Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

DUI charges were dropped against a Miami, Florida woman who was framed for DUI by the police. Police video shows that the police attempted to blame Alexandra Torrensvilas for causing an accident that was caused by a police officer. The officer pinned the DUI on Torrensvilas and used the fact that she admitted to drinking to support the deception .

According to newspaper accounts, the police planned how to manipulate the police report to absolve the officer of responsibility for the accident, pinning it on Torrensvillas. While this case is certainly an extreme case of police misconduct, DUI charges are easy for police officers to exaggerate because a Massachusetts DUI is a crime of opinion. If an officer overstates the driving, exaggerates the unsteadiness of the client on the field sobriety tests, these errors may go unchallenged unless the case is brought to trial. Even an honest officer, may overstate observations either because of pressure to make DUI arrests that result in convictions or unconsciously as a result of making numerous arrests over the years.

Continue reading "DUI charge dropped as police frame woman for DUI. " »

A Framingham, Massachusetts man was charged with OUI second offense and OUI with an accident causing serious bodily injury on July 25, 2009. 20 year old Nicko Casteneda is alleged to have crashed his car into a motorcycle causing serious bodily injury to the rider of the motorcycle who was stopped ready to make a left turn. According to the newspaper article, the Framingham minor admitted to have eight beers and register a .21 on the breathalyzer test.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24L provides for a mandatory minimum jail sentence of six months for any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury. Additionally, an OUI serious bodily injury charge carries with it a two year loss of license.

An interesting issue for the DUI lawyer will be whether the police gave Miranda warnings prior to questioning. In a case involving an accident, it can be argued that this is not an ordinary roadside stop under Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) and Miranda warnings should be required.

The high breathalyzer reading along with the charge being alleged a second offense for a driver under 21 will make this a case where the prosecutor is likely to take a firm stance regarding sentencing. A person under 21 charged with OUI and obtaining a breathalyzer reading of over .20 for a 1st offense is required to take the 14 day in-patient program along with the aftercare program required of second offenders. The 14 day in-patient program is required of all individuals convicted of a second offense OUI.

In this case, given the seriousness of the allegations, defense counsel will have to vigorously fight to exclude any alleged statement of the defendant and possibly obtain an expert to challenge the admissibility of any breathalyzer evidence. A DUI lawyer can exclude breathalyzer evidence by demonstrating that the officer failed to comply with the fifteen minute waiting period required by Massachusetts Law, showing that the defendant did not consent to the breathalyzer test and presenting medical evidence that may impact the reliability of the test results. Additionally, prior to any breathalyzer evidence being admitted in court, the police officer must explain to the defendant that he has a right to an independent medical examination to have additional testing to challenge the breathalyzer evidence. This is known as an OUI defendant's Chapter 263 Section 5A rights.

Continue reading "DUI charge for Framingham, Massachusetts man " »

A Taunton, Massachusetts resident was arrested for OUI on July 24, 2009. Brian Santos was charged with a third offense OUI. Santos was allegedly stopped for going 35 mph over the speed limit. Since speeding is common, it is not considered a sign of impaired driving by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Santos took a breathalyzer test and blew a .10. Santos' DUI attorney will try to exclude the breathalyzer test results from evidence. There are numerous ways to exclude the breathalyzer test from evidence, including the failure of the officer to obtain a defendant's consent, failure to observe the 15 minute waiting period and failure of the Commonwealth to satisfy the legal requirements to admit the test results by producing documents from the office of alcohol testing.

Given that the breathalyzer reading is close to the legal limit, Santos' OUI lawyer may try to present a margin of error defense. Like all machines, a breathalyzer machine has a margin of error. When the Commonwealth conducts its periodic testing of the machine as required by law, the Commonwealth considers the machine to be working properly if it comes with plus or minus .01 percent. Additionally, other factors could result in a lowering of a defendant's blood alcohol percentage, including medical issues, failure of the machine to account for temperature and defects with the particular machine that the defendant was tested on. When a breathalyzer reading is near the legal limit, as in Santos' case, a DUI lawyer can pursue a margin of error defense if the judge allows the breathalyzer evidence to be admitted at trial.

Continue reading "Taunton, Massachusetts resident charged with 3rd offense OUI " »

A Massachusetts OUI roadblock conducted in Quincy was upheld as Constitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Murphy. The DUI lawyer in Murphy argued that the roadblock was unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because it gave the officer unchecked discretion to order a driver from the follow of traffic and into the sobriety checkpoint where further inquiry into the drivers ability to operate a motor vehicle will be conducted.

In the case of Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137 (1983), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that sobriety checkpoints are reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14, as long as the selection of motor vehicles to be stopped is not arbitrary, safety is assured, motorists' inconvenience minimized, and assurance must be given that the procedure is being conducted pursuant to a plan devised by law enforcement supervisory personnel. The United States Supreme Court held that DUI roadblocks are permissible under the federal constitution in Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

In Murphy, the trial judge found that the State police protocol and guidelines along with the instructions from the Major did not provide neutral criteria by which to direct cars from the follow of traffic. Accordingly, the judge found that the Quincy roadblock was contrary to the Massachusetts DUI roadblock case law and therefore a violation of Article 14 of the State Constitution.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, reversed the trial judge, holding that although there is some potential for abuse by officers, the requirement that an officer have reasonable suspicion to direct a driver from the flow of traffic is sufficient to provide object criteria to satisfy Article 14 of the State Constitution.

The court suggested that it would require the officers to greet each vehicle the same as set forth in the roadblock plan. In the Murphy case, the officer was instructed to make a brief and courteous statement to the operator of the motor vehicle, such as Good Evening, this is a State Police Sobriety checkpoint, we are checking all operators for sobriety. If the officer observes any articulable sign of possible intoxication, impairment or contraband, then further inquiry should be made at the designated screening area. The Court held that the guidelines used by the State police in the Quincy area where less intrusive than the guidelines upheld in prior cases that allowed inquiry into alcohol consumption if signs of impairments, glassy eyes, odor of alcohol and slurred speech were present.

The Murphy case supports DUI lawyers raising motions to suppress challenging the reasonable suspicion of ordering the driver from the flow of traffic and the propriety of questioning regarding alcohol consumption, depending on the language of the roadblock plan. The SJC should have followed the lead of the trial judge in Quincy and required supervisory officers to provide more detailed and objective criteria that must be followed before directing someone from the flow of traffic. Because a Massachusetts OUI charge is a crime of opinion that someone is impaired, the Constitutional protections of being free from unreasonable searches and seizures should require the State police to set forth specific criteria to guide an officers discretion. One officer may feel that a mere odor of alcohol is enough; another may feel odor should be combined with other signs of impairment. The trial justice was clearly correct in recognizing the potential for officers to make arbitrary decisions as to who to direct from the flow of traffic. Issues regarding roadblocks will continue to confront trial judges trying to balance current case law against constitutional requirements.

Continue reading "Massachusetts OUI roadblock upheld by Supreme Judicial Court " »

Massachusetts hardship license, also known as a work license are limited licenses that allow an individual suspended for OUI in Massachusetts to drive at designated times for the purposes of work, education or medical appointments. For a Massachusetts First Offense OUI, a driver can obtain a hardship within three business days. The applicant must enroll in the 24D alcohol education program and present documentation of proof of the need for the hardship.

An applicant's proof of a hardship consists of a letter on letterhead from an employer written within thirty days of the application that sets forth the need for the hardship, by indicating the location of the employment and the hours of employment. The applicant is also required to show that public transportation is not reasonably available. Additionally, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles will not authorize a hardship license if there is any evidence of operation since the effective date of the license revocation.

To apply for a hardship license, the applicant appears at the Massachusetts RMV with the appropriate documentation and the request for hardship form filled out. Unfortunately, hardship licenses are not available for any suspension relating to refusal of the breathalyzer; accordingly, eligibility for a hardship license requires that all other administration suspensions for breathalyzer refusal be completed.

In addition to a first offense OUI convictions, a hardship license is also available for second and subsequent offenses. For a second offense, a motorist is eligible for a hardship license after one year, but must provide evidence of completion of the 14 day in-patient program and in addition must provide a discharge summary from the treatment program, stating the risk factors of reoccurrence of the substance abuse problem.

The applicant must provide proof of compliance with all ordered after-care, along with a letter stating compliance with probationary conditions. The applicant must also designate the need for a hardship just as for a 1st offense OUI work license.

Continue reading "OUI Hardship licenses in Massachusetts for 1st and 2nd offenses" »

According to some recent studies, cases involving DUI alcohol are down nationwide while cases of DUI drugs are on the rise. In Massachusetts, it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove an OUI drugs charge. Under Massachusetts Law, Chapter 90 Section 24(1)(a)(1), it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic drug, depressant or stimulant. To prove that a substance is an illegal drug the Commonwealth would have to show that the defendant was under the influence of a drug listed in Chapter 94C Section 1 of the Massachusetts General Laws. The statute also encompasses drugs listed by the United States Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare as habit forming.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Ferola, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 170 (2008), the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Commonwealth proved that the defendant was operating under the influence of Klonopin and amitriptyline and that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired. The court stated that the Commonwealth had to also show that the substance is a drug that contains any quantity of a substance which the United States Attorney has by regulation designated as potentially habit forming. The court held that the Commonwealth would have to submit proof to the court by way of expert testimony, submitting the regulation into evidence or asking the court to take judicial notice that a substance is listed in the United States Attorney regulations. Accordingly, the court vacated the defendant's conviction.

While this issue was not raised in Ferola, in some case of driving under the influence of drugs, an issue, like in OUI alcohol cases, is whether the defendant is impaired. In DUI drug cases, generally the Commonwealth will rely on the training of a DRE, drug recognition expert to conclude that someone is under the influence of drugs. While every officer is trained to administer field sobriety tests, there are few DRE experts within each police department. Accordingly, it is more difficult to prove that a driver was under the influence of drugs in some cases because the officer will not have the necessary training to arrive at that conclusion.

Continue reading "DUI drugs in Massachusetts" »

Hingham police stopped and arrested a Brockton, Massachusetts man, Dennis Benoit for OUI. According to the news account, a Hingham police officer saw Benoit driving with a headlight out. The officer turned around and began following Benoit and claims to have witnessed him swerve and nearly strike a telephone pole.

Benoit's DUI lawyer will want to view the scene, photograph and perhaps video tape the roadway. It is common for police officers to claim that a DUI suspect almost struck an object. However, many roads are extremely narrow, or have conditions that if shown to the officer through a picture, video or goggle map, undermine the officer's claim at trial.

While the officer also noticed damage to Benoit's car, it does not appear that the police ever witnessed Benoit being involved in an accident and nor does it appear as though there is evidence of when the accident occurred. Accordingly, if the driving observations can be undermined through a careful investigation, the defendant's lawyer will have a better opportunity to obtain an acquittal at trial.

Continue reading "DUI charge for Brockton, Massachusetts Man in the Hingham District Court" »

Under Massachusetts OUI law, Chapter 90 Section 24, if a person is found guilty of a first offense or admits to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty, known as a Continuance Without a finding or CWOF as commonly referred to in court, the court will generally impose a 45 day loss of license and require the motorist to complete the 24D alcohol education program. With the 24D disposition, Massachusetts DUI law allows a motorist to obtain a hardship license for the purposes of work or education within three business days by going to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and requesting a hearing to obtain a hardship license.

A hardship license, sometimes called a Cinderella license, is obtained by presenting documentation to the registry of motor vehicles regarding the need for the hardship, work, education or regular medical appointments and a letter stating that public transportation is not reasonably available. The hardship is available only for the same 12 hour period daily and requires enrollment in the alcohol education program, as well as payment of the reinstatement fee. This hardship license is only available after any penalty for breathalyzer refusal has already expired.

It is only with a second offense that Massachusetts imposes any requirement of installation of an interlock device prior to restoration of driver's license. A law passed in Illinois allows first time offenders to get their license back earlier. Under Illinois law, a driver is suspended for one year for refusing the breathalyzer and six months for a first offense OUI. The new Illinois law allows a motorist to obtain earlier reinstatement of their license provided they install the ignition interlock device in their car.

The legislature enacted increased OUI penalties in Massachusetts with the enactment of Melanie's law. Accordingly, the OUI laws in the Commonwealth strike the appropriate balance between fairness and punishment. However, legislation in other states will put pressure on Massachusetts to increase penalties for DUI.

Continue reading "Massachusetts OUI law and recent state trends" »

Massachusetts has two methods for a prosecutor to prove a DUI case in court. First, the prosecutor can proceed under the per se prong of the Massachusetts DUI statute, Chapter 90 Section 24 and submit evidence that the breathalyzer result was over the legal limit of .08. This is known as the per se law. A second method of proof is to present evidence that the defendant's operation was impaired by the affects of alcohol to the extent that the defendant could not operate a motor vehicle safely. Under the impairment prong, the evidence consists of the officer's observations of the motorist's speech, appearance, balance and coordination as measured by the field sobriety tests and mental alertness as indicated by responses to the officers questions and ability to follow instructions.

The Massachusetts OUI law, Chapter 90 Section 24 provides that in any prosecution evidence of percentage of weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time of the alleged offense, as shown by chemical test or analysis of breath, shall be admissible and deemed relevant to the determination of the question of whether the defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol.

A major DUI decision was issued by the California Supreme Court in People v. McNeil on July 9, 2009. The California Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant could present evidence on the partition ratio in a case where the Government charged a defendant with both violating the per se prong and impairment prong of California's DUI law.

The Court explained the science behind breathalyzer testing relying on a treatise from Attorneys Taylor and Taynac from California. The court explained that when a person blows into a breathalyzer machine, the breathalyzer is measuring deep lung air from the alveolar. From this measurement of breath alcohol, a blood alcohol percentage is obtained through a mathematical constant using a theory of chemistry known as "Henry's Law". The breathalyzer machines in Massachusetts and throughout the country use a conversion factor of 2100 to 1, which means that the amount of alcohol in 2100 milliliters of alveolar breath is equivalent to the amount of alcohol in one milliliter of blood.

One defense that DUI lawyers pursued in McNeil and that is also available in defending a Massachusetts OUI charge is whether that assumption regarding the conversion ratio of breath to blood alcohol percentage is accurate for the person being tested. The conversion ratio for individuals will vary depending on body temperature, medical condition and sex, as well as a number of other factors. The ratio used by the breathalyzer machine was considered a rough estimate.

DUI lawyers attacked the accuracy of the breathalyzer test that is was unfair to group everyone together on a machine that would make unfair assumptions regarding an individual's partition ratio. Accordingly, the legislature amended the California DUI law to remove this defense by defining the DUI offense as failing the breathalyzer test despite the assumption of the machine. The law defined the DUI offense as being based on grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Accordingly, the California courts precluded defendants from presenting evidence of the partition ratio on the grounds that the new law made the difference irrelevant.

The McNeil case hold that when the Government is pursuing a conviction both based on the per se portion of the law and the traditional impairment approach, relying on observations, field tests and opinion testimony, then the defense can introduce evidence challenging the assumptions behind the breathalyzer and evidence regarding the partition ratio. Significantly, the court indicated that it would allow evidence of the general impact of the partition ratio not related specifically to the defendant into evidence.

Partition ratio evidence has never been ruled inadmissible in Massachusetts and given the language of the Massachusetts OUI statute it would be difficult to foresee Massachusetts courts excluding the evidence from the jury. A partition ratio defense could be presented by retaining an expert to offer an opinion as to what a particular individuals breath to blood alcohol conversion ratio is or it can be used to attack generally the theoretical foundation behind breathalyzer testing and the fact that the machine is making generalized assumptions to obtain a specific reading. The theory behind a partition ratio defense is to convince the jury that the standard formula assumed by the breathalyzer machine overstates an individuals blood alcohol content. This will occur when an individual has a lower partition ratio than assumed by the breathalyzer machine.

Continue reading "Defense to the breathalyzer in Massachusetts and the partition ratio" »

Former Bills star Bruce Smith was convicted of DUI in Virginia. According to
news reports, Smith's attorney argued that he failed the field sobriety tests as a result of various injuries and surgeries from his football playing days. According to the police training manuals, medical issues, such as back and knee problems can undermine the reliability of the field sobriety tests. While in Smith's case medical records should not have been necessary, in most Massachusetts DUI cases it is best to introduce medical records verifying any injury that is claimed to have caused an inability to take field sobriety tests. Massachusetts has a law that allows a defendant to introduce medical evidence by way of affidavit to avoid the cost of having the doctor appear to testify.

In Smith's case, the prosecutor presented evidence from police cruiser cameras. The cruiser camera showed that Smith was polite and cooperative, but had difficulty following the instructions on the field sobriety tests. Smith is appealing his conviction.

An interesting issue on appeal may be whether the judge improperly precluded Smith from questioning the officer on his pending DUI arrest. According to newspaper reports, the arresting officer was arrested for DUI in June when he crashed his car and failed three field sobriety tests.

It appears that the judge excluded the evidence arguing that a pending DUI charge does not go to the credibility of the officer. However, the evidence would have been relevant to the reliability of the field sobriety tests. Assuming the officer is pleading not guilty and contesting his case, he would be challenging the reliability of the same tests that he used to conclude that Smith was impaired. Smith's attorney may be able to have the conviction reversed on appeal as it appears as though his right to cross examine the officer under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was improperly limited, depriving his of a fair opportunity to contest the DUI allegations.

Continue reading "DUI Conviction for former Bills Star Bruce Smith" »

A Norton Massachusetts man, Steven Lahey, received a 4-5 year State prison sentence on a fifth offense OUI charge after a jury trial in the New Bedford Superior Court. A fifth offense OUI charge is a concurrent felony, meaning that the case can stay in the district court or the Commonwealth can seek an indictment and bringing the case to the superior court. If the case stays in the district court, the maximum penalty for a fifth offense is 2.5 years in the house of correction.

In Mr. Lahey's case, the Commonwealth brought the case to the superior court as is typical with a fifth offense. Unlike a trial in the district court which consists of a jury of six, a trial in the superior court affords the defendant a jury of 12. The judge sentenced Mr. Lahey to 4-5 years on the OUI with 2.5 on and after that sentence on the suspended license charge.

A fifth offense Massachusetts OUI charge for an Attleboro man, Timothy Donovan, has resulted in him being held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing in the Attleboro District Court. A dangerousness hearing is a hearing under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58A that the Commonwealth can request for certain types of felony offenses where the Commonwealth has to establish probable cause that the offense occurred and that no condition of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community. A dangerousness hearing is not possible for a First or Second offense OUI as first and second offense drunk driving charges are misdemeanor offenses. The Commonwealth has the discretion weather or not to request a dangerousness hearing and it is not particularly common for the Commonwealth to make the request unless the offense is a fifth offense or greater.

Unlike at a DUI trial where the Commonwealth has to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, at a dangerousness hearing the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. This standard, allow the Commonwealth to hold the defendant without bail for up to 90 days. In other words, the Commonwealth attempts to establish that no conditions of release, such as, setting a cash bail, conditions of release, GPS monitoring, or other conditions, will be sufficient to protect the safety of the public and that the only way to protect the public is through detaining the defendant without bail for up to 90 days.

Continue reading "Massachusetts OUI Fifth Offense for Attleboro man" »

What do you look for when hiring a Massachusetts OUI lawyer. Many attorneys handle all types of cases from divorce, to personal injury to estate planning. DUI is a specialized field and requires an attorney that devotes a substantial amount of time keeping up on current trends and defenses in DUI law and who will take the proper time to investigate a case and prepare a complete defense.

Some of the things you should look for in a DUI lawyer, substantial trial experience, advance training in DUI defense and knowledge of the license consequences and procedures for challenging suspensions for breathalyzer refusals at the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

My practice focuses exclusively on criminal defense with roughly 75% of it defending those accused of drunk driving. I attend seminars throughout the country to keep up on the latest trends in DUI defense and am a member of the National College of DUI Defense. I am also a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and attend at least one national seminar a year to keep current on changes in criminal law.

In addition to keeping up with current DUI defenses, I am easily accessible to my clients. I will take as much time as is necessary to answer your questions, explain all license implications and discuss other consequences your DUI charge can have on your driver's license.

In the future, the penalties for having a DUI conviction are only going to become more severe. Fines fees and increased insurance costs make having a DUI conviction extremely costly. Some states are beginning to require ignition interlock devices even for 1st time offenders. Therefore, it is important to find a dedicated attorney committed to DUI defense and with substantial trial experience defending DUI cases.

If you are looking to hire a Massachusetts OUI lawyer for a first offense, you should attempt to find someone dedicated and committed to defending DUI cases. While there are many good DUI lawyers, Attorney DelSignore will provide you with a free consultation, answer your questions and put you at ease that you made the right decision to hire a skilled OUI lawyer.

WNBA star, Diana Taurasi of the Phoenix Mercury and former star at UConn was arrested for DUI in Phoenix following her team's victory over the Seattle Storm on July 3rd. According to the article in the Hartford Courant, Taurasi was stopped for speeding and then taken to a mobile DUI station and given a blood test.

While the complete details of Taurasi's case are not clear from the article, the basis of the stop, speeding, is not an indication of being under the influence. If speeding were the sole basis of the stop, then Taurasi's DUI Lawyer will have ample grounds of cross examination to point out that the driving was not indicative of someone under the influence of alcohol. The common signs of an impaired driver are weaving, crossing the center lane or fog line, driving too slow, stopping abruptly and striking objects or nearly doing so. Speeding is not a sign of an impaired driver according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Manual used by police officers to detect drunk drivers.

Further, it appears as though the police gained evidence from a portable blood test. In Massachusetts, police officers sometimes ask a driver to take a portable breathalyzer. While the portable breathalyzer, or PBT, is not admissible in Massachusetts OUI cases, the officer can use it as a basis to establish probable cause to arrest. A driver in Massachusetts is under no obligation to take a portable breathalyzer and should refuse the test. Even though the test is inadmissible in evidence, it can be used to establish probable cause to arrest and would likely color a judge's view of the case if a bench trial was requested on the OUI charge.

Continue reading "DUI charge for WNBA guard Diana Taurasi" »

A 52 year old man from Whitinsville was charged with a Fifth Offense OUI and the case will be heard in the Milford District Court. A fifth offense OUI is a felony in Massachusetts and carries with it a minimum mandatory jail sentence of two years and a lifetime license loss. Further, the Commonwealth often will seek to indict a fifth offense so that the case will be heard in superior court. A fifth offense OUI carries with it a maximum penalty of five years state prison. However, if the case remains in district court, a district court judge can only sentence a defendant to a period of incarceration for two and one half years. Accordingly, if the Commonwealth is looking for the maximum penalty, the case will have to be brought to the superior court.

According to the Worcester Telegram article, Mr. Couillard was riding a motorcycle, lost control and went off of the road and was brought to the hospital. The Commonwealth will likely attempt to subpoena the medical records in order to prove the blood alcohol percentage.

Cases involving evidence of blood alcohol level based on hospital medical records can be difficult for the Commonwealth to prove. Defense counsel will likely attempt to review the records before the Commonwealth can subpoena the records to see if they are detrimental. If the records hurt the defendant's case, the defendant can attempt to prevent the release of the records on medical privacy grounds.

If a judge orders the release of the records, the defense can challenge the introduction of the records on a number of grounds, including requiring the Commonwealth to prove the chain of custody as to who took the blood and the details of how it was drawn and whether any sterilizing agents were used.

Assuming that the Commonwealth can establish the chain of custody regarding the blood test, the Commonwealth will also have to convert the hospital blood alcohol level to fit within the requirements of Massachusetts General Laws 90 Section 24.

Massachusetts OUI case involving blood alcohol evidence from hospital records can often defensible as the Commonwealth has numerous evidentiary hurdles to surpass to get the records admitted into evidence.

Continue reading "5th Offense OUI charge for Massachusetts man charged in the Milford District Court" »

A Weymouth, Massachusetts man, Peter O'Connor was charged with a Second Offense OUI when a car dealership employee refused to allow him to test drive a car believing he was intoxicated. The employee than called the police and the Quincy police made a traffic stop.

A key issue in the case will be the basis of the employee belief that O'Connor was impaired. The police need reasonable suspicion to justify stopping an individual under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At a motion to suppress hearing, the police will need to testify that they received specific and detailed information from the employee that would provide reasonable suspicion for the stop.

In some case, based on citizen reports of erratic drivers, possibly drunk, the police do not have the contact information from the caller. In the Quincy case, it appears that the police have the identity of the caller and stopped the man close to the dealership. While those factors support the legality of the stop, an experienced DUI lawyer will still attempt to have the stop and the evidence obtained suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, challenging the details provide by the employee to justify the stop.

Continue reading "DUI reported by car dealership employee in Quincy, Massachusetts" »