Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

License consequences of a first offense OUI in Massachusetts: When can you get your license back?

August 14, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

As an OUI Lawyer in Massachusetts, I have met many individuals, parents, spouses and family members who come to my office unsure about what to do in response to a recent arrest for OUI. There are three things that anyone charged should understand about the license consequences of a First Offense OUI. In this Blog, I outline these issues.

1. First question always asked is when can I get my license back. There are three different option you need to understand.

You took a breath test and the results was over .08: you can get your license back in 30 days by paying the $ 500.00 reinstatement fee. You will have your license while the case is pending and you attempt to contest the OUI charge. If you admit to the charge prior to the expiration of the thirty days, you would be eligible for a hardship license if the court assigned you to the 24D program. I would not recommend a plea within the thirty days.

You refused the breath test: If you refused a breath test, the suspension is for six months. You can get your license back before six months, but it is difficult. The benefit of having refused the breath test is that there is a good chance you can avoid an OUI conviction with a not guilty verdict; the downside is that you will be without a license for at least three months while pursuing your appeals of a refusal suspension. Many will serve the full six month refuse suspension; there is no eligibility for a hardship license while the OUI case is pending; the third option discusses how you can obtain a hardship license, but requires a plea on the underlying OUI charge and admitting to the elements of the offense as outlined in the statute.

There are two paths to get your license back early.

Path 1: Appeal the breath test refusal suspension and have the district court reinstate your license. For this option, you would appeal the breath test refusal suspension within 15 days, the RMV would likely deny your request and you would appeal to the district court. This process does take probably three months. If the district court judge reinstated your license, you would have it back prior to the six months. I recently had a judge order reinstatement, finding that the police officer did not comply with the law in suspending my client’s license. This client received her license back in three months. While I have had refusal suspensions overturned, many breath test refusal suspension are affirmed.

Path 2: The second way to get your license back prior to six months is if we can obtain a not guilty verdict on the charge and the judge enters an order reinstating your license. It is difficult to get a trial within six months for a number of reasons, making it more difficult to get your license back prior to the six months with this option. Often, there are documents or motions we would want heard that would delay scheduling the case for trial. In all most all courts, it will take at least four to five months to get a trial date, so this option could save one or two months of the suspension.

If you refused a breath test and you want to avoid an OUI conviction, you should plan on having a suspension for six months. After the six months you can get your license back. You should also pursue an appeal of the refusal suspension, but understand that many of those appeals are denied.

Path 3: Admitting to the OUI charge and receiving the 24D program would provide hardship license eligibility for the 45 days license loss imposed by the court and the duration of the six month refusal suspension. While you can get your license back, assuming you can satisfy the hardship criteria, a letter from work, the downside is that you have admitted to the OUI charge.

I Continue Reading ›

Commonwealth v. Higgins holding that refusal of field sobriety tests can be used to establish probable cause

August 12, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

For one facing an OUI charge in Massachusetts, the first hearing will be an arraignment and then the next hearing will be a pretrial. This pretrial will be the defendants first opportunity to raise issues of evidence or even raise a motion to dismiss the charges. The purpose of this hearing will usually be for the judge to decide whether or not there is evidence that needs to be suppressed or to rule on any other motions by the defendant. If there is no probable cause for the charges and the defendant raises a motion to dismiss, the case should be dismissed at this point. The recent case of Commonwealth v. Huggins examines what evidence can be examined when determining if there is probable cause or not.

In Commonwealth v. Huggins, the defendant was arrested and charged with a second offense OUI. This is after police found the defendant off the road, facing the woods, stuck on rocks. After asking for his license and registration, the defendant had trouble finding it and the officer noticed a strong smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath. After finally getting out of the vehicle, the defendant refused to take a field sobriety test and was arrested for an OUI. At the pretrial, the judge looked at the totality of the circumstances including the position of the car, the smell of alcohol and the defendant’s refusal to submit to the field sobriety test in determining if there was probable cause to continue the action. The judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial where the defendant was convicted. On appeal, the defendant raises the sole issue of whether the judge erred in concluding there was probable cause to support the charge of OUI.

The main issue here that the defendant raises is that the judge relied on the refusal of taking the field sobriety test in determining whether there was probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction and stated that a judge can use this refusal in determining whether there is probable cause. When a judge is determining this, she will have to look at the totality of the circumstances which is what the judge did when denying the defendant’s motion. The defendant also brought up the fact that there was a disagreement over the witnesses who brought forward the complaint, this being the officer. The court ruled that in the pretrial, a defendant will not have the right to cross-examine witnesses or call his own witnesses to show whether or not there is probable cause. This probable cause hearing is essentially a paper trial i.e. the judge will look at the facts as brought forth in the complaint and determine whether there is probable cause. Debates over facts and witnesses will be handled at the trial.

Comments On George Zimmerman Case from Brockton criminal lawyer

July 31, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

The George Zimmerman case, which was one of the most publicized court decisions in the last decade, has been met with great opposition and protest. This protest has been calling for a potential change in the self-defense laws in Florida and possibly re-trying the defendant in federal court. Furthermore, some have questioned the beyond a reasonable standard that must be met in order to convict a defendant. However, these ideas seem to go against the very ideas of the judicial system and the protection that is granted to those convicted of a crime.

One of the issues in this case originally was the stand your ground law that is in Florida. The stand your ground law states that one who is defending themselves does not have to retreat before using deadly force. In most states, one will have to attempt to escape the confrontation before resorting to deadly force. Many have been calling for a change to this law suggesting that it can lead to deadly confrontations when there is an easy means for escape. However, this law although talked about a lot in the early going, this law did not play much into this decision. It seems unlikely that Zimmerman would have been unable to flee from the altercation as all evidence tends to lead to the conclusion he was pinned to the ground. Furthermore, changing of this law would lead to more arrests as people who were in fear of their life and used force could be arrested for not first trying to escape.

Others are calling for Zimmerman to be charged with federal crimes in connection with the killing of Trayvon Martin. In criminal cases, the double jeopardy rule protects defendants from being on trial for the same actions multiple times. This is the reason why the prosecution cannot appeal the decision to a higher court. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1959 in the case Bartkus v. Illinois that prosecution in state followed by prosecution in federal court does not violate double jeopardy. It traditionally is not used as people feel this gives the government too much power. The double jeopardy law protects defendants and this should not be ignored just because of the emotion of this case.

When does an Anonymous 911 Call justify an officer making a stop for OUI in Massachusetts

July 19, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Part of this requires a police officer to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to conduct a vehicle stop or any other search of a suspect. As a Massachusetts OUI attorney, this often becomes an important issue because if a police officer does not have this reasonable suspicion and conducts a vehicle stop or search, all evidence collected from this illegal search will have to be thrown out and will usually end in a dismissal of the case. Without a reasonable suspicion, a stop of a vehicle or search of a person will be considered illegal and unconstitutional.

Determining whether an officer’s stop was conducted under reasonable suspicion is often a topic that is difficult to determine. The Iowa Supreme Court recently took on the issue of whether an anonymous tip about a potential drunk driver can create this reasonable suspicion in Iowa v. Kooima. This case involved the defendant who was at a steakhouse for over an hour with several other gentlemen after a day of golf. Another patron recognized the men as prominent businessmen from the area. He proceeded to call 9-1-1 and describe the car and reported the license plate number. The anonymous caller told the operator that all the men were drunk and were going to leave but never gave any information about what they drank or how he knew the men were intoxicated. Despite the lack of details and not seeing the men drive, the dispatcher told officers in the area to be on the lookout for the car.

The officers followed the defendant and he never made any traffic violations or mechanical violations. Based solely on the tip, the police conducted a stop, gave the defendant a breathalyzer and field sobriety test and arrested the defendant on drunk driving. The defendant claimed the stop was not authorized but was convicted of drunk driving. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled the stop was not authorized.

Sixth Amendment Confrontation clause at issue in Rhode Island murder trial

July 18, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

In criminal cases, testimonial hearsay is usually not allowed and will be inadmissible at testimony. Hearsay testimony would be somebody taking the stand and explaining what somebody else said. The United States Constitution and specifically the confrontation clause grants every defendant in a criminal trial the right to confront witnesses used against them and cross examine them. As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, cross examining is extremely important to ensure the truth is being told by the witness. With hearsay testimony, the right to cross examine the witness would be gone as it is simply somebody else stating what was said and for this reason is unconstitutional.

However, there is one exception to this hearsay rule which was explained in Michigan v. Bryant. In this case, the victim was mortally wounded and in some of his last words, he told police he was shot by the defendant. The Supreme Court found that the officer’s testimony of what the victim said was constitutional even though that would usually be hearsay testimony. The court ruled that in emergency situations such as this where something is said in a victim’s dying words, it will not violate the confrontation clause.

A Rhode Island murder case has recently had a case with similar facts such as these. In this case, a detective found two men wounded outside of the Monet Lounge in Providence and was informed that there were two suspects in custody. The detective then led the suspects over to the mortally wounded victim. He proceeded to show the victim one suspect and asked if this was the man who shot him. The victim had no response, and when the detective showed the other suspect, who is now the defendant, the victim shook his head up and down identifying the defendant as the shooter.

Increased number of OUI drugs arrests in Massachusetts

July 10, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts OUI Attorney, it is quite apparent that OUI cases involving drugs are on the rise as more officers received training in drug recognition techniques, commonly known as a DRE evaluation. A charge based of OUI drugs has many of the same defenses involved with alcohol in that the arrest is based on the officer’s subjective observations. With an OUI drugs charge, many officers do not have the qualifications to conclude that a person is under the influence of a particular drug. Further, the law requires the Commonwealth to prove which particular drug a defendant is under the influence of at the time of operation.

One of the explanations for this increase of drugged driving is the growing trend of legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana and the growing dependency of prescription drugs. A recent estimate states that for every six people charged with an OUI, one of those will be drug related driving alone. With this statistic, it is certainly on the radar of police and things are currently being done to crack down on this. On the national level, President Obama has taken the initiative to try and crack down on the problem as well making December National Impaired Driving Prevention Month each of the last three years. His overall goal is to reduce drugged driving by 10 percent by 2015.

The way to achieve the goal Obama has set up is being more strict and catching more offenders who are drugged driving. This becomes a problem as unlike alcohol related OUI, there is no magic number with drug related OUI like .08 with alcohol. Furthermore, there is no convenient breathalyzer test for drugs that displays what and how much drugs the driver was taking. Because of this, officers will have to rely on their own subjective observations of the driver to determine whether they are on drugs and whether the drugs are impairing the driving. To help this problem, the Drug Recognition Expert has been created and in effect since the 1980’s. There are 77 of these experts in Massachusetts and thousands more around the country. These officers are trained to recognize what drugs and how much of that drug a person has been taking just from observations. These DRE’s help the problem that arises when a driver seems impaired but has no alcohol in their system; at this point, the DRE can decide whether the driver is impaired by another substance.

George Zimmerman Trial Produced All Female Jury

July 7, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

In one of the most publicized criminal case in recent history, George Zimmerman who is being tried for murder in the death of Trayvon Martin has drawn an all-female jury. As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, the jury selection process is a very important step in setting up a criminal defense. Getting jurors who are biased or against the defendant in some way can be detrimental to a case. Getting an all-female jury raises some interesting questions as to whether or not this can have an effect on the outcome of the case.

Having an all women jury or even one female juror for that matter was not always an option. It was not until 1975 and the decision in the Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Louisiana that stated women had to be involved in the jury process in order for it to be considered a jury of peers as required by the Constitution. Before that, women were not required to be a part of the jury process and it was only optional that women served. Since women have become part of juries, it can finally be considered that a defendant is on trial by a jury of his or her peers.

It still remains to be seen if this will affect the trial in any way either in favor for the defense of the prosecution. Many have argued that it would be impossible for a man to get a fair trial with an all women jury and this will be a true to see if it can be done.

Mistake of Jurors a Valid Excuse for Use of Peremptory Challenge

July 2, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

The United States Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant a right to a fair and speedy trial. One way a trial is deemed fair is to have an impartial jury decide the fate of the case. To ensure a jury is impartial, both the defense and the prosecution will select the jury through the process of voir dire. As a Massachusetts defense attorney, it is often this process that can win or lose a case as it is imperative to get jurors who will not be biased against your client.

The process of voir dire usually consists of the jurors being asked questions about their age, employment and life experience. This is in hopes of uncovering any bias the juror may have and to find out whether he or she will be an impartial juror. If any deficiencies in the juror are apparent that lead the judge to believe the juror could not be impartial, the juror will be stricken for cause and not allowed to hear the trial. To further ensure a fair trial, each side is given five peremptory challenges which allows the lawyers to strike a juror for no reason and have them not sit for trial.

However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment does not allow a lawyer to use one of these peremptory challenges based solely on race. This rule was decided in Batson v. Kentucky. The Supreme Court in that case stated once a lawyer displays a pattern of discrimination through his or her peremptory challenges, the other side can make an objection. This has become known as the Batson challenge. Once this objection is raised, the attorney will have to state a legitimate reason why they decided to strike the juror other than their race.

Can a Refusal to take field sobriety tests in a DUI Arrest come into evidence at Trial

June 27, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

What happens when you attempt to take field sobriety tests and realize you cannot perform them and are charged with OUI in Massachusetts?

Often a defendant may say: “I can’t do this anymore,” and “I am too drunk to finish,” are some of the many comments made by defendants as they perform field sobriety tests after getting stopped by a police officer who suspects they are operating under the influence.

Statements like these, made during the field sobriety tests, can be used against you as evidence in a court room. In the case Commonwealth vs. Brown, decided June 20th 2013, the Court ruled that statements made during field sobriety tests are not considered compulsory or testimonial statements and are not protected by Article 12.

Oregon Allows Sleep Driving As Possible Defense for Drunk Driving

June 22, 2013 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts OUI attorney, there will be rare cases where a driver had no intention of driving, but because of some sort of disorder or episode, got behind the wheel without any intention of driving. A question in these cases arises when the person driving is drunk and whether they can be held criminally liable for drunk driving with the lack of intent to drive. The Oregon Supreme Court recently addressed this question State v. Newman and determined a driver must commit some voluntary act in order to be held criminally liable.

In State v. Newman, the defendant was pulled over in a clearly intoxicated state, blew a .15 on the breathalyzer and performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. In what would seem to be an open and shut case, the defendant offered evidence that he never knew he was driving drunk because of a sleep walking disorder. The defendant claimed he walked home after having drinks with friends and went to sleep. He claims it was an episode of “sleep driving” that caused him to drive drunk. The question then becomes, can evidence that the defendant did not voluntarily drive be a defense to a drunk driving charge.

What the prosecution centered their argument on and what the trial court based the original decision on was that drunk driving is a strict liability crime. Being a strict liability crime would make whether the driving was voluntary or not irrelevant and the sleep driving defense worthless. If drunk driving was a strict liability crime, it would not matter what the circumstances led to the driver driving in his condition; if he drove over the limit, it would be a crime every time.