OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer License Suspension Violation Vehicle
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer License Suspension Violation Vehicle
Prior v. Pauline
Facts:
Plaintiff driver sought review of the suspension of his license by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) for failure to comply with Mass Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 1/2. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether IID requirement violated the defendant’s due process rights?
Discussions:
Under § 24 1/2, which took effect in 2006, drivers with two or more operating under the influence (OUI) convictions were required to install a Certified Ignition Interlock Device (IID) on their vehicles. Plaintiff, who had been convicted of OUI in 1990 and 1994, refused to install the device. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Mass Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 1/2 was an ex post facto law in violation of U.S. Const. art. I, § 9 and Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 24. The statute’s dominant purpose was to protect public safety; thus, it was remedial. The fact that the IID requirement imposed a heavy burden upon individuals such as plaintiff did not render it punitive. Next, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because he had operated a motor vehicle safely for 11 years, the IID requirement violated his due process rights. The statute bore a reasonable relation to the legislature’s goal of ensuring that those who had flouted the law in the past did not threaten future injury to themselves or to others. The legislature had determined that the IID requirement applied to all individuals with two or more OUI convictions. Any changes would have to be made by the legislature.
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.
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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer License Revocation Restoration Authority
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer License Revocation Restoration Authority
Harrison v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Facts:
After plaintiff licensee’s third conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor (OUI), the Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles revoked his license to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts for eight years. He appealed; the Massachusetts Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds affirmed. He sought judicial review and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the Registrar has authority to restore the license of a third-time OUI offender?
Discussions:
Plaintiff argued that his most recent OUI conviction, for which he alleged to have received a 45-day license suspension, had to be the “final decision” since both of his prior OUI convictions occurred over 20 years ago. The appellate court disagreed. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3), the Registrar was prohibited from restoring the license of a third-time OUI offender such as plaintiff until eight years after the date of conviction. As plaintiff did not have a single prior OUI conviction more than 10 years before receiving his most recent conviction, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24D, which provided for a suspension of between 45 and 90 days, did not apply. According, the Board did not err in applying § 24, as opposed to § 24D, when it affirmed the Registrar’s decision to suspend plaintiff’s license for eight years.
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.
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 Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Suspension License
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Suspension License
Peter John v. Commonwealth
Facts:
After plaintiff licensee’s third conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor (OUI), the Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles revoked his license to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts for eight years. Plaintiff argued that his most recent OUI conviction, for which he alleged to have received a 45-day license suspension, had to be the “final decision” since both of his prior OUI convictions occurred over 20 years ago. He appealed; the Massachusetts Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds affirmed. He sought judicial review and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles properly revoked the defendant’s license to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts for eight years?
Discussion:
Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3), the Registrar was prohibited from restoring the license of a third-time OUI offender such as plaintiff until eight years after the date of conviction. As plaintiff did not have a single prior OUI conviction more than 10 years before receiving his most recent conviction, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24D, which provided for a suspension of between 45 and 90 days, did not apply. According, the Board did not err in applying § 24, as opposed to § 24D, when it affirmed the Registrar’s decision to suspend plaintiff’s license for eight years. Plaintiff’s motion was denied and the Board’s decision was affirmed
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.
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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Liability Policy
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Liability Policy
Charles v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Plaintiff licensee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in his Mass. Gen. Laws ch.. 30A, § 14 action. The action challenged a decision of defendant, the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Massachusetts), which affirmed the decision of the Registry of Motor Vehicles to suspend the licensee’s driver’s license for two years following his second conviction for operating under the influence of liquor (OUI).
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether Registry of Motor Vehicles erred in suspending the licensee’s driver’s license for two years?
Discussion:
The licensee pled guilty to his second OUI charge. The trial court ordered, and the docket sheet indicated, that the licensee’s license was suspended “by application of law.” The licensee had completed a treatment program, and had been terminated from probation, which had followed two years of supervision. Nonetheless, he received an additional revocation notice after the Registry received notification of the conviction. That notification was received two years after the conviction. The licensee’s appeal of the suspension to the Board failed. The Board argued that the revocation could not begin until the Registry received notification of it. The court disagreed. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(b) (eff. July 21, 2002) clearly stated that the revocation occurred immediately upon the licensee’s OUI conviction and that the trial court would notify the Registry of that event. The notification was wholly independent of the revocation. Thus, the revocation/suspension of the licensee’s driving privileges occurred immediately up his conviction, notwithstanding the fact that notice to the registry was late in arriving. The licensee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was allowed
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.
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 Bristol Massachusetts Lawyer Substantial Evidence License
OUI Bristol Massachusetts Lawyer Substantial Evidence License
Nijhawan v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Plaintiff driver filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings in her action for review of the suspension of her driver’s license; the driver claimed that the motor vehicle board erred in its application of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), prejudiced her, and that its decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
OUI Bristol Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the board erred in its application of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1)?
Discussion:
Following a de novo hearing, the motor vehicle board suspended the driver’s license. The court found, inter alia, that the board did not commit error of law in its application of § 24(1)(f)(1) and the driver had no statutory basis for requesting review of the matter. The driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test when she was arrested for operating under the influence (OUI) in 2006 served as the basis for the enhanced license suspension of five years in light of the driver’s two prior OUI convictions or admissions to drug treatment programs. The driver failed to show why she did not produce the police department reports at the board hearing. The certified copies of Arizona Motor Vehicle Division documents coupled with a matching photograph of the driver and her own admission that she paid a reinstatement fee constituted substantial evidence that the driver was the same person who was convicted of OUI in Arizona in 1998. Accordingly, her license was properly suspended. The driver’s motion was denied, and the board’s decision was affirmed
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.
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 Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Suspended License
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Suspended License
Holder v. Commonwealth
Facts:
After plaintiff licensee’s third conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), the Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles revoked his license to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts for eight years. He appealed; the Massachusetts Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds affirmed. He sought judicial review and moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff argued that his most recent OUI conviction, for which he alleged to have received a 45-day license suspension, had to be the “final decision” since both of his prior OUI convictions occurred over 20 years ago.
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the Board did not err in applying § 24, as opposed to § 24D?
Discussion:
The Court states that under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3), the Registrar was prohibited from restoring the license of a third-time OUI offender such as plaintiff until eight years after the date of conviction. As plaintiff did not have a single prior OUI conviction more than 10 years before receiving his most recent conviction, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24D, which provided for a suspension of between 45 and 90 days, did not apply. According, the Board did not err in applying § 24, as opposed to § 24D, when it affirmed the Registrar’s decision to suspend plaintiff’s license for eight years. Plaintiff’s motion was denied and the Board’s decision was affirmed
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.
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 Bristol Massachusetts Lawyer Substantial Evidence Suspension
OUI Bristol Massachusetts Lawyer Substantial Evidence Suspension
Lawrence v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant motor vehicle registrar (RMV) suspended plaintiff driver’s license under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f), (g) and Mass. Regs. Code tit. 540, § 11.01 et seq. for refusing to take a chemical test after being stopped for suspected operation of her vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OMVUI). The District Court (Massachusetts) upheld the suspension. The driver appealed. The RMV moved for judgment on the pleadings.
OUI Bristol Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether there was substantial evidence supporting the RMV’s decision to suspend?
Discussions:
The officer stopped the driver after he saw her weaving on the road. The driver admitted to drinking two drinks, failed field sobriety tests, was arrested, requested and did not get an attorney (her husband), and refused the chemical test. The driver’s claim that the interaction between her medications and the alcohol affected her ability to form a knowing consent or non-consent did not excuse her not taking the chemical test, or failing it, in spite of medical evidence defining the interaction. The driver did not have a constitutional right to consult a lawyer before making a decision to take the civil chemical test. All of the driver’s alleged statutory violations under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Chemical Test Refusal Law, and various regulations, including Mass. Regs. Code tit. 501, §§ 2.52, 9.05(6); Mass. Regs. Code tit. 540, § 11.01; Mass. Regs. Code tit. 801, § 1.03; unconstitutionality arguments; and substantial evidence arguments were rejected. The procedures were followed; the laws and regulations were constitutional, and there was substantial evidence supporting the RMV’s decision to suspend. The OMVUI criminal acquittal was not a defense.
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.
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 Norfolk County Massachusetts License Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
OUI Norfolk County Massachusetts License Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
Samson v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Vehicle
Facts:
The Plaintiff driver’s previous charge of operating under the influence (OUI) had been continued without a finding of guilt (CWOF) and dismissed, pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 12(a) (2). The driver said it was error to consider the prior case a “conviction,” for purposes of the enhanced period of suspension in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1). The enhanced suspension was properly applied because, when the legislature increased the penalties for drunk drivers, it intended a CWOF to trigger the enhanced suspension. Plaintiff driver appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ decision to suspend his license for three years, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), for refusing to submit to a Breathalyzer test. Defendant Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds affirmed the decision, and the driver sought judicial review, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 14, and moved for judgment on the pleadings, under Mass. R.Civ.P. 12(c).
OUI Norfolk County Massachusetts License Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the court to consider the prior plaintiff driver’s case a “conviction,” for purposes of the enhanced period of suspension in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1)?
Discussion:
The Board finds that the fact that the words “admission to sufficient facts” did not appear in the definition of “conviction” in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(d) did not require a different conclusion because the words did not have to be in the statute, since (1) it had been consistently held that a admission to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty was treated as a plea of guilty, and (2) the legislature presumably knew of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 18, regarding a CWOF, and a judicial interpretation of an admission to sufficient facts as being tantamount to a guilty plea, when enacting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(d). The driver’s motion was denied, the decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Board) was affirmed, and judgment was entered for the Board.
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 Custody Massachusetts Refusal Breathalyzer Test Lawyers Dukes County
OUI Custody Massachusetts Refusal Breathalyzer Test Lawyers Dukes County
REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES V. PHILLIPS
Facts:
The Plaintiff driver was involved in an accident and was taken into custody after police officers at the scene determined that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol. The driver refused to take a breathalyzer test, insisting that he had the right to have a blood test instead of the breathalyzer. After waiting an appropriate time, the police determined that the driver had refused the breathalyzer. The driver’s attorney was contacted and bail was set.
OUI Custody Massachusetts Refusal Breathalyzer Test Lawyers
The driver and his attorney went to a medical center, but the driver decided not to get a blood test. The Registry suspended the driver’s license for refusing to submit to the breathalyzer. Plaintiff, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, sought certiorari review, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 4, of an order of a Massachusetts district court, which reversed the Registry’s decision to suspend defendant driver’s license for 120 days for refusing to take a breathalyzer test. The Registry filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Issue:
- Whether an intoxicated driver has the right, under G.L.c. 90, § 24(1) (f) (1), to select the type of test, either breath or blood analysis?
Discussion:
The district court reversed the decision based on a holding that the driver could demand the blood test. The court disagreed and granted judgment on the pleadings. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 (1) (f) (1), the driver consented to a breathalyzer test and the refusal to submit to one was grounds for suspension of his license. He did have the right to an independent blood test under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 263, § 5A, but the test was in addition to, not in lieu of the breathalyzer, and the driver had to arrange for such a test himself. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.
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 Lifetime Revocation Hardship Lawyers Suffolk County
OUI License Massachusetts Lifetime Revocation Hardship Lawyers Suffolk County
Theodore v. Board of Appeal
Facts:
Plaintiff driver filed a complaint for judicial review of the lifetime revocation of his driver’s license. The Suffolk Superior Court Department (Massachusetts) denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirmed the registrar’s decision to revoke his license, and remanded the issue of the issuance of a hardship license to the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds.
OUI License Massachusetts Lifetime Revocation Hardship Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the driver could be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on hardship grounds?
Discussions:
The Board appealed the judgment insofar as it remanded the case. The appellate court held that the look-back period of 10 years had been eliminated. Thus, all four of the driver’s previous operating under the influence (OUI) convictions were considered, even though there had been 30 years between the fourth and fifth convictions. A fifth OUI offense required a permanent revocation. The registrar could not grant the driver a hearing to request a new license on hardship grounds. While the driver stated a need to drive to work and to job sites, the Board did not purport to rule on the issue. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3 3/4) was silent on a new license for employment or education purposes, and no decision of the registrar on a hardship license was before the Board. The decision on appeal superseded the registrar’s decision and was the Board’s final action. The remand order was in error. Finally, § 24(1)(c)(3 3/4) provided that the driver could not be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on hardship grounds. While it was not determined whether an appeal lay of a lifetime revocation, there was no waiting period.
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
