A Bill proposed in 2005 by Marie J. Parente of Milford, Massachusetts would trigger automatic license suspensions for those who refuse to submit to a blood test after being arrested for operating under the influence of drugs in Massachusetts. A first offense will result in a 120 day suspension, a 2nd offense and a refusal by someone under the age of 21 would trigger a 180 day license suspension, someone previously convicted 2 or more times who refuses to submit to the blood test would have his or her driver’s license suspended for one year.  When determining prior offenses, there is a 10 year look-back period.

This bill was undoubtedly proposed due to the difficulties associated with successfully prosecuting a DUI drugs case in Massachusetts. The prosecution of DUI alcohol cases has been made easier because of breath testing, and the “per se” law, which allows the prosecution to prove the “under the influence” element of DUI by showing that the driver’s blood alcohol content was .08 or above. No such  presumption exists in Massachusetts DUI Drug cases and the prosecution often lacks sufficient evidence to prove its case.

If enacted, House Bill 1991 would give Mass. DUI prosecutors laboratory reports which would show the presence of illegal drugs. However, because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the admissibility of such laboratory reports has been made more difficult. The Prosecution generally can no longer rely on a drug certification or similar scientific report without making the scientist or chemist who generated the report available for cross-examination. Solely relying on the report violates the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution.
 

I have represented many high profile clients such as physicians, lawyers, corporate executives of Fortune 500 companies, and athletes such as a NFL Football player. Many of these and other clients have privacy and publicity concerns regarding their DUI arrests. In this post I will briefly explain what information is public in Massachusetts DUI cases.

First, G.L. c. 41 § 98F, the law which governs daily logs maintained by Massachusetts police departments requires the police to publish, in the police log, the names, addresses of persons arrested and the charges against such persons arrested. The law further provides that “[a]ll entries in said daily logs shall, unless otherwise provided in law, be public records available without charge to the public during regular business hours and at all other reasonable times.”
Massachusetts police departments routinely release information from the daily log to the news media. Often times, this information is posted on police department websites. This is the first source of DUI arrest information which is easily obtainable by the public.

It is also possible for reporters and members of the public to obtain copies of DUI police reports and relegated documentation from the clerk’s office of the district court. These documents contain substantially more information than appears in the daily police log.

Upon arraignment, the Massachusetts Board of Probation will collect biographical data and information regarding the DUI charges and, eventually, the results thereof. This information is always available to the police, the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and other law enforcement, judicial, correctional, and other criminal justice agencies. There is generally no way to “expunge” this information and it will be maintained as a permanent record.

Prospective and current employers, as well as landlords, and other non-criminal justice requestors of criminal records will likely not have access to DUI arrest data appearing on a criminal record unless it results in a conviction. Therefore, in DUI first offense cases which are resolved by an admission to sufficient facts, continuance without a finding, and eventually a dismissal will not generally be discoverable by non-criminal justice agencies who conduct a criminal records check. DUI conviction data will be discoverable.

Even a DUI which was continued without a finding and dismissed will appear on your Massachusetts driving record. Anyone who obtains this record, employers included, will see the DUI charges and outcome thereof, no matter what the disposition is. There is no way to seal, expunge, or erase this information. Even if probation records are sealed under the Massachusetts sealing laws, G.L. c. 276 § 100A and § 100B, the Registry record will remain unsealed and accessible.

When completing job applications and the like, DUI First Offenders, or others who have their DUI charge resolved by an admission to sufficient facts and ultimately a dismissal, who have otherwise clean records, can legally answer “no” when asked if they have ever been convicted of a crime. An admission to sufficient facts which is followed by a dismissal is not a conviction.

If you have specific questions regarding how a DUI arrest and/or conviction might be publicized or otherwise disclosed, please contact a Massachusetts DUI Lawyer.

If you have been arrested for DUI, which is also known as DWI, or OUI, in Massachusetts, it is important to remember that you are not alone. Approximately 46 people are arrested for OUI every day in Massachusetts. It is not the crime of the century. However, a DUI is not without consequences, some of which last a lifetime. Consequences of a Massachusetts DUI can include jail, a license suspension, use of the ignition interlock device, increased automobile insurance premiums, fines, fees, probation, mandatory alcohol program attendance, costly reinstatement fees, a criminal record, firearms license suspension or disqualification, public embarrassment, and mental distress.

The first and most important thing that you should do in response to a DUI arrest is to find a qualified and experienced Massachusetts DUI Lawyer, who has a proven track record of DUI not guilty verdicts and dismissals. Your DUI case, driving record, criminal record, and police report need to be thoroughly analyzed so a decision can be made regarding whether to plead out or take the DUI case to trial.

Many lawyers offer a free initial consultation. You should take advantage of this valuable service.  In dealing with breathalyzer refusal, ignition interlock, DUI license suspension and hardship license cases for the past several years, I have seen firsthand the effects of my license reinstatement client’s bad decisions. Those who have decided to represent themselves and not hire an experienced Massachusetts DUI specialist have paid the price in the form of bad deals, losses at trial, and long license suspensions. Contact a Massachusetts DUI Lawyer to present this from happening to you.

It is possible to win a Massachusetts DUI case, even where there are breathalyzer results. In some cases, these results can be effectively challenged and “suppressed,” meaning that they will be excluded from evidence.  Massachusetts has strict technical requirements which govern the admissibility of breath test evidence. If these standards are not met, the breathalyzer evidence can be excluded from the DUI case.

Massachusetts police departments use the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MK III-C breathalyzer for evidential breath testing. It is currently the only device approved by the Massachusetts Office of Alcohol Testing. This breathalyzer must be inspected, tested, and certified annually, to insure reliability. If the device is not properly inspected, tested, or certified, any breath tests conducted on the device are invalid and they can be excluded from evidence.

Additionally, the device must be operated by a certified infrared breath test operator. If the police officer who is conducting the test is not properly certified to operate the breathalyzer, the breath test evidence can also be suppressed.

To confirm accuracy, Massachusetts breathazlyers must perform a breath test, followed by a test of simulator solution, and another breath test. There must be “air blanks” in between each part of this test. The purpose of this procedure is to confirm accuracy by testing the breathalyzer simulator solution in between the two breath samples, which must be between .02 BAC of each other. The simulator solution must be read as .14, .15, or .16. Any other reading will invalidate the test. Also, only the lower of the two breath sample readings can be considered.

The police are required to keep detailed maintenance records regarding each breathalyzer used in Massachusetts DUI cases. The log should reflect that the device is calibrated each time the simulator solution is replaced.

The items listed above are just a few examples of the legal requirements for an admissible breathazlyer test in Massachusetts. While breathalyzer evidence is admissible in most DUI cases, there may be situations where it is possible to exclude breath alcohol evidence for failure to comply with established breath testing laws, procedures, and regulations. A Massachusetts DUI Lawyer can evaluate this aspect of your DUI case.

There are numerous innocent explanations for the signs and symptoms of alcohol intoxication which, if applicable, can result in a not guilty verdict at a Massachusetts DUI trial. In most operating under the influence cases, the central issue is whether the OUI defendant's capability to safely operate his or her vehicle was diminished as a result of alcohol. Naturally, the greater the level of intoxication, the more likely it is that the driver’s capacity was diminished.

Common signs and symptoms of alcohol intoxication include erratic driving, glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, incoherence, inability to follow directions, disorientation, confusion, lack of balance & coordination, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage.

Oftentimes, swerving or other erratic operation is not the product of intoxication. For example, a driver reaching for his or her ipod or using a blackberry while driving may swerve or drive in an erratic manner. While this might constitute negligent operation, it does not mean that the driver is drunk. Other systems such as glassy & bloodshot eyes can result from allergies, eye strain from reading, exhaustion and lack of sleep.

Slurred speech can sometimes be accounted for in cases where the driver has a speech impediment, is excessively tired, has a medical problem, or where English is not his or her first language. Similarly, an odor of alcohol might suggest drinking or spillage, but not necessarily intoxication.

Alleged poor performance on tests of balance and coordination, known as DUI field sobriety tests, can often be explained due to lighting, defects in the road surface, age, medical conditions, weight, physical impairments and difficulty hearing. Incompetence on the part of the officer administering the test also sometimes accounts for alleged field sobriety test failures.

In summary, there are often many credible and innocent explanations for what is documented in a DUI police report. Police reports should be thoroughly reviewed by a skilled Massachusetts DUI lawyer prior to making any decision to “plead out” or take an OUI case to trial. By interviewing the DUI client and thoroughly reviewing the facts and circumstances of the arrest, a DUI specialist can often spot deficiencies or exculpatory information and accurately evaluate the strength of the prosecution’s case. No decision in any OUI case should be made without consulting with a lawyer who has analyzed not only the police report, but also the DUI defendant’s criminal and RMV records. Some Massachusetts DUI lawyers will provide this service at no charge.

In Massachusetts DUI cases, it is often possible for the prosecution to use medical records, including laboratory reports, against the defendant in court. For example, if a person arrested for operating under the influence is transported to the hospital, in most circumstances, he or she will have blood drawn, as part of the hospital’s standard operating procedure.

The results of this blood test, which is conducted by medical personnel for treatment purposes, can be obtained by the prosecution and used against the Massachusetts DUI defendant at his or her trial, to prove alcohol intoxication. It is, therefore, important to remember that just like the right to refuse a chemical test offered by the police, there is a right to refuse to consent to having blood taken by hospital personnel.

Those arrested for DUI and transported to a hospital for medical treatment could find themselves in the unenviable position of refusing to a blood test requested by the police, and thereby incurring an automatic chemical test refusal suspension, only to have blood alcohol evidence obtained by the hospital admitted against them at trial.

Anyone arrested for drunk driving in Massachusetts should be aware of the right to refuse having blood drawn for any purpose, whether it be for the OUI prosecution or for medical reasons. Incidentally, in Commonwealth v. Parmenter, the Massachusetts SJC will rule on the admissibility of blood evidence where the individuals who drew and tested the blood sample did not testify at trial. Instead, the prosecution relied on a lab report to prove intoxication.

If you take prescription or non-prescription over-the-counter drugs or alcohol while driving, you can be in trouble. According to the law, anyone under the effect of drugs found driving or being in charge of a vehicle may have to go to court. Whether you have been advised these drugs by your doctor or health consultant, driving under their influence means you are breaking the law.

Traffic authorities are given the power to check any one for a random drug test, especially those who are found to be suspicious. This can include the way a person is driving the car and physical signs and performance of the driver. Normally, the police carry out a random drug test by taking a sample of the drivers saliva and checking it for levels of cannabis, MDMA or ecstasy and methylamphetamine or ICE. Any non-zero levels of these three drugs mean the driver is breaking the law. Currently, the saliva test can only detect levels of these three drugs, and the police can take a blood test or urine sample at any point if they feel that the driver is under influence of some other drug such as alcohol. A breathalyser can also be carried out to find if the driver has any alcohol in his system. However, for alcohol, the threshold level for drug in the blood is safe anywhere between zero and 0.05, and blood alcohol levels or BAC higher than this can cause trouble for the driver. This threshold limit can be changed by the law anytime, as deemed appropriate. A prosecution drug recognition expert can also be used as a testimony against the driver.

When a person is under the influence of drugs, whether it is alcohol, an addictive drug, prescription drug or over-the-counter drug, his or her mental or physical capacity of being able to work properly and comprehend things can become impaired. Driving under the influence of drugs, also known as DUI, or driving while impaired or intoxicated or DWI can become a problem not only for the driver, but for other passengers riding in the vehicle and also for the passerbyes. A drug can be categorized as just anything which affects a person’s mental or physical capability, whether it is a cold medicine, pills of coffee or caffeine etc. According to the definition used in California, “A drug is anything capable of affecting the nervous system, brain or muscles of an individual as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his or her ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that any ordinarily prudent and cautious person, in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions.” If you or someone you know has been charged for DUI, you will need to consult a specialized DUI lawyer or a DUI attorney, who has qualified DUI Laws. A lawyer not specialized in this field may not be able to defend you as it takes real know-how to handle cases accused with DUI.

According to definition, DUI includes driving under the influence of alcohol, including driving while intoxicated, drunk driving, operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, where as a vehicle can include anything from bicycle, boat, airplane, to wheelchair, tractor or horse. In most counties and states of America, DUI and DWI are considered a criminal offense and are dealt with severe charges. It is a serious health hazard and causes 39% of vehicle related deaths each year. Most courts will disqualify the accused of holding or obtaining a driver’s license for a specific period of time, whereas in serious cases, the charges can be severe. These charges can include a fine, appointment of a community service or even prison. The court also takes away the right of eligibility to apply for a work licence and if the driver is convicted with a serious offence of driving or being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of a drug.

Some states may have the same punishment for DUI drug cases and DUI alcohol cases. However, in states where the punishments are different, it is important to hire a DUI lawyer who can relieve some of the harsher punishments imposed by law. Whether you have been accused of drunk driving DUI, DWI or driving while impaired or intoxicated, DUII or driving under the influence of intoxicants, OUI or operating under the influence of drugs, OUIL or operating under the influence of liquor, or operating a motor vehicle while impaired or simply accused of reckless driving while drunk, a knowledgeable and skilled defense DUI lawyer should be consulted. Do not waste time with inexperienced lawyers, as your driver’s license can be cancelled. Consulting a skilled criminal defense lawyer who concentrated on DUI and DWI defense should be your first choice to save yourself from a lot of trouble.

If you have been arrested for DUI, you are not alone. Doctors, lawyers, police officers, judges, prosecutors, celebrities, politicians, and athletes have all been arrested for drunk driving. Nobody is immune from being arrested for DUI and it is a misconception that only alcoholics drive under the influence.

Massachusetts First Offender 24D classes are made up of people from all walks of life and all it takes to get arrested for DUI in Massachusetts is being at the wrong place at the wrong time, after having consumed some alcohol. Roughly half of the approximately 17,000 people who were arrested for drunk driving in Massachusetts last year were OUI first offenders.

Being arrested for a first offense OUI or even a 2nd offense OUI does not mean that you are a hardened criminal or a menace to society. With the help of a skilled and experienced Massachusetts DUI lawyer, it is possible to minimize the consequences of a DUI arrest and put the event behind you so that you can move on with your life.

Donald Ross, an advocate for stiff Massachusetts drunk driving penalties was sentenced to 2 ½ years in jail on Monday, when he pled guilty to OUI 3rd offense. Ross will be required to serve one year in jail.

Ross became an activist for tough Mass. DUI laws after 15 year old son Stephen was killed by a drunk driver in 1993. Ross was arrested for 3rd offense DUI after he was involved in an accident on Route 128 last July.

As a third offender, Ross will lose his license for 8 years for being convicted of 3rd offense OUI. If he refused the breathalyzer, his license will be suspended for an additional 5 years under the Massachusetts breathalyzer refusal law.

Two United States Senators have filed a bill which would require states to require mandatory ignition interlock device usage for everyone convicted of DUI, regardless of the driver’s record. States which do not follow this mandate will lose federal highway funds.

U.S. senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who both serve on the Senate’s Transportation Committee drafted the bill with the support of MADD, a longtime proponent of mandatory ignition interlock device laws.

The following states require all DUI offenders, including those convicted of a DUI first offense, to use the ignition interlock device: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Utah, and Washington.

Massachusetts may join these states if Senate Bill 1925 (An Act Relative to Ignition Interlock Devices) passes. I strongly suspect that it will pass and even those convicted of a first offense OUI in Massachusetts will be required to use the ignition interlock device.

These interlock devices are not without problems and the Registry’s ignition interlock regulations (PDF) require either a 10 year or lifetime license suspension for ignition interlock violations.