North Carolina DWI Law | Bumcombe County DWI Repeat Offender

So recently, I read an article about a driver in Buncombe County who was recently convicted of his 17th DWI and was sentenced to 7 years in prison.  Now, while many of you may expect it, this Raleigh DWI Attorney is not coming to the defense of the repeat offender and the harsh sentence he has received.  Given the number of times he has been convicted, I honestly don't believe 7 years is necessarily inappropriate. 

What bothered me more about this article was the quote from the District Attorney for that county, Ron Moore.  He stated "In North Carolina for a first offense you don't serve a minute in jail.  You generally get a 60-day suspended sentence.  You can get a limited driving privilege, and you have to do 24 hours of community service.  There is not a lot of deterrent value.  If you had to spend a week in jail, then maybe it would deter you from that behavior." 

This idea that North Carolina is somehow 'light' on DWI charges is ridiculous.  North Carolina has very serious sentences for DWI convictions, including first offenders.  Where before in North Carolina, as well as presently in other states, certain first offenders may be eligible for a reduction to a 'Careless and Reckless' charge, or to participate in some type of 'First-Offenders DWI' Program where the charges would be reduced upon successful completion.  But not in present day North Carolina.  No, if you are charged with a DWI, it has been the experience of this Wake County DUI Attorney that there are no opportunities for a reduction of the charge.  In fact, your only chance of avoiding a DWI conviction is by winning at trial. 

Also, the statements by District Attorney Moore over simplifies the reality of a DWI conviction.  First, he is describing a Level 5 Sentence, which is the lowest possible sentence a Driver can receive for a DWI conviction in North Carolina.  Depending on Aggravating and Grossly Aggravating Factors, a Driver can face a much more serious sentence then just 24 hours of community service.  Even at a Level 5, a Defendant can expect to pay between $500-$700 in court costs and fines at the time of conviction, which does not include the 400% increase to the insurance premium for the next three years and any costs you incurred immediately after the arrest, including the cost of hiring an attorney.  Additionally, all DWI convictions in North Carolina carry with it mandatory Substance Abuse Assessment and follow up treatment so Driver's are learning the risks of substance abuse. 

In addition, a Limited Driving Privilege is no small slap on the wrist.  The driver is limited to driving Monday - Friday from 6:00 am to 8:00 PM for 'work, school or household needs.'  Now, there is some debate about what constitutes 'household needs' but some Police Officers may feel that a Driver out during those times, who isn't specifically driving for the benefit of his or her household is in violation of the privilege, which could lead to a revocation.  Additionally, should a driver have a blood/alcohol concentration of .15 or above in North Carolina, they will not be eligible for a Limited Driving Privilege for the first 45 days after being convicted and are required to have an Interlock Device installed on the vehicle for one year, all at the cost to the Defendant.  Imagine your life if you were not able to drive for a week, let alone a month and a half?!

Now, I'm sure some people think that I am minimizing the risks of Driving While Impaired, I can assure you I am not.  Driving drunk is risky and endangers the lives of the Driver, their passengers, as well as the public in general.  However, DWI's have gotten so built up that we are sentencing people for the damage they could have done, not what they actually did!

Rest assured, if a Drunk Driver causes a wreck, it will be factored into their sentencing so they can receive a harsher sentence then if they hadn't gotten in a wreck.  Caused serious bodily injury?  That's a Grossly Aggravating Factor and would be a minimum, mandatory 7 days in jail.  Prior DWI in the last 7 years?  Same thing.  Passenger in the vehicle under the age of 18?  Level 1, minimum, mandatory 30 days in jail!  That means if you are a first time offender, with a BAC of .08 and a 17 year old in the car (think about high schoolers coming home from a party or prom) and they are convicted, 30 days in jail. 

It's craziness to me that DWI's are treated this way.  The fact that the Defendant is participating in a risky activity results in a sentence that would appear to address the potential  harm, instead of the actual harm caused.  Let's think of this in another way.  North Carolina has passed laws against texting while driving.  Some cities have even passed laws against using phones all together.  There are those who believe that the use of a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving while impaired.  Certainly there are plenty of stories out there about people who have been injured or killed because of someone texting or driving.  Should we treat those who were caught texting and driving as harshly as those who have killed while texting and driving?  Of course not, the punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

Here's another way to think of this.  I have a client who was associated with a fight in school.  One of the young boys broke the eye socket of another boy during the fight.  That young boy was charged with Assault and Battery.  Having never been in trouble before, will have his case dismissed after he participated in a First Offender's program, which includes community service and classes.  There will be no monetary costs that he will incur from the criminal charge.  However, most of my clients are first offenders, and many of those are low BAC DWI's who did not injure anyone at all and will have their life seriously disrupted, incur thousands of dollars in costs (once you add up court costs, legal fees, and insurance costs) and have their ability to drive restricted for the next year.  How is this fair?  If we take the DWI sentencing logic and apply it the fight, the boy should face a sentence that reflects the injury he could have cause as a result of the fight.  The boy could have suffered brain injury or even death, so let's treat this case the same as if it did occur?

Okay, I think I have been up on my Soapbox long enough.  Let me say again, I don't advocate Driving While Impaired or even think that people shouldn't face some of the consequences, but for a District Attorney to suggest that every single first-time offender of a Class 1 Misdemeanor should face a mandatory 7 day jail sentence is ludicrous.  I think common sense needs to prevail and be applied to these cases.  As it were, due to special interest groups (M.A.D.D. I'm looking at you), there is little chance that will ever happen.

Raleigh Traffic Law | The 'Flashing Light' warning

So, I recently got to read an article about a Missouri Driver who was cited for flashing his headlight to warn oncoming of a speed trap down the road.  As is a common practice among motorist, this driver observed a Police Officer on the side of the road checking people's speed with a radar gun.  The Driver decided to flash his headlights to oncoming traffic so they would be aware of the Police Officer and ideally would slow down (which is what the police want in the first place, right?).  The same police officer ended up pulling this driver over and ticketed him under some obscure local law dealing with flashing lights on certain vehicles.

As is completely and totally appropriate, the Driver has filed suit against the city for violating his free speech rights.  As his attorney explained in the article, his conduct of flashing his lights would be no different then stopping into a truck stop and mentioning it to other drivers.  The Government is EXTREMELY limited in it's ability to infringe on an individuals' free speech.  From the perspective of this Wake County Traffic Attorney, flashing his lights was a form of communication that the State has no justifiable reason to try and deter. 

Apparently, this was not the first time an individual was ticketed for flashing his lights.  There was a driver in Florida who filed suit in to 2011 for the same reason.  Apparently, that case was dropped after that police force issued an order requiring their officers to not issue tickets for someone flashing their lights.

Certainly, it can be frustrating for the Police Officers, when they are attempting to conduct traffic safety patrols and their efforts are thwarted by the public communicating with each other; here's the problem with that position.  1. The Police have A LOT of advantages in their efforts of citing and apprehending individuals for traffic and/or criminal matters.  The sheer wealth of knowledge they have with regards to investigating and the requirements to meet standards of proof put the general public at an extreme disadvantage, let alone all of the technology, research, etc. they have at their disposal.  2. A driver flashing their lights hopefully has the effect of causing drivers to slow down, and isn't that really the reason for the police presence on the road in the first place (at least, one of the reasons).  Unless, of course, it could be to issue tickets and generate revenue, but certainly that's not the case.

Honestly, all joking aside, this action by the police is disturbing.  There was no good reason for the police officer to pull this driver over and issue a ticket.  Their conduct, in no way, jeopardized other drivers, and did no violate any laws.  The only logical conclusion was to punish this driver, and deter others from the same conduct. 

If you are in need of a Wake County Traffic Attorney, the Matheson Law Office would be happy to discuss your case with you and provide you with a Free Consultation.  Contact us at 919-335-5291 and we'll go over your case with you.

Raleigh DWI Law | Know Your Rights!

So, over the past few weeks I have been asked by several people about what actions they or others took during a traffic stop and whether they were correct or not.  There is a lot of confusion on what a driver can and cannot do during a traffic stop.  As a Raleigh Criminal Defense Attorney, I try and make sure my clients are aware of their rights, but if they are hiring me, it is often too late to preserve their rights for the present charges.  Therefore, I'm going to write this blog about what a driver should do during a traffic stop.

First, let me be clear that this post is for all traffic stops, not just DWI (even though it is on a DWI blog page).  Second, at no time do I recommend a driver to be short and/or rude with a Police Officer.  Regardless of what you may think of their conduct or whether you deserved to be stop or not, these are people just like you that are doing their job; it's never personal.   Additionally, being rude is almost a guaranteed way to make matters worse for you.

Okay, first thing everyone needs to know is YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!  Some people think that if they have not been read their Miranda Rights, their statements cannot be used against them.  Miranda Rights only come into play once a Defendant is in custody AND they are being questioned by police (i.e. 'spontaneous statements,' even if made while in custody, are still admissible).  When a Police Officer approaches you and asks you a question, there is NO obligation that you answer it.  My recommendation to my clients is to politely tell the Officer "I respect what you do, but I refuse to answer any questions."

Second, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONSENT TO A SEARCH!  Whether the Police Officer asks for your consent to search your person or your vehicle, you are under no obligation to consent.  Now, it's important to remember that consenting to a search and prohibiting a search are two entirely different things.  Under many circumstances, a Police Officer may be able to search you, your vehicle, your home, etc. whether you consented or not.  However, if they lack any of the permissible reasons to search, then your consent is the only way they may be able to forward their investigation.  Now, I often hear people say, "I have nothing to hide, so what's the harm?"  Unless you are the only person in constant possession of your vehicle 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is it really worth the risk?  That valet, mechanic, friend, family member, etc. may have left something in your car that you were unaware of but you may be responsible for if it is found.  Also, it's worth noting that I have had clients share with me that Police Officers have tried to persuade them to consent by using statements like "I'm going to search your vehicle, okay?"  or "If you provide me with the (contraband) I'll only cite you, if I have to get a search warrant, I'm going to arrest you if I find anything."  Ultimately it up to you whether you want to comply, but in many cases, the State may have not have had a case against the Defendant had they not consented to the search.

Third, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PERFORM ANY FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS!  Obviously this deals with Driving While Impaired more then any other traffic matter, but it also very important.  The tests the Police Officer asks you to perform after the traffic stop, but before the arrest, are referred to as the Field Sobriety Tests.  This can involve what is known as 'Pre-Exit Tests' which may include counting or the alphabet.  Also included are the better known 'Standardized Field Sobriety Tests' which includes the Walk and Turn, the One-Legged Stand and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus tests (eye test).  Additionally, the hand-held breathalyzer (commonly referred to as the 'Alcosensor) is included in the list of things you are not required to perform.  Each one of these tests is used by the State to try and build evidence against the driver in order to convict them.  Unless you are stone sober and have not had anything to drink, it's not recommended that you perform any of these tests.  As mentioned before, I have received reports of some pretty tricky ways Police go about trying to convince drivers to go along with the tests.  Statements like "I'm going to have you perform some tests for me, okay?"  Or my favorite was "I'm probably just going to let you go, but do this one test for me so I can be sure."

I want to put in an important exception here: I am not recommending either way whether you should blow in the  Intoxilyzer.  The Intoxilyzer is the machine the Police ask you to blow in AFTER you have been arrested.  It is a big machine on a table top and takes place at a Police Station.  The reason I do not make a recommendation is, unlike everything else I have mentioned, there are consequences that come with refusing to blow in this machine.  A refusal will lead to 6 months of license suspension.  Additionally, the fact that you refused is admissible in court as a 'guilty conscious' and the State may end up drawing your blood anyways, so the refusal may not have done anything to assist you.

Now that we have discussed what you don't have to do during a traffic stop, let's talk about what you MUST DO.  First, you must provide the Police Officer with your license and registration.  By driving on a North Carolina street or highway, you consent to present these documents whenever requested by the Police.  Second, if the Police ask you to exit your vehicle, you are required to do so.  This request is being made for the safety of the Police Officer and refusal to exit will likely lead to a forced removal and a charge of Resist, Delay or Obstruct a Police Officer.    Third, if the Officer tells you they are going to search your person, car, or ask you to stand or sit in a certain location, you are required to comply, even if you haven't consented.  Again, there are many circumstances where a Police Officer may have the right to search  you or your vehicle and refusing to consent won't change that, however refusing to comply will likely lead to an Obstruction charge.

So, these are the basics of how best to handle traffic stops.  Certainly there are many other things that can affect the likelihood of a Driver being convicted beyond what actions they took after the stop.  If you are facing a Wake County Traffic Ticket, DWI Charge or Criminal Charge, contact the Matheson Law Office for your free consultation.

Raleigh DWI Defense Attorney | Limited Driving Privilege Article on WRAL News

So, today's blog is going to be more of a vent fest then informative due to my frustration over a recent article on WRAL News.  The article in question, which can be found here, is suppose to be an investigatory piece on people who are operating a vehicle under a Limited Driving Privilege who may or may not be adhering to the restrictions placed on these Privileges. 

Now, as a Wake County DUI Attorney, I have drafted hundreds of these privileges and explained them to my clients so that they understand the restrictions they must adhere to.  Where a problem may arise is the section which permits driving from 6:00 am until 8:00 pm for 'work, school, or household needs.'  This is a a bit of a subjective concept as what constitutes 'household needs' can differ.  In all honesty, I do not believe that most police officers expect these drivers to not drive for anything but work, school and maintaining a house.  Even if they did, could getting gas for your car constitute maintaining a house?  What about going to the post office?  Restaurant?  etc.  I would like to believe that so long as they aren't driving after hours or on the weekend when they aren't suppose to, that the police would give them a break.  That being said, I'm certain there are some police officers out there that would cite someone for going out, during the week, within the hours, for some reason that the officer does not believe qualifies under the Privilege.  So, it comes as no surprise to me that the WRAL article found that of the 216 people charged with violating the privilege last year, 142 of those cases were dismissed.  I would assume that in those instances a DA looked at the facts and decided that it didn't rise to the level of criminal and/or that a trial would be a waste of taxpayer money trying to prove that the Driver wasn't operating within the Privilege.

Now, that being said, those that are caught driving after hours, or weekends for reasons other then permitted is a different story.  Driving is only permitted during those days and times by written approval of the Judge for work or school needs, community service or to attend their Substance Abuse Assessment treatment as was court ordered.  I tell my clients that they better being coming to or from these locations otherwise they may get cited.

Anyways, back to the venting, what I first found frustrating was the way this article portrayed these individuals as flaunting their DWI judgment.  A DWI conviction is a serious matter from a serious mistake.  I will never make light of the act of Driving While Impaired, but North Carolina is already one of the more strict states when it comes to sentencing a DWI and they continue to push to make it harder.  The sentence a driver receives, even on a low BAC, first time offense is extremely serious and can be the same as someone with priors and a high BAC depending on circumstances.  Among the many things that comes with a conviction is a one year suspension of driving privileges.  In this day and age, the idea of not being able to drive for a year is a hard pill to swallow.  Fortunately North Carolina allows drivers to receive a Limited Driving Privilege under very specific circumstances, most important of which is to not have any alcohol in their system while operating a vehicle.  By limiting when these individuals can drive, the punishment continues without completely upending their lives completely.  The fact that these drivers are attempting to continue their lives, after being convicted of a DWI, within the presumed guidelines set out on the Privileges is not something that should be portrayed as snubbing their nose at their judgment.

However, my biggest issue with this piece was the fact that the reporter reached out to Mothers Against Drunk Driving for a quote.  In this quote, it was suggested by M.A.D.D. that, in order to try and prevent these types of 'violations' Drivers should have an 'ignition device' installed on their vehicle which controls when the vehicle can be driven.  Unfortunately, the only 'ignition device' this Raleigh DUI Defense Lawyer is aware of is an 'Interlock Device'.  The Interlock Device prohibits a driver from starting and/or operating their car should they have any alcohol on their breath.  Here's the problem, no where in the WRAL article was it alleged that these various examples they provided of individuals driving on their privilege where after having consumed alcohol.  No where did it say these investigative reporters saw an individual come out of a bar after having a drink then drive on their Privilege.  How in the world would installing an Interlock Device help prevent people from driving, STONE SOBER, outside the prescribed limits of their Privilege. 

No, what was suggested was to further punish those that are convicted of a DWI, utilizing a method that in no way addresses the issue at hand.  The reality is, if a Driver is convicted of a DWI in North Carolina, and it's proven they had a BAC of .15 or above, they'll have to get the Interlock Device regardless.  So, how does requiring a person who blew a .08 (or .07 or .06 - read this for further info) but was otherwise driving safely and did not demonstrate substantial impairment benefit from a device that won't let them drive after having taken cough medicine?

If you are facing a DWI in Wake County, please contact the Matheson Law Office for your free consultation at 919-335-5291.  We are happy to go over your case with you and discuss what options you have available.

Raleigh DWI Attorney | Silence is NOT Golden for Criminal Defendants

So, recently there was a very important ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in case that will have far reaching implications for those facing hiring this Wake County Criminal Defense Attorney,  as well as the rest of the country.  The case in questions, Salinas V. Texas, deals with an individual being questioned by police regarding a homicide.  The Defendant in this case was answering questions by the police but elected not to answer one specific question.  As a result, his silence was used to convicted him of murder. 

In this particular case, Mr. Salinas was being questioned by the police, but was not yet in custody.  This is a very important detail due to the fact that had he been in custody, the police would have been required to read him his 'Miranda Warning' prior to questioning him, otherwise his responses, or lack there of, would be inadmissible. 

Now, 'Miranda' can be a bit confusing as most people's understanding of this right derives from what they have seen on Law and Order, and that's not accurate.  It is very common for those hiring this Raleigh DWI Attorney and Criminal Attorney to think their case is solid because they were not 'Mirandized' but that is just not the case.  First, your right to remain silent and your right to have an attorney present for any question is in place regardless of when you are dealing with the police and whether you are in custody or not.  Most people do not realize that they are completely within their right to refuse to answer any questions by the police.  The second, and often times more confusing, issue with Miranda is exactly WHEN the police are required to inform you of your rights.  Even though TV cops always 'Mirandize' Defendants the second they take them into custody, the reality is, that is not required and not often practiced.  The point that police are required to inform you of your Miranda rights is when you are in custody AND you are being questioned by police.  I'm certain it would seem that just out of convenience, police would simply 'Mirandize' the Defendant when they are being arrested and then they can question them once the Defendant decides whether to invoke those rights or not.  The reality is, unfortunately, much more sinister.

Since people believe that, if they are being taken into custody, and have not been Mirandized, that they are safe.  At a minimum, most people believe that their statements can't be used, or worse that their whole arrest will be thrown out.  Actually, not only will your case not be dismissed because you weren't given your Miranda rights when being arrested, but any 'spontaneous statements' you made after your arrest are admissible in court.  'Spontaneous statements' are things Defendants say, after being taken into custody but without any questioning by the police.  Most of the time, these are things said by the Defendant in the back of the cruiser.  What's even worse, police know that most people have these misconceptions, and so they intentionally won't 'Mirandize' the Defendant, not ask them any questions, and record anything they say while in custody. 

This brings us full circle to the ruling in Salinas v. Texas.  The Supreme Court has ruled that a Defendant's refusal to answer a question can be used in their trial as evidence against them.  Now, in Salinas' case, it was a 'significant silence' in that he had been answering the questions of the police, except for one question dealing specifically with shell casing at his residence.  However, the fact that the court ruled the silence is admissible as evidence can have far reaching impacts in other cases.  The State may attempt to argue that any refusal to answer questions is evidence of a guilty conscious, though any defense attorney (including this Raleigh Criminal Defense Attorney) has argued that invoking the right to remain silent is evidences of a guilty conscious, rather it's simply a citizen enjoying the benefit of their Constitutional Rights.  From there, what the sitting Judge may do with this objection given the ruling in Salinas is hard to say.

Regardless, what is most important to take away from this recent ruling is 1. invoke your right to remain silent and to have legal representation early and without hesitation and 2. hire a capable defense attorney to represent your interest there after.

Raleigh Drug Charges | How Can We Trust The Tests?

Recently, I was looking through the news and happened upon a news story addressing drug testing, which applicable to this blog as North Carolina Drug Charges are big part of my law practice. The article in question, which can be read here explains that a common practices is for hospitals to do urinalysis of new born babies for the presence of drugs. One of the things they are looking for is THC, which is the active ingredient in Marijuana. Apparently, by identifying baby's who have been exposed to drugs, they can report the parents to local authorities. Likely, these parents will be charged with some form of child endangerment crime as well as likely struggle with Child Protective Services in maintaining custody of these children. While I certainly agree that it is important to protect children, especially new born babies, from a home where drugs are present, there is a flaw in all of this as the article explains. In the article, a hospital here in North Carolina was getting a high number of positives on these drug screen tests they were performing on the babies. After monitoring all the activity of the babies in this hospital, as well as the operations of all staff that interact with them, as well as all substances that the babies come into contact with, the study found out that it was baby shampoo that was causing the positive results. That's right, baby shampoo was causing these tests to indicate the presence of Marijuana in the babies' urine. In fact, there were four different kinds of baby shampoo from three different companies which caused these false positives. Now, let's stop and think, how many times do you think a parent has been accused of exposing their new babies to marijuana. How many have been charged with a crime, or worse, had their kids taken from them all from these types of tests which we now see are flawed. More importantly, if these tests can have a false positive as a result of baby shampoo, what other products can cause false positives that we don't know about? How does something like this get missed by those ensuring these tests are 100% accurate. I mention 100% accurate because certainly we would not convict someone of something as heinous as drug use, or exposing children to drugs, if the tests were not presented as 100% accurate. Because, you see, as far as this Raleigh Drug Defense Lawyer is concerned, if the tests are not 100%, then they should not be used. I would rather we have hundreds of potential convictions thrown out due to not having adequate testing which can meet the level necessary to convict, then to convict an innocent person of North Carolina drug possession or use as a result of one of these tests. Obviously, I'm not saying that the average drug user is bathing with baby shampoo, but again, if something as simple as this can cause a false positive, then the potential for other products doing the same thing is likely. The reality is as far as criminal prosecution goes, we as a society have turned over the responsibility of proving elements of crimes to machines. These machines are inherently flawed as anyone knows who has ever worked a copier/fax machine, DVR, or computer. Unfortunately, many believe that the science is somehow better at these levels then what we are used to. To some degree, they are better, but that doesn't mean they are infallible. In addition, regardless of how good they get, we all still enjoy a Constitutionally protected right to confront our witnesses. However, with most of this machinery, Criminal Defense Attorneys Raleigh or elsewhere are not given access to the code used for their programing in order to challenge it. Finally, the courts have just come to accept them as gospel, no matter how hard we try and show that they are prone to mistakes. This article should give pause to anyone, especially in the judicial field, from accepting accusations of criminal activity that involve scientific testing; including blood/urine/breath testing. If you are facing a North Carolina Drug Charge, or drug charges anywhere else, speak immediately with a local Criminal Defense Attorneys Raleigh or in your area to get specific advice about your case.

North Carolina Limited Driving Privileges| What is Needed for the Petition

In today's DWI Blog, I will be focusing on North Carolina's Limited Driving Privilege.  Though a Limited Driving Privilege applies to more situation then a DWI, today's blog will only focus on it's function in the DWI world.

First, the Petition is just that, a petition.  The Privilege must be agreed to by a District Court Judge, there are no guarantees that you will be given a privilege.  Second, the Privilege is normally only for Monday through Friday, 6:00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M.  If you need to drive outside of those time for school or work, it can be requested with additional documentation.

There are two areas of a DWI case where the Limited Driving Privilege applies, first is after being charged with a DWI, you will have your license suspended for 30 days.  Most likely, the Police Officer took your license.  In those situations the Privilege can not be granted for the first 10 days, therefore if granted, the Privilege will only be for the remaining 20 days.  If convicted of a DWI or if you plead guilty to a DWI, you will have your license suspended for 12 months.  Depending on how high your blood/alcohol level was at the time of your arrest will dictate when you can petition the court for a Limited Driving Privilege for those 12 months.  The petition requires several things before a Judge will consider it.  Below, I have listed those things that are necessary.

1. A certified 7-year driving record from the DMV
2. A Limited Driving Privilege Petition (Form AOC-CVR-9)
3. Fully completed Limited Driving Privileges (Form AOC-CVR-10 or AOC-CVR-11) (3 copies of each)
4. Valid proof of driving insurance (called a 'DL-123 form')
5. Proof of Substance Abuse Assessment
6. Letter from an employer or school if requesting more time outside of the standard hours.
7. $100 cost for the privilege.

This process can seem a bit complicated, but it can be done.  If you feel overwhelmed, speak with a local Durham DWI Attorney or Raleigh DWI Attorney or a DWI Attorney in your area for assistance.  Some may be willing to assist you without handling your DWI case.