Santos Pleads Guilty to Reckless Driving in DUI Case
Written by: Dan Shibilia
Central District City Councilor Yanilda Santos appeared in Salem, NH court this morning to face the DUI charge stemming from her January arrest, and left with a plea deal that keeps a DUI off her record but not without consequences.
Prior to trial, Santos' attorney negotiated an agreement with the District Attorney's office. She had a lot working in her favor… mainly that was her first offense and she has no record prior.
Santos pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of reckless driving and will pay a fine. She had already completed a safe driving course ahead of the court date. In addition to the fine, two months were added onto the six-month license suspension she already received for refusing the breathalyzer at the scene bringing her total suspension to eight months which started back immediately following the arrest.
Contrary to popular belief and comments circulating on social media, the breathalyzer refusal suspension and subsequent additional 2 months is not limited to New Hampshire. Former Salem, NH prosecutor Jason Grosky weighed in on the case via Facebook, clarifying what the cross-state impact looks like for a Massachusetts resident like Santos:
"NH suspends the right to operate, then notifies the Mass RMV. Mass will then impose a reciprocal license suspension and not reinstate the license til all NH requirements are satisfied and NH reinstates the right to operate here."In other words, Santos will not be able to legally drive in Massachusetts either until she has fully satisfied New Hampshire's requirements and her driving privileges are restored there first.
For background on the original arrest, [read our earlier report here:
https://www.insidemethuen.com/p/central-district-council-arrested
Now that the case is closed, one question remains open: what was worth redacting?
When we submitted a Right to Know request for the police records from that night, what came back was redacted with no statutory exemptions cited to justify it. We formally pushed back, requesting either the unredacted records or a legal explanation for each redaction.
Salem responded on March 9th… not with answers, but with a two-page letter citing a broad range of possible exemptions, from personal identifying information and CJIS restrictions, to body camera footage rules and crime victim privacy protections, and asked for up to 90 more days to respond.
The letter doesn't tell us what was redacted or why. It tells us what could justify a redaction… which is a different thing entirely.
The case being settled doesn't make that question go away. It may be nothing. There may be a perfectly routine explanation for every blacked-out line. But under New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, the burden is on the government to say so and they haven't. We'll keep asking.