OUI Suffolk Massachusetts Lawyer Accident Violation Arrest
OUI Suffolk Massachusetts Lawyer Accident Violation Arrest
Commonwealth v. Jake
Facts:
Defendant appealed an order from the District Court Department (Massachusetts), which granted his motion to suppress statements that he made at the scene of an automobile accident. Defendant had been charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) or similar offense, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(l)(a)(1).
OUI Suffolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether officer’s subjective intent to arrest defendant was communicated?
Discussions:
A police officer who responded to a report of an automobile accident observed defendant driving his car at that location. Upon questioning, defendant claimed that he had been at a friend’s house and he had hit a pole. The officer had observed signs of defendant’s intoxication, and he believed he had probable cause to arrest defendant for OUI. He did not communicate this fact to defendant. Defendant performed two field sobriety tests and then refused to perform a third one. Defendant was arrested and charged with OUI or a similar offense. The trial court granted suppression of defendant’s statements made after the officer determined that he had probable cause to arrest defendant, finding that defendant was in de facto custody and no Miranda warnings had been given. On appeal, the court determined that defendant was not “in custody” within the meaning of Miranda and its progeny at the time he made the statements at issue, such that there was no cause for Miranda warnings, and suppression was not warranted. The officer’s subjective intent to arrest defendant was not communicated, and there were no other factors to support a conclusion that defendant was objectively in custody.
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 Suspension Revocation
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer License Suspension Revocation
Commonwealth v. Joy
Facts:
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, a jury convicted defendant of operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) (seventh or subsequent offense), operating with a license suspended for a prior OUI, and operating with a revoked license. The Appeals Court (Massachusetts) reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and set aside the convictions. The Commonwealth appealed.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether encounter with an off-duty officer because the officer’s actions in another jurisdiction amounted to an unlawful arrest outside of his territorial jurisdiction?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the motion judge should have suppressed all evidence resulting from his encounter with an off-duty officer because the officer’s actions in another jurisdiction amounted to an unlawful arrest outside of his territorial jurisdiction. The supreme judicial court held that the officer’s actions in telling defendant to step out of the car, removing and retaining defendant’s keys from the ignition, and telling him to sit and wait in his car fell short of an “arrest” sufficient to trigger the citizen’s arrest rule. Instead, the officer’s actions were more akin to an investigatory stop, short of an arrest. Under the circumstances, where defendant rear ended the officer’s personal vehicle and appeared intoxicated, it was reasonable for the officer – as it would any private citizen – to prolong the “stop” until the local police arrived, in order to ensure the safety of the public and of defendant himself. Defendant was not under arrest until the local police officer arrived and placed him under arrest. Thus, there was no need to exclude the evidence obtained thereafter.
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 Extraterritorial Arrest Illegal
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Extraterritorial Arrest Illegal
Commonwealth v. Job
Facts:
Defendant sought review of convictions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, operating negligently, and leaving the scene after causing property damage, before the District Court Norfolk (Massachusetts), which denied defendant’s motions to dismiss the charges of operating a motor vehicle negligently and operating under the influence and for a new trial.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s extraterritorial arrest was illegal?
Discussion:
Defendant was refused admittance to a nightclub because he was visibly intoxicated. Before he drove away, the nightclub doorman informed a police officer of defendant’s apparent intent to drive under the influence. The officer told defendant to stop; he left, hitting another vehicle in the process. That officer’s radio report was heard by another officer, who pursued defendant into the next city, where he stopped and was arrested. Defendant argued that his extraterritorial arrest was illegal. The court disagreed, affirming the convictions. The court reasoned that the fact that the offense was not committed in the arresting officer’s immediate presence was immaterial because the offense was committed in his fellow officer’s presence. The arresting officer, as a result of the radio communication, which he heard within his jurisdiction, had reason to believe that the suspect had committed an arrestable offense. And the extraterritorial arrest was valid because the arresting officer crossed the jurisdictional boundary in the course of a fresh and continued pursuit of defendant. The court affirmed the convictions and the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
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 Violation Miranda Warning
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Violation Miranda Warning
R. Woods v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed an order from the District Court Department (Massachusetts), which granted his motion to suppress statements that he made at the scene of an automobile accident. Defendant had been charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) or similar offense, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(l)(a)(1).
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in granting suppression of defendant’s statements?
Discussion:
A police officer who responded to a report of an automobile accident observed defendant driving his car at that location. Upon questioning, defendant claimed that he had been at a friend’s house and he had hit a pole. The officer had observed signs of defendant’s intoxication, and he believed he had probable cause to arrest defendant for OUI. He did not communicate this fact to defendant. Defendant performed two field sobriety tests and then refused to perform a third one. Defendant was arrested and charged with OUI or a similar offense. The trial court granted suppression of defendant’s statements made after the officer determined that he had probable cause to arrest defendant, finding that defendant was in de facto custody and no Miranda warnings had been given. On appeal, the court determined that defendant was not “in custody” within the meaning of Miranda and its progeny at the time he made the statements at issue, such that there was no cause for Miranda warnings, and suppression was not warranted. The officer’s subjective intent to arrest defendant was not communicated, and there were no other factors to support a conclusion that defendant was objectively in custody.
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 Breathalyzer Retrograde Extrapolation
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Breathalyzer Retrograde Extrapolation
Kristina v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). The Norfolk Court (Massachusetts) ruled that as a breathalyzer test was given more than one hour after defendant last drove, the Commonwealth had to introduce expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation as a prerequisite to the admission of the test results. The Commonwealth appealed.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the retrograde extrapolation was prerequisite to the admission of the results of a breathalyzer test?
Discussion:
The high court held that retrograde extrapolation was not a prerequisite to the admission of the results of a breathalyzer test due to amendments to § 24 if the test was conducted within a reasonable period of time (i.e., three hours or less) after the driver’s last operation of the vehicle. If the prosecution proceeded only on an impaired ability theory and offered evidence of a breathalyzer result of .08 or above, it had to offer expert testimony on the significance of that level as it pertained to impairment. The trial court’s holding that in a “per se” OUI case, expert retrograde extrapolation testimony was required for admission of a breathalyzer test performed more than one hour after defendant last drove, was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings
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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Jurisdiction Arrest
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Jurisdiction Arrest
Commonwealth v. Jr. John
Facts:
An officer watched a pickup truck in a parking lot move in a fashion that attracted his notice. The truck was parked against the Westwind restaurant in Seekonk in a lot that was partially in Seekonk and partially in Attleboro. The officer began pursuing the defendant’s vehicle believing it to be an OUI vehicle. He followed him outside the territorial boundaries of his city and arrested defendant for driving under the influence in another jurisdiction. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts appealed the judgment of a trial court (Massachusetts), which dismissed the complaint against defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol on the ground that defendant’s arrest was unlawful.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol on the ground that the defendant’s arrest was unlawful?
Discussion:
This court held that the words “brake heavily” convey the picture of a lurching vehicle, such as might be in the hands of a driver under the influence of alcohol. Those movements gave the officer reason to think the defendant was operating with his coordination impaired by drink. That impression received some reinforcement from the repetitive back and forth movements of the truck, suggestive of poor control, and from the circumstance that the defendant had emerged from a drinking spot. Suspecting drunk driving, Officer could follow the vehicle under observation once it crossed (about midway through the parking lot) into the neighboring town of Attleboro. The stop and arrest in Attleboro was lawful, and the evidence obtained at the stop and arrest should have been received. This court held that defendant had emerged from a drinking establishment, and the officer observed conduct that gave him reason to believe that he was under the influence of alcohol. Thus, the officer had reason to suspect that defendant was committing an offense for which he could be arrested, and the warrantless arrest of defendant outside the officer’s jurisdiction was lawful.
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 Safety Erratic Speed
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Safety Erratic Speed
Commonwealth v. Williams Park
Facts:
The defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G. L. c. 90, § 24. The judge instructed the jury in the manner then approved. The jury was told that defendant could have been under the influence when the intake was so small that it did not impair any physical or mental faculty. Defense counsel had not objected to the charge. Four months later the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in another case, rejected that concept of the offense, holding that the crime under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 was not made out unless defendant’s consumption of alcohol diminished defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Defendant had acknowledged having had beer and wine to drink while at a family holiday dinner; but that had been at midday, and it was 7:15 P.M. when his van was stopped for running a red light. His explanation for running the light was plausible, and there was no other evidence relating to speeding, erratic operation, or the like. His Breathalyzer reading was .08 percent. Defendant appealed from the judgment of a trial court (Massachusetts), which convicted him of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24.
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that conviction was warranted if defendant was influenced “in some perceptible degree” by intoxicating liquor, regardless of whether it impaired his ability to drive safely?
Discussion:
This court held that there is a substantial likelihood that the jury may have been influenced in its verdict by the erroneous description of the elements of the offense. The defendant acknowledged having had beer and wine to drink. His explanation for running the light was plausible (though not for that reason excusable); there was no other evidence relating to speeding, erratic operation, or the like. When the police lights were activated, the defendant pulled to the roadside immediately, produced his license and registration, and was generally cooperative. While the arresting officer testified that the defendant showed symptoms of intoxication and failed a field sobriety test, the breathalyzer reading was .08 percent, in the range to which the statute attaches no presumption, either of sobriety or intoxication. On all the evidence the jury might well have concluded that the defendant was influenced by alcohol “to a perceptible degree” but had a reasonable doubt that alcohol had impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. In the circumstances there is a substantial likelihood that the jury may have been influenced in its verdict by the erroneous description of the elements of the offense. The evidence presented a genuine question of guilt or innocence, and counsel’s failure to object to the charge was clearly not tactical. In the interests of justice this court held that there should be a new trial on the charge of driving under the influence at which the defendant will have the benefit of jury instructions correctly describing the elements of the offense.
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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
