Boston media outlets are reporting that Matthew Amorello, the former head of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority failed to appear at his arraignment on drunk driving charges in Haverhill District Court this morning. In accordance with standard practice when a defendant fails to appear in court, a default warrant was issued for Amorello’s arrest.

A Haverhill, Massachusetts Police Officer arrested Amorello for operating under the influence of liquor early Saturday morning. In addition to the first offense DUI charge, he was also cited for 2 counts of leaving the scene of an accident. If Amorello is convicted of all three charges, in addition to the license suspension penalties associated with the 1st offense DUI and the leaving the scene charges, he will face a 4 year revocation under the Massachusetts Habitual Traffic Offender Law, a fact which some Massachusetts DUI lawyers overlook.

The Boston news media obtained copies of Amorello’s drunk driving arrest report and publicized details of the incident which included his having to be subdued with pepper spray. No breathalyzer was administered. However, it is unclear if he refused to submit to the chemical breath test or if none was offered. If he refused to submit to the test, after being arrested for OUI, he faces an additional 6 month license suspension. Under Melanie's Law, this breathalyzer refusal suspension would run consecutively and not concurrently with any DUI license suspension. The police report indicates that  Amorello was uncooperative and refused to get out of his vehicle when a police officer instructed him to do so.  More details to follow as the story develops.

Even the best Massachusetts DUI Lawyers may be unaware that the Registry of Motor Vehicles will refuse to issue a hardship license in drunk driving cases where the OUI defendant is convicted of driving to endanger or leaving the scene of an accident in addition to DUI. Under Massachusetts Law, a person commits the offense of driving to endanger when he or she operates on a public way or right of access, recklessly so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered. Negligent operation carries a 60 day license suspension for a 1st offense and a 1 year license revocation for a 2nd offense. Leaving the scene of an accident after causing property damage, personal injury, or death also triggers license suspensions. In combination with DUI, these suspensions may trigger a loss of license under the Massachusetts Habitual Traffic Offender Law. HTO revocations are 4 years in length, with eligibility for hardship consideration after 1 year.

In a Massachusetts DUI case, if a defendant is convicted of OUI and an associated charge such as negligent operation, operating so as to endanger, or leaving the scene of an accident, the Mass. RMV will not issue a hardship license and the OUI defendant will be forced to apply to the Division of Insurance Board of Appeal for hardship consideration. The Board applies strict standards when it comes to the granting of hardship licenses and the law gives the Board considerable latitude and discretion. 

Mass. DUI attorneys should be mindful of this when advising their clients regarding whether or not to plead out a drunk driving case. In making DUI plea agreements, lawyers and their clients should be careful to avoid unpleasant surprises by insuring that charges which may trigger a license suspension or revocation are resolved by something short of a conviction. For example, a continuance without a finding (CWOF) on a charge of leaving the scene or operating so as to endanger will not trigger a license suspension or 4 year habitual traffic offender (HTO) revocation.

I have personally seen cases where DUI lawyers have failed to act in accordance with the aforementioned advice and, for example, they’ve pled out a 1st offense DUI along with leaving the scene of an accident and negligent operation. The plea agreement called for a CWOF with an alcohol program assignment on the drunk driving charge and guilty findings on the other charges. The lawyer told his unsuspecting client that she would face only a 45 day loss of license, with the ability to be considered for a hardship license at the RMV. When the DUI client when to the Registry to try to get a hardship license, she learned that her license was revoked for 60 days for leaving the scene, 60 days for driving to endanger, 45 days for DUI, and 4 years, as a habitual traffic offender for having been convicted of the aforementioned motor vehicle violations. This case shows how it is critical to understand all of the consequences of pleading guilty or admitting to sufficient facts.

In an effort to improve highway safety, the Massachusetts State Police have initiated Operation Lightening, a statewide crackdown on drunk driving and other traffic violations such as driving on a suspended license, violating the move over law, speeding, operating to endanger, reckless driving, and other traffic infractions.

Troopers have already issued hundreds of traffic tickets and made over sixty arrests for DUI and other motor vehicle offenses. The special operation includes late night patrols which may involve the use of unmarked police cruisers. The operation may include deployment of the State Police BAT, Blood Alcohol Test Mobile and field sobriety checkpoints in addition to the cruiser patrols.

Troopers assigned to Operating Lightening are likely to take a zero tolerance approach to traffic violations and they will be looking for drivers who are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Massachusetts drivers should be extra cautious during this mobilization. It doesn’t take much alcohol to register at or above .08 on a breathalyzer. This initiative is scheduled to continue throughout the summer.

If you have the misfortune to be caught in the dragnet, contact a Massachusetts DUI Specialist such as Attorney George E. McCarthy, Jr. for a free consultation and case review. Attorney McCarthy has been practicing in Massachusetts for over 30 years and he has distinguished himself as a DUI defense specialist. George has a great reputation in courts throughout Massachusetts and he consistently earns not guilty verdicts and dismissals for many of his clients.

In the Massachusetts DUI 4th offense case of Commonwealth v. Grady, 77  Mass. App. Ct. 1108 (July 9, 2010) police officers who responded to a DUI 4th offense defendant's home, as result of a  911 call, stopped the drunk driving defendant, when he left his home, after showing signs of alcohol intoxication. Ipswich Massachusetts Police Officer Jason Monteiro noticed that Mr. Grady smelled of alcohol; his eyes were glassy; his speech was slow, thick-tonged, and slurred; and he was inappropriately dressed for the weather.

Officer Monteiro ordered Grady out of the car to perform three field sobriety tests, to which Grady consented. First, Grady correctly recited the alphabet although with noticeably slow and slurred speech. Next, he performed a nine step heel-to-toe test. Officer Monteiro testified, without objection, that Grady failed the test because he was off balance, did not touch heel to toe, and did not count aloud. Finally, Grady did a one-legged stand test. Officer Monteiro explained, also without objection, that Grady failed the test because he did not count and because he kept putting his leg down to keep his balance. The officer then arrested Grady. During booking, Grady acted belligerently toward the officers, although he was able to answer all their questions.Upon this evidence, a District Court jury convicted Grady of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which a judge later determined was his fourth drunk driving offense.

The judge sentenced Grady to two and one-half years in a house of correction, one year to be served, with the balance to be suspended for three years while on probation. Additionally, the judge imposed a $1,500 fine and a ten-year loss of license.

When he was stopped, Grady explained to the officer that he had a bad knee. However, instead of refusing to perform field sobriety tests, he assured the police that he would be able to perform the tests and voluntarily agreed to do so. Under the Massachusetts DUI Law, he was not legally obligated to perform the tests, the results of which were later used to convict him, send him to jail, and revoke his driver's license for 10 years. 

In the recent case of  Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., et al.,, the highest court in Massachusetts decided that a Massachusetts nursing home was not liable for injuries caused to pedestrian, who was struck by a nursing home employee just a few minutes after he drove home from a work-related meeting with his supervisor. The meeting was held at a Chinese restaurant, in Newton, Massachusetts, where the employee had purchased two alcoholic drinks.

After striking and injuring a pedestrian, the nursing home employee was arrested and ultimately eventually convicted of driving under the influence, 1st offense. The Mass. SJC held that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home, while intoxicated, because it was no different than driving home from work. He was no longer under his employer’s control and his trip home was not in furtherance of his employer’s mission. Also, the employer did not supply the alcohol. The DUI defendant purchased and paid for the alcoholic drinks himself. Accordingly, the man’s employer had no control over the alcohol which assumedly resulted in the crash. For a variety of reasons, all of which are discussed in detail in the cout’s decision, there was no legal basis upon which to find the employer liable, even though the person who caused the injuries in the DUI accident was coming from a “company meeting.”

Massachusetts state and local police officers are out in full force during this Independence Day Holiday Weekend. Although there are no DUI sobriety checkpoints, which are also known as drunk driving roadblocks, being conducted in Massachusetts over the weekend, police will be on the lookout for drug and alcohol impaired drivers. July is traditionally a busy month for police, prosecutors, and Massachusetts DUI lawyers and much of that activity will come from this long holiday weekend.

Drinking too much or not waiting long enough before getting behind the wheel can have steep consequences such as fines, fees, court costs, legal fees, probation, license suspensions, mandatory use of the ignition interlock device, a criminal record, and even jail. Celebrating safely, limiting alcohol consumption, and using a designated driver or public transportation are the best ways to insure that you won't be among the unfortunate Massachusetts drivers who will find themselves performing field sobriety tests, being arrested for operating under the influence, having to decide whether or not to take the breathalyzer, and being arraigned in court on Tuesday morning  for DUI. Don't let a drunk driving arrest ruin your July 4th weekend.

If you are arrested for drunk driving, call for a free consultation and case review. Our Massachusetts DUI Defenders such as Attorney George E. McCarthy, Jr., are experienced lawyers who specialize in obtaining not guilty verdicts and dismissals in Massachusetts drunk driving cases. Attorney McCarthy, for example, has over thirty years of DUI defense experience and an outstanding track record of acquittals in DUI cases.

Massachusetts DUI Lawyer Paul B. Watkins, a former police officer and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is in the process of becoming qualified as an expert witness to testify in Massachusetts DUI Drug cases. Because of his background as a Malden, Massachusetts Police Officer, Attorney Watkins will assist Massachusetts DUI Lawyers in their Operating Under the Influence cases.  Once qualified, Attorney Watkins will be available as a defense expert to level the playing field between the prosecution and defense in Massachusetts DUI Drug cases.

Drug Recognition Experts such as Attorney Watkins are used in cases where motorists are accused of DUI drugs. Expert witnesses are necessary because non-experts are not allowed to testify regarding opinions. They can only testify as to their personal first-hand observations. Witnesses who have sufficient education, training, background, and experience can testify regarding opinions in their areas of expertise. Attorney Watkins will be able to testify in Massachusetts DUI cases regarding the procedures and protocol used by police in DUI drug cases.

There are few lawyers in Massachusetts who have been through both police academy, field sobriety testing, and drug recognition courses. Attorney Watkins’ unique background makes him well suited to defend Massachusetts drunk driving cases. He has achieved outstanding results in courts throughout Massachusetts. Attorney Watkins has trained Mass. DUI attorneys in properly cross examining prosecution experts and assisted them with DUI trial preparation.

A couple of weeks ago, an older gentleman and his wife appeared before the RMV Board of Appeal. He was seeking relief on a 2 year loss of license because of a second offense DUI conviction. His first DUI offense occurred more than twenty (20) years ago. Not being able to afford a lawyer for the Board of Appeal hearing, he appeared without counsel. The gentleman and his wife had difficulty understanding the complexities associated with the 2 year suspension and how to obtain a license. At no charge, I researched the man’s situation and learned that the lawyer who handled the DUI case screwed up in a big way. The lawyer was obviously not familiar with Massachusetts DUI law, because he wrongly told the judge that the client would serve a 2 year loss of license. This was a major mistake. His client was entitled to a 45 to 90 day loss of license and not a 2 year suspension. The attorney should have fought for the shorter suspension and he would have received it.

Because the man’s first offense occurred more than 20 years ago, he could have been treated as a “second chance first offender,” meaning that he could have gotten a 45 to 90 day license suspension which is associated with first offender programs under G.L. c. 90 § 24D and not the 2 year license suspension which is associated with second offense drunk driving convictions. This man’s first offense was continued without a finding (CWOF) and he was assigned to the 24D alcohol program. The District Attorney’s Office did not even try to prove second offense at his trial. Instead, they agreed that it would be treated as his first DUI offense. However, the man’s lawyer foolishly and wrongly stated that his client would be subjected to a 2 year DUI suspension. In sentencing the man, the judge agreed this and simply repeated what the lawyer told her, thereby making it a court-imposed sentence.

So now, the gentleman is without sufficient funds to hire a lawyer to fix the mistake made my an attorney who had no business handling DUI cases. He clearly lacked the required knowledge of Massachusetts DUI laws. The lawyer did nothing that the client could not have done himself. I am sure that he paid the lawyer thousands and got absolutely no benefit from the representation.  This is not the first major mistake I have seen and, unfortunately, I know it will not be the last. Anyone can claim to be the best DUI lawyer or a “DUI specialist.” However, to effectively represent clients in Massachusetts DUI cases, a lawyer must have up to date knowledge regarding DUI laws and consequences. DUI clients should screen their lawyers and make sure that the person who holds the client’s future in his or her hands takes the job seriously and has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to achieve the best outcome.

The goal of breathalyzer testing in Massachusetts is to determine the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of someone who was arrested for DUI.  In Massachusetts drunk driving cases, BAC is determined by the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MK III-C breathalyzer. It is the only evidential breath testing device certified for use in Mass. DUI cases. The breathalyzer does not directly measure blood alcohol. Instead, the Draeger Alcotest measures the amount of ethyl alcohol in a sample of expired "deep  lung" or "alveolar" air.  Using a computer program, the breathalyzer converts this breath alcohol reading into a percentage concentration of alcohol in the individual’s bloodstream.

False positive breathalyzer results can be generated because of mouth alcohol, radio frequency interference, interfering substances, alcohol trapped in dentures, and contamination.  Chemicals which can cause false positive breathalyzer readings include: lacquer, paint thinner fumes, acetaldehyde, methanol, toluene, the xylene,  isopropanol, diethyl ether, and some perfumes.

Because of the possibility of false positive readings, It may be able possible to exclude breathalyzer evidence in drunk driving cases. This is usually done by filing a motion in limmine. For breathalyzer readings to be admissible in a DUI trial, stringent procedures established by the Mass. Office of Alcohol Testing must have been followed.

In DUI cases were the breath testing procedures were properly followed, it might be possible to convince the judge or jury that the breathalyzer results are inaccurate, because of one of the above-listed possible causes of false positive readings. In these situations, the blood alcohol evidence is admitted, but it is not afforded sufficient weight for the judge or jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the DUI defendant was under the influence. Just because breathalyzer evidence is ruled admissible, it is not necessarily conclusive proof of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A good Massachusetts DUI attorney may be able to refute the breathalyzer results.

Former Police Officer and Drug Recognition Expert Paul B. Watkins, who is now a Massachusetts DUI Lawyer, spoke tonight at the Essex County Bar Association Advocates meeting. He addressed Mass. DUI Lawyers regarding how to successfully cross-examine police officers who have been trained as Drug Recognition Experts. These officers, who have undergone specialized training, have been allowed to offer opinion evidence in Massachusetts DUI drug cases. This has placed DUI lawyers in the difficult position to trying to counter that testimony with an expert of their own. Now they have one. Massachusetts DUI Lawyer Paul Watkins is an academy trained and experienced police officer who has made numerous DUI arrests in the City of Malden, where he worked for a number of years. In addition to making arrests for drunk driving, Paul investigated drug offenses and received training as a Drug Recognition Expert. He will be putting that training and experience to work in courtrooms throughout the Commonwealth by making himself available to Massachusetts DUI attorneys who are defending their clients who have been charged with DUI Drugs.

At tonight’s Bar Association meeting, Paul presented effective cross-examination strategies, so that DUI lawyers can properly cross-examine a police officer who has been trained as a DRE. With more and more police officers receiving this specialized training, DUI drug arrests will undoubtedly increase in Massachusetts. Now, defense lawyers will have an expert who can review police reports and testimony to determine if the proper procedures were followed.