Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

Several suspects are facing Dedham, Massachusetts OUI charges after being arrested while sleeping, the Dedham Transcript reported.

A Dedham defense lawyer should always be called to represent someone charged with drunk driving. Police may still make an arrest if a motorist is in a vehicle and in possession of the keys. Hiring an experienced attorney offers the best chance to protect your rights and beat the charge. Just because you are charged with OUI, does not mean you will be convicted of OUI. The issue of whether the Commonwealth can prove that you operated a motor vehicle is very fact specific and depends on all of the surrounding circumstances of the incident.

Police arrested a 56-year-old Walpole man after reportedly finding him passed out behind the wheel of a 2002 Toyota Tundra in the area of Quincy Avenue and Dale Street. Police say he failed field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. He has pleaded not guilty in Dedham District Court.

In a separate incident, an officer was sent to Berkeley Road, where he found a 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse with two men sleeping in reclining seats. The driver told police the vehicle had not been in an accident. But it appeared to have front-end damage and a nearby Mercury Tracer was also damaged. The driver failed field sobriety tests and was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. He also pleaded not guilty in Dedham District Court.

One day later, a 23-year-old man was found sleeping in the front seat of a 2008 Ford Fusion as police responded to the scene of a domestic assault complaint. The vehicle was reportedly running and in drive. The driver failed field sobriety tests and was arrested. He, too, has pleaded not guilty in Dedham Court.

Continue reading "Series of Dedham drunk driving arrests result after suspects found sleeping in vehicles" »

Boston OUI Lawyer Michael DelSignore wishes you a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July. Celebrate responsibly, know that law enforcement will be out in force, and call if you are stopped or charged with drunk driving anywhere in Massachusetts.

Attorney DelSignore will personally be available to speak with you by cell phone throughout the holiday weekend.

MASS Live reports great weather with plenty to do. AAA is predicting that more than 1.77 million motorists will hit the road in New England, or nearly 20 percent more than last year.

A law enforcement roadblock netted seven OUI arrests in Hingham last week, the Globe reported. And authorities will be conducting roadblocks -- or sobriety checkpoints as they like to call them -- throughout the weekend.

There is irony in the fact that local law enforcement will spend the Independence Holiday conducting an activity that skirts the Fourth Amendment rights of residents to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. If you are charged with OUI at a Massachusetts checkpoint, call to discuss your rights.

Field sobriety tests and breathalyzer examinations in Massachusetts are another area of the law where an attorney can protect your rights. When such tests are conducted incorrectly, a reduction or dismissal of the charges often results. Some motorists choose to refuse the test, which can carries a six-month license suspension for first offenders if upheld on appeal, but also denies the state a key piece of evidence to prove that you were driving under the influence.

When it comes to field sobriety tests, many motorists mistakenly believe these tests are used by law enforcement to determine whether you are intoxicated and that passing the tests will result in your being allowed to continue on your way. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Field sobriety tests are nothing more than a tool by law enforcement to gather evidence of your guilt in the opinion of a law enforcement officer whose job it is to ... gather evidence of your guilt!

The best defense against a Massachusetts OUI charge is to hire an experienced criminal trial lawyer.

Continue reading "Boston OUI Attorney available throughout the Fourth of July weekend" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed the public way element of Massachusetts OUI law in the case of Commonwealth v. Gregory Belliveau. The issue in the case is whether Pier 4 in Charlestown Navy Yard is a public way. The defendant argued that it was not a public way because there is a closed gate leading to the pier and because only authorized vehicles were allowed on the pier.

The Appeals Court discussed its prior decisions addressing the public way element of Massachusetts OUI law. The court contrasted the case of Belliveau with the case of Commonwealth v. George, where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the public way element was not satisfied when a defendant drove drunk on a baseball field. In that case, the court held that the baseball field was not a public way because the public did not have access to the field by way of a motor vehicle. Unlike the George case, the court decided that although access to the pier was restricted, the public could gain access. The court indicated that it considered the issue a close question, but would find the pier to be a public way. However, the court held that it did not need to resolve this close question because even if the pier was not a public way, the defendant's conviction would be affirmed because the defendant drove on public ways prior to reaching the pier.

One Justice of the Appeals Court, Justice Sikora, wrote a separate concurring opinion criticizing the court's interpretation of the public way element of the Massachusetts OUI statute. Justice Sikora suggests that the court has misinterpreted the language of the statute by defining the term access as referring to public access by motor vehicles. Justice Sikora would interpret the statute to encompass any drunk driving where the public has a right of access, regardless of whether by motor vehicle or as pedestrians.

Continue reading "Massachusetts OUI law and "public way" element interpreted by the Appeals Court" »

As a Massachusetts OUI attorney, I was interested in this story about a Kingston man who allegedly ran a red light and found himself in potentially serious legal trouble. According to the Pembroke Express, Robert Costello, 31, was stopped by the police at 12:28 a.m. on Thursday, March 18, for running a red light after Route 3's southbound exit ramp. Costello is said to have then made a left turn into the left lane instead of the right lane of Oak Street. State police had reported that a crash had just occurred on Route 3. The officer who stopped Costello saw that his car had no right front tire and that severe damage had been done to that side. That officer matched Costello's car to the description of the one in the Route 3 accident. He pleaded not guilty in Plymouth District Court and is due to return for a pretrial hearing on April 21.

The article leaves out many important details about this incident. We do not know whether a field sobriety test was administered, or what police say they observed when they interacted with Costello. He was charged with OUI second offense, failure to stop for police, a marked lanes violation and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. In a Massachusetts DUI with evidence of poor driving, it is important for a Plymouth, Massachusetts OUI lawyer to point out normal interaction that the motorists has with the officer, evidence of good balance and coordination and mental alertness.

Continue reading "Second Offenes Massachusetts OUI in Plymouth District Court for Kingston man" »

Preliminary breathalyzer test result, PBT, are inadmissible to prove a DUI offense in Massachusetts. Accordingly, if you failed a portable breathalyzer test the Commonwealth cannot offer that evidence to the jury.

A case from Wisconsin raised an interesting issue of whether a defendant can offer preliminary breathalyzer test results to show that the defendant's blood alcohol level was lower at the time of driving. The DUI lawyer in this case retained an expert who used the results of the preliminary breathalyzer test to argue to the jury that the defendant was still in the absorption phase and his blood alcohol level was lower at the time of driving than at the time the breathalyzer test was given.

The answer to this question would seem to be yes, how can the state disclaim the scientific reliability of its own evidence and deprive the defendant of his right to present a defense and exculpatory evidence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected this argument, relying on the intent of the legislature to limit the admissibility of portable breathalyzer test results.

The court's ruling reconciles two Wisconsin Statutes - Wis. Stat. sec. 343.303 and Wis.Stat.sec. 907.03. Wis. Stat. sec. 343.303 expressly prohibits the use of a PBT to prosecute a motorist accused of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. On the other hand, Wis.Stat.sec 907.03. provides for the admissibility of expert opinion testimony regardless of the admissibility of the underlying data. The defendant contended that even though the portable breathalyzer is inadmissible that his expert's opinion should be allowed because the expert relied upon it in reaching his opinion. The defendant attempted to draw a distinction between offering the PBT results. which he was not doing and offering testimony that relied on the PBT results. The court held that is no distinction and the statute prohibiting PBT results from being admitted into evidence would be violated by allowing the expert to rely on them in forming his opinion.

The Court held that the legislative policy was clear that portable breathalyzer test results are inadmissible. The court reasoned the legislative intent behind limiting the admissibility of PBT results "helps law enforcement officers do their jobs with more cooperation from drivers than they would otherwise be likely to get if the results were admissible in court. The court noted that a PBT may be requested when an officer has a basis to justify an investigative stop but has not established probable cause to justify an arrest.

Similarly under Massachusetts law, preliminary breathalyzer tests are inadmissible. PBT have never been deemed scientifically reliable and as a result, may not be used as evidence against a defendant.

The Massachusetts courts have not addressed whether a defendant can offer the PBT. If this occurred in Massachusetts, the court probably would allow a defendant to offer the results of the PBT as the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court appears to deny the defendant his right to present a defense and cross examine the State's evidence under the Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Continue reading "Preliminary breathalyzer test (PBT) results inadmissible in Massachusetts OUI cases " »

A 39-year-old Attleboro man faces Massachusetts drunk driving charges after state police say he passed a marked police cruiser at over 100 mph on Interstate 95, the Sun Chronicle reported.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges in Attleboro District Court and was released without bail. An experienced Attleboro OUI lawyer should represent anyone facing drunk driving charges in Attleboro District Court.

Police reported the defendant passed the cruiser at high speed in the pre-dawn hours Sunday morning on I-95 South in North Attleboro. He was reportedly weaving in and out of traffic and nearly collided with several cars.

He was stopped in Attleboro after he was clocked on radar traveling 115 mph, according to state police. The defendant is due back in court on Feb. 22.

Continue reading "Attleboro, Massachusetts DUI charge alleges defendant passed cruiser at 115 mph" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court decided a case, Commonwealth v. Junior Martinez-Guzman which stated in a footnote that Registry of Motor Vehicle documents are admissible as business records without live testimony. The case involved a prosecution of a defendant for driving with a suspended license for OUI while committing another OUI offense, referred to in the court as OAS for OUI. The issue in the case was how the Commonwealth was required to prove that the defendant's license was suspended for OUI. The Commonwealth offered into evidence an attested copy of the defendant's driving record from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

At trial, the defendant objected to the admission of the RMV documents claiming that the RMV signature was not properly attested. On appeal, the defendant raised for the first time the confrontation clause issue under Melendez-Diaz, arguing that the Registry documents were inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause because the defendant was deprived of his right to confront and cross examine any witness from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

The court in a footnote, held that the issue was waived for appeal, but then addressed the issue, rejecting the argument that Registry documents require live testimony. The court held that RMV documents are not prepared in anticipation of litigation and qualify as business records.

It is unfortunate that the court addressed this issue in this case without it being properly raised in the lower court. Given that the issue was not properly raised in the lower court, this issue of the admissibility of Registry of Motor Vehicle documents as well as proof of prior convictions without live testimony should be raised in all cases.

Massachusetts OUI lawyers are likely to raise 6th Amendment confrontation defenses under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts when the Commonwealth attempts to offer prior convictions to prove a second or subsequent offense DUI.

Three individuals were charged with drunk driving in Dedham, Massachusetts over the weekend. In one of the cases, regarding Christopher Reissfelder, the Dedham police found him standing outside of his car. According to the newspaper report, the police indicate that the defendant slurred his words, was unsteady on his feet and made statements that he was going to jail.

Experienced Massachusetts DUI lawyers can challenge the fairly common statements in police reports that a motorist was unsteady on their feet and had slurred speech. In some cases, officers put these observations into police report out of habit and when challenged in cross examination at a DUI trial reveal that the motorists did not have trouble with balance or communicating with the officer.

Generally, an officer will put in the police report that he noted the motorist had slurred speech, yet at the same time will be able to understand everything said by the driver, have detailed statements of the motorist and will have complete biographical information, suggesting that there was no difficulty communicating with the driver.

The observation of unsteadiness also can be challenged by noting whether the driver was able to get out of the car, walk to the area to take the field sobriety tests, walk into the police station and stand appropriately for the booking photograph and during the instructions when the officer demonstrates the field sobriety tests.

Continue reading "Three Massachusetts OUI arrests in Dedham" »

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" »

If you are charged with a second or subsequent offense OUI in Massachusetts, the jury will not know that you have had prior convictions of OUI in Massachusetts. Instead, your trial on the underlying offense OUI will occur just as it would if this were your first offense OUI.

In Gonsalves, the Appeals Court reversed the defendant's conviction when a copy of the subpoena for medical records of the defendant was inadvertently showed to the jury which said OUI 4th Offense. The jury then asked the judge a questions asking if the indication on the evidence sheet is that it is the defendant's 4th offense. The judge denied the defendant's request for a mistrial and advised the jury that the prior convictions were not in evidence and that they should limit themselves to the evidence. Five minutes later, the jury returned a guilty verdict.

The Appeals court reversed emphasizing that whether the defendant previous committed three prior offenses of OUI should not have been brought to the attention of the jury. Under Massachusetts law, when a defendant has a prior OUI offense, the court bifurcates the trial with the jury first deciding whether the defendant violated the Massachusetts OUI law; and then secondly, whether the defendant has prior offenses. In most cases, a defendant will elect a bench trial on the issue of whether he has committed prior offenses of OUI, but can have a jury trial on the issue of subsequent offenses. However, typically the jury that heard the evidence on the underlying offense will be held for the subsequent offense portion of the case.

The Appeals Court also reaffirmed its prior holdings that post-arrest silence cannot be used against a defendant. The prosecutor improperly tried to have the jury draw a negative inference from the defendant's refusal to answer booking questions.

Continue reading "4th Offense OUI conviction overturned by Massachusetts Appeals Court" »