OUI Breathalyzer Test Massachusetts Suspension License Lawyers Norfolk County
OUI Breathalyzer Test Massachusetts Suspension License Lawyers Norfolk County
JOSEPH v. COMMONWEALTH
Facts:
Defendant’s license was suspended for 90 days because he failed the breathalyzer test required by Mass. Gen. Laws 90, § 24(1) (f) (2) (1994). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the OUI complaint, asserting that to prosecute him on that complaint would have violated the prohibition against multiple punishments contained in the double jeopardy clause of U.S. Const. amends. V and the common and statutory law of the commonwealth. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Defendant driver appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts), which denied his motion to dismiss the charge against him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994).
OUI Breathalyzer Test Massachusetts Suspension License Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was punishment for double jeopardy purpose?
Discussion:
The court determined that defendant’s double jeopardy claim failed because the suspension of his driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes, and the character of the actual sanction imposed by the machinery of the state was remedial. The court explained that the statute’s no punitive purpose was the prompt removal of drunk drivers from the highways, and a suspension until trial was not excessive in relation to the remedial purpose. The court concluded that § 24(1)(f)(2) was not a retributive statute because it was aimed at public safety rather than punishment for the sake of justice. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes and the character of the actual sanction imposed was remedial.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
OUI License Massachusetts Double Jeopardy Lawyers Suffolk County
OUI License Massachusetts Double Jeopardy Lawyers Suffolk County
Joseph vs. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant’s license was suspended for 90 days because he failed the breathalyzer test required by Mass. Gen. Laws 90, § 24(1) (f) (2) (1994). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the OUI complaint, asserting that to prosecute him on that complaint would have violated the prohibition against multiple punishments contained in the double jeopardy clause of U.S. Const. amends. V and the common and statutory law of the commonwealth. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Defendant driver appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts), which denied his motion to dismiss the charge against him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994).
OUI License Massachusetts Double Jeopardy Lawyers Suffolk County
Issue:
- Whether the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was punishment for double jeopardy purpose?
Discussion:
The court determined that defendant’s double jeopardy claim failed because the suspension of his driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes, and the character of the actual sanction imposed by the machinery of the state was remedial. The court explained that the statute’s no punitive purpose was the prompt removal of drunk drivers from the highways, and a suspension until trial was not excessive in relation to the remedial purpose. The court concluded that § 24(1)(f)(2) was not a retributive statute because it was aimed at public safety rather than punishment for the sake of justice. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes and the character of the actual sanction imposed was remedial.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
OUI License Massachusetts Double Jeopardy Criminal Charge Lawyers Middlesex County
OUI License Massachusetts Double Jeopardy Criminal Charge Lawyers Middlesex County
Gonzales v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed from the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Middlesex (Massachusetts), which denied her motion to dismiss plaintiff Commonwealth’s complaint alleging that she operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994).
OUI License Massachusetts Double Jeopardy Criminal Charge Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether Commonwealth’s earlier suspension of defendant’s drivers license for refusing to submit to a breath test render the criminal charge a violation of defendant’s Double Jeopardy Clause protections?
Discussions:
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that she operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994) was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the court held that the Commonwealth’s earlier suspension of defendant’s drivers license for refusing to submit to a breath test, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), did not render the criminal charge a violation of defendant’s Double Jeopardy Clause protections. The administrative license suspension was a reasonable sanction primarily designed to promote public safety, and not “punishment” for purposes of attachment of double jeopardy. Therefore, defendant failed to show that multiple punishments arose. Further, the § 24(1)(a)(1) offense and the refusal to submit to a breath test violation, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(g), were not the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy. The requirement that defendant submit to a breath test was only an element of § 24(1)(g), and separate sanctions were authorized for the offenses. Double jeopardy did not preclude punishment for two separate offenses.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
OUI Breathalyzer Massachusetts License Violation Lawyers Norfolk County
OUI Breathalyzer Massachusetts License Violation Lawyers Norfolk County
Shaw v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant driver appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Norfolk (Massachusetts), which denied his motion to dismiss the charge against him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994).
OUI Breathalyzer Massachusetts License Violation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the Defendant’s license can be suspended because he failed the breathalyzer test?
Discussions:
Defendant’s license was suspended for 90 days because he failed the breathalyzer test required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(2) (1994). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the OUI complaint, asserting that to prosecute him on that complaint would have violated the prohibition against multiple punishments contained in the double jeopardy clause of U.S. Const. amend. V and the common and statutory law of the commonwealth. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court determined that defendant’s double jeopardy claim failed because the suspension of his driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes, and the character of the actual sanction imposed by the machinery of the state was remedial. The court explained that the statute’s nonpunitive purpose was the prompt removal of drunk drivers from the highways, and a suspension until trial was not excessive in relation to the remedial purpose. The court concluded that § 24(1)(f)(2) was not a retributive statute because it was aimed at public safety rather than punishment for the sake of justice.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
OUI Massachusetts License Multiple Punishment Double Jeopardy Lawyers Bristol County
OUI Massachusetts License Multiple Punishment Double Jeopardy Lawyers Bristol County
JOSEPH V. COMMONWEALTH
Facts:
Defendant’s license was suspended for 90 days because he failed the breathalyzer test required by Mass. Gen. Laws 90, § 24(1) (f) (2) (1994). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the OUI complaint, asserting that to prosecute him on that complaint would have violated the prohibition against multiple punishments contained in the double jeopardy clause of U.S. Const. amends.
OUI Massachusetts License Multiple Punishment Double Jeopardy Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was punishment for double jeopardy purpose?
Discussion:
The court determined that defendant’s double jeopardy claim failed because the suspension of his driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes, and the character of the actual sanction imposed by the machinery of the state was remedial. The court explained that the statute’s no punitive purpose was the prompt removal of drunk drivers from the highways, and a suspension until trial was not excessive in relation to the remedial purpose. The court concluded that § 24(1)(f)(2) was not a retributive statute because it was aimed at public safety rather than punishment for the sake of justice. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes and the character of the actual sanction imposed was remedial.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
OUI Massachusetts Suspended Breathalyzer Test Attorneys Dukes County
OUI Massachusetts Suspended Breathalyzer Test Attorneys Dukes County
ALLWYN V. ALLWYN
Facts:
Defendant driver appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts), which denied his motion to dismiss the charge against him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994). Defendant’s license was suspended for 90 days because he failed the breathalyzer test required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(2) (1994). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the OUI complaint, asserting that to prosecute him on that complaint would have violated the prohibition against multiple punishments contained in the double jeopardy clause of U.S. Const. amends. V and the common and statutory law of the Commonwealth. Defendant driver appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts), which denied his motion to dismiss the charge against him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994).
OUI Massachusetts Suspended Breathalyzer Test Attorneys
Issues:
- Whether the suspension of defendant’s driving license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes?
Discussion:
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court determined that defendant’s double jeopardy claim failed because the suspension of his driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes, and the character of the actual sanction imposed by the machinery of the state was remedial. The court explained that the statute’s non-punitive purpose was the prompt removal of drunk drivers from the highways, and a suspension until trial was not excessive in relation to the remedial purpose. The court concluded that § 24(1)(f)(2) was not a retributive statute because it was aimed at public safety rather than punishment for the sake of justice. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the suspension of defendant’s driver’s license was not punishment for double jeopardy purposes and the character of the actual sanction imposed was remedial.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
