Kevin Hagan Law

"RI License Suspension"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2011-02-18T17:11:07-05:00

In a Rhode Island DWI or DUI charge, conviction of driving while intoxicated ordinarily results in a revocation or suspension of the driver's license and all motor vehicle registrations held by the defendant. This provision of the typical driving-while-intoxicated statute is probably the chief factor motivating defendants to plead not guilty. However, conviction for driving while intoxicated is not essential to the institution of proceedings revoking or suspending a driver's license; the same facts presented in the criminal trial resulting in acquittal of the charge of driving while intoxicated may be sufficient to support an administrative revocation or suspension of that person's driver's license. In some jurisdictions, a driver's license may be suspended or revoked when the licensing authority (DMV) has notice of the licensee's conviction outside the state for driving while intoxicated.

Depending on state law, the attorney may or may not be able to help his client retain his driver's license and vehicle registrations. In some states the trial judge decides the matter of revocation or suspension and, in this situation, the attorney may be able to minimize the penalty. In other states, the period of suspension is automatically set by law or the state highway patrol organization is given the right, within certain limits, to determine the length of the suspension. In many jurisdictions, such as Rhode Island, the revocation of a driver's license is mandatory on conviction for driving while intoxicated.

In light of the fact that the minimum license suspension for refusing to submit to a chemical test in Rhode Island is six (6) months, and the minimum license suspension for criminal DUI is three (3) months, DUI clients often have a difficult decision to make. Do they opt for one or the other, or should they risk challenging both cases based on a factual or legal weakness in the case? Rhode Island DUI lawyers are accustomed to weighing the pros and cons of these relative decisions.

"Operation Elements of DUI Cases"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2011-02-06T15:19:27-05:00

Rhode Island DUI, Rhode Island DWI, and RI Driving Under the Influence cases require that the prosecution prove that the suspect was actually operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyers are accustomed to reviewing police reports and interviewing witnesses in an effort to determine if the “operation” element of a DUI case can be proven by the prosecutor.

Rhode Island’s statute defining the offense of driving while intoxicated requires that the defendant exert some type of control over the vehicle. If a question exists concerning such control, the defense attorney should certainly investigate the matter. Also, the place where the vehicle was observed in operation is very important. Many statutes prohibit the operation of vehicles by an intoxicated driver only on certain types of public property. If any reasonable question exists as to the public character of the property, the defense attorney should consider the use of surveyors and title attorneys, if necessary, either to prove the private character of the area where the vehicle was operated, or to create reasonable doubts as to its public nature.

"Cross Exam of Prosecution Witnesses"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-10-11T17:59:18-04:00

Cross-examination is the Defense Attorney’s primary tool in rooting out faulty testimony
in Rhode Island DUI and DWI cases. Often times, a Rhode Island Drunk Driving investigation
can only be held invalid by way of the concise and direct questions of the Defense Lawyer.
Preparation by the Rhode Island defense attorney for the cross-examination of prosecution
witnesses must take into account the probable testimony of such witnesses as policemen, experts,
and laymen. A Rhode Island Defense Lawyer should not overlook the possibility that the
bartender serving the defendant prior to his arrest might be a witness for the prosecution.

Counsel should note, during direct examination of prosecution witnesses, all primary
facts observed on which each witness bases his conclusion of intoxication. He can then
separately challenge the validity of each of these facts as establishing intoxication. However,
counsel should ignore facts testified to that he is unable to challenge, since cross-examination as
to these facts would simply emphasize the strength of the prosecution case to the jury. Instead,
counsel should question the witness whether separate primary facts on which he based his
opinion of intoxication might have been attributable to a cause other than intoxication.

Defense counsel should preliminarily ask the policeman to define intoxication. If a proper
definition is given, no harm is done since the jury figures that the witness was supposed to
know it. If an improper one is given, on the other hand, the fact can be very effectively used in
arguments to the jury.

"Breathalyzer Elements for Admissibility"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-05-12T18:23:26-04:00

A Rhode Island DUI Case will often times include evidence of breathalyzer or breath test results. Defense counsel should inform himself of the foundation that the prosecution must lay in order to qualify the particular intoxication test. In the absence of an adequate foundation, defense counsel should object to admission of results of the test. Although all states do not require proof of the same matters, items from the following list could reasonably be required by any court as a predicate, and defense counsel should be prepared to object to admission of the test results if any applicable items are not established by the prosecution:

1. That the subject was legally arrested for driving while intoxicated prior to the demand for the test;

2. That the operator of the device was properly trained and licensed;

3. That the operator and the device were under adequate supervision by an expert;

4. That the chemicals used were compounded properly;

5. That the test was administered in accordance with the test methods directed by the state agency that supervises intoxication test results.

6. That nothing alcoholic was in the subject's mouth for 15 to 30 minutes before the test;

7. That the person interpreting the results of the test was qualified to do so; and

8. That the reading of blood-alcohol content showed a violation of the state statute creating a presumption of intoxication.

Attorney Hagan honored in "Newport this Week"!

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-05-04T19:00:25-04:00

Check out the most recent issue of “Newport this Week” newspaper, where Attorney Kevin Hagan is honored in the “Men Who Make A Difference” section. See below for the full text accompanying this distinction:

“After a year as a Rhode Island Superior Court Law Clerk and six years as Special Assistant Attorney General in Rhode Island, Kevin Hagan joined the firm of Houlihan, Managhan & Kyle. From 2002-2008, Kevin worked as a prosecutor for the Attorney General’s Office where his work included litigating dozens of domestic violence felony cases and homicides. Kevin has also served as part of the Providence Prostitution Task Force. Attorney Hagan now practices a diverse slate of litigation: Family Court, Criminal Defense Law and Civil Litigation. Kevin is a former member of the Roger Williams University Alumni Board, and he serves as an adjunct faculty member at the Community College of Rhode Island. A native of Worcester, Massachusetts, his family placed a high priority on helping people - a tradition Kevin follows in his role as a lawyer, husband and new father. Kevin lives with his wife Domenica and his son, Thomas, in Newport. Attorney Hagan is a member of the RI and Massachusetts State Bar Associations and the Rhode Island Federal District. Because of his commitment to justice, Kevin Hagan is a Man Who Makes A Difference!”

"In a RI DUI case, the attorney of record should have an in depth knowledge of the constitutional requisites for the admissibility of evidence."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-04-18T16:43:34-04:00

In a Rhode Island DUI, DWI, or Driving Under the Influence criminal defense, the attorney of record should have an in depth knowledge of the constitutional requisites for the admissibility of evidence. All possible violations of the defendant's constitutional rights should be investigated. These would include (1) whether the police had probable cause to stop the defendant, (2) whether a legal arrest was made, (3) whether constitutional and statutory warnings were given, (4) whether probable cause to request a breath-alcohol or other scientific test existed, (5) whether a legal search and seizure occurred (6) whether the defendant's right to counsel was violated, and (7) whether a confession was legally obtained. In a Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DUI arrest or DWI prosecution, a criminal defense attorney should also be keenly aware that “operation” is an important element for the prosecution to prove. In other words, the prosecutor in Rhode Island must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the DWI, DUI suspect actually was operating the vehicle while under the influence. Some of these issues follow:

"A first offense of driving while intoxicated can carry more than the six months' jail penalty"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-04-11T14:49:08-04:00

With respect to a Rhode Island DWI, Rhode Island DUI or Rhode Island Drunk Driving or Driving under the Influence case, a first offense of driving while intoxicated can carry more than the six months' jail penalty measure set by the United States Supreme Court in the Miranda case as the point from which it may be determined that "substantial" rights of a suspect are involved which would require the giving of constitutional warnings prior to interrogation. Consequently, the police ordinarily do give constitutional and statutory warnings regarding the rights of a suspect when they make an arrest for driving while intoxicated.

In jurisdictions where previous driving-while-intoxicated convictions enhance the penalty, the arresting officer normally does not know whether the conduct observed in the instant case constitutes a misdemeanor or felony violation, and will not know until the suspect's record has been checked. Consequently, it would seem that good police procedure in these jurisdictions should entail the giving of constitutional warnings as soon as an arrest is made in any driving-while-intoxicated case. In an RI DUI, DWI, or driving under the influence prosecution, the police will read the suspect their “Rights for use at scene, which is essentially the equivalent of “Miranda” Rights.

"In Rhode Island, Drunk Driving, DUI, DWI, Sobriety Checkpoints are unconstitutional."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-04-01T17:28:08-04:00

In Rhode Island, Drunk Driving, DUI, DWI, Sobriety Checkpoints are unconstitutional; however in other states across the country, and pursuant to Federal Law, these drunk driving reduction tools are constitutionally permissible. It will not be long before our Rhode Island Supreme Court revisits this issue in a manner more analogous with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions. The following examples illuminate the issues surrounding Rhode Island DUI, DWI, and Drunk Driving checkpoints.

"A majority of DUI and DWI arrests for driving while intoxicated are made without warrants and are based on personal observation of the suspect's conduct by the arresting officer."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-03-18T15:56:11-04:00

With respect to a Rhode Island DUI, DWI, driving under the influence, or drunk driving prosecution, a majority of arrests for driving while intoxicated are made without warrants and are based on personal observation of the suspect's conduct by the arresting officer. This raises the constitutional issue, in nearly every case, of whether probable cause existed for the arrest. If probable cause to arrest did not exist when the police initially stopped the suspect, an illegal arrest was made and all evidence gained after the arrest would be inadmissible. While probable cause to arrest is rather apparent when a suspect was driving recklessly and a strong smell of alcohol on his breath was evident to the officer or the suspect got out of the automobile with a bottle of liquor in his hand, probable cause is not so apparent where an individual is stopped for a routine driver's license check or similar reason, and the officers smell alcoholic odors but do not detect further evidence of drunkenness. State courts divide on the question of probable cause to make an arrest under the latter fact situation. A Rhode Island criminal defense lawyer will generally analyze probable cause before they review other issues in the DUI or DWI case.

Currently, traffic safety proponents are urging that a police officer be authorized by statute to make a misdemeanor arrest for driving while intoxicated where the crime was not committed in his presence but where, after personal investigation, he finds reasonable grounds to believe that the person did commit the offense. These traffic safety people believe that such increased authority in the area of arrest would be helpful in the investigation of traffic accidents in which it is apparent that one driver was intoxicated but where the officer did not observe the accident.

In a few cases, a charge for driving while intoxicated may be filed solely on the basis of the complaint of a private citizen, and the police fear that the suspect is about to flee the jurisdiction. In these situations, whether a warrant must be issued to make a misdemeanor arrest, or whether the police may make a felony arrest without a warrant on the ground that there is insufficient time to secure a warrant depends on whether the suspect is still intoxicated at the time he is approached by the police. Of course, if some action occurs in their presence that gives them probable cause to stop him, the police may make a valid arrest without a warrant. However, if the suspect is not still intoxicated, and the police are not certain that a felony is involved, a warrant must be secured unless one of the police officers knows of previous convictions of the suspect that would raise the instant offense to a felony level. Consider the following cases:

"In a Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI, DUI prosecution, a criminal defense attorney should always attempt to prove the incompetent administration of field sobriety tests."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-03-09T22:03:41-05:00

In a Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI, DUI prosecution, a criminal defense attorney should always attempt to prove the incompetent administration of field sobriety tests. Some of the following cases provide examples of this pursuit.

Results of field sobriety tests did not provide probable cause to arrest motorist for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), where city police officer administered the tests incompetently and in ways that could completely undermine their reliability; for example, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required minimum of 32 seconds for horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test and minimum of 12 seconds for vertical gaze nystagmus (VGN) test, but officer performed the tests in 19 seconds and 3.5 seconds, respectively, and officer also did not comply with NHTSA standards for administering one-leg stand test and walk-and-turn test. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Strickland v. City of Dothan, AL, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2005); West's Key Number Digest, Automobiles 349(6).

Administering a breathalyzer test and having a defendant perform the field sobriety test on videotape after a DUI arrest are nothing more than the collection and preservation of physical evidence, and they do not constitute a crucial confrontation requiring the presence of counsel. State v. Burns (1995, Fla App D5) 661 So 2d 842, 20 FLW D 1942.

Exclusion of the results of driver's blood alcohol test and DUI videotape on relevance grounds was reversible error, where driver who had been arrested on a DUI charge sued officer for false arrest, and after a jury verdict for officer, contended that the test results and the videotape made 2 hours after her arrest were relevant and should have been admitted. Tracton v. Miami Beach (Fla App, 1992) 616 So 2d 457, 18 FLW D 86.

Admission of videotape of defendant's arrest did not violate defendant's right to privacy in prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI), where videotape captured defendant's actions on a public street. State v. Ditton, 2006 MT 235, 333 Mont. 483, 144 P.3d 783 (2006); West's Key Number Digest, Automobiles 354(6).

Videotape of defendant's police station booking was relevant evidence in prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI); videotape showed defendant walking and talking, and jury might have found videotape useful to determine whether defendant was intoxicated. N.R.S. 48.015. Angle v. State, 942 P.2d 177 (Nev. 1997).

"How recent interpretations of Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules will impact admissibility of Breathalyzer certificates in drunk driving, DUI, DWI, and Driving under the influence prosecutions…"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-02-26T13:44:50-05:00

The following case reflects how recent interpretations of the Confrontation Clause and well settled hearsay rules will impact the admissibility of Breathalyzer certificates in drunk driving, DUI, DWI, and Driving under the influence prosecutions…

Court of Appeals of Virginia,
Richmond.
Phillip Lawton GRANT v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Record No. 0877-08-4.
Sept. 1, 2009.

Background: Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Fairfax County, Bruce D. White, J., of driving while intoxicated. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Petty, J., held that:

(1) attestation clause in certificate memorializing the results of a blood test was testimonial in nature, and its admission violated the Confrontation Clause, and
(2) admission of certificate in violation of Confrontation Clause was not harmless error, and required reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

Present: FELTON, C.J., and FRANK and PETTY, JJ.
PETTY, Judge.

*716 Appellant, Phillip Lawton Grant, challenges his conviction for driving while intoxicated, in violation of Code § 18.2-266. Grant argues that his conviction should be reversed because the certificate of the results of a chemical analysis of his breath indicating his blood alcohol level was admitted into evidence in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.FN1 **86 For the reasons explained below, we agree with Grant and reverse his conviction.

FN1. Grant's question presented on appeal is:

Whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to exclude from evidence, or alternatively to strike from evidence, the certificate of analysis because the Commonwealth failed to comply with appellant's timely “Notice of Defendant's Exercise of Confrontation Rights Pursuant to Va.Code 19.2-187.1.”

While both parties argued that the statutes governing the admissibility of the breath test certificate are Code §§ 19.2-187 and 19.2-187.1, the express statutory authority for the admission of a breath test certificate is set out in Code § 18.2-268.9.Code § 19.2-187 is limited to certificates of analysis prepared by the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, the Department of Forensic Science, and certain other enumerated laboratories. Further, Code § 19.2-187.1 only provides for a right by the defendant to examine persons performing analysis pursuant to Code § 19.2-187. It does not appear that the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center is one of the laboratories enumerated in Code § 19.2-187. However, whether the parties and the trial court relied upon the correct statutory scheme addressing the admissibility of the breath test certificate is not before us in this appeal. Therefore, we assume without deciding for the purposes of this opinion that Code § 19.2-187.1 is applicable to this case.

"In Rhode Island, DUI, DWI, Driving Under the Influence, and Drunk Driving cases seem to provide motorists with minimized constitutional protections under the law."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-02-26T13:36:25-05:00

In Rhode Island, DUI, DWI, Driving Under the Influence, and Drunk Driving cases seem to provide motorists with minimized constitutional protections under the law. Most police agencies now take the position that the court-recognized status of a driver's license as a privilege, coupled with the statutory authorization for chemical intoxication tests in driving-while-intoxicated cases, amounts to a waiver of a suspect's constitutional rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel prior to questioning and the giving of the test, unless otherwise provided by state law. Consequently, the normal order of police routine involves (1) a demand on the suspect to take the test, (2) extensive questioning, (3) performing the test, and finally, (4) an offer of an opportunity to the suspect to consult counsel.

In cases where the police should have recognized that the cause of the apparently intoxicated behavior was not alcohol, but was instead a medical condition from which the subject was suffering, a cause of action may exist against the police for failure to assure that the defendant was immediately delivered to a hospital for medical treatment. Of course, it becomes very important to provide alternate reasons for the suspect’s failure to properly perform standardized field sobriety tests.

In one Federal case, officers had probable cause to arrest motorist at roadblock, and such seizure did not violate his civil rights, where officer received report that possibly intoxicated driver was slumped over steering wheel of vehicle parked on shoulder of interstate, motorist's appearance indicated that he had been drinking, motorist declined to answer officer's questions and drove away without explanation, motorist failed to stop when officer engaged his emergency equipment, bumped motorist's vehicle,and shot out his tires, and motorist swerved to prevent officer from passing him. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693 (10th Cir. 1997).

"Pursuant to Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI and DUI procedures, a driver is entitled to refuse to take a chemical test upon the request of law enforcement."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-02-07T20:42:24-05:00

Pursuant to Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI and DUI procedures, a driver is entitled to refuse to take a chemical test upon the request of law enforcement. Of course, this almost always gives rise to a “refusal” charge being levied against the suspect. In Rhode Island, a criminal defense attorney will often times utilize this refusal charge as leverage to obtain a dismissal in the criminal DUI matter. In light of the fact that a refusal charge is civil in nature as opposed to criminal, it is often a more favorable result to admit to the refusal charge in consideration of the criminal charge being dismissed. This practice has reached customary status among Judges and prosecutors across Rhode Island.

This blog entry also discusses the application of chemical tests to suspects that are unconscious or in such a medical state that the test is administered for purposes of medical treatment, rather than strictly for law enforcement purposes.

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes authorizing the admission in evidence of the results of chemical intoxication tests. These statutes are commonly referred to as "implied consent laws"; they generally declare that driving is a privilege subject to state licensing, with one of the conditions for obtaining a license that the driver submit to a test for intoxication on request. The police must have probable cause to request a chemical intoxication test. Because of differences in language among the state statutes, it is necessary for counsel to consult his state's statute and to refer to supportive case decisions to ascertain the full rights of his client respecting submission to these tests.

Differences in statutory provisions include such matters as sanction or the lack of sanction for refusal to submit to a test, admissibility as evidence of the fact of refusal to submit to test, the type or types of tests that can be made, whether the police or the defendant can choose the type of test to be administered, the qualifications of the persons who give or supervise the tests, the predicate that must be laid for the introduction of results of the tests, whether the defendant is entitled to his own independent test in addition to the one administered by the police, and whether a dead, unconscious, or disabled person may be tested without permission. Implied consent statutes ordinarily do permit the person tested to have a physician of his own choice administer a chemical intoxication test in addition to the one administered at the direction of the police.

The refusal of a motorist to submit to a chemical intoxication test generally constitutes grounds, under implied consent statutes, for the suspension or revocation of his driver's license. In most states, acquittal of the charge of driving while intoxicated does not preclude revocation or suspension of the motorist's license for refusal to submit to the test. However, the motorist generally has a right to a hearing on the question of the reasonableness of his refusal to submit to the test before his license may be revoked or suspended. Currently, the States of Texas, Wisconsin, Mississippi, and North Carolina do not penalize the driver for refusing to submit to the test if a driving while intoxicated case is dismissed or there was a finding of not guilty.

"Rhode Island DWI or DUI charge usually falls into one of two categories"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-01-31T20:21:10-05:00

A Rhode Island DUI or DWI charge is defended against differently depending on whether a suspect agreed to take the chemical test or whether they refused. Once a suspect has agreed to take the test, and performs above the requisite blood alcohol level for intoxication, a criminal defense attorney must focus on attacking the admissibility of the subject test.

One or more scientific tests presently are conducted in all jurisdictions on driving-while-intoxicated suspects for the purpose of (1) bolstering and corroborating police opinion testimony of intoxication and, (2) in those states that set presumptive blood-alcohol intoxication levels, to demonstrate that the defendant's blood-alcohol level exceeded the permissible. Use of evidence of blood-alcohol concentration helps standardize the opinions of experts and minimizes reliance on the traditional evidence of intoxication on which opinions can vary so widely. Where a scientific test has been made on the defendant, it often is the main weapon of the prosecution, with all other evidence being used to corroborate the test results.

There are four basic scientific tests which may be conducted to determine the degree of intoxication: blood, urine, breath, and saliva tests. The results of urine, saliva, and breath tests for alcohol must be converted into a blood-alcohol reading in order to be useful in determining whether the subject was intoxicated.

"In Rhode Island, the prosecution can prove the elements of a DWI or DUI charge without the admissibility of a chemical test"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-01-16T21:56:36-05:00

In Rhode Island, the prosecution can prove the elements of a DWI or DUI charge without the admissibility of a chemical test. These cases are referred to as “observation” cases. As one can imagine, it is more difficult for the prosecution to prove the elements of a DUI without an empirical analysis of the suspect’s blood alcohol content; however, it can be done in a variety of different factual scenarios. Objective signs of intoxication, those ordinarily testified to as having been observed by the arresting officer or other prosecution witness, include the odor of alcohol on the breath, slurring of speech, inflamed and watery eyes, a ruddy complexion, an unsteady gait, and poor coordination. Usually, one or more of these observed signs comprise the basis for the officer's probable cause in making the arrest. However, as is discussed in the section that follows, a variety of conditions affecting an individual's health can present the same or similar symptoms.

"A trial on a charge of driving while intoxicated may raise constitutional issues"

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-01-10T19:16:52-05:00

A trial on a charge of driving while intoxicated may raise constitutional issues, such as whether there was probable cause for the arrest, whether adequate warnings were given to the suspect as to his rights, whether there was an intelligent waiver of rights, whether there was duress sufficient to raise a defense of self-incrimination, and whether there might have been a violation of equal protection and due process guarantees. The various constitutional questions noted above are necessarily left largely unanswered, because few of such questions have been satisfactorily answered by the courts in the context of prosecutions for driving while intoxicated. Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on these constitutional issues have been rendered in cases involving felonies such as murder, burglary, theft, and possession of narcotics, but the application of such decisions to driving-while-intoxicated cases are not always clear in most instances.

"Not only are driving under the influence arrests more plentiful, they are becoming more difficult to effectively defend."

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2010-01-04T17:38:08-05:00

Not only are driving under the influence arrests more plentiful, they are becoming more difficult to effectively defend. Within the last few years, many of the once famous "loopholes" have been tightened in an effort to successfully prosecute DUI suspects. Rhode Island's Pimental case stands for the proposition that sobriety checkpoints are violative of the Rhode Island Constitution; however, even well established case law such as this will likely change in the years to come. With a legislature that is more and more educated about drunk driving statistics and a Supreme Court that is generally more conservative in composition than those of the past, DUI laws will inevitably evolve to obviate legal arguments that once existed. As this happens, Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyers will need to become more vigilant about analyzing current laws, regulations and cases that impact the legal and constitutional rights of their clients.

Check out this great article on projo.com:
Drunken driving accidents, arrests plentiful in R.I.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/2009_drunken_driving_12-29-09_09GSOV7_v48.3cf7196.html

New Website Launched

khagan@hmandklaw.com — 2009-11-10T17:15:35-05:00

Welcome to the brand new www.kevinhaganlaw.com! Be sure to check out all of the site’s great new features, resources, and content. And don’t forget to check back in regularly, as new content will be continually added to make this site the definitive place to get help with your legal issue.