear his case. Heed was ultimately sentenced to a $500 fine and suspension of his driving privileges for 90 days. According to a press release by state police, this penalty is the standard sentence for a first-time offender with no extenuating circumstances, so Heed did not receive any special treatment due to his former position.

DWI in NH

Under New Hampshire law, the legal blood-alcohol content for driving is .08 percent for people over 21. That amount drops down to .02 percent for people under 21, and .04 for holders of commercial CDL drivers licenses. These relatively low BAC percentage limits mean that a night of even casual drinking may open a person up to potential criminal liability if he or she gets behind the wheel of a car. In addition, any medical conditions or prescription drugs you are taking may increase alcohol’s effect on you. As a result, if you are planning on drinking alcohol and then traveling somewhere, it is best to have transportation plans in place that do not involve you driving a vehicle.

If you do get stopped by police and they determine that you are under the influence, you may be subjected to significant legal penalties. A first offense DWI conviction can result in a fine of at least $500, and a license suspension of at least 9 months. For a second offense, the penalties increase significantly; the minimum fine increases to $750 and, if the second DWI occurred within 2 years of the first, at least 37 consecutive days imprisonment. A second offense will also result in a license suspension of at least three years. A third offense is inclusive of all penalties involved with a second offense, but increases the minimum jail sentence to 180 consecutive days and the license suspension to at least 5 years. A fourth or subsequent DWI is treated as a felony, and the license suspension period is at least seven years.

One lesson you may learn from attorney general Heed’s DWI problems is that a DWI conviction can happen to anyone regardless of age, gender, education, or profession. Because the stakes are so high, it is important to be extremely prudent about how much you drink if you plan to drive in the near future. If you or someone you know is facing DWI allegations, it is important to consult a legal professional who knows how to handle such cases.

Summer is coming and each year, thousands of people enjoy boating on the New Hampshire waters. While it is still legal to have alcoholic beverages on your boat, it is illegal for anyone to be “boating while intoxicated” (BWI).

What Does BWI Mean?

According to the New Hampshire Handbook of Boating Laws & Responsibilities, boating while intoxicated means that if you’re “operating any vessel while under the influence of alcohol, controlled drugs, or any combination of alcohol and controlled drugs,” then you’re breaking the law.

The law defines a “vessel” as any watercraft “propelled by a motor or sail,” and it includes canoes and kayaks. In other words, if you’re in control of any watercraft, it is illegal to be under the influence of alcohol and/or any other controlled substance.

You should be aware of the serious penalties associated with a BWI charge. After all, the United States Department of Transportation published statistics that suggest a marked increase in BWI accidents in the last decades.

How Does New Hampshire Law Determine if You’re Boating Under the Influence?

New Hampshire BWI law works a lot like the DWI law in our state. Here are the key conditions under which you are boating under the influence:

• If you have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher, you are under the influence of alcohol according to New Hampshire law. This weight of alcohol is determined by a breath, blood, or urine test.
• If you have a blood alcohol concentration that is greater than 0.03% but less than 0.08%, you still may be considered to be boating under the influence. The fact that your blood alcohol concentration is between 0.03% and 0.08% can be used, along with other evidence, to determine if you’re boating under the influence.

Keep in mind that the effects of alcohol often can be magnified when you’ve been under the sun for an extended period of time. And, it’s important to know that you’ve already consented to a sobriety test if you’re operating a boat. According to New Hampshire law, “by operating a vessel on New Hampshire waters,” you have already agreed to be tested if a law enforcement officer requests it. If you refuse, that’s actually a separate offense, and the fact of your refusal can be used against you as evidence in both civil and criminal actions.

What Are the Penalties If I’m Found Guilty of  BWI?

If you’re convicted of a boasting while intoxicated, you will subject to a number of penalties. These include:

• Losing the privilege to operate any vessel for at least a year
• Having the conviction placed on your motor vehicle driving record
• Receiving a fine
• Having your driver’s license, or your privilege to drive a motor vehicle, revoked for a period of time between 9 months and 2 years

Yes, you read that correctly. If you’re convicted of a BWI in New Hampshire, you can lose your motor vehicle driving privileges.

There are also additional penalties that you should be aware of. If you’re convicted while transporting any person under age sixteen, you’ll be required by law to complete a seven-day residential intervention program at your own expense, in addition to the penalties noted above.

As well, if you’re convicted of a subsequent BWI or DWI offense in New Hampshire, you’ll face more serious penalties than you would have without the first conviction.

And keep in mind, if a BWI charge causes the death of someone else, you can be charged with a felony.

The New Hampshire Tour Guide recently ran an article that reminded its readers of a serious BWI-related accident on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2008, which led to the death of a passenger and the incarceration of the convicted driver.

Be safe while operating vessels on the New Hampshire waters. If you are charged with a BWI, you’ll need an experienced and skilled defense attorney to help with your case.

Do you have a medical need for marijuana? Or have you been charged with a drug offense? Maybe you’re just interested in how New Hampshire is dealing with the question of marijuana legalization.

Last month, a number of state lawmakers filed bills that represent a wide range of marijuana legalization, and the bills are receiving an equally wide variety of reactions.

What Kinds of Bills Have Been Proposed?

Some of the bills support free use of marijuana in the state, while others would limit it to medical necessity.

In terms of legalizing marijuana only for people suffering from certain diagnosed conditions, Governor Maggie Hassan supports a new bill, HB 573, that would allow “regulated access to medical marijuana.” This means that Hassan supports the medicinal legalization of the drug as long as it is dispensed in limited amounts and with the dispensing controlled by the government. New Hampshire’s former governor vetoed medical marijuana bills in 2009 and 2012, but the Marijuana Policy Project feels confident that Hassan’s support will lead the new bill to pass.

If HB 573 passes, it will permit people with “professional diagnoses” of such illnesses as cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, and ALS to “possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana.” It would also let marijuana distributors to “possess up to 192 plants and seedlings” in addition to “32 ounces of usable marijuana.”

Click Here to download the full PDF outlining the HB573 proposal.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, an effort nicknamed the “tomatoes bill” would decriminalize marijuana possession in New Hampshire. The bill is sponsored by Representative Mark Warden. Although Warden doesn’t expect the criminal justice committee to recommend the bill, he emphasized that its existence does make the other limited-legalization bills “look more palatable” to the committee.

Two other bills fall somewhere in between limited medical legalization supported by Hassan and all-out decriminalization sponsored by Warden. Representative Kyle Tasker is sponsoring a bill that would make possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a mere violation instead of a crime. Tasker explained that he was arrested for marijuana possession when he was 17 years old, and that it negatively affected his life in an unproductive way. “I didn’t learn a whole lot,” he explained, and the financial penalties were crippling. If his bill passes, possession of one ounce or less would lead to only a $100 fine and parental notification.

The fourth and final bill would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older. This bill, sponsored by Representative Steve Vaillancourt, would also establish a licensing process for selling small quantities of the drug, along with a procedure for taxing the sale of marijuana.

History of Marijuana Legalization and What it Means for You

Currently, New Hampshire is “the only New England state that does not protect patients if their doctors recommend medical marijuana.”

As CBS News reported recently, nearly fifty percent of Americans are in favor of some form of marijuana legalization. This number is up considerably from earlier polls in the twentieth century. According to the New York Times, only 27 percent favored legalization in 1979, and that number didn’t increase much into the 1980′s, when “over 80 percent of high school students said they had easy access to marijuana.”

A number of states already permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, while some states, like Oregon and Colorado, have gone as far as permitting recreational marijuana use.

Advocates in New Hampshire are eagerly awaiting results from the proposed bills. In the meantime, if you have been charged with a drug-related offense or have questions about criminal charges, contact our experienced defense attorney today to discuss your case.