Drunk Driving Defense

As a DWI defense attorney in Massachusetts, I am engaged with clients who are at some level struggling with alcohol.  While some first offenders are simply social drinkers who have been caught in the aggressive net of law enforcement. Many more live at some point on the addiction spectrum.  This may range from habitual drinker to full blown alcoholic. 

All along that spectrum runs the underlying likelihood that the addiction is actually secondary to mental illness.  It is quite common that persons suffering from a variety of mental health issues, including bipolar disease and manic depression, struggle with addiction as a means of coping with their illness.  Some may refer to this as self-medicating.

When I represent a repeat OUI offender, I being my representation by investigating the source of the drinking and driving problem.  I have many clients who live productive, law abiding lives and suddenly begin to accumulate repeated drunk driving arrests in a short period of time.  This obviously indicates that something other than “partying” is at play.

I have recently learned that even mild depression medication can trigger bipolar disorder in a person with a genetic predisposition for the disease.  This means that a person who suffers from depression (not unusual for a person who is bipolar) and is prescribed antidepressants because the bipolar disorder is not yet diagnosed, can then begin to suffer symptoms of the bipolar disorder.  This is the pattern that an experienced drunk driving defense lawyer can recognize and begin to build an effective defense around.

In many instances while defending Boston, Brockton and other Massachusetts DUI clients, I have been able to successfully negotiate with prosecutors and/or judges to sentence my client to probation with specific conditions of counseling and treatment for the addiction and mental illness.  This negotiation can only be successful when the DUI attorney is prepared with medical records evidencing the mental illness and a plan for treatment that will stabilize the client’s mental health and allow the addiction to be treated.

An experienced Operating Under the Influence attorney will be able to recognize the issues and defenses that lie behind and beyond the facts stated in the police reports and will then be able to envision and implement and effective defense strategy for the client.

     In professional settings and social gatherings we are all likely to be asked  what we do for work.  When I report that I am a criminal defense attorney specializing in defending persons accused of operating under the influence of alcohol, the conversation usually turns in one of two directions.  Most people want to know what their rights are when confronted with police after drinking and driving.  Others want to know how I can represent such monsters.

     This is my first blog entry and therefore I compelled to answer the second question first.  I expect that many future blog entries will detail our rights and defenses to a prosecution for operating under the influence and in fact will detail the many success stories that I have experienced in Massachusetts criminal courtrooms.  However, before I discuss such details, it is important to disclose why and how I believe that my role as a Boston OUI attonrey is as critical as any other function in our democratic system. 

     Essentially, I believe that a criminal defense attorney is the last and only protection standing between the people and the government.  Without such interference, the government would inevitably consume our civil liberties.

     I would never be described as “antiestablishment.”  However, everyday I see the government stopping cars, questioning citizens and seizing property without just cause.  I understand that law enforcement often believes that the end justifies the means if a gun is taken off the street or a drunk driver is taken off the road.  However, I also understand that with each illegal stop and search, regardless of the result, we lose a piece of the civil liberties that we continue to sacrifice lives to protect both within our borders and overseas. 

     Be clear, as a husband, father and citizen who travels the public roadways, I in no way condone impaired driving.  I believe that drinking and driving is a very real danger and my professional work has made me keenly aware of the use and abuse of alcohol throughout all segments of our society. 

     So, how and why do I represent persons accused of a crime that often times results in “carnage on our roadways?”  Well, I do it very well and with great pride.  The answer to why I do it begins with the knowledge that some people who are accused are simply not guilty.  Even the most cynical and conservative citizen knows, despite his response during jury selection, that everyone accused of a crime is not necessarily guilty.  That fact demands that an experienced Boston OUI defense attorney participate in the justice system to ensure that the accused’s rights are protected and only the truly guilty are convicted.

     What about the clients that I know are guilty?  The fact that someone struggles with addiction or otherwise made a bad choice does not translate into a loss of rights and protection under Massachusetts laws and the United States Constitution.  In fact, the only tragedy greater than the results of the accused’s behavior would be depriving the accused of his presumption of innocence, not holding the government to its burden of proof and ignoring all of the other critical rights that protect our citizens and maintain our democracy.

       Simply, each time I stand for an accused in a courtroom, whether my client is undoubtedly guilty or obviously innocent, I stand for the rights of all citizens, accused or not.  Be sure that the accused’s loss of rights at any stage of criminal proceedings is a loss of rights to all citizens.  After all, as is often stated in the OUI arena, there but for the grace of God go I. 

     As a Massachusetts DUI lawyer, I have been involved in a number of criminal cases involving motor vehicle stops in which police officers have been quite creative in assessing “reasonable suspicion” thereby justifying the stop of my clients’ cars.  In Massachusetts a police officer can stop a car for any civil motor vehicle infraction (speeding, marked laned violation, defective equipment etc.)  or upon “reasonable suspicion” that an occupant within the car has recently committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.  “Reasonable suspicion” is a term that has been defined through hundreds of appellate decisions in Massachusetts and these rulings along with the civil motor vehicle infractions are often times misinterpreted or ignored by law enforcement when determining whether to stop a car.

     Some recent examples which have caused my clients to be arrested in Massachusetts and criminally charged have included a so-called defective taillight, a misplaced registration decal, and a feather hanging from a rear view mirror. 

     Although Massachusetts does have a civil motor vehicle infraction known as “defective equipment” the statute is very clear as to what constitutes defective equipment relative to a taillight.  Massachusetts law requires that a motor vehicle have two illuminated red lights at the rear end of the car, one placed on each corner.  My client had a taillight which had a burned out bulb however the remaining bulbs illuminated appropriately thereby not constituting defective equipment under the statute.  The Trooper quickly learned of his misinterpretation when the judge allowed my Motion to Suppress and the case was dismissed.

     In a similarly strange interpretation, a Massachusetts State Police Trooper stopped my client for allegedly placing the registration decal on his license plate somewhere other than the upper right hand corner.  Massachusetts law does require that if the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles issues a registration decal it must be placed in the upper right hand corner however in my case the police officer could not recall where exactly the decal was located on the plate.  The officer testified that the car was registered and insured and the registered owner was in fact licensed according to the information on his cruiser computer.  Despite all of his valid registry information the officer decided to stop the car and inquire of the occupants.  The judge in the Brockton District Court informed the officer that without reasonable suspicion that a crime had been, was being or was about to be committed, the mere fact that the decal was placed in an inappropriate location on the license plate was not sufficient and the stop of the motor vehicle was illegal.

     Finally a Massachusetts State Trooper stopped my client’s car simply for having a feather hanging from the rear view mirror.  Massachusetts law states that a item cannot hang in an area that may obstruct the view of the operator however the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has specifically stated that an item hanging from a rear view mirror does not automatically justify the stop of a motor vehicle.  The law is clear that there must be information as to how large the item is and whether the item could distract either the driver of the vehicle or other drivers in the area of the vehicle.  Once again the Trooper was unaware of the Appellate Court’s interpretation of the statute and simply stopped the motor vehicle based on his own misunderstanding of Massachusetts motor vehicle law. 

     These cases reveal how aggressive law enforcement has become in creating opportunities to stop cars and inquire as to who and what is going on inside.  While incidents of drunk driving and other crimes increase, police become trained in being proactive in stopping motor vehicles and will use any excuse or explanation for making motor vehicle stops and inquiring of drivers.  Be certain that should your car be stopped when you have consumed any amount of alcohol, you will be asked to step out of your car, perform field sobriety tests and ultimately you will be arrested for Operating Under the Influence. 

     Despite my career as a Massachusetts DUI lawyer, I certainly understand why law enforcement believes that it is important to be proactive and I advise clients that if they choose to drink any alcohol at all before driving a car they put themselves at risk of not only being prosecuted, but harming themselves or others on the road.  Massachusetts OUI  law has a .08 per se statute which states that a person operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher is guilty of Operating Under the Influence regardless of how well they are able to control and operate their motor vehicle.  Very few people, if any, are aware of what their blood alcohol level is despite how sober they may feel.  In fact very few people are aware of how little alcohol is need to be consumed to have a .08 blood alcohol level.  Therefore, I once again remind everybody that if you consume any amount of alcohol before operating a motor vehicle you may be stopped and you will be arrested if there is an odor of alcohol on your breath. 

Losing your MA DUI OUI case or pleading guilty means you’ll have a permanent criminal record, lose your license, face severe fines, and travel restrictions. You could lose your job. Fight DUI charges vigorously with the expert, professional counsel of Ed Sharkansky, (DUI Lawyer Boston) former prosecutor who knows what police and district attorneys are looking for, and the mistakes they make. This is the right time to hire a great DUI Attorney.