Massachusetts DUI Lawyer Blog

As a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney, my attention was caught by a story about a Peabody woman charged with second offense-drunk driving and two counts of child endangerment. According to The Salem News, bystanders saw the woman order her 11-year-old son out of her car and drive away, leaving him behind. She later returned to find police waiting for her, along with her son. According to a police report, bystanders saw Cheri Cordero, 40, tell her 11-year-old son to get out of her 2008 Cadillac Escalade near an intersection in Salem, and then drive away. He told the bystanders that his mother had been drinking, and that his 9-year-old brother was still in the car.

The bystanders called the police, and when they arrived, the boy told them that his mother had been drinking at a party on a friend's boat. As they left the party, her boyfriend called and they got into an argument over the phone. Agitated, she began yelling at her sons, the boy said, and that was when she told the older boy to get out of the car and drove away. Some time later, just before 9 p.m., Cordero returned to where she had dropped him off. Police officers arrived at about the same time and noted that Cordero's eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that she was slurring her words and smelled of alcohol. She said she had not been drinking, and that her kids were upset because they didn't want to leave the party. She failed two unspecified field sobriety tests. She refused a breathalyzer test at the police station, so police seized her driver's license and contacted the Department of Children and Families.

Read article: Peabody woman faces charges for drunk driving, child endangerment

Leaving an 11-year-old child to fend for himself on a street corner is clearly not the best choice for a parent to make, even when that parent intends to come right back. But Cordero's behavior as a parent should not predetermine the outcome of her drunk driving charge. I hope that she will protect her own and her children's future by contacting an experienced Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense attorney to ensure that she is treated fairly as her case goes through the legal system.

It's important to note that since there is no breath test, the evidence against Cordero is all based on subjective observations made by police officers, such as field sobriety tests. Last week, I discussed the problems with field sobriety tests, and how easy it is to wrongly label someone as intoxicated based only on those tests. Cordero was most likely very upset at the time that she performed the field sobriety tests, so her performance on them could have been impaired by her emotional state even if she had not been drinking. It could also be that the police officers' judgments about her mothering affected how they saw the field sobriety tests, too. Cordero never took a Breathalyzer, so there is no objective evidence of her blood-alcohol content -- only observations of notoriously unreliable field sobriety tests and personal observations of her appearance and behavior.

Refusing a breathalyzer test comes with its own penalty: loss of driver's license for 180 days for a first OUI, or three years for a second-offense OUI. Those who lose their license for refusal of the test can appeal the suspension with the RMV within 15 days. If their drunk driving case is resolved in their favor, they are entitled to a court hearing to get their license back as well. But this hearing is not automatic, which is why Cordero or anyone else facing OUI charges involving field sobriety tests should contact a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense lawyer who can challenge unreliable field sobriety tests.

Continue reading "Emotions Could Affect Test Results in Peabody Second OUI Case" »

Police officers rely heavily on field sobriety tests when they suspect a driver of being intoxicated. Unfortunately, as a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, I know that there are serious problems with these tests, and I use those problems as an element of my clients' defense whenever appropriate. The appeal of field sobriety tests is clear: Drunk driving is dangerous and law enforcement agencies need easy-to-use, scientifically and legally valid ways of identifying drunkenness. Unfortunately, the field sobriety tests that are most commonly used in Massachusetts aren't as reliable as they should be, and may not be administered properly. This means that completely innocent drivers who haven't even had one drink can sometimes be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends three specific field sobriety tests -- the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand -- as the most reliable ones for police officers to use. The NHTSA says that police officers who use all three tests on a suspected drunk driver have a 91% chance of making the right call as to whether or not the driver is actually drunk. In what the NHTSA views as the most accurate one, the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (or "jerking eyeball test"), a police officer asks a driver to follow a small flashlight side to side with his or her eyes. If the driver is drunk, his or her eyeballs shake as they look to the side. The walk-and-turn test is similar to walking a balance beam back and forth on a straight line. And the one-leg stand involves perhaps the greatest physical challenge of the three: drivers are asked to stand still with their arms at their sides, raise one leg six inches off the ground while keeping it straight and pointing at their toes, looking at their raised toes, and count forward from 1,001. Swaying, raising arms for balance, hopping, putting the foot down, or starting to count before the police officer tells them to can all be viewed as signs of drunkenness.

Several years ago, the Washington Post ran an article about the faulty science behind these tests that I found fascinating, as a Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer. The scientific basis of field sobriety tests lies in a 33-year-old study of how well field sobriety tests could identify blood alcohol content. That study was conducted with 238 subjects, mostly men 22-29 years old, and no control group. As the article sums up, "So hundreds of thousands of drivers have been arrested -- no doubt many deservedly so -- on the basis of a 30-year-old study that, critics argue, has never been published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, never tested on a large scale with a control group and, perhaps more astonishing, has nothing to do with actual impairment from alcohol."

Besides the tests' scientific faultiness, they can also falsely identify as drunk people who just have medical issues. Balance disorders affect 40% of Americans at some point in their lives, and dizziness and vertigo are the third leading cause for visits to doctors. The older you get, and the heavier you get, the worse your balance. For an aging population with a growing number of overweight and obese people, the one-leg stand test sounds like a pretty ineffective gauge of whether someone is drunk.

This is why it's important for anyone facing OUI charges to contact a Massachusetts intoxicated driving criminal defense lawyer immediately. Experienced OUI defense attorneys know how to legally challenge unreliable field sobriety tests and get that evidence thrown out, which can get the charges dismissed or help win a not-guilty verdict. Anyone accused of a crime with serious penalties like OUI should avail themselves of the expertise of a criminal defense lawyer like Stephen Neyman.

Continue reading "Never Plead Guilty Based on Field Sobriety Tests That Use Faulty Science" »

In April, I wrote about the case of a Marblehead grandmother arrested for drunk driving while taking her nine-year-old grandson to school. An update on the outcome of her case caught my attention because it reminded me, as a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, of how people convicted of OUI can face vastly different penalties for the same crime.

Sharon Faulkner, 63, of Marblehead, was found guilty at a bench trial in Lynn District court of second-offense OUI and leaving the scene of an accident. She pleaded guilty to child endangerment while operating under the influence and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. For these charges, Faulkner will spend a full year in a state house of correction. She will serve half of that time toward the OUI charge's sentence of two and a half years. The remaining two years are suspended with supervised probation, and during that time, she will not be permitted to drive. The other half of the sentence represents her sentence for child endangerment while operating under the influence. Faulkner is also required to undergo a 14-day inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program, along with random tests to ensure that she remains drug- and alcohol-free, as ordered by the judge. Her home will be equipped with a Sobrietor, a machine that allows probation officers to test by phone whether she is sober.

Read article: Marblehead grandmother faces a year behind bars

Compare Faulkner's sentence to that of Carrie Featherstone, about whom I wrote last year. Featherstone, like Faulkner, pleaded guilty in Gloucester District Court to second-offense DUI, reckless operation of a motor vehicle and child endangerment. But Featherstone emerged with a much lighter sentence: a two-year loss of license, a 90-day suspended sentence, two years of probation, court costs and completion of the alcohol education program. Featherstone was able to avoid jail time, even though state law requires at least thirty days to be served in jail for a second-offense OUI. Most likely, this was because if the first offense OUI conviction is at least ten years old, the judge can opt for the "24D" alternative disposition, or in Featherstone's case, a combination of 24D penalties and regular penalties.

Faulkner's earlier OUI offense was more than ten years old too. She may have been sentenced more harshly because her probation had already been revoked for failure to stay sober, but it's striking that where one person can receive no jail time at all, another can be sentenced to serve a full year for similar charges. This case shows that Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer's results can differ dramatically from case to case. Many things factor into the ultimate result that are not disclosed in newspaper articles. When looking to hire a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer, make sure that if you are comparing results you do so with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances of each case. The published result does not necessarily show the quality of lawyering that a defendant received.

Massachusetts law sets out serious penalties for those convicted of a second DUI. In addition to those mentioned above, there are fines and fees ranging from more than $600 to more than $10,000; loss of driver's license for two years, including at least one year without eligibility for a hardship license; and negative consequences for work, family and auto insurance rates. With so much to lose, drivers facing a second drunk driving charge should not delay in contacting a Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense attorney to help them.

Continue reading "Marblehead Grandmother Faces Stiff Sentence After Second OUI Conviction" »

In Marshfield, a couple with a 19-year-old son are defending themselves against charges that they allowed underage kids to consume alcoholic beverages at their home. Jeffrey and Janet Bessemer have been ordered to appear in court on misdemeanor charges of furnishing alcohol to minors and keeping a disorderly home, and violating the Massachusetts social host law. Fortunately, the case does not spring from a death or injury; police called on a noise complaint found a party at the Bessemers' home. The Bessemers told the Quincy Patriot-Ledger that they had had their own party earlier that day, and they had neglected to put away all the leftover alcoholic beverages and shot glasses after it was over because they were tired.

Later that night, their 19-year-old son planned to have a few friends come over to meet his girlfriend, and the Bessemers said that a larger group of young adults showed up after 10 p.m. without their knowledge. Jeffrey Bessemer said that second group must have supplied the alcohol and that he wouldn't have provided it. A neighbor called police complaining about loud music at 11:45 p.m., and when police arrived, they found both garage doors open with about 20 people hanging around there, and another 10 people inside the house. Only three of them were of legal age to drink alcohol, but police said most or all of them were holding beer containers or red plastic cups containing alcoholic beverages. There was a table in the garage holding plastic cups and a large amount of alcohol in open and closed containers, and in the kitchen police found liquor bottles and shot glasses. The Bessemers came downstairs shortly after the police arrived and told them they had been unaware that anyone was drinking. A Marshfield police officer expressed doubt about this.

Read article: Marshfield couple faces social host charges.

A few months ago, I discussed my concern that the social host law could be overzealously interpreted, and it appears that the Bessemers' case may be an example of just that. As a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney, I would look at the situation with a more critical eye than the police officer may have used. There are a number of possible reasons why the Bessemers could have been unaware of their son's party, even if it did generate a noise complaint. Noise complaints aren't always reasonable, and noise can be blocked by well-insulated or large homes. The Bessemers may have trusted their son and didn't realize that his judgment wasn't as good as they thought.

The social host law specifies that "furnishing" alcohol means to provide it or allow its consumption on your property "knowingly and intentionally." Proving this could be an uphill battle in this case. The Bessemers claim they didn't do it knowingly or intentionally, if they did it at all, and there are alternative interpretations of the situation. The law absolutely should hold people responsible for their actions, but in a case like this, prosecutors and officers should investigate carefully before holding parents responsible for the actions of their adult children and those children's friends. As a Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense attorney, I'm glad that the drinking at the Bessemers' son's party appears to have been harmless, and that no related drunk driving accidents were reported.

Continue reading "Marshfield Social Host Case Underscores Risk of Injustice From Over-Enforcement" »

In recent months, there have been a number of reports warning the public not to consume caffeinated energy drinks with alcohol, like Red Bull with vodka. For example, this study reported on a CNN blog June 8 showed that student athletes were more likely to binge-drink if they mixed the alcohol with caffeine. In fact, the Scottish arm of the UK's Labour Party is considering a ban on alcoholic drinks with a certain percentage of caffeine. Studies have indicated that people consuming caffeine with alcohol feel less drunk even though they actually are often more drunk than people who have been drinking alcohol without caffeine. This is because as alcohol is metabolized, it reduces glucose available to the brain, which makes you feel tired. But when caffeine is added to the mix, it masks the tiredness with its stimulant properties, so people don't recognize how drunk they are.

However, as a Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense lawyer, I was fascinated to read that studies have also shown that caffeine can have a "synergistic" effect with alcohol. British researchers reported in "Interactions of Alcohol and Caffeine on Human Reaction Time," Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 528 (June 1983), that "Caffeine has a synergistic interaction with alcohol...(It) has the effect of potentiating the detrimental effects already induced by alcohol....Motor skills which involve delicate muscular coordination and accurate timing have been found to be adversely affected by caffeine." That means caffeine can increase the symptoms of alcohol intoxication -- not counteract them, mask them, or help you to "sober up." In essence, it makes people seem more drunk than they really are.

This is important for a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney like me to know about, because it could provide an avenue of defense for clients charged with intoxicated driving. For someone pulled over by the police for drunk driving, this means that their performance on a field sobriety test could perform worse than they would have without the caffeine. The caffeine would make them shakier and less able to perform the field sobriety tests than the alcohol alone would have left them. Field sobriety tests are supposed to provide evidence of whether a person is intoxicated, by demonstrating whether they can perform tasks such as "walk-and-turn", "finger-to-nose" and "one-leg-stand." These tests are not always possible for people who are haven't even consumed any alcohol to perform perfectly, so the tests' accuracy is less than ideal. For example, the test results can be affected by a person's age, weight, athletic ability, emotional state, fatigue, and lack of familiarity with the tests. They can also be affected by conditions including passing traffic and by the police officer's communication skills. With the addition of caffeine, the test results could make the person appear to be drunker than he or she really was, and the person would be more likely to get arrested.

Continue reading "Beware of Caffeine: It Can Raise Your Chances of a Drunk Driving Arrest" »

A Cambridge man, 47-year-old William J. Walker, faces OUI and other charges after allegedly nearly striking a police officer with his car just before Memorial Day weekend. Police said that Walker was driving his white 1997 Chevy Lumina up to the intersection of Brattle and Appleton streets in Cambridge, where a police officer was working a detail while wearing a bright green detail vest. The officer put up his hand to indicate that Walker should stop, but the Lumina didn't stop until the officer yelled at him and jumped out of the way. Walker then allegedly slammed on the brakes and stopped.

The officer approached the car, asked Walker if he was okay and whether he was on any medications. Walker said he was not, and the officer noted that his face looked "droopy" and he had glassy, watery eyes. When a second officer arrived, he asked Walker to step out of the car, frisked him, and reportedly found many medications that Walker said belonged to his father. Walker later admitted to having taken a narcotic that day, and police had him perform field sobriety tests. They noted that his body trembled and swayed during the tests. Walker was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, operating a motor vehicle with license restriction and possession of a Class B substance.

Read article: Cambridge man cuffed for almost running over cop

In my experience as a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, police and prosecutors often don't take kindly to a suspect who could have hurt one of their own. For that reason, I hope Walker gets experience representation to handle his OUI and other charges. The first police officer was undoubtedly shaken up by nearly being hit by Walker's car, and it would not be surprising if his colleague who arrived later was also upset by the near-miss.

The article doesn't note whether Walker was asked to take a breath or blood test. As a Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer, I would question the results of their field sobriety tests if these form the only basis for the intoxicated driving charge. These tests are notoriously subjective -- they can be hard for some people to perform even if they aren't intoxicated, and the results depend on the police officer's personal interpretation of how the person being tested behaves. If Walker had any kind of medical or even emotional condition that could cause his body to tremble and sway when being questioned by the police, after nearly having an accident, that could have affected his performance in the field sobriety tests. As Walker's case winds its way through the court system, his Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense attorney could argue persuasively for a dismissal of the charges or win a not-guilty verdict by challenging the field sobriety tests.

Continue reading "Cambridge Man Who Nearly Hit Officer With His Car Charged With OUI " »

As a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, I took note of a recent story about a Framingham man, Ronival Pires, charged with negligent endangerment of a child, driving under the influence of liquor and driving without a license. According to Boston's Fox 25 News, someone at a Tedeschi's convenience store in Framingham called police about a young child alone in a parked car. Police arrived and found the vehicle pulling out of the parking lot. They stopped the car and found Pires, age 30, driving with his two-year-old daughter in the back seat with no car seat, sitting next to a 30-pack of beer. Police administered several field sobriety tests to Pires, all of which he failed. He said he had not been drinking, but police noted a smell of alcohol on his breath. Pires was arrested and later was arraigned in Framingham District Court. He pled not guilty and was released without bail ahead of his scheduled July 9 pretrial conference. The daughter was released into her mother's custody.

Read article: Framingham man charged with OUI, child endangerment.

From my experience as a Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense attorney, I know that people often get emotional when they are told that a child was endangered. This can cause problems for people who have been charged with OUI child endangerment, because juries may react to the child endangerment charge when deciding on the suspect's guilt on other matters, like the OUI itself. This is why defendants like Pires should have an aggressive, experienced attorney to protect their rights in a court of law. An experienced attorney can move to exclude child endangerment charges and similar prejudicial matters from evidence.

In this case, a lawyer might also move to exclude any mention of the field sobriety tests, which are well known to be unreliable. In order to be admissible in court, field sobriety tests must be performed exactly according to the standards set out by Massachusetts case law and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Even when they are, the tests are easy for stone-cold sober people to fail, making them an unfair basis for convicting someone of a crime. If these tests are the only charges against him, Pires may well be able to get the charges against him dismissed or to get a not-guilty verdict. But to get the best possible chance, he and others like him definitely need professional legal expertise to protect his rights.

Continue reading "Framingham Man Faces Drunk Driving and Child Endangerment Charges" »

In my work as a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney, I regularly counsel clients involved in DUI cases with multiple charges. A case involving an alleged illegal immigrant charged with drunkenly crashing his car into a state representative's vehicle promises to be especially complex. The driver, Isaias Naranjo, 27, of Waltham, will not only have to defend himself against several serious charges stemming from the injury-causing accident, but will also have to deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The accident occurred at Birmingham Parkway and Lincoln Street in Brighton at 2:40 a.m. on May 20. Naranjo allegedly was driving around 60 mph when he rear-ended state Representative Michael Moran's car and then got out of his car and ran away down Birmingham Parkway. A taxi driver witnessed the crash and chased after Naranjo in his cab, caught up with him and held him on the curb until police arrived. Naranjo was lying on the ground when police approached him, and they described his speech as "incoherent and slurred," his eyes as extremely glassy and bloodshot, and his breath as smelling strongly of alcohol. He admitted to having consumed alcohol that evening, but said he didn't know how much. He was unable to stand up for field sobriety tests, and blew a 0.25 BAC on a breathalyzer test. Boston EMS examined him and said he was fine.

Unfortunately, those in Rep. Moran's car did not fare as well. State police escorted Rep. Moran to St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, where he checked himself into the emergency room with unspecified injuries, and a passenger in Moran's car went to Beth Israel Hospital in an ambulance because of abdominal and lower back pain. State police arrested Naranjo and charged him with leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident with damage; a marked lanes violation; speeding; leaving the scene of a motor vehicle with personal injury; operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol causing serious injury; and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. In addition, ICE has filed a detainer on Naranjo, which means the agency believes he has violated an immigration law. The detainer allows ICE to pick him up to start deportation proceedings after he has served any sentence.

Read article: State rep's car rear-ended by drunk driver

There have already been a lot of strong opinions expressed in the press about this incident because of the political figure involved and the immigration status of the defendant. In addition to an immigration attorney, I hope that Naranjo has an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer, because he is going to need all the help he can get to receive fair treatment under the law. Illegal immigration is a hot-button political issue, which could bias potential jurors against Naranjo, even though his OUI case is unrelated to his deportation case. An experienced attorney should move to keep that information from being admitted in the drunk driving case, giving Naranjo a better chance at a fair trial.

Continue reading "State House Rep Rear-Ended by Drunk Driver Embroiled in Immigration Woes" »

Recent articles from across the nation show a disturbing trend of allowing police to forcefully draw blood from drivers suspected of being drunk. In April, the Missouri House passed a bill allowing police in that state to draw blood without a warrant, and the Illinois legislature was considering a bill to streamline the process for obtaining warrants for forced blood draws. As a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer, I think it's important to fully think through the consequences of laws like this before enacting them.

Legislators and law enforcement personnel feel that the prospect of a forced blood draw will deter drunk drivers. "People will not drink and drive if they think they'll have a needle stuck in their arm," said Kane County (Ill.) State's Attorney John Barsanti. The Illinois Secretary of State's Office reports that about 40% of the 50,000 people charged with drunk driving in that state each year won't submit to a Breathalyzer test, and many drivers also refuse officers' requests for blood and urine samples. State laws often repay drivers who refuse to take a breathalyzer test by suspending their driver's licenses, as Massachusetts does. But the lack of evidence in cases where drivers refuse to provide chemical samples makes it harder for the state to convict drivers of drunk driving. So it's understandable that the state would see forcibly taking such evidence as a good solution to increasing their drunk driving conviction rate.

However, in my view as a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney, forcibly taking blood from drivers by the side of the road presents several legal and medical problems. The Supreme Court ruled in Schmerber v. California in 1966 that forcibly taking blood does not violate someone's right against unreasonable searches and seizures or forced self-incrimination, even without a warrant. Even though the Schmerber court never truly addressed the case's Fourth Amendment issues, this ruling remains the law of the land. But importantly, a physician was the one drawing the suspected drunk driver's blood in that situation. Medical professionals spend many hours learning how to draw blood correctly. Police officers do not get that training, because it's not part of their job -- and occasionally, that lack of training causes medical problems. There has already been at least one claim that a suspect suffered persistent infection at the site of a blood draw performed by a police officer. There could also be harm to suspects who, for example, have severe hemophilia and cannot stop bleeding once their vein is punctured. A medical professional would know how to handle a situation involving this kind of special medical need, but a police officer with minimal training might not. So the practice of forcible blood draws could put suspects at unreasonable risk of harm.

Forcible blood draws also don't even necessarily solve the state's evidence problems. The blood test may be a more reliable indicator of blood-alcohol content than breathalyzer test results, but that's only if the blood test procedure is followed exactly. Blood testing kits may not work correctly if they aren't stored at the right temperature, so they can yield inaccurate results. Plus, the skin needs to be cleaned before a needle can be used to draw blood, but both alcohol and iodine, which are commonly used for this purpose, can interfere with the BAC results. And the more people who handle the blood sample, the more opportunities there are for the chain of custody to be disrupted, and the more opportunities there are for someone to do something that interferes with the accuracy of the results. These are more reasons why it seems better to leave blood draws to trained professionals, rather than requiring police to take on a job they haven't trained for and may not want.

Continue reading "Forcible Roadside Blood Draws in Drunk Driving Traffic Stops on the Rise Nationally" »

A Scituate teenager who crashed his car has been charged with driving under the influence, speeding, and other driving violations after attempting to escape from the police while they interviewed his passengers. The 17-year-old Scituate High School student's name is being withheld because he is a minor. As a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer, I am glad that no one was hurt in this incident,

Police said that the student's 2006 Ford Focus totally blocked the intersection of Edith Holmes Drive and Tilden Road, although it was unclear what had led to the crash. Police arrived at the scene around 12:45 a.m. on April 29 and found four teenagers standing outside the car, each of them emitting "a strong odor of liquor." A witness said that a fifth passenger had been involved and had fled the scene on foot, but police were unable to find him or her. The teens gave police "various names," suggesting that they were lying about their identities initially, but police eventually ascertained their real names. Three of them had been listed as honor students in the local papers. A Breathalyzer test showed the driver's blood alcohol content to be 0.16%, twice the legal limit for adults over 21 and eight times the limit for drivers under 21. That impairment measurement may help explain the driver's unusual choice to get back in his car and try to drive away while police were questioning the three passengers. The driver told police, "I have to drive it home, there is something wrong with the front end," according to the police report. The driver finally gave up and got out of the car "only after strong verbal language was used," and the car was towed away. The driver is scheduled for a pre-trial conference in late May.

Read article: Scituate student faces drunk driving charge.

As a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney, I'm sure the driver and his parents are dismayed at having to spend the spring and summer learning about how the Massachusetts court system works and the serious penalties for drunk driving. It would be wise for them to contact an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer to guide them through this difficult process. Massachusetts law treats minors differently from adults with respect to drunk driving charges, providing for a longer period of driver's license suspension as well as a lower legal limit. The student and his parents may also be concerned about how this accident will affect his future. An attorney can help them work toward the best possible outcome for this student -- a dismissal of the charges or a not guilty verdict, hopefully accompanied by a realization that drunk driving is a very serious charge.

Continue reading "Scituate High School Student Charged With OUI After Trying to Escape Police" »

As a Boston drunk driving defense lawyer, I took note of a recent article in the MetroWest Daily News about an arrest warrant issued for a Framingham man charged with OUI. Elias Furtunato Dasilva, 29, did not show up for his arraignment on Tuesday, April 20, in connection with a hit-and-run car wreck that he allegedly caused the previous weekend.

Dasilva was arrested on the night of Sunday, April 18, after police found him down the street from a three-car crash near Wildwood Steakhouse. According to a police report, Dasilva said that he had had three beers before getting behind the wheel of his car. He then allegedly crossed the double yellow line and hit an oncoming car. A third car was also involved in the crash. Dasilva said he ran away because he was scared, but when police found him he admitted to driving the errant car. He failed three sobriety tests, according to the police. A passenger in one of the cars was treated at Marlborough Hospital for serious injuries and released the next day. After posting $1,000 bail on Sunday night, Dasilva had been expected in Marlborough District Court on Tuesday to answer charges of driving without a license, leaving the scene of personal injury, operating under the influence and a marked lanes violation. Since he did not show up, the court issued an arrest warrant. A bail status hearing is scheduled for May 24.

Read article: Arrest warrant issued for Framingham man allegedly involved in hit-and-run.

As a Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer, I know that being involved in a car wreck and being charged with intoxicated driving is often frightening. But anyone charged with OUI is much better off engaging a Boston DUI defense attorney than leaving the scene of an accident and jumping bail. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can challenge the faulty field sobriety tests that police use as the basis for an OUI charge, for example, or challenge the validity of the original traffic stop and search. These and other defenses can lead to getting the case dismissed or winning a not-guilty verdict. The news report does not say whether the police used a breathalyzer as well as field sobriety tests, so it may be possible to call into question whether Dasilva was truly impaired. Three beers may or may not have rendered him legally impaired, with a 0.08% or higher blood-alcohol concentration.

By contrast, leaving the scene and skipping his bail puts Dasilva in a substantially worse position than he would otherwise have been in. If this was a first OUI, he could have been eligible for the 24D/alternative disposition program, which reduces the time when defendants lose a driver's license and carries no possibility of jail. Leaving the scene and then failing to show up to court tells the court you are not responsible or remorseful, which substantially reduces your chances of getting alternative disposition or any other kind of lenient sentence. Of course, it also means more criminal charges. With jail time and hundreds of dollars in fees and fines on the line, it's important to fight drunk driving charges the right way and with confidence, rather than compounding them with bad decisions made out of fear.

Continue reading "Arrest Warrant Issued for Framingham OUI Defendant Who Jumped Bail" »

According to the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, a Hull man has been sentenced to two years in Plymouth County jail and another four years of probation for a first OUI charge. Derrick D. Jones, 39, admitted that he was drunk when he drove his Chrysler 300 sedan at about 70 miles per hour the wrong way down Summer Street in Hingham on Feb. 19, 2009. Jones crashed head-on into the Toyota Sienna minivan of Courtney Palek, 30, of Hingham, and her three small children. The minivan ran off the road and Jones's car rolled over onto its roof on the sidewalk. Luckily, everyone involved survived the crash with minimal injury, which police said was because they were all using seat belts or age-appropriate child car seats.

Read articles: Hull man gets 2 years for drunken driving crash in Hingham and Cops: Seat belts saved family in crash with alleged drunken driver

I took note of this article, as a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, because a sentence of two years in jail and four years of probation seems quite harsh for a first-offense OUI, for which the maximum is 2.5 years. In fact, the article says that Jones was originally charged with second-offense OUI, but he agreed to a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to first offense drunken driving, driving negligently, speeding and failing to stay in marked lanes. Jones has a history of legal trouble in addition to the first OUI. He has served time in state prison for breaking and entering in the night and larceny, and he is currently awaiting disposition of similar charges in two recent incidents in Hull. In addition, he had been cited earlier on the day of the crash for failing to wear a seat belt while he was a passenger in someone else's car.

The news reports do not say whether Jones was represented by a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney, but the stiff sentence Jones received in this case demonstrates how important it is to have expert legal representation if you're in a situation like this. Of course, an experienced attorney can help clients like Jones defend themselves vigorously against the most recent charges, or if a plea bargain is offered, advise them on whether the bargain is fair and worthwhile. In addition, I suspect that Jones's previous record played a part in the judge's decision to hand down the unusually harsh sentence. If Jones had been able to defend himself successfully from his first OUI or the larceny and break-in charges, he may have been able to avoid having them on his record. That might have weighed in his favor during the sentencing for this incident.

Continue reading "Hull Man Receives Two-Year Jail Sentence for First OUI Offense" »

Because I'm a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, I regularly follow the news about drunk driving cases, and a recent article about an alleged drunk driving case in Fall River caught my interest. Robert Rebello, 40, of Fall River, is being held in Bristol County jail because the prosecutor argued that he is too dangerous to society to be released on bail. Because Rebello had three OUI convictions from 1988, 1990, and 1996, Bristol County Judge Brian Gilligan agreed to keep him in jail pending a dangerousness hearing. At that hearing, the judge will decide whether to keep Rebello in jail until he can be tried.

Rebello was arrested at 3:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 3, and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. Fall River firefighters had alerted police that their fire truck was almost hit by a Toyota pickup truck, so police were looking for an erratic driver. A Massachusetts state trooper saw Rebello's truck swerve across the road several times and pulled him over. The state trooper reported that Rebello smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, and slurred his speech. During a field sobriety test, he was unable to recite the alphabet. Police found several empty beer cans in the truck. He was charged with a fourth OUI, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 2.5 years and a maximum of five years.

Read article: Fall River driver held pending dangerousness hearing.

As a Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer, I think it's important for drivers to be aware that they can be kept in jail without bail for drunk driving before they're even convicted. Usually, judges set bail to ensure that accused drivers will appear at their next court hearings. But Massachusetts law allows judges to deny bail and keep drivers in jail until trial if they are charged with an OUI after three previous drunk driving convictions. Dangerousness hearings can be used in non-OUI cases as well, such as a recent Bridgewater case in which a man was held without bail after allegedly attacking his estranged wife with a hammer and attempting to strangle her and her father in front of her toddler. Such suspects may be kept in jail for up to 90 days before a trial must be held.

Keeping someone in jail without bail requires a dangerousness hearing, at which the judge weighs whether the person is too much of a danger to others to be allowed to go free. Defendants can be represented by an attorney at this hearing, and as a Massachusetts intoxicated driving criminal defense lawyer, I recommend it very strongly. People face serious hardships and disruptions to their lives when they are jailed for three months. Even if they wind up not being convicted of the crime, or having the charges dismissed, being kept in jail for 90 days could cause them to lose a job. If people in this position have children or pets, who would take care of them during this period? Keeping up with financial obligations like rent or mortgage payments while in jail and unable to work could be pretty difficult as well. That's why it's essential to mount the best defense you can at any dangerousness hearing.

Continue reading "Dangerousness Hearings Can Lead to Unexpected Jail Time and Hardships" »

As a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney, I was interested in a story recently reported by several different news outlets in the Boston area. A grandmother arrested for drunk driving while taking her nine-year-old grandson to school last month was found in violation of her pre-trial probation conditions after she failed to remain alcohol-free. On March 18, Sharon Faulkner, 63, of Marblehead, was arrested at the Glover School after she dropped her grandson off. Faulkner's grandson had endured a wild ride to get to school that day: Faulkner's 2001 Toyota Camry jumped a curb and smashed into a tree hard enough to cause both airbags to deploy. Faulkner and her grandson were still 1.3 miles away from his school, so they began walking to it, and then she hitched a ride for them. An off-duty police officer discovered Faulkner's abandoned car and had the police search for its operator.

Marblehead Police Department Chief Robert Picariello said that the police received a call tipping them off that the car belonged to Faulkner and she was at the school. When police caught up with her at the school, Faulkner failed field sobriety tests, and a Breathalyzer test showed her blood-alcohol concentration at 0.141, almost twice the legal limit of 0.08. She explained that the accident occurred when a gold SUV passed her, "causing me to go off the road," even though she said she was driving only 20 miles per hour. Police interacted with the grandson and noticed a bump on his forehead, and the boy complained of minor chest pain. He was taken to North Shore Children's Hospital for medical attention and was later released. Faulkner pleaded not guilty to third-offense OUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, wanton and reckless child endangerment, child endangerment while operating under the influence of liquor, and leaving the scene of a property damage accident.

After her release on bail, on March 25, a Breathalyzer test showed that she had violated the terms of her pre-trial probation by consuming alcohol. Consequently, in Lynn District Court, she was ordered held without bail for the duration of her court case.

Read article: Marblehead grandmom violates probation

Judging from the account of her crash in the press, Faulkner is going to need the help of a Massachusetts DUI criminal defense lawyer to ensure that she is treated fairly by the legal system. This will be a complex and serious case to defend, particularly since it involves a child and a third offense DUI charge. If Faulkner's defense isn't done with the utmost precision, she could wind up spending a lot more time in jail. A third-offense DUI is a felony carrying at least 150 mandatory days in jail, and the sentence can go as long as five years in state prison. You will also lose your license for eight years, with a hardship license available no sooner than four years, and face up to $15,000 in fines. Someone who is already unemployed and near retirement age, like Faulkner, could be financially devastated by having fines like this levied against her, and personally devastated by an extended stay in a correctional institution. Conviction on the child endangerment charges would add steeper penalties to the ones she already faces. A defendant like this should get help from an aggressive, experienced Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer right away.

Continue reading "Grandmother Facing Her Third OUI Jailed for Failing to Stay Sober Before Trial" »

As a Massachusetts intoxicated driving criminal defense attorney, I was saddened to read about an accident in Lynn that took a young woman's life. Julie Gauthier, 19 and of Salem, died March 21 while her allegedly drunk boyfriend was driving her home from a party. Christopher Maxson of Marblehead, also 19, is accused of drinking before he ran two stop signs, hit another vehicle and collided with three parked cars before overturning and hitting a fourth. Gauthier was ejected from the vehicle's sunroof and died at the scene, while Maxson and two other passengers sustained only minor injuries. The Boston Globe reported March 23 that Maxson has pleaded not guilty to motor vehicle homicide while operating under the influence.

Lynn police and school authorities highlighted the fatal accident when they began speaking to parents about the importance of safety during the school district's upcoming proms. The Daily Item of Lynn reported March 31 that authorities held the first of three Parent Prom Safety Information Nights at Lynn Classical on March 25. Just four days after the crash, police officers emphasized that it could have happened to anyone -- even kids who weren't drinking or doing drugs. Police officers who spoke said prom is a time for students to make wise decisions, and emphasized the dangers of drinking and driving.

But a local prosecutor also emphasized the Commonwealth's "social host" laws. Enacted in 1998 after a fatal OUI accident, social host laws penalize people who provide alcohol to minors. In fact, the prosecutor said, parents don't need to have bought the alcohol themselves, or even be home, to be criminally prosecuted for knowingly allowing kids to drink alcohol under their roofs. If convicted of furnishing alcohol to a minor, parents and others face up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $2,000 or both. And regardless of whether they are convicted, the presentation said, they can also be sued in civil court, an expensive and emotionally difficult prospect even if they win the case.

As a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense lawyer, I'd like to discuss this law further, because it allows criminal prosecution in several situations that most people would not consider criminal. Parents are allowed to serve their own minor children alcohol in Massachusetts, but under the social host law, they may not furnish alcohol to other minors. Nor may they knowingly allow their minor children to furnish alcohol to other minors. The definition of "furnish" includes intentionally allowing someone under 21 to have alcohol on property under your control. An overzealous prosecutor could interpret this as allowing criminal charges for parents whose teenagers get into alcohol left in plain view, even when they didn't expect or give permission for their kids to drink it. In cases where the parent can prove they didn't provide the alcohol themselves, teenagers can still be criminally charged for giving alcohol to their friends.

The social host law can be used even when there was no car crash or other harm from the drinking. That means parents can be criminally penalized for doing something that's no big deal in most other Western nations -- allowing a young adult to have a drink with dinner. As a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney, I know very well that drinking and driving can have life-altering or even fatal consequences. As prom season approaches, teenagers and parents should remember that. But the social host law applies to any situation in which a minor under 21 is given alcohol -- not just dangerous drunk-driving situations. Safe, responsible drinking by someone who just happens to be under 21 shouldn't expose a teenager -- or a parent -- to a criminal record.

Continue reading "Fatal OUI Accident Spurs Lynn Police to Educate Parents on Social Host Laws" »