skip navigationOfficial State of NH Site
space
DOS Logo DOS Banner
space
space

 
Compendium
Superior Court Cases

Cases Involving Back of DSMV 426 Form and Length of Revocation
 
Referenced By Hearing Date: 2004 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1994 | 1993
 
Lynch v. Beecher, 04-E-124,(Cheshire, Arnold,11/30/04)AFFIRMED
Petitioner claimed that he received conflicting notices of length of suspension and challenges the enhancement from 6 months to 2 years. The Hearings Examiner confirmed the 2-yr suspension; clerical error. COURT held: …a clerical error would not override the statutory provisions of RSA 265:92 (b) particularly where the ALS form were provided to Mr. Lynch specifically advising him that "if you were previously convicted of DWI…the period of suspension shall be 2 years." "…Mr. Lynch was certainly aware of his prior…dwi, and cannot now benefit from a clerical error."
back to top
Zorzy v. Beecher, 99-E-31, (Carroll, Fauver, 10/28/99) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff claimed that he was not informed of length of license revocation, only that license would be revoked; court held that "the notice provided that the Petitioner knew that his license would be suspended, though the length of time was not specified. Such notice informed him of the direct consequences of his refusal, with the notion of fundamental fairness being satisfied", citing Morrison v. Beecher, below.
Elesi v. Beecher, 98-E-444, (SD Hillsborough, Hollman, 2/25/99) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff claimed that he was not informed of length of license revocation; court held that "A finding that the trooper informed petitioner of the general consequence of loss of license is sufficient for purposes of complying with RSA 265:87".
Purvis v. Beecher, 98-E-115, (Strafford, Nadeau, 2/25/99) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff claimed that he was not informed that his license revocation would run consecutive to any other revocation; court held that "the timing of the suspension is not the type of direct consequence of refusal which must be told to an arrested person. Officer Tutt had no obligation to inform the petitioner of possible collateral consequences of refusal", citing Hess v. Turner.
back to top
Morrison v. Beecher, 97-E-201, (Merrimack, Manias, 1/21/98) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff claimed that he was not informed that his license revocation would last for two years if he refused to submit to a test; court stated that "the petitioner knew that his license would be suspended upon refusal to submit to testing, although he may not have known how long the suspension would last. The notice provided to the petitioner informed him of the direct consequences of his refusal and satisfies notions of fundamental fairness", citing State v. Denney.
Eley v. Flynn, 97-E-166, (Belknap, Smukler, 10/31/97) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff was not informed that revocation could be reported to his home state of Rhode Island and that he could be revoked in that state under reciprocity;"… there is no dispute that the petitioner was informed of all the information specified by the statute and he was not informed of certain indirect consequences … as the statute does not require the notification specified by the petitioner, his appeal lacks merit", citing State v. Denney, Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
Hoyt v. Beecher, 97-E-50, (Grafton, Fitzgerald, 9/22/97) AFFIRMED
"Petitioner argues that the arresting officer was required, under State guarantees of due process, to have told him of the revocation time period when he was informed of the consequences of a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test"; court determined that the duration of a license revocation is not required, citing Hess v. Turner and State v. Denney.
back to top
DiStefano v. Turner, 94-E-227, (Merrimack, Arnold, 10/14/94) AFFIRMED
ALS rights were read to plaintiff; he refused to take test; officer did not advise plaintiff of back of form or length of revocation; court adopted reasoning set forth in Clifton v. Turner and Wheeler v. Turner, cited below; no violation of statutory rights or right to due process; length of time of the suspension is a collateral consequence and not one to which plaintiff requires knowledge, citing Hess v. Turner, State v. Jenkins and State v. Denney. (NOTE: judge wrote detailed opinion because counsel advised that he was going to appeal this to Supreme Court; police department eventually withdrew ALS so appeal was NEVER undertaken!)
Fraser v. Turner, 94-E-329, (Rockingham, Coffey, 8/30/94) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff was informed of the consequences (loss of license) but not of time period involved; plaintiff refused to take test; court not "persuaded that Petitioner must be informed of each and every detail of the implied consent law in order to make an informed choice", citing Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
Birk v. Turner, 94-E-199, (ND Hillsborough, Groff, 8/23/94) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; claimed that police officer was required to advise him of the duration of the revocation which would be imposed for refusing; court determined that there was "no statutory, constitutional or other authority for such a requirement, nor has plaintiff provided any"; "if the legislature had wanted an arrested person to be so advised, it could have so provided", citing Hess v. Turner.
Stevens v. Turner, 94-E-9, (Belknap, O’Neil, W., 6/3/94) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; citing Clifton v. Turner, Towne v. Turner and Wheeler v. Turner, below.
Cavanaugh v. Turner, 94-E-86-B, (SD Hillsborough, Arnold, 6/2/94) AFFIRMED
plaintiff refused to take test; citing Clifton v. Turner and Wheeler v. Turner, below.
Ladd v. Turner, 94-E-86, (Merrimack, McGuire, 6/1/94) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; claimed that he was not advised of length of license suspension and that it would run consecutively to criminal penalty; court held that "by his own admission, petitioner was informed that refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test would result in a suspension of his driving privileges. The Court finds and rules that this is adequate for the purposes of RSA 265:87 to advise petitioner of the consequences of his refusal", citing Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
McFarland v. Turner, 93-E-684, (Merrimack, Smukler, 3/4/94) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff submitted to breath test; citing Clifton v. Turner and Wheeler v. Turner, below.
Andrus v. Turner, 93-E-480, (Merrimack, Manias, 2/4/94) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; was not informed of the term of the suspension; court determined that "the statute does not require that a driver be informed of the term of suspension prior to being given the option of taking the test. This information is provided to the plaintiff for informational purposes on the back side of the form he receives after he completes the ALS procedure".
back to top
Clark v. Turner, 93-E-284, (Merrimack, Manias, 11/8/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; was not informed of the term of the suspension and since he had a prior DWI, would have taken test if he knew penalty was for two years; court determined that "the arresting officer is not required to review the reverse side of the form with individuals arrested for DWI nor to specifically inform the petitioner of the length of the license suspension", citing State v. Jenkins.
Kashkooli v. Turner, 93-E-472, (Merrimack, Arnold, 10/26/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; citing Clifton v. Turner, Wheeler v. Turner, as well as Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
Gustafson v. Turner, 93-E-413, (Merrimack, Arnold, 10/15/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff submitted to breath test; citing Clifton v. Turner, Wheeler v. Turner, as well as Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
Towne v. Turner, 93-E-428, (Merrimack, Arnold, 10/13/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; citing Clifton v. Turner, Wheeler v. Turner, as well as Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
v. Turner, 93-E-446, (Merrimack, Arnold, 9/29/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff submitted to breath test; citing Clifton v. Turner and Wheeler v. Turner, below.
Wheeler v. Turner, 93-E- 232, (Merrimack, McGuire, 8/24/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; plaintiff asked officer how long his license would be suspended if he refused to take test; officer advised that he did not know, it was an administrative decision; plaintiff argued that "consequences" included the period of license suspension, citing State v. Denney; court found that State v. Denney was not controlling; instead relied upon cases of Hess v. Turner and State v. Jenkins.
Clifton v. Turner, 93-E-272, (Merrimack, McGuire, 8/25/93) AFFIRMED
Plaintiff refused to take test; decided upon exact same reasoning set forth in above case, Wheeler v. Turner.
back to top
   
  New Hampshire Department of Safety | 33 Hazen Drive | Concord, NH 03305
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
space
nh NH.gov | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Policy