State regulations say law enforcement must take two BAC tests when looking for evidence of drunk driving. The idea is to make sure the breath readings are accurate. If they're off by more than 0.02, they may not be admissible in court. Under rules written by the state Secretary of Public Safety, police and prosecutors may use only the lower of the two readings. Prosecutors challenged that rule in the case of driver Dennis Steele, a western Massachusetts man who was arrested in February of 2009 for operating under the influence and driving with a suspended license. As MassLive.com reported Oct. 17, Steele's two BAC readings measured 0.09 and 0.10, slightly above the legal limit of 0.08.

Steele decided to defend the OUI charge. At trial, prosecutors argued that they should be able to introduce the higher reading as evidence because the rule against this is not exactly state law -- the Secretary of Public Safety rather than the Legislature made the rule. They agreed that the lower reading was the official BAC, but said the higher one was still valuable evidence that should be admitted by courts. The trial court disagreed, but the prosecution appealed the issue to county court and got it reversed. Steele's appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court followed.

In its ruling, the SJC sided with Steele. Massachusetts law says regulations are valid as long as they relate to, and don't conflict with, the controlling statute. In this case, the court said, the Legislature explicitly gave the Secretary of Public Safety the authority to make this decision, and didn't make its own rule on how to handle different BAC rulings. Thus, the Secretary's decision was perfectly valid. Furthermore, the court wrote, the two-part BAC test was intended to validate the test itself, not provide further evidence. Indeed, introducing two different breath test samples could unnecessarily confuse the jury, it wrote. It also invites jurors who don't understand BAC tests well to incorrectly believe that the lower sample was inaccurate.

This decision upholds the status quo, but it's still an important victory for Massachusetts OUI defense lawyers like me. As the SJC pointed out, jurors don't always have a good understanding of BAC tests. These tests can be finicky and often result in slightly different readings, which can be caused by anything from the timing of the driver's last drink to his or her health. Furthermore, the public is generally biased against drunk drivers, which means jurors may assume a higher test result is the correct one. By allowing only one test result to be admitted, the court has ensured that OUI defendants get a fair change in court. And by throwing out results that differ by more than 0.02, the state ensures that defendants can't cherry-pick from wildly different results.

Kaizer was arrested for OUI drugs, OUI with serious bodily injury, failure to slow for pedestrians, negligent driving and child endangerment, for OUI with his daughter in the car. She was picked up at the scene by her mother. Police also asked the RMV to immediately revoke Kaizer's license as an "immediate threat."

Read article: Driver allegedly high on painkillers hits mother, son

Kaizer is not accused of drinking alcohol, a fact that could actually help a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney defend his case. In cases of operating under the influence of alcohol, police can make a case based on the results of a BAC, regardless of other circumstances. Any amount of a drug in your blood is enough for an OUI drugs charge -- but only if Massachusetts law makes it illegal to take the drugs in question before driving. The law specifically lists which drugs are illegal, but not every sedative, sleep aid or other drug police might frown on is on that list. If the drugs Kaizer is accused of taking are not on the list, an experienced Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense lawyer can make a strong case that the charges must be dropped. This is assuming that police even took a blood test showing Kaizer had the drugs in his system, something the article didn't mention. You must remember that the prosecutor must still prove impairment caused by the drug, not just the existence of the drug in your system.

As a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney, I've seen studies suggesting that Jackson is wrong -- because texting while driving is actually more dangerous than driving drunk. In fact, one study, done in Britain, also found that texting while driving was more dangerous than driving under the influence of marijuana. The Royal Automobile Club Foundation, part of the British version of AAA, commissioned a study comparing the driving skills of drivers who were sending or receiving text messages; drunk; or high. Reaction times for the texters in the study dropped by 35%, while legally drunk drivers saw a 12% drop and drugged drivers saw a 21% drop. In addition, texters were a staggering 91% more likely to drift out of their lanes, as compared to 35% for the cannabis smokers.

Plenty of U.S. research has demonstrated that texting and driving is dangerous, but no formal study in the United States has compared texting and driving to drunk driving. However, Car and Driver magazine conducted its own informal study in 2009. On a closed course, the magazine measured reaction times at 35 and 70 mph for reporters who were sober, then texting, then above the 0.08 legal limit. The conclusion: Sending or receiving text messages increased reaction times significantly more than drinking. In fact, the older reporter's reaction time of 0.57 seconds nearly tripled to 1.44 seconds when he was reading text messages and 1.36 seconds when sending them. At 35 mph, that meant traveling an extra 45 and 41 feet before the vehicle was stopped. By comparison, drinking gave him a reaction time of 0.64 seconds and seven feet of extra travel.

Given these results, it's alarming that Massachusetts law penalizes drinking and driving so much more harshly than texting and driving. Reaching the 0.08 legal limit does not leave everyone intoxicated, but the law says you're a drunk driver if you blow that number. And that means you face jail time, a license suspension, thousands of dollars in fines and a social stigma -- even if there was no accident, no injury and no property damage. By contrast, Massachusetts law currently provides no penalties whatsoever for texting and driving, despite the evidence that it's even more dangerous. As a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney, I hope the Legislature addresses this issue decisively in 2010, in a way that puts operating under the influence in a proper, fair perspective.

Read article: Drunken, unlicensed driving rap for former star athlete at Island school

Because the incident took place in New York rather than Massachusetts, LeGrande will be tried under the laws of that state. But if a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense lawyer were handling a case like this, I believe he or she could mount a good defense. First, I would like to take a closer look at the legality of the original traffic stop. The article said police were staking out the bar where LeGrande was drinking because they suspect it serves minors. It also mentioned that LeGrande was driving his mother's 2002-model vehicle. This suggests that the defective headlight that formed the basis of the traffic stop may have been an excuse rather than a serious concern. If the court finds the stop illegal, all of the evidence generated by that stop, including the breath test and LeGrande's own statements, would have to be thrown out.

Even if this is not feasible, or the client prefers to plead guilty, that doesn't mean he'd be harshly punished. In fact, I believe an experienced Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney could make a good case for the 24D program, were this a Massachusetts DUI case. LeGrande has no reported previous offenses, and there was no accident or injury in the case -- not even property damage. Because of his status as a fairly high-profile athlete, he is likely to face a suspension for at least a game or two, regardless of what the courts do. He is also likely to be attacked in the press, making it tempting for authorities to "make an example" of him. However, too many criminal penalties could end his athletic career, even though a first drunk driving conviction is unfortunately a common mistake among college students. That makes it essential to avoid a first DUI conviction now, possibly by entering the 24D/alternative disposition program or pleading guilty to a lesser charge like reckless driving, if that state permits such a resolution.

An IID is essentially a breathalyzer attached to the car's ignition. If one is installed, it is impossible to turn on the car until the driver passes a breathalyzer test, with "failure" defined as a BAC of 0.02 or greater -- not 0.08. The driver must then breathe into the device every 20 minutes (even if the car is in motion). Drivers convicted of OUI twice or more must install IIDs at their own expense whenever they are granted a hardship license, and for two years thereafter. No technology stops other people from taking the test for the driver, but Melanie's Law also includes criminal penalties for people who do this, or who lend cars to drivers with an IID in their own vehicles.

According to the article, Kaprielian based her statement on new statistics released by the state. Those statistics say that more than 4,000 drivers altogether have been required to use the ignition interlock devices since Melanie's Law took effect. Of these, it says, hundreds have completed the two-year period. And of those who completed the period, the state said only 30 drivers have been charged with a third OUI. This is a recidivism rate of less than 2%, the Globe reported.

I don't doubt that the state's numbers are accurate -- but I think they're being used in a misleading way. The article says more than 4,000 drivers have gotten the device, but only hundreds have completed the two-year program successfully. Even assuming "hundreds" is close to 1,000, that means three-fourths of the drivers did not complete the period. The typical reasons for not completing it are not good -- essentially, breaking some condition of probation, including failing the test even once. Thus, the recidivism rate among all drivers with the device installed, whether or not they completed the two-year period, must be substantially higher than 2%. This is probably not the wild success claimed by the state.

Massachusetts OUI defense lawyers like me doubted the effectiveness, safety and legality of IIDs from the beginning. For one thing, IIDs are used under conditions that make them even less reliable than police breathalyzer tests. They can easily be contaminated by substances from inside and outside the car. Furthermore, there's nothing but state law stopping drivers from having friends take the tests for them, or borrowing a different car. And finally, a study of IIDs in California (PDF) has found that IIDs not only did not bring down subsequent convictions, but actually increased the risk of a crash.

Read article: Drunk-driving case against Milton official continued without a finding

The article mentions that this sentence is standard for first-offense OUIs. The article doesn't specify this, but as a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney, I strongly suspect that Huban was sentenced under the 24D/alternative disposition program. This program is indeed available for first offenses, along with some second offenses, as long as they are not responsible for any serious injury or death. Defendants who enter the 24D program typically serve up to one year of probation, a license suspension of 45 days, alcohol classes and several fines. This is in contrast to a one-year suspension and possible jail time for a first OUI conviction. And while a 24D plea doesn't keep a prior offense off the driver's record, an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer can often win a continuance without a finding, as in this case, that allows drivers to truthfully say they have never been convicted of a crime.

That sentence was handed down Dec. 18. On Dec. 21, a probation department employee came to install an alcohol-testing device called a Sobrietor in Galluccio's home. Right after installation, the device detected alcohol on Galluccio's breath. The senator said he hadn't had any alcohol and suggested that sorbitol, an artificial sweeter in toothpaste, may have been the culprit. Despite testimony from an expert witness, Nestor said he believed Galluccio had been drinking. He revoked Galluccio's probation and sent him to jail for a year. Senate President Therese Murray issued a statement suggesting that Galluccio will lose his job if he does not resign.

Read article: Embattled Galluccio gets 1 year in jail

Galluccio's suggestion that toothpaste may have set off the Sobrietor is attracting ridicule in some circles. The Boston Herald even went so far as to test the theory, using a home breathalyzer kit. But Massachusetts OUI criminal defense lawyers already know that toothpaste, mouthwash and other alcohol-containing substances can give a false positive on a breathalyzer test, even though the person may in fact be sober. As the Herald's test shows, taking a reading directly after brushing your teeth, sipping a beer, belching or more can produce high readings, which fall off dramatically in a few minutes. This is because of residual alcohol in the mouth. Breathalyzers are supposed to work by testing the alcohol in the air expelled from the person's lungs, then using an equation to calculate BAC. Using the same equation for the much higher amount of mouth alcohol can produce a very high but temporary reading.

This is why law enforcement officers are supposed to observe the driver for 15 minutes before administering a breathalyzer -- to ensure that enough time has passed since the last drink to avoid a false positive. Failure to do this, or to follow several other procedures, can make the evidence tainted or suspect. When this is the case, an experienced Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney will ask the judge to leave that evidence out of the case entirely. In effect, this substantially weakens the prosecution's case, because without a BAC reading, it is much more difficult to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Read article: Suspect back on road for one day

Under these circumstances, I'm glad that Malone already has a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer. In fact, the article suggests charges from Malone's previous offense in Woburn are still pending. This means a third OUI charge may not be legally appropriate, although the previous charge is likely to be resolved before Malone faces trial on the most recent charge. A third drunk driving offense is a serious crime charged as a felony in Massachusetts, not a misdemeanor like earlier OUIs, so Malone would be facing a felony conviction if he loses his case. Third offenses also carry mandatory jail or prison time, an eight-year driver's license suspension and fines of up to $15,000. And under Melanie's Law, Malone would be eligible for an ignition interlock device if he gets a hardship license, for which he would be eligible after four years.

Because these penalties are so serious, it's important for people facing them to make sure they have the best possible defenses ready. Even drivers who feel a guilty plea is more appropriate can benefit from the help of an experienced Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney, who can negotiate for the fairest possible penalties in exchange for the plea.

Read article: Alleged drunk driver injures two women in Beverly accident

As a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney, I would like to know more about what signs of intoxication led to Dexter's arrest. Massachusetts law sets a lower legal limit for drivers under the age of 21 -- just 0.02 instead of the ordinary 0.08 limit. That means it takes very little alcohol to put an underage driver over the legal limit -- sometimes so little that the driver shows no signs of intoxication. There are also many factors that provide false positive results to the breathalyzer test. Experienced Massachusetts OUI Defense Lawyers should be able to demonstrate this to a jury. Sometimes these machines register low readings even if no alcohol has been consumed. In that case, it might be a good to try your case. If his blood-alcohol reading was low, and this is Dexter's first OUI, he may be a good candidate for the 24D/alternative disposition program, which offers reduced penalties for first-time offenders. If he did not consume any alcohol, he should consider going to trial on this case.

In many cases, law enforcement does not or cannot perform breath tests before an arrest. This requires prosecutors to rely on observations and field sobriety tests alone to support the OUI charge, a risky move because police observations are highly subjective and field sobriety tests are notably unreliable. If these are the only foundations of the OUI part of the case, an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer should be able to challenge them in court, potentially defeating the charge outright.

Read article: Yarmouth head-on crash driver charged with OUI

Depending on the circumstances, a drug-related charge may offer multiple avenues of defense for an experienced Massachusetts intoxicated driving defense attorney. Despite what many people assume, you absolutely can be charged with OUI for taking a medication that was legally prescribed to you, if that drug is illegal to take before driving. Massachusetts law specifically lists many drugs that fall into this category. However, the law doesn't include every prescription drug that might lead to an intoxicated driving charge, even powerful painkillers and sedatives. If the prosecution cannot establish that it's illegal in our state to take the drug at issue and then drive, it has no case. The defendant may still face charges related to illegal possession, but a good Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer should be able to get the OUI portion of the case dropped or dismissed.

Read article: Teenager charged with DUI after BC student is hit

Knott faces unrelated negligent boating charges from New Hampshire, stemming from an August incident in which alcohol was reportedly not a factor. Nonetheless, media reports about this accident continue to mention those charges, which concerns me as a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney. The two incidents together may show that Knott has made bad decisions while operating a vehicle, but they don't show a history of intoxicated driving and boating. To imply otherwise is irresponsible and against the spirit of our criminal justice system's presumption of innocence.

This is not to say that the charges against Knott aren't serious. Even a first OUI in Massachusetts with serious bodily injury means a minimum of six months in jail and up to 10 years in prison; $500 to $5,000 in fines; and several hundred more in fees. Because Knott is under the age of 21, he also faces a three-year driver's license suspension, instead of the two-year suspension for drivers over 21 accused of the same violation. And if he is convicted of this charge and then charged with OUI again later in life, his penalties will likely be more severe. Knott has pleaded not guilty and retained a Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer, so it seems that he intends to defend the charges. Under these circumstances, that seems like a wise decision.

The charges stem from a traffic stop Tuesday morning made while Delorto was working as a school bus driver, although there were no students on the bus. Witnesses said the bus was "all over the road" and crossed the center line several times. When law enforcement pulled Delorto over, officers said she was unsteady on her feet and failed field sobriety tests. Officers also found the prescription drugs hydromorphine (an opiate painkiller) and lorazepam (an anti-anxiety drug and sedative), for which Delorto did not have a prescription. At the arraignment, Delorto's Massachusetts OUI defense attorney said she may have been very tired because she cares for a 22-year-old daughter who is frequently up all night with a chronic blood disorder called spherocytosis.

Read article: Bus driver loses license; faces drug, traffic charge

I am glad Delorto has legal representation, because I believe a good Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense lawyer could mount a strong defense in this case. The article does not mention that Delorto took a blood test showing that she was taking the drugs; it says only that these drugs were on her person. Possessing prescription drugs without a valid prescription (or another reason to carry them, such as bringing prescriptions to her daughter) is certainly illegal, but it does not make a person guilty of operating under the influence of drugs. Nor do field sobriety tests, which are notoriously unreliable because they are frequently difficult even for people who are stone-cold sober.

However, driving while tired is unfortunately very common, especially among people who work odd or long hours. According to the federal Department of Transportation, drowsy driving causes 100,000 crashes and 1,550 fatalities every year. This could easily be the real reason for Deloro's swerving -- and if it is, a good Massachusetts OUI defense attorney should be able to prove that she is not guilty of intoxicated driving.

McShane was arrested Nov. 14, arraigned and released without bail. The article did not mention his plea, but did say he will be back in court Dec. 28. The charge is his third OUI. He was chief of police in Weston between 1986 and 1996, but resigned from that post after crashing an unmarked police car into a pole in 1995. That crash, which took place off-duty, resulted in McShane's first drunk driving charge.

Read article: Former Weston Police chief faces third OUI offense

As a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, I hope McShane has already gotten the advice of an experienced criminal lawyer. In our state, a third OUI raises the stakes considerably, starting with the fact that a third OUI is a felony rather than a misdemeanor. Those convicted of a third intoxicated driving offense can expect at least five months in prison, and up to five years, along with an eight-year license suspension and steep fines. Nobody should face these life-altering penalties without support. Depending on the circumstances, an experienced attorney may be able to find many avenues of defense, including challenges to the evidence itself or its handling by law enforcement. Even if a guilty plea is truly the best option, an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer may still be able to negotiate lighter, fairer penalties that better reflect the circumstances behind the arrest.

According to the police report, Theam's blood-alcohol concentration tested at 0.26 -- more than three times the legal limit of 0.08. Officers said he failed field sobriety tests and seemed to be talking to himself. The RMV revoked his license immediately. In court, Theam's daughters and daughter-in-law said they would prefer him to stay off the road and get help for his depression, which they trace to his terrifying experiences living under the Khmer Rouge in his native Cambodia. Police said Theam's driving record includes a DUI in Wisconsin from 1994 as well as two crashes and five other traffic citations.

Read article: Family on mend after close call

As an experienced Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, I doubt Theam makes a good candidate for a "second chance" 24D/alternative disposition sentence. The 24D program is generally not available to second offenders, but Massachusetts law allows an exception for cases where the first offense is more than 10 years old. Rather than facing the sentence for a second OUI, which includes mandatory jail time and steep fines, these offenders can be sentenced to two years of probation, alcohol classes and much lower fines. (However, the RMV will still suspend their licenses for two years, and install an ignition interlock device if any hardship license is granted.)

If his daughter-in-law was telling the truth, Theam survived a horrifying episode in his native country's history, in which a totalitarian regime killed fifth of its population in four years through torture, execution, famine and disease. It is not surprising that Theam might be suffering from depression, as his family suggested. If that's the case, this accident might provide the motivation he needs to get help. But in the hands of a good Massachusetts OUI defense attorney, he may be able to get that help without having his new life in the United States damaged by the harsh penalties for a second drunk driving conviction.

Read article: Police: Drunken driver causes 6-car crash

As a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney, I'd like to know more about the prescription drug police found in Damp's possession. Many people don't realize this, but it's perfectly possible to be charged with operating under the influence of drugs in Massachusetts, even if the prescription is legal, as long as you are impaired by the drug while operating a motor vehicle. Painkillers, sleep aids and sedatives can fall into this category -- but the laws of Massachusetts do not specifically say that certain drugs are illegal to use while driving. That means prosecutors often have to find experts to testify at trial as to the effects of the drug and a person's symptoms while under the influence of the drug. If they do not, they risk an acquittal or dropped charges.

I would also be interested in knowing more about the amount of alcohol in Damp's blood. Many prescription drugs heighten the effects of alcohol. When drivers don't realize this, they can drink what they believe is a safe amount, then find themselves more intoxicated than they expected when it's time to go home. It's not impossible for these drivers to end up with a blood-alcohol concentration below 0.08, the legal limit, and still feel the effects as if they had drunk more. Depending on the circumstances, this may offer another defense, at least in the hands of an experienced Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer.