A national campaign called Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over has made its way to the Boston area. The goal is to curb drunk driving during the holiday season, and federal grant money is being used to beef up local patrols on the road. Here are a few things you should know to keep yourself safe and arrest-free. Continue reading →
The last time the Massachusetts OUI laws saw a significant modification the legislature had one thing in mind. They wanted to get accountability as soon as possible. The changes to the law made the prospect of immediately pleading guilty extremely attractive. The statue made provisions for the issuance of hardship licenses almost soon as your case gets resolved. Simply put, for first time offenders once you plead guilty you can, three days after registering for the alcohol awareness program apply for a hardship license. For all practical purposes you will be driving shortly after you plead out. Consequently, many of my clients now ask about their options when being arraigned for OUI in Massachusetts. This post discusses some of the pros and cons associated with expeditious drunk driving pleas.
There are certain events that occur in court that tell experienced criminal defense attorneys that they are going to win the case. The most common is when cops testify at trial to facts that are not in their report, particularly at an OUI trial. During a typical drunk driving trial the prosecution witnesses are only cops. In large part criminal lawyers base their defense on the contents of the police report, as do the district attorneys. If, in preparation for trial the police tell the district attorney facts that were not recorded the district attorney must immediately advise the defense. In reality, this really happens. Rather, the cops improvise at trial. As discussed in this post, this is a good thing for the defense. When this happens you are probably going to win your case. Continue reading →
Imagine this. You get pulled over for drunk driving or OUI in Massachusetts. You have been drinking. You want to know what to do. So you pull out your smartphone and pull up your favorite operating while impaired app. You go through the checklist. Should I take the breathalyzer test? Should I take the field sobriety tests? Should I talk to the police at all? Then you access that portion of the app that calculates blood alcohol. Finally, you get a list of lawyers’ telephone numbers on the app and shoot them a text or have your passenger make the call. Is this a fantasy or is there actually a real app out there that does these things? Just yesterday I read an article on cnn.com that talked about such an app that was developed by lawyers in Iowa. My thought is that a similar product for Massachusetts or perhaps all fifty states is just around the corner. This post discusses the pros and cons of such an app and how it might be best used. Continue reading →
Time and time again I have commented that at least in Massachusetts the OUI police reports that I read are essentially boilerplate. From officer to officer, report to report, I can recite by memory, almost verbatim the content of those documents. I have always maintained that if criminal defense lawyers collaborate a database can be established where lawyers can access the reports of individual officers to show a pattern of repetition that demonstrates a lack of sincerity on their part. Police officers tend to be lazy in their report writing. The reports are prepared at the end of their shift. The officers don’t like doing this. They are tired and they want to go home. So what do they do? They take shortcuts. They cut and paste or reiterate the substance of other reports. They do not take the time to carefully draft reports relating to your case. This post shows what I mean by boilerplate police reports. Let me know if this sounds familiar to you? If you were arrested for OUI there is a good chance this is what your report looked like.
Many people don’t realize that breathalyzer test readings are not necessarily accurate. A breathalyzer is a machine. Machines have flaws. But before those flaws can be shared with a judge or a jury the OUI defense lawyer you hire needs to know how these machines work. If he or she does not know then how can the flaws in the process be explained to a jury. Think about it. Jurors are just normal people. Some work. Some do not. They come from all different backgrounds. Some are educated while others are not. If the primary issue in the DUI trial is to challenge the accuracy of the breathalyzer reading then your lawyer better be able to do this in a way that gives the jury pause before accepting the police officer’s recitation of his reading of the machine. It is also important to keep in mind that there are several types of breathalyzer machines in use. Your lawyer must know how each one works if you are going to be properly defended. This post briefly examines one of these machines, the Intoxilyzer, how it works and facts about false readings.
Any lawyer will tell you that having good witnesses on your side can make the difference between winning and losing a trial. This is particularly true in the case of the OUI trial in Massachusetts. If the case is triable, and I have good witnesses I often get a pretty good sense that I am going to win the case. The reason for that is simple. Cops are usually not good witnesses in OUI cases. They are stiff and unlikable. They are usually relatively young as the more experienced police officers are more likely going to be in a more specialized unit and not on routine patrol. On the other hand, a good witness for the defense will simply answer the questions. No agenda here. Just good, honest testimony that will often result in an acquittal for the defendant.
I get this question several times each week. Someone gets arrested for drunk driving in Massachusetts. This is their first OUI and usually their first time having to go to court. After the initial shock and embarrassment wears off they start thinking about defending the case and ultimately how much the case is going to cost them. In order for me to properly answer that question I have to go through several scenarios with them to make sure they understand how the process works and what they are facing. There are however some short answers I can give them right away. Here they are along with the questions.
Here in Massachusetts, persons charged with first offense operating under the influence (OUI /DUI) and certain second time OUI offenders may have the option of what is called the alternative “24D” disposition, which includes participation in an alcohol education program as a condition of probation. Many different approved alcohol education programs, all of which are on their face secular in nature, are listed with the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services. However, when alleged offenses other than OUI are “alcohol-related” (such as domestic violence, assault and battery, property crimes, resisting arrest, etc.) it is not uncommon for Massachusetts prosecutors to request and for judges to impose participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization that is very arguably religious, as a condition of probation. While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether A.A. is a religious organization, there is a fairly strong argument that imposition of A.A. as a probationary condition is unconstitutional.
Much of the law on whether A.A. is “religious” arose from cases where prisoners and probationers claimed free exercise and establishment clause violations after being forced to attend A.A. meetings. Courts in California, Tennessee, and New York have held that A.A. is religious, while courts in Kansas have said that it is not. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that an atheist drunk driver’s constitutional rights were violated when he was forced to participate in A.A., described by the court as “religion-tinged,” as a condition of probation.
While the A.A. preamble states that the program is not religiously affiliated, its practices and “12 Steps” indicate that it might well be. For instance, the “Twelve Steps” reference “God” and a “Higher Power,” though they don’t reference organized religion. The so-called “Third Step” instructs that one has “[m]ade a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God, as we understood him,” according to A.A.’s “Big Book.” Furthermore, A.A. meetings conclude by reciting the Lord’s Prayer, according to A.A. literature.
Prosecutors who request, and courts that impose, mandatory A.A. meetings as probationary conditions also completely ignore the plight of voluntary A.A. participants. It would seem that voluntary participation in such a program loses its meaning when persons are forced to attend as a form of punishment. It would also seem that voluntary participants might be less than comfortable sharing with forced participants.
As a practical matter, A.A. is free, whereas more secular alcohol education programs are not. Often, A.A. attendance is imposed as a condition of pre-trial probation in alcohol-related cases, and in such circumstances, it could be wise to accept such a condition. You should speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney about your options.
Just a few days ago the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Smeaton, SJC-11208 a matter occurring in the vicinity of the Smith College Campus in Northampton, Massachusetts. The Court found that in October of 2010 the defendant was driving on a public way. A Smith College police officer saw him operating recklessly on a road that intersects the campus. The officer effectuated a stop of the car. Local police arrived and arrested the defendant. He was charged criminally with OUI and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The defense succeeded in getting the case dismissed prior to trial on a Motion to Suppress. It claimed that the campus police officer lacked the authority to make a stop off campus property. In allowing the motion the lower court judge found that the officer making the stop acted beyond the powers extended to special police (campus police) pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 22C section 63. That law empowers campus police “to make arrests as regular police officers for any criminal offense committed in or upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied by such college, university, or other institution or hospital”. The prosecution appealed the decision.
Embracing established case law the Supreme Judicial Court stated that the authority of the campus police may in some instances extend “to the environs surrounding the campus when the ‘special vigilance of an officer might be required to keep the peace and preserve order amongst those frequenting [the campus and] those carrying persons to and from it.’ “. The Court interpreted the word “used…by [the] college” in G.L. c. 22C Sec. 63 not to be exclusive. Rather, if the school used a road as it did in this case, such use would sufficiently satisfy the statute. The Court also held that even if the road failed to satisfy the term “used” the stop was lawful as the criminal activity occurred “within the environs” of Smith College. Accordingly, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order suppressing the stop and remanded the case to the district court.
This decision goes on to state that the word “environs” will vary from school to school. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer that suggests that it remains potentially beneficial to litigate this issue in all Massachusetts Criminal Cases. There are other issues to scrutinize when campus police makes stops as well. Does the school “use” the property where the stop was made in the legal sense? Was “special vigilance” required in the context of this case. The issue of extraterritorial stops does come up frequently in criminal matters in Massachusetts. It is something that lawyers often neglect to litigate, usually because they do not know the law. This is another reason why your selection of a criminal defense attorney is extremely important. Cases can be won on this issue.