OPERATING AFTER SUSPENSION FOR OUI CASE DISMISSED

EC, a 69 year old gentlemen from Stoneham, had 3 convictions for OUI in Massachusetts. His last conviction was in 2006. As a result of that conviction he lost his license for 13 years [8 years for the conviction + 5 years for refusing the breath test]. In 2010, EC retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover in an attempt to get a hardship license. Attorney Lewin had EC document attendance at AA meetings over a number of months and Attorney Lewin had EC enroll for treatment and counseling with a LDAC (Licensed Drug & Alcohol Counselor). A report was obtained from the LDAC. EC obtained a letter from his employer documenting the need for a license. Attorney Lewin and EC went to the Registry of Motor Vehicles (in Wilmington) for a hearing on obtaining a hardship license. After a lengthy hearing the hearing officer took the case under advisement. After several weeks EC received a notice from the RMV that his application for a hardship had been approved. The hardship license was granted (8 AM to 8 PM) with an IID (Ignition Interlock Device). EC got the IID installed in his car obtained the hardship license and life was good.

On December 19, 2014 EC went up to New Hampshire. The hours past by and at about 10:30 PM EC headed back home to Stoneham. He was pulled over on Rt. 95 in Boxford for speeding by the State Police. When the police officer saw that EC’s driving privileges ended at 8:00 PM the Trooper wrote EC up for speeding and unlicensed operation. EC again contacted Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin instructed EC to request a clerk-magistrate hearing immediately (that day). EC took the citation to Haverhill District Court and requested a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. On January 20, 2015 EC and Attorney Lewin appeared in Haverhill District Court for the hearing. Attorney Lewin explained to the clerk-magistrate that EC had not been drinking at all and that this was simply an example of EC having let the time pass beyond 8:00 PM. Attorney Lewin requested that a criminal complaint not be issued against EC. The State Police did not object and the Clerk then denied the application for the criminal complaint and found EC not responsible of the speeding charge.