Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

In another high-profile drunk driving arrest, Washington Redskins cornerback Byron Westbrook has been charged with drunk driving in Charles County, Maryland, according to The Washington Post.

The paper reported that Westbrook was stopped and arrested after a deputy saw him driving erratically on a state highway in Waldorf. Westbrook, who lives in Herndon, was driving a gray Mercedes on Route 5 near Lake Place. Shortly before 2 a.m., the deputy said Westbrook crossed the lane marker several times. Deputies reported detecting a strong odor of alcohol and said he failed several field sobriety tests but declined the breath test.

Many times, an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer can challenge such evidence; law enforcement commonly uses lane violations (which may or may not have even occurred) to pull over vehicles; filed sobriety tests are also subjective and can be scrutinized by an attorney experienced in fighting for the rights of clients facing Massachusetts drunk driving charges or DUI charges in Maryland or elsewhere in New England.

Westbrook was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired, negligent driving and failing to stay on the right side of the road, the Post reported. He was released pending a court appearance.

The Redskins said the organization has been made aware of the arrest. "We take these issues very seriously," GM Bruce Allen said. "Moving forward, we plan to meet with Byron and will continue to monitor the situation."

The Maryland driving under the influence of alcohol charge is the most serious charge he faces and carries a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, as well as a six-month license suspension.

He is the second Redskins player to face alcohol charges this off season. Lineman Chad Rinehart was charged with public intoxication last month in Iowa.

Continue reading "Redskins' Westbrook charged with drunk driving in Maryland" »

A Milton school committee member received a hardship license and a minimal sentence, just days after admitting there is sufficient evidence to find him guilty of a Massachusetts drunk driving charge, according to the Patriot Ledger.

Hiring a Milton drunk driving (OUI/DUI) attorney can make a big difference in the penalty for violating Massachusetts drunk driving laws. A Milton drunk driving defense lawyer can often work to reduce the penalty, particularly for a first-offense Massachusetts drunk driving charge.

In this case, the defendant admitted sufficient facts in Quincy District Court, apologized and said he will not resign from the school committee.

The veteran school committee member reached an agreement with prosecutors at his Jan. 4 arraignment; the case was continued without a finding of guilt, and he was placed on one year of supervised probation and had his license suspended for 45 days. Two days later, he was issued a hardship license, allowing him to drive between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

He was arrested new Year's Day with a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal limit.

Continue reading "Milton school official faces drunk driving charge in Quincy District Court" »

Massachusetts DUI law allows the Commonwealth to move for forfeiture of the motor vehicle of any motorist convicted of three or more DUI offenses. A Fall River man may face forfeiture proceedings as the Easton police will attempt to seize the motor vehicle of Ronald Marovelli.

Under Massachusetts law, Chapter 90 Section 24W the Commonwealth can petition the court for forfeiture of the motor vehicle of any motorist convicted of three prior OUI offenses in Massachusetts or any other state. The forfeiture proceeding is a civil suit that the Commonwealth can initiate either in the district or superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case. If the motor vehicle is jointly owned, the OUI defendant shall have the burden of proving that the vehicle is not subject to forfeiture because the claimant is dependent on the motor vehicle for the livelihood or maintenance of his or her family.

A motorist convicted of a second offense Massachusetts DUI appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, claiming that the requirement that he install the ignition interlock device in his vehicle prior to reinstatement violated his rights under the State and federal constitution. Under Massachusetts statute, any motorist convicted of a second or greater offense DUI in Massachusetts or any other state, is required to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle for two years prior to reinstatement of a Massachusetts driver's license.

In the case of the Registry of Motor Vehicles v. Gordon, the motorist had been convicted of a First offense Massachusetts OUI in 1989 and received a second offense conviction in 2003. The motorist was eligible for reinstatement in December of 2005, but did not seek reinstatement until January of 2006, two days after the ignition interlock component of Melanie's law went into effect.

The court rejected the motorist's challenges to the ignition interlock requirement for second offense OUI convictions and upheld the statute against Constitutional challenges. The Gordon case reaffirms the Constitutionality of the strict and harsh penalties imposed on drivers convicted of a second or subsequent offense DUI.

Continue reading "Ignition interlock device upheld for Second offense Massachusetts DUI conviction" »

Former University of Kentucky basketball coach, Billy Gillispie was charged with DUI this week. Gillispie was charged in Kentucky and has twice been arrested for DUI once in Oklahoma and once in Texas according to news reports. In the Oklahoma case, Gillispie avoid a DUI conviction by accepting a plea to a lesser charge.

In Massachusetts, the importance of avoiding DUI convictions is extremely important as Massachusetts has a lifetime look back for all prior DUI offenses that include convictions in other states. Accordingly, any time a motorist is arrest for DUI in Massachusetts the offense level is based on all prior DUI convictions regardless of whether or not they occur in Massachusetts. Sometimes the district attorney's office is not aware of an out of state conviction or cannot prove an out of state conviction at trial, but even if the charge is treated as a lesser DUI offense in the court, the Registry of Motor Vehicles will go by its own records of prior DUI convictions.

Generally, the only way to avoid a DUI conviction in Massachusetts is to proceed to trial as it is rare for a district attorney to agree to dismiss or reduce an OUI charge to a lesser offense of negligent operation. Even if a breathalyzer is below the legal limit of .08, most Massachusetts OUI defends will be forced to proceed to trial in order to obtain an acquittal on the charge as district attorneys generally have a policy against reducing or dismissing an OUI charge.

Continue reading "Former University of Kentucky basketball coach charged with 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 " »