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 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 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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Unlicensed Riding Motor Vehicle
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Unlicensed Riding Motor Vehicle
Commonwealth v. Victory
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction by the Norfolk Court (Massachusetts) for violating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 10, (as amended by 1923 Mass. Act ch. 464, § 4, 1929 Mass. Act ch. 262), in that he, being a person licensed to operate motor vehicles, was riding with and accompanying an unlicensed operator, who was operating the motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence supported defendant’s conviction?
Discussion:
Defendant excepted to the trial court’s rulings. On appeal, the court held that the evidence supported defendant’s conviction, but sustained his exceptions. The court held that the trial court’s charge to the jury improperly conveyed the impression that they could find defendant guilty even if he believed that his associate was duly licensed. The instructions were misleading and prejudicial to defendant’s rights. The jury was instructed that the burden was on defendant to ascertain whether his associate’s license was in effect at the time mentioned, and that if, in fact, the purported license had expired and defendant accompanied him, defendant would be liable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 10. The instruction as given was based upon a wrong interpretation of the statute. Unless defendant had knowledge that his associate was not licensed as an operator, there did not exist the situation contemplated by § 10 of an unlicensed operator accompanied by a licensed operator, and it was immaterial what effort defendant made to ascertain the validity of the associate’s purported license. The court sustained defendant’s exceptions.
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 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 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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Bodily Injury Evidence Seizure
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Bodily Injury Evidence Seizure
Commonwealth v. Patrick
Facts:
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to suppress evidence of blood testing in his prosecution for operating under the influence and operating under the influence resulting in serious bodily injury.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether evidence supports a conclusion that the government directly caused the seizure of defendant’s blood?
Discussions:
Defendant was charged with operating under the influence and operating under the influence resulting in serious bodily injury. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the introduction into evidence any results of blood testing performed by the hospital on blood drawn from him involuntarily. Denying defendant’s motion to suppress, the court held that the police did not request or direct that the blood test be performed; therefore, the evidence fails to support a conclusion that the government directly caused the seizure of defendant’s blood. The court further held that the privilege against self-incrimination did not make the results of the involuntary blood tests inadmissible. Denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court held that defendant had prior notice of his prior offenses and, therefore, must have known that if he received a citation it would almost certainly be a complaint rather than a warning.
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 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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
