Kenneth Frates, 58, allegedly collided with a car on I-95 about 2 a.m. Sunday before driving off the highway and into the woods. The other car spun around on the highway and was struck head-on by a third vehicle, according to Massachusetts State Police. A tow truck driver told police that Frates and a passenger walked to a nearby Shell station and got a ride.

He was ordered held on $7,500 bail after pleading innocent to a third-offense drunk driving charge, leaving the scene of an accident with personal injury and driving after his license was revoked for drunk driving. A third-offense drunk driving charge is a very serious charge that will require an experienced Attleboro OUI defense lawyer. Penalty for a conviction includes at least a six month jail sentence, an eight-year license suspension and a third offense is considered a felony offense.
Massachusetts Law Chapter 90 Sec. 24 also provides for other penalties and requirements of supervision, including ignition interlock devices.

The Sun Chronicle reports that Frates was convicted of his second drunk driving offense in 2005 in Wareham District Court. He suffered a broken nose and had dried blood on his face when police arrested him a short time after Sunday's accident.

Cases in which a defendant is not immediately arrested can provide a number of possible defenses. Traumatic injury can also impact a motorists' ability to comply with field sobriety or breathalyzer examinations and alcohol consumption between the time of the accident and the time of arrest may skew results.

Frates's defense lawyer also denies that his client caused the accident.

Matt Amorello pleaded not guilty in connection with an Aug. 7 crash during a brief appearance in Haverhill District Court. Amorello is accused of damaging two parked cars in Haverhill in a crash that sheared off the left-front tire of his Ford Explorer. Police say he was uncooperative at the scene and was maced after refusing to get out of his vehicle.

He then refused to cooperate during his booking photo and his head had to be held in place for the camera, according to authorities. Family members say he was mistreated and should have been hospitalized. Appointed to lead the Turnpike Authority in 2002, he resigned under pressure in 2006 after a ceiling collapse killed a Boston woman.

Amorello missed a previous arraignment, during which his attorney claims he was hospitalized, according to the Boston Herald. A relative said Amorello should have been hospitalized instead of taken to jail.

The Boston Globe report the judge has ordered Amorello to stay out of trouble while the case is pending or risk jail time. He is due back in court on Sept. 30.

Some states utilize "drug recognition experts" to question drivers who may be under the influence of something other than alcohol. Other states require a blood test in the wake of a fatal accident. But Rhode Island law requires probable cause -- reason to believe there is impairment -- before additional measures, such as a blood test, can be undertaken. With increased police training of officer to become drug recognition experts, cases of DUI drug arrests are likely to increase in Rhode Island. These cases can often be difficult for the State to prove as a Rhode Island criminal defense lawyer can challenge the admissibility of drug recognition testimony as scientifically unreliable and can challenge the basis of the officer's opinion that a motorist was under the influence of drugs.

A Rhode Island DUI lawyer should always represent a DUI defendant, particularly in cases where a serious or fatal accident is involved. And law enforcement should have reason to believe a crime has been committed before they are permitted to order invasive drug testing or otherwise invade your privacy.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that drug-recognition experts examine all fatal crashes. The program began in California in the 1970s. That state now has about 1,000 so-called experts. Arizona has about 500 and all six New England states began the year with a total of 240.

Sobriety checkpoints and increased enforcement leave motorists at increased risk of being charged with OUI in Massachusetts.

With at least five troopers struck by drunk drivers in recent weeks, authorities are redoubling efforts through the remainder of summer, the Massachusetts Highway Patrol reports.

"So far this year we have had 10 cruisers struck by drunk drivers," Patrol Col. Marian McGovern said. "That puts us on pace to reach last year's total of 20 cruisers hit by impaired drivers."

Earlier this summer, the Massachusetts Highway Patrol moved 37 troopers to the areas around the city with the highest crash rates, including Troop A, north of Boston to New Hampshire and west to I-495 as well as parts of Route 1, Route 128 and I-93. Other problem areas include Troop H, which runs from Boston to the Rhode Island border.

The end of summer and the Labor Day weekend are traditionally a great opportunity to spend some time with friends and family. Increased enforcement and roadblocks frequently lead to marginal arrests. An experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer can often seek a reduction or dismissal of the charges, particularly for first-time offenders.

Remember: the best defense in the wake of a drunk driving charge is an experienced and aggressive offense.

As a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, cases involving accidents can be difficult for the Commonwealth to prove. In the accident reported by the Patriot Ledger, there is no indication that field sobriety tests were given. Accordingly, the case may come down to whether blood was drawn at the hospital and whether the Commonwealth will be able to admit that evidence at trial.

McAteer was also charged with OUI causing serious bodily injury. Under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90 Section 24L, a charge of OUI serious bodily injury carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence. In a case with a mandatory jail sentence, an experienced Massachusetts DUI lawyer may be able to convince the prosecutor to amend the charge to drop the serious bodily injury component of the charge allowing the defendant to be subject to penalties for a First Offense OUI.

Ari C. Cunard, 25, was arrested Tuesday after police say she hit an officer with her car on King Street and kept driving. Police say she struck an officer while he was working a detail at King Street and I-495 and left him lying on the road.

As a condition of her bail, the judge ruled that she cannot drive while the case remains open. Frequently, an experienced Wrentham criminal defense lawyer can fight against conditions of bail, though often they are imposed as an alternative to a cash bail.

Investigators were given a partial license plate number by a witness at the scene, which led them to Cunard's Union Street. She reportedly told police that she thought she hit a cone as she exited I-495 northbound to King Street. She said she was not talking on a cell phone or texting during the accident.

Cunard faces charges of negligent driving and leaving the scene of a personal injury accident. A defense attorney could argue for a dismissal of the negligent driving charge. There is no evidence she was driving negligently at the time of the accident as the occurrence of an accident in itself does not establish negligence.

In order to prove the leaving the scene charge, the state will have to prove that the driver "knowingly" fled the scene with knowledge that an accident occurred.

1. that you operated a motor vehicle
2. on a public way or a way which the public has a right of access;
3. while you were under the influence of alcohol.

In most cases, the defense centers around the third element of a DUI offense, under the influence. In Cabral's case, the court found that the Commonwealth proved operation because she was behind the wheel, and the tires were spinning on the vehicle, even though it was not moving and she was not driving but trying to back the truck up. Further, the truck was off of the road and appeared to have been in an accident. The Appeals Court found that operation could be proven by circumstantial evidence and affirmed the defendant's conviction.

We believe a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney should always represent a motorist facing drunk driving charges. Because of the increasing penalties for repeat violations, keeping a drunk driving conviction off your driving record is essential. An OUI conviction can also prevent you from holding certain jobs and may even interfere with certain types of government assistance, including student loans.

Even a first- time OUI carries the possibility of jail time. But those with two or more convictions for drunk driving face very serious penalties under Massachusetts drunk driving law, (Chapter 90 Section 24). A fifth offense is punishable by 2 1/2 to 5 years in jail, a lifetime driver's license suspension and a $50,000 fine.

In this case, Bruce Wright, 49, of 83 Downey St., was arraigned in Framingham District Court for a fifth-offense OUI charge, a marked lane violation and a plate number violation, the Daily News reported. Police report stopping him about 5 p.m. Thursday for crossing the double yellow line. The District Attorney's office reports his blood-alcohol level was .25, more than three times the legal limit.

His attorney said he has only been convicted of two previous OUI offenses.

The two were arrested during separate incidents and will appear in Taunton District Court. Allegations of drunk driving that involve children frequently result in child endangerment allegations and are best handled by an experienced Taunton defense lawyer. Failure to properly handle either charge can result in significant consequences, including the involvement of child welfare officials in your affairs.

Massachusetts Child Endangering (Chapter 265: Section 13L) is punishable by up to 2 1/2 years in prison.

Stacy Bouthillier, 38 Raynham, is accused of attempting to flee the scene of an accident while driving with her 18-month-old infant. Police say she backed her car into another person at about 7:15 p.m. The accident happened on North Main Street as she attempted to turn into Briarcliff Apartments. As the other driver got out of her car in an attempt to trade information, Bouthillier put her car in reverse and backed into her, causing minor injuries.

She was eventually found in the area and arrested on charges of operating under the influence of alcohol, leaving the scene of a property damage accident, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, child endangerment while operating under the influence and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (a motor vehicle).

In the second case, Carlos Ramos, 41, was arrested shortly after 9 p.m. Saturday after a trooper reported he was weaving across the double yellow line near Dean Street. Police say a breathalyzer examination showed a blood-alcohol content of .16, twice the legal limit. After pulling over his white van, police report he had six passengers, including four children ranging in age from 5 to 17.

Ramos was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, three counts of child endangerment while operating under the influence, three car seat violations, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a state highway traffic violation, a marked lanes violation and driving without a seat belt.

Under current Massachusetts law, ignition interlock devices are not required unless a defendant is convicted of a second or subsequent offense. The devices require a vehicle's owner to pass an alcohol breath test before a vehicle will start. New York is the latest state to make them mandatory for all offenders. The ever-increasing penalties for drunk driving convictions make it critical to hire an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense attorney to challenge a drunk driving charge. First-time offenses often can be taken to trial with little risk. Escalating penalties for subsequent offenses make it more important than ever to keep a first offense off your record.

New York's zero tolerance police will take effect Aug. 15. Anyone convicted of violating the state's drunk driving law will be required to install an ignition interlock breathalyzer device for a minimum period of at least six months.

New York is the 10th state to require the devices for all first-time offenders. Drivers must also pay a monthly lease fee of $70 to $110 and an installment fee of up to $100. The state has an average of 25,000 drunk driving arrests annually, including about 4,000 in New York City.

The devices have a low tolerance for alcohol. In New York, they will prevent a car from starting if a blood-alcohol level of .025 is detected, or about one-fourth of the legal limit of .08. Attempting to fool the devices by having someone else blow into them is a misdemeanor offense. And some devices are installed with a camera and require a rolling re-test after a period of 5 to 15 minutes, in an effort to make them more difficult to fool.

A failed test results in a beeping horn and an increasingly loud noise from the unit. It can also be programmed to restrict driving hours.

Generally, as a Massachusetts DUI lawyer, roadblock cases tend to be difficult for the Commonwealth to prove. First, typically a roadblock case will be defended by challenging whether the roadblock complied with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under the Constitution, police need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity prior to detaining an individual and depriving an individual of their freedom. While this is a low threshold, a roadblock is essentially an exception to the Constitution, authorizing the police to stop motorists without any basis, as long as it is done according to the State police roadblock plan.

Some states pursuant to their State Constitution find that roadblocks are unconstitutional. The Rhode Island Supreme Court in Pimental v. State, ruled that DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional under the Rhode Island State Constitution. However, roadblocks have been upheld as constitutional in Massachusetts as long as they confirm to the requirements set forth by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court in Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81 (1985), both upheld that roadblocks are constitutional under both the state and federal constitution.

In addition to having the ability to challenge the basis of the stop, roadblocks cases generally involve no observations of erratic driving. In a DUI trial, lack of evidence of poor driving makes it difficult for the Commonwealth to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Roadblocks cases rely heavily on field sobriety tests. These roadside tests, such as reciting the alphabett, number counting tests, finger to nose test, balancing on one leg and walking and turning all can be attacked by an experienced Massachusetts DUI lawyer.

The trial judge reviewing the plain language of the Rhode Island breathalyzer refusal statute, 31-27-2.1, which states that if a defendant refuses a breathalyzer test, none shall be given, and held that the language of the statute precludes the police from offering a breathalyzer test once a motorist refuses to submit to a preliminary breathalyzer test. As a Rhode Island DUI lawyer, this ruling is significant as it could result in the exclusion of breathalyzer test results. Since the decision is from a superior court judge and not the Rhode Island Supreme Court, other judges may decline to follow the decision.

Chandler Webb and Paul Fiorenza face charges of being minors in possession of alcohol and providing alcohol to minors. A third person was arrested for allegedly breaking into the home while the teens were under arrest. Depending on the actions taken by law enforcement, a Quincy criminal defense lawyer may be able to get these charges reduced or dismissed. Particularly in cases involving minors, police officers may enter a home in search of illegal activity without proper cause for doing so. Cases involving illegal search and seizure in Massachusetts may result in a reduction or dismissal of the charges.

As a homeowner or resident, you have every right to speak with an officer on the front step, with the door closed, or ask that they remain outside the home. It is not necessary to be rude, but neither is it necessary to give police free rein to wander through your home in search of underage drinkers or other infractions. Often, what starts as a complaint about noise or other nuisances, leads to criminal charges after officers arrive and are allowed to search through a home.

In this case, officers responded to the Forbes Hill Road hope shortly before 11 p.m. Thursday, after receiving a complaint about teenagers drinking and a large party. Police say they had been at the home on similar calls in recent weeks, including July 4.

Responding officers placed the two teens under arrest and waited while other teens called parents for a ride home. The two teens told police that they had inherited the house from their grandparents and that they lived their alone.

Once released from custody, the two returned home to find that the home had been burglarized. Missing items include two laptop computers, a cell phone, video games and sunglasses.

Adam Kenney 20, of Lynn, was arrested and faces a charge of breaking and entering, a Massachusetts larceny charge and trespassing.

All three defendants will face the charges in Quincy District Court.

Matthew Charette, 24, has pleaded not guilty to drunk driving in Taunton District Court. The crash occurred on Route 24 early Saturday morning and injured a state trooper and another motorist.

In the last month, a trooper has been killed and three other troopers have been injured after being hit by passing motorists. Four drivers are facing drunk driving charges in connection with the accidents.

Prosecutors allege that Charette had a blood-alcohol level of .17, more than twice the legal limit of .08 for drunk driving in Massachusetts. He is due back in court on Sept. 30.

Police say he crashed his 1996 Volkswagen Jetta into the back of a state trooper's cruiser, which was pulled over with activated flashing lights in the northbound breakdown lane of Route 24 in Taunton. The force of the crash pushed the cruiser into the rear of a 2006 Chrysler Sebring driven by a 22-year-old Brockton motorist who had been pulled over for a traffic violation.

Authorities say Charette's car flipped over as a result of the collision and he was found hanging upside down in his seat belt. Prosecutors say alcohol was found in his car and Charette admitted that he had been drinking. Investigators believe he may have fallen asleep before the crash because they found no skid marks or other evidence that he tried to stop.

Charette works at Bridgewater State College, where he is also a graduate student. His attorney said he has no prior criminal record.

Benjamin Blunt, of 99 Clinton St. in Concord, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to stay within marked lanes. Authorities allege that he slammed his car into Sudbury Automotive on Boston Post Road. Police found him standing outside his vehicle at about 6 a.m. The car was partly embedded in the side of the building. The shop was closed and unoccupied at the time of the crash.

A Worcester criminal defense lawyer experienced in handling Massachusetts OUI charges will review the facts and circumstances of this case and help the defendant decide upon the best course of action. Certainly there could have been some sort of mechanical failure that caused him to crash into the building or he could have been dodging an obstruction in the road.

Unfortunately, when law enforcement decides you have been drinking, they generally stop any attempts to determine other possible causes of an accident.

The owner said it is not the first time the building has been hit by a motorist -- it had previously been hit by a motorist who may have fallen asleep at the wheel. In this case, the vehicle was prevented from entering the building by a set of vending machines. The accident reportedly scattered change and Pepsi and Coke across the parking lot. The owner said there also is damage to the building, a garage door and the interior pump controls and that loss of business could result from the garage door being inoperable.

Restitution is another area in which a defense lawyer will need to work on behalf of this client. Determining the actual losses can help protect the driver against excessive claims for restitution.