Before 2003, a BAC level above .08 was considered “evidence but not proof of drunkenness” according to Massachusetts law. That year, however, Massachusetts became the last state in the US to adopt a per se OUI offense where proof of blood alcohol content above the legal limit at the time of driving became enough evidence to prove that a driver was intoxicated and justify an OUI conviction.

Consequently, prosecuting a drunk driving case in Massachusetts became substantially easier with a positive breath test because all that must be proved is that the driver operated a motor vehicle on a public way with a .08 BAC – not that the driver was impaired or driving dangerously.  In per se cases, the government gets “two bites at the apple.”  They will proceed on the traditional “impaired by alcohol” theory of OUI, and also proceed on a second theory of “per se OUI” when evidence of a breath or blood test is available and admissible.  A jury can convict a driver on either theory, or both, but only one OUI conviction is recorded as part of your criminal record and driver’s history.

As a secondary result of the adoption of the .08 law, the State legislature drastically revised the administrative penalties for taking a breathalyzer test at the time of driving versus refusing the test entirely. If you test over the legal limit at the time of arrest, you will only lose your license administratively for 30 days, regardless of whether it is your 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, or 5^th offense. However, if you refuse the breathalyzer test, you lose your license for 180 days for a first offense, three (3) years with a prior OUI, five (5) years with two prior OUIs, and for lifetime if you have three (3) prior convictions.

Clearly the Massachusetts Legislature wants to encourage drivers suspected of drunk driving to consent to a breathalyzer test because, as noted above, the prosecution is in a much better position with a breath test.  However, in cases where the driver did take a breathalyzer test and was shown to have a BAC above the legal limit, the a qualified DUI Defense lawyer will argue the breath test does not accurately and scientifically reflect a true “blood alcohol” level..

For instance, a breathalyzer test is not a blood test, and the variables that can affect the reported results from a breath test machine include, but are not limited to, body size, sex, absorption and elimination cycles, breath temperature, breathing pattern, volume of breath submitted, reflux and/or heartburn, and hematocrit.

Any good lawyer will tell you never to take the test because you’re essentially providing evidence the prosecution will use against you. But of course, the penalties for refusing, depending on your prior record can be devastating. Interestingly, the only way to eliminate a chemical test refusal suspension (CTR) is to be acquitted of the underlying OUI

charge.  So if you find yourself in a situation where you need help, be sure to hire a trial attorney capable of winning an OUI trial for you. The Commonwealth is one of only a very few jurisdictions that does not allow the government to enter evidence of a breath test
refusal, so if you exercise your right to refuse, it cannot be used against you at trial.

OUI attorney Michael Bowser has years of experience successfully defending those accused of drunk driving in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. If you have been charged with an OUI in Massachusetts or New Hampshire or have questions about OUI penalties in either state, it is vital that you talk to representation who understands the law. Call Attorney Michael Bowser today at 1-888-5BOWSER to discuss OUI penalties and your individual circumstances.

Sobriety checkpoints, also known as sobriety roadblocks, have become commonplace in recent years as special interest groups and the general public have lobbied for more intense measures to curb drunk driving in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and across the U.S. Even so, there is still a great deal of legal opposition to sobriety checkpoints – and not just because data shows they aren’t effective as a drunk driving deterrent. The Fourth Amendment, which restricts searches and seizures, would seem to bar law enforcement officials from conducting roadblocks, but the U.S. Supreme Court has found DUI checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible. Plus, procedure at sobriety roadblocks must be followed exactly, leading to numerous grounds upon which to challenge a DUI charge that results from a checkpoint stop.

Overall, the effectiveness and legality of Massachusetts and New Hampshire sobriety roadblocks remains a point of contention across legal, law enforcement, and public lines. The question remains, however, why DUI roadblocks are still being utilized as a means of catching and deterring drunk drivers when it’s been proven in studies undertaken around the country that checkpoints do neither.

One theory posits that while sobriety checkpoints are only slightly useful for ensuring that drivers are sober, they’re particularly useful for identifying drivers who are behind the wheel without a valid license. Impounds at checkpoints can generate revenue in the form of towing fees and police fines, plus police officers employed at DUI roadblocks are often working overtime. And in some cases, the number of car seizures for license and registration violations even far exceeds the number of drunk drivers removed from the road.

In fact, once a police officer has a driver’s information in hand, he or she can see whether the driver has any outstanding warrants and make an arrest. Officials may also have cause, at that point, to search for contraband materials within the vehicle. One major objection to DUI roadblocks in New Hampshire and Massachusetts is that their scope has expanded beyond driving while under the influence – leading to arrests, the aforementioned car seizures, and charges that go beyond drinking and driving.

If you have been charged with a DUI infraction as the result of a sobriety roadblock, it is important that you work with an attorney who understands the complex legal issues surrounding this practice. Challenging a DUI checkpoint arrest can involve looking at the unconstitutional nature of the practice, the training of the officers involved, probable cause, the effectiveness of roadblocks, and other factors. It is typical in a roadblock DUI case that there are more grounds to challenge a stop, seizure and arrest, even more so than in other DUI cases.

DUI attorney Michael Bowser has years of experience successfully defending those accused of drunk driving in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and challenging the validity and constitutionality of Police Sobriety Checkpoint Roadblocks.  Call Attorney Michael Bowser today at 1-888-5BOWSER to discuss DUI laws and your individual circumstances.

It’s easy to think of riding a bicycle as a sobriety test in and of itself, but in reality, the idea that being too drunk to bike means you can’t bike is just plain wrong. Biking under the influence is entirely possible, and the emergency room statistics are as good a proof as any that it can be injurious… even deadly. Booze-rolling, as it’s sometimes called, can lead to self-injury and bodily harm done to others, but the question is, can it lead to an OUI?

The simple answer is that biking while drunk is a criminal offense in some states – particularly those states that treat bicycles as vehicles in the wording of the law. Louisiana, for instance, includes ‘other means of conveyance’ in its OUI laws. In California, a drunk cyclist can be charged with a CUI. An Oregonian charged with a BUI (pronounced buoy) can have their driver’s license suspended. And arrests for drunken cycling are a reality in Utah, but the penalties are lighter than those imposed for driving under the influence.

The fact is, biking while drunk and driving while drunk differ in penalty and punishment in all but a handful of states. In most states, Massachusetts included, operating a bicycle while intoxicated will not lead to an OUI charge. In New Hampshire, though there is precedent, it’s still not clear whether the fact that the law regards bicycles as vehicles means cycling while drunk would constitute an OUI. However, biking under the influence can still lead to charges of reckless endangerment, disturbing the peace, and public drunkenness.

So what’s the best policy for those who want to bike to the bar and remain on the right side of the law? Do like the seasoned cyclists do and get a bar beater, otherwise known as a cheap bike that you can leave chained up overnight without worrying about whether it will be nicked if you’re too drunk to bike home.

OUI attorney Michael Bowser has years of experience successfully defending those accused of drunk driving and other infractions involving the alleged operation of a vehicle while impaired in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Call Attorney Michael Bowser today at 1-888-5BOWSER to discuss OUI laws and your individual circumstances.

I’m often surprised when I tell people that my practice includes over fifteen (15) years experience as a personal injury lawyer in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  “I thought you only handled drunk driving cases,” is often the response.  I’ve missed many an opportunity to truly help some deserving people, because although they knew me through my drunk driving practice, they didn’t know I routinely handle serious and complicated injury cases involving car and motorcycle accidents, dangerous premises or products, construction site/OSHA and slip and fall.  I’ve even taken on the occasional medical malpractice claim.

My experience as a drunk driving defense lawyer doesn’t limit my ability to help a seriously injured client entitled to compensation, it enhances it.   Why?  Trials, trials, and more trials!  I’ve completed thirty (30) DUI trials to verdict this year alone through November.  In years past that number exceeded fifty (50) trials.   I average only 1-2 civil trials each year in my personal injury practice.  Although many of  these cases settle before trial, Courtroom experience matters.  It matters to the Judge, it matters to the opposing counsel and most importantly it matters to an insurance company and the Jury.  When I walk into a Courtroom to try a personal injury case to verdict I bring with me the experience of literally, hundreds of criminal trials.  That translates into results when a case must be tried to a Jury to obtain full, fair and complete justice for a seriously injured client.  Two (2) examples from my personal injury practice:

In March 2008 the three (3) defendants and their respective insurance companies in a complex construction site injury case would not increase their offer to settle from $300,000.  After the first day of trial the joint offer was reduced to $200,000.  At the completion of the eight (8) day trial the Jury in Suffolk Superior Court (Boston, MA) returned a verdict in favor of my client that paid him in excess of $880,000.

In December 2009 I had to try a case to verdict before a New Hampshire Jury in Hillsborough County to obtain “full, fair and complete Justice,” for my deserving client.  Again the offer to settle from the insurance company did not even approach the neighborhood of fair, or even six figures.  Following trial, the Jury rendered a verdict for my client in the amount of $695,000.

These people needed help, and you don’t find this kind of help in the Yellow Pages, on TV or even on a Website.  You find it in the experience of qualified, dedicated trial attorney.  If you can’t successfully try a personal injury case to verdict, before a Jury, in a courtroom, you don’t deserve the opportunity and privilege to help these injured persons seeking justice.

The other benefit of all this Courtroom trial experience?  No Trial!  Believe me, nothing is more nerve-wracking, expensive or fraught with uncontrollably risk than a personal injury jury trial.  My last two settlements in personal injury cases this year were for policy limits or near policy limits of $100,00 and $215,000 respectively.  If you can try a case to verdict, and they know it, the settlement offers seem to find their way to a neighborhood called “full, fair and complete Justice.”

Michael Bowser is a trial lawyer with over fifteen (15) years experience, trying to verdict, and settling personal injury claims in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

The blue lights come on.  You stop the car and wait for the police with license and registration in hand.  There is an odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the car, you know it and the police will know it.  What does it mean and what happens next?

It depends on whether you find yourself in Massachusetts or New Hampshire.  A recent change in Massachusetts law de-criminalized, but did not legalize, the possession of less than one (1) ounce of marijuana.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C, section 32L enacted December 4, 2008.  Possession of less than one (1) ounce of marijuana is now treated as a civil infraction.  Violators will lose their stash to the police and be handed a civil citation requiring payment of a one hundred dollar ($100) assessment to the municipality where the civil offense occurred.  Previously, possession of any amount of marijuana was treated as a misdemeanor criminal offense with a potential jail sentence upon conviction and a mandatory one (1) year loss of license through the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

More importantly, in Massachusetts, the mere presence of “an odor of burnt marijuana”, without more, cannot reasonably provide police with suspicion of criminal activity to justify an exit order or search of the car after this change in the law.  So held the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Cruz,  459 Mass 459 (2011).  Now, if the police detect an odor of marijuana emanating from your person or your vehicle during a traffic stop, without more, they cannot detain you, search you, or arrest you.  If there is evidence of other crimes, including operating while impaired by drugs or alcohol, the police are still justified in detaining the driver to further investigate.  Erratic or dangerous driving, bloodshot glassy eyes, slurred, thick tongued speech, confusion or disorientation answering questions, slow reactions, difficulty retrieving license and registration, are all alleged indicia of impairment that police officers are trained to look for during any traffic stop.

Interestingly, the “odor of marijuana” emanating from a vehicle in New Hampshire does give rise to probable cause that a criminal offense is occurring.  But, in the “Live Free or Die” State, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has not adopted the Federal Rule for the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement.  State v. Sterndale.  Under Federal Law a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is permitted when police have “probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle on a public way contains contraband or evidence of a crime, and exigent circumstances make obtaining a warrant impracticable. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).  Exigent circumstances are created by the inherently mobile status of a vehicle.

Without the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, New Hampshire law enforcement can only briefly hold your vehicle for a K-9 sniff search and then apply to a Judge for a search warrant for your car.  Without your consent, a police officer in New Hampshire does not have legal grounds to search your vehicle without a warrant based only on the “odor of marijuana.”  Interestingly, almost every consent to search a motor vehicle obtained roadside by the police in New Hampshire is preceded by the officer’s warning that if you do not consent to the search he/she will “hold your vehicle, call the K-9 unit, and then tow your vehicle while a warrant is applied for.”  Again, if there is evidence of other criminal activity, or probable cause to arrest for any other offense, including OUI, DUI, DWI, the car in all likelihood will be seized and searched pursuant to an established inventory policy, before it is towed.

No single factor determines the sentence imposed in a DUI matter more significantly than a driver’s prior record.  Whether you are facing a drunk driving prosecution in Massachusetts or New Hampshire the sentencing Court will insist upon reviewing your prior criminal record, if any, your prior driver’s history, if any, and most importantly, your prior history for DUI convictions.

DUI, OUI, DWI, is all the same.  The three (3) letter acronym typically used to describe a drunk driving offense in Massachusetts or New Hampshire is a simply a function of the statutory language that criminalizes the offense, whether it be “driving while intoxicated” (DWI) in New Hampshire, or “operating under the influence of liquor” (OUI) in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts now utilizes a “lifetime look back” period to determine penalties for a subsequent OUI offense.  Gone is the ten (10) year look back period of decades past.  If you plead out, or were found guilty of, any drunk driving offense, in any jurisdiction, at any period in your life, the Massachusetts Courts and the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles will treat you a second offender.  The exception to this rule is the Cahill disposition.  Once, and only once, can a repeat drunk driving offender in Massachusetts be given a second chance at a first offense sentence, only if there is a single prior drunk driving offense, and only if it is more than ten (10) years old.  All other repeat offenders will be charged as second, third, or fourth offenders, etc… depending on their actual record of prior offenses.  All subsequent offenses in Massachusetts (non-Cahill) carry mandatory periods of incarceration, probation, interlock device.  A second offense is a Misdemeanor in Massachusetts, a third offense and higher is a Felony.  A first offense in Massachusetts typically carries a minimum loss of license between 45-90 days, one (1) year probation, completion of the sixteen (16) week alcohol education class and statutory fees, assessments and fines that will top $2600.  A second offense, whether treated as a Cahill disposition or not, will always trigger the requirement of an ignition interlock device for any period of suspension imposed by the Court and/or Registry of Motor Vehicles, plus two (2) years.

New Hampshire still utilizes a ten (10) year look back period to determine a second offense, which is a Misdemeanor.  Ironically, New Hampshire does not recognize a Massachusetts OUI offense “continued without a finding C.W.O.F.” as a valid prior offense.  Be advised, a New Hampshire prosecutor may offer you a first offense disposition on a NH DWI charge because your prior MA OUI was “continued without a finding”, but the Massachusetts RMV will always treat that offense administratively as a second, third or other subsequent offense based on your driver’s history.  Many a Massachusetts resident have plead out a first offense NH DWI charge to minimum penalties only to be notified by the Massachusetts RMV that their Massachusetts license is administratively revoked for two (2) years 2^nd  lifetime offense, eight (8) years 3^rd  lifetime offense, ten (10) years 4^th  lifetime offense, or lifetime 5^th  lifetime offense. See State v. Sharkey, where a NH DWI conviction was overturned because local NH counsel did not properly advise a Massachusetts resident of the true collateral consequences of his plea to a first offense NH DWI under Melanie’s Law.

NH will impose an interlock device requirement for at least one (1) year for any second offense or aggravated DWI conviction.  Jail time for any second or third offense is capped at one (1) year in the House of Corrections as a Class A Misdemeanor, but typical mandatory minimums imposed are three (3) days in House of Correction, followed by seven (7) days inpatient for a second offense, and 150 days in the House of Correction for a third offense.  If a second offense in New Hampshire is within two (2) years of the first offense the mandatory minimum jumps to thirty (30) days in the House of Correction followed by the seven (7) day inpatient program.

A Court sentencing any driver in a DUI  casein Massachusetts or New Hampshire will consider prior criminal record, conduct at the time of the offense, and whether any aggravating factors exist, be it property damage, accident,  or injury to the driver or other innocent parties.  A sentencing Court will always look favorably upon any driver/defendant that voluntarily engages in substance abuse treatment, whether it be AA, NA, or other appropriate counseling.

Michael Bowser is a Board Certified DUI Defense Specialist practicing in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  Protect your interests by hiring a qualified DUI Defense Lawyer that can not only defend the DUI charge, but properly advise you of the sentencing factors and true collateral consequences to any DUI, OUI, or DWI disposition.

This is my briefcase.  The Bowser Briefcase will be featured in my Facebook and Twitter postings.  In a sort of “Where’s Waldo” program the briefcase will pop up everywhere I go, to give you a sense of the scope and geographic range of my DUI Defense and Personal Injury trial practice in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

It’s a great briefcase.  The bag is literally older than my law practice.  A Jack Georges triple pocket, fold over, shoulder strap, tool box.  It’s tough, functional, classic and worn now with the experience of hundreds of trials, thousands of clients, and years of travel to the far corners of Massachusetts from Holyoke to Brockton, and down to the Cape, and in New Hampshire from the seacoast, down to Nashua and as far North as Lancaster, past Franconia Notch in Coos County.

A 1994 Christmas gift from my older sister Donna, a few weeks before I was sworn in as a practicing lawyer, the beautifully crafted leather bag at the time was worth more than my soon to be launched solo practice.  It is my prized possession.  The lifetime warranty already tested twice to replace hardware, fittings, straps and lock.  My annual travel mileage now tops out between 35,000 – 40,000 miles.  This bag has been with me for every mile since January, 1995 when I was sworn in.  That first year I’m sure I had less than thirty (30) total clients for the year.  In 2011 I will top 100  newclients in the DUI defense practice alone.  I’ve already completed thirty (30) DUI trials this year.  Times have changed and the practice continues to grow.  I figure I’ve travelled close to five hundred thousand miles with this bag.  In that time I’ve had four (4) different office locations, three (3) associate lawyers, two (2) former partners, seven (7) different vehicles, and four (4) residences.  The only other constant in my practice for dependability and reliability is my secretary Valerie.

The stories this briefcase could tell.  It’s been at my side for amazing Courtroom victories and heartbreaking losses.  Not guilty verdicts in hundreds of DUI trials in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  Jury verdicts in personal injury trials in both states, that exceeded expectations, and topped the last best offer of an insurance company and their various counsel by several hundred thousand dollars.  Win or lose, the briefcase will always return to Court with me for the next trial.

“I was born for a storm and a calm does not suit me.” – Andrew Jackson

A recent Boston Globe Spotlight Series on OUI Defense Lawyers and Jury waived Bench Trials is reverberating throughout the Massachusetts District Courts.  Defending OUI cases at trial has never been easy.  Now the option of “going jury-waived” may be a thing of the past.  I completed three (3) OUI jury trials in the past two (2) weeks.  All difficult cases with bad facts, capable prosecutors, and fair-minded presiding Judges.  Two guilty verdicts, one not guilty verdict.  Never did I consider going “jury waived” as an option on any of the three cases.  But even if I had, I would not have suggested it to my respective clients, given the palpable fallout of the Spotlight series.  An honest and forthright  potential juror in one of the cases was excused for cause, because she admitted during the empanelment process that she couldn’t be fair to my client given what she read in the Globe Spotlight series.

Any First Offense OUI charge in Massachusetts entitles the defendant to choose to go to trial to fight the charge either before a jury of six (6) persons or a single judge.  The jury waived trial is often employed where a case involves a narrow legal point of law, whether “operation” or “public way” can be proven given the legal definition of those elements and facts of the case.  Many times police arrive at the scene of single car accident after the fact where the only evidence of operation is the uncorroborated admission of the defendant.  The driver is parked, asleep behind the wheel, engine running, in a lot posted “no trespassing, private property.”  An experienced OUI defense lawyer may well advise his client to take these cases to a Judge, rather than a jury, because the evidentiary issues, burdens of proof, and facts, are best weighed by an experienced, trained, legal mind, rather than six (6) citizens, untrained in the law, subject to the biases, prejudices, and assumptions that unfortunately permeate any jury pool asked to consider a drunk driving case.  Ironically, Massachusetts is woefully behind the curve on jury voir dire prior to empanelment.  In many states, lawyers are allowed to directly engage potential jurors with questions regarding experiences, biases, prejudices and feelings as they relate to any particular case to be tried, including drunk driving offenses.  The outcome of a bench trial is often times much more predictable then the verdict from six citizens picked in an almost entirely random, blind draw.  Not every bench trial is a political or personal back-slapping affair.  Fair-minded, ethical Judges render not guilty verdicts routinely, as do juries.  We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

So what is wrong with a Judge saying “not guilty.”  Isn’t that the job of a Judge, sworn to apply the law to the facts and evidence as he or she finds it?  The standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the same as “probable cause to arrest.”  A police officer can arrest when the facts warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has occurred: probable cause.  A defendant can only be convicted of a criminal act when the jury and/or judge determines beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true on each and every element, operation, public way, ability to operate safely diminished by alcohol.  Again, a trained, legal mind, experienced in these types of cases, may be better suited, from the defense perspective to weigh these burdens.

My practice has always been evenly split between representing DUI defense clients in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  In New Hampshire every DWI First Offense is charged as a Class B Misdemeanor, no possible jail sentence, therefore no jury trial.  Every DWI goes to a bench trial if it is to be tried.  Is this system more or less fair than the Massachusetts system that gives the defendant a choice between a bench or jury trial? Absolutely not!  Judges sit in judgment, empowered to render verdicts.  As a lawyer, you’d better know your Judges, their tendencies, practices and preferences as to how a case is tried.

85% of the over 17,000 OUI arrests in Massachusetts are resolved by a plea of guilty or admission to sufficient facts.  Regardless of whether the finding is “guilty” or “continued without a finding” the plea results in an OUI sentence and penalty that exposes the defendant as a second offender, for the rest of his/her life.  Therefore, beware “plea escort services” that sell you the benefit of a “c.w.o.f.”  It’s as good as a guilty for the Commonwealth and the Prosecution.  Many OUI trials end up going jury waived because they never should have been brought in the first place.  In New Hampshire police departments prosecute their own cases in the District Court.  Often times the prosecutor is a police officer: Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain or Chief, with years of street level law enforcement experience under his/her belt.  What do they do when a case comes into their office, weak on an element or lacking overall evidence of impairment, when the presiding Judge is a known factor in such cases.  They dismiss the DWI case, they plea bargain the DWI charge down to a more appropriate level civil offense, with conditions crafted to meet justice in that particular case: fines, license loss even substance abuse counseling.

In seventeen years and literally hundreds of Massachusetts OUI cases I can count one (1) hand the number of times I have had a bad OUI case voluntarily dismissed or amended in a Massachusetts District Court. Nor have I met an assistant district attorney in any Massachusetts District Court authorized, or vested with the necessary discretion to make such decisions.  If the Globe Spotlight series sounds the deathknell of the jury waived trial, hopefully prosecution decisions in all OUI cases, as well as expanded jury voir dire during empanlment will result.

There has been a lot of talk in the media lately about decriminalizing marijuana, but many people are still unsure what decriminalization really means. Far from making marijuana a legal recreational drug, decriminalization simply treats possession of small amounts (e.g., one ounce or less) of the drug as a civil offense rather than a criminal offense. People found to be in possession of marijuana are given a citation and fined, and the drugs are confiscated, but the accused do not face the threat of jail time.

Though the idea has recently entered the public consciousness, the initiative to decriminalize marijuana is actually decades old. Since 1973, 13 states legislatures – Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon – have passed marijuana decriminalization laws.

The marijuana decriminalization movement has roots in research that has shown that removing the prohibition against possession has not been shown to lead to increases in marijuana use. In 2001, the British Journal of Psychiatry noted that “This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, … it is difficult to see what society gains.” Additionally, it has not been shown that decriminalization has had any effect on adolescent attitudes toward drug use.

Proponents of the decriminalization of marijuana support a variety of initiatives, from reduced penalties for marijuana offenses to completely eliminating all of the penalties related to marijuana possession, sale, cultivation, and usage.

The Massachusetts and New Hampshire each voted on marijuana decriminalization bills in 2008. The New Hampshire Senate voted down a bill that would have reduced penalties for possession of amounts less than one quarter ounce even though the bill had passed in the House of Representatives and had a large body of support among voters. Whereas in Massachusetts, 65% of voters voted ‘yes’ on ballot question 2 known as the Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, which ultimately reduced the penalty for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana to a $100 fine.

DUI attorney Michael Bowser has years of experience successfully defending those accused of drug possession in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. If you have been charged with drug possession in Massachusetts or New Hampshire or have questions about marijuana possession penalties in either state, it is vital that you talk to representation who understands the law. Call Attorney Michael Bowser today at 1-888-5BOWSER to discuss your individual circumstances.