To view this, you need to install the Flash Player 6. Please go to here and download it.
Attorney Representation in Massachusetts since 1998
Case Results
Commonwealth v S.K. - Quincy District Court (2011) – Braintree Police
Charge: Operating Under the Influence
Result: Dismissed on OUI and Dismissed on .08 per se violation
Client was observed to be driving erratically by police officer at one point hitting a curb on the side of the road. Client was stopped and officer observed an odor of alcohol, red glassy and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Officer asked client to exit motor vehicle and she complied but was unsteady on her feet. Client refused to take field sobriety test but agreed to take the breath test with a reading of a .21.
At trial, the officer failed to appear on at least two occasions without good cause and the case was dismissed. This case is an example of the fact that you never know what can happen on a difficult case.
Commonwealth v. C.W. – Wareham District Court (2011) – Middleboro Police
Charge: Operating Under the Influence
Result: Not Guilty on OUI
Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident. A civilian had observed the client driving erratically before the accident and called police. After calling the police the civilian observed the client hit a telephone pole. The police arrived and almost immediately placed client into custody after observing an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The officer did note that client was injured from the accident and requested EMS to the scene to examine client. EMS determined that client needed to be transported to the hospital. At the hospital a blood test was taken and it showed a blood alcohol level well above the legal limit.
At trial, the civilian caller failed to appear at trial thus all of his observations were excluded at trial. Additionally, the blood test was excluded prior to trial based upon procedural errors. Thus, the only evidence of impairment from alcohol were the limited observations from the officers who testified candidly and could not render an opinion that client was impaired by alcohol.
Commonwealth v. T.C. – Brockton District Court (2012) – East Bridgewater
Charge: Operating Under the Influence
Result: Not Guilty on OUI
Client was observed speeding and almost struck a curb when the officer reversed direction and initiated a stop of the vehicle. Officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and red glassy eyes. Officer requested the client to exit his vehicle to perform field tests and client indicated that he would rather not take the tests. At this point client was placed under arrest. The officer asked the client again if he would like to take the tests even though he was already under arrest. Client agreed reluctantly and failed the field tests. The tests were recorded on a video camera. At a Motion hearing the results of the field tests were excluded because they were deemed to be involuntary.
At trial, the government did not have much to prove client was impaired from alcohol because the field tests and video were excluded from evidence.
Commonwealth v. J.P. – Roxbury District Court (2011) – State Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed by a Massachusetts State trooper operating his motor vehicle without its headlights on. As a result the trooper stopped the client and made inquiry. During initial contact the trooper observed the client to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and red/glassy eyes. As a result, the trooper requested the client to exit his motor vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. The trooper administered 3 field sobriety tests and concluded that the client was under the influence of alcohol. The client elected to take a breath test a blew a .12 (.08 being legal limit)
At trial, through cross examination and presentation of defense witnesses it was revealed that this trooper makes a lot of OUI arrests and competes every year for an award for making the most OUI arrests for the State Police. It was also revealed that the trooper’s assessment of the performance on the field tests was not accurate. Specifically, the client testified that he performed a field sobriety test that the trooper did not mention in his testimony or report. Also, the client had a cleff lip which makes him speak with a slur that was not noted by the trooper. Moreover, it was revealed that the trooper did not follow necessary procedures in administering the breath test to the client.
Finally, the defense called an expert to testify about the scientific underpinnings and flaws in breath testing. The government did not offer any evidence to explain to the jury how the breath testing machine works or the inherent issues with breath testing. Therefore, the only evidence the jury heard was from the defense expert calling into serious questions the machine and its capabilities to calculate a blood alcohol level. Not to mention the fact that the client was arrested approximately 1:20 minutes before the breath test and there was no way of knowing what the client’s blood alcohol level was at the time he operated his motor vehicle as required by the law.
Commonwealth v. J.B. – Dedham District Court (2011) – Brookline Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed by a Brookline police officer travelling without his headlights on and after following for about 3 minutes observed the vehicle pull into a “Bus Only” turn lane and take a right hand turn on a red light where turning on red was prohibited. Client stopped his vehicle for the police and was inquired of by the officer. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and his eyes to be bloodshot/red/glassy.
As a result the officer asked the client to perform field sobriety tests. The three tests performed were the one leg stand, the walk and turn and the alphabet from “c to y.” The officer testified that the client performed horribly on the tests at one point on the one leg stand fell into the arms of another officer standing by.
On cross-examination, it was revealed that the officer did not have a clear recollection of the events aside from reading his police report which was subject to interpretation and confusing. A total of three police officers testified and there were many differences in their testimony. Moreover, the Brookline police audio and videotape the booking procedure and in the video the client was standing fine and talking fine. There was a great disparity in the testimony from the officer and how the client looked on the video.
Commonwealth v. D.C. – Malden District Court (2011) – State Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Dismissed
Client was stopped at a State Police Sobriety Checkpoint. Client was coming back from dinner with his wife for her birthday. Client told the Trooper that he had consumed 2 glasses of wine over a 4 hour period. The Trooper asked client to perform a series of field sobriety tests. After the completion of the tests client was placed under arrest. Client elected to take a breath test with a reading of .10
Client had continuing issues with his gums and teeth prompting to wash his mouth on a consistent basis with mouthwash, which would have affected the breath test reading. Also, client’s 2nd language was English but nevertheless performed reasonably well on the field tests, passing the walk and turn and doing well on the one leg stand but deemed a failure.
Commonwealth v. K.R. – Concord District Court (2011) – Concord Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Not Guilty
lient was stopped by the Concord Police for cutting out of a left turn lane at the last minute and for sitting at a green light for a delayed perior of time. Officer asked the client for license and registration, which he produced and answered the officer’s questions. The officer asked client to exit his motor vehicle and perform three field sobriety tests: the walk and turn, one leg stand and the alphabet test. Officer testified that the client failed the walk and turn and the one leg stand.
On cross-examination, it was revealed that the client travelled some distance, approximately ¾ of mile with no mtor vehicle infractions. Client pulled over in an appropriate manner. There was no testimony from the officer about the amount of alcohol the client consumed. Moreover, the at least one of the field tests was done in the middle of the roadway on the center yellow line. Finally, the officer completely forgot that he had given the client the alphabet test, which was the only test that the officer states client had passed.
Commonwealth v. J.D. – Dedham District Court (2011) – Westwood Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client was stopped for speeding with no other forms of erratic operation. Officer approached and asked the client for license and registration and engaged client in conversation. Officer observed open container of alcohol and the passenger told the officer that it was his beer. Client told officer where he was and how much he had consumed for alcohol. Officer observed the client to have an odor of alcohol and trouble with his speech. Client agreed to take field sobriety tests and exited his motor vehicle. Officer indicated that client was unsteady on his feet.
Client agreed to perform most of the tests but could not do the one leg stand because of his weight. Otherwise, client passed the walk and turn test with some minor issues and passed other mental acuity tests the officer requested. Nevertheless, he was placed under arrest of OUI.
Commonwealth v. L.C. – Dedham Jury Sesssion (2011) - Stoughton
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client followed for about 1 mile and observed crossing over the yellow line divider approximately 6 times. Officer activated his lights and client pulled over with nor problem. Client had an open container inside the motor vehicle and a 24 pack of beer. Client had not problems speaking and got out of the car with no problems. Client was asked to perform two field tests, the walk and turn and the one leg stand. She did not perform the test to the officer satisafaction and was arrested. Client refused to take the breath test.
On cross-examination, the officer conceded a number of points that the client did correctly. Officer also conceded that he did not instruct and grade the one lege stand properly and therefore could conclude that client did not complete the test. Client took the stand and testified about where she was, what she was doing and more importantly, what she consumed for alcohol. She had 2 ½ beers as confiemd by what was left in the 24 pack of beer in the car. Client also testified that she has bone spurs and other issues with her feet that made the tests difficult.
Commonwealth v. J.G. – Westboro (2011) – State Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client encountered a State Police Sobriety checkpoint and was diverted from the flow of traffic in the “pit” or screening area. A State Trooper conducted a series of Field Sobriety tests, but the only tests that were admitted at the trial were te walk and turn test and the one legged stand. Trooper drafted a candid, succinct police report wherein the client completed these tests with very little difficulty. While the Trooper had probable cause to arrest the client given the evidence at trial it was insufficient to convict him of operating under the influence of alcohol and was acquitted. After the trial, the Court allowed a motion to return his license.
Commonwealth v. D.G. – Lynn (2011) – Marblehead
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Dismissed
Client was seen standing on a sidewalk next to a restaurant/bar fumbling with her purse and as she crossed the street the officer noted that she had a slight swagger. Based upon these observation he made contact with the client as she entered her motor vehicle. The officer noted that the headlights were on and the window was down when he engaged the client in conversation from his cruiser on the opposite side of the street. The officer noted that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and told her to remain parked. He reversed direction of his cruiser and pulled in behind client. The officer upon approach noted the keys were in the center console. Client was asked to exit vehicle and she refused to exit asking the officer repeatedly why. Shortly thereafter, two police officers physically removed client from the vehicle and she was placed under arrest. At the station, while he told the officers she had not driven the vehicle she elected tot take a breath test and failed with a reading of a .13.
The ADA handling the case was a true professional and prior to trial conceded that she could not prove that the vehicle was ever operated by the client and candidly would be a waste of government resources to impanel a jury and hold witnesses for a two day trial where operation was an element that the government could not prove. A motion to dismiss was filed and allowed by the court prior to trial based upon the agreed upon facts; thus the case was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. J.P. – Roxbury District Court (2011) – State Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed by a Massachusetts State trooper operating his motor vehicle without its headlights on. As a result the trooper stopped the client and made inquiry. During initial contact the trooper observed the client to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and red/glassy eyes. As a result, the trooper requested the client to exit his motor vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. The trooper administered 3 field sobriety tests and concluded that the client was under the influence of alcohol. The client elected to take a breath test a blew a .12 (.08 being legal limit)
At trial, through cross examination and presentation of defense witnesses it was revealed that this trooper makes a lot of OUI arrests and competes every year for an award for making the most OUI arrests for the State Police. It was also revealed that the trooper’s assessment of the performance on the field tests was not accurate. Specifically, the client testified that he performed a field sobriety test that the trooper did not mention in his testimony or report. Also, the client had a cleff lip which makes him speak with a slur that was not noted by the trooper. Moreover, it was revealed that the trooper did not follow necessary procedures in administering the breath test to the client.
Finally, the defense called an expert to testify about the scientific underpinnings and flaws in breath testing. The government did not offer any evidence to explain to the jury how the breath testing machine works or the inherent issues with breath testing. Therefore, the only evidence the jury heard was from the defense expert calling into serious questions the machine and its capabilities to calculate a blood alcohol level. Not to mention the fact that the client was arrested approximately 1:20 minutes before the breath test and there was no way of knowing what the client’s blood alcohol level was at the time he operated his motor vehicle as required by the law.
Commonwealth v. J.B. – Dedham District Court (2011) – Brookline Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed by a Brookline police officer travelling without his headlights on and after following for about 3 minutes observed the vehicle pull into a “Bus Only” turn lane and take a right hand turn on a red light where turning on red was prohibited. Client stopped his vehicle for the police and was inquired of by the officer. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and his eyes to be bloodshot/red/glassy.
As a result the officer asked the client to perform field sobriety tests. The three tests performed were the one leg stand, the walk and turn and the alphabet from “c to y.” The officer testified that the client performed horribly on the tests at one point on the one leg stand fell into the arms of another officer standing by.
On cross-examination, it was revealed that the officer did not have a clear recollection of the events aside from reading his police report which was subject to interpretation and confusing. A total of three police officers testified and there were many differences in their testimony. Moreover, the Brookline police audio and videotape the booking procedure and in the video the client was standing fine and talking fine. There was a great disparity in the testimony from the officer and how the client looked on the video.
Commonwealth v. S.M. – Plymouth District Court (2011) Plymouth Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not guilty
Client was observed in a MacDonald’s parking lot repeatedly drive up and over a small curb in the parking lot. This drew the officer’s attention and he interacted briefly with the client to ask if he was OK. Client indicated that he was fine and proceeded to drive back onto the small curb over the grass median and onto the adjacent street where he took a right hand turn. The officer activated his light and siren and the client pulled over with no problems. The officer engaged the client in conversation and noticed an odor of alcohol, red and glassy eyes and slightly slurred speech. The client produced his license and registration fine and was asked to exit his motor vehicle, which he was able to do.
Client was asked to perform the Alphabet test and he was not able to recite it properly jumbling a couple letters and stopping at V. Client was asked to perform the 9 step walk and turn. When confronted with his manual the officer acknowledged that in hindsight the client had passed the exercise. The last test was the one leg stand test and client was unable to hold a leg off the ground for more than a count of 4 seconds. Client was then placed under arrest.
Client was audio and videotaped at the booking procedure and he appeared lucid and mentally clear as far as answering the questions the officer posed.
Commonwealth v. M.L. (Boston Municipal Court) Boston Police
Charge: Operating under the influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed by a security officer to be stumbling down the street. The security officer observed client for about five minutes when he observed him enter his motor vehicle. Security officer followed client in his own motor vehicle and observed client commit some marked lane violation nearly striking some parked cars. Security officer called his friend, a Boston police officer, who was working in the same area to come to his location to observe the vehicle.
The Boston police officer arrived and observed the client travel for a short period of time on the wrong side of the road and then nearly strike some vehicles. Officer activated his lights and client stopped. After a brief encounter inside the vehicle, the officer observed the client to have extremely bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.
Client performed the Alphabet test, the walk and turn test and the one leg stand test. Client went A-T and jumbled letters at the end, did not walk heal toe on the walk and turn and could not balance on one leg. After cross- examination, it was clear the officer did not recall the details of the event, the client was wearing sandals at the time, and actually passed the walk and turn test according to the Field Sobriety testing manual. More importantly, the officer never observed an odor of alcohol from the client and testified to many observations that he failed to write in his report.
Commonwealth v. D.C. (Worcester District Court-2011) Blackstone Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol & Negligent Operation of MV
Result: NG on both Charges
Client was observed in the town of Blackstone by a police officer make an abrupt skidding stop for no apparent reason and then pull into a parking lot where the offier was stationary. Client pulled out of parking lot with no problem and the officer pursued him into Warwick, RI. The officer followed the client in Warwick, RI for about 3 miles. He observed the client nearly striking parked motor vehicle and making wide turns on a few occasions. The client eventually went back into Blackstone where the officer immediately stopped the vehicle.
Within 10 seconds the officer had the client out of the vehicle performing field sobriety tests. The officer did not have a good memory of the performance on the field tests. After the Field sobriety tests he was placed under arrest. The client was audio and videotaped at the booking procedure. The client refused to take the breath test. On the video the client admitted to consuming over 10 beers but the officer did not provide the client with his Miranda Warnings so the statement was excluded at trial. On cross examination it was revealed that the client was driving fine for a majority of the time the officer pursued him. The officer acknowledged on the stand that did not remember certain events and specifics about the arrest. Essentially, this was a rush to judgment on behalf of the police officer and the jury agreed.
Commonwealth v. S.M. (Plymouth District Court-2011) Hanson Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client was involved in an accident where his vehicles ONSTAR system called the police. Apparently the person in front of him stopped short for an animal in the road and the client rear-ended the other vehicle. The civilian testified that the client looked dazed but did not notice any indicia of alcohol consumption like slurred speech or an odor of alcohol. Both parties pulled over to a nearby gas station and the police had responded at the that moment.
The police officer made contact with the client on the passenger side of the truck and asked if he was driving. Client admitted to driving. The client’s airbag had deployed and he was a dazed as a result which made him unsteady on his feet as noted by the officer. The client told the officer that he “fucked up.” The officer asked him if he had been drinking to which the client replied that he had 6 beers over a five-hour period. The officer asked him to take field sobriety tests and the client refused to take the tests. Client also refused to take the breath test.
Commonwealth v. K.A, - North Hampton District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: NOT GUILTY
Massachusetts State Police arrested this client for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. This was a Mother coming from a St. Patrick’s Day celebration. She consumed a responsible amount of alcohol and was upset regarding some family matters as she was speeding. She pulled her vehicle over close the travel lane, but she was driving a large unfamiliar truck.
After being stopped, she was cooperative with the Trooper. The Trooper observed that she had difficulty producing the Registration, but the vehicle was not hers. The Trooper noted an odor of alcohol, that her eyes were glassy/red/bloodshot and that she had slurred thick tongued speech.
The trooper asked her to exit the truck and she did so without any balance issues. The Trooper requested her to perform FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS and she refused to take them. She was placed under arrest and refused to take the breath test at the State Police Barracks. Her license to operate a motor vehicle was reinstated after the finding of Not Guilty.
NOTE: Refusal to take FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS and the BREATH TEST are not admissible in Court.
Commonwealth v. J.A. – Newburyport District Court
Charge: OUI Drugs & OUI 3rd offense.
Result: OUI Drugs – Dismissed;
OUI 3rd offense reduced to a 2nd Offense.
This client was stopped for speeding by a Massachusetts State Trooper. After approaching this client the trooper observed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy/bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The trooper was concerned for his safety and asked the client to exit the motor vehicle. Based upon what the trooper called “erratic behavior” the client was placed under arrest for Operating Under the Influence of Drugs and Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol.
At the State Police Barracks, the police called in a “Drug Recognition Expert” from Rowley Police Department to perform an examination to determine what drug the client had consumed. After the examination the officer determined that the client was under the influence of a drug. However, upon examination of a urine sample, there were no drugs in the client’s system.
As a result, the government moved to dismiss the OUI Drugs charge. Given the state of the client’s OUI Case, the government offered a reduced plea offer to a 2nd offense. The client was a father and a business owner and this plea deal guaranteed that he would not go to jail and lose everything he has worked for.
A 3rd offense OUI carries with it a minimum mandatory 150 days in jail and the client could not refuse to take the deal even though the Registry of Motor Vehicles took his license for 8 years.
Commonwealth v. J.B – Waltham District Court
Charge: OUI-3rd offense
Result: Not Guilty
Waltham police officers observed the client speed through an intersection and pull into a larking lot. The officers had a conversation with the client and observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech and noted a condition about his eyes. The client was administered FST’s but the client had a lot of physical issues that prevented him from performing the tests. The client refused the breath test. After a Jury-Trial the client was found Not Guilty.
Commonwealth v. M.B. – Haverhill District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
A Massachusetts State Trooper was part of a saturation patrol for a roadblock. The client was coming from his niece’s first birthday where he consumed four beers over almost four hours. Client had several witnesses including his partner to verify his account.
On the way home the trooper observed the client’s vehicles and his partner’s vehicle (travelling behind him) commit several marked lanes violations. The trooper activated his light to stop his partner, not the client. The trooper approached the client and administered Field Sobriety Tests, which he could not complete. The client was extremely nervous and has problems with his knees which prevented him from completing the Field Sobriety Tests. As an aside his partner had the same amount of alcohol and passed the Field Sobriety Tests. The client refused the breath test.
Commonwealth v. S.B. – Hingham District Court
Charge: OUI-3rd Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was stopped at a Massachusetts Sobriety Checkpoint in Hingham. The screening State Trooper observed an open container in the vehicle and the passenger appeared to be intoxicated. The client was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests and performed extremely well on the tests. Nevertheless, the client was placed under arrest for OUI and having an Open Container in his vehicle. The Client refused to take the breath test.
Commonwealth v. D.B. – Brockton District Court
Charge: OUI –First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was driving in a snowstorm and lost control of his vehicle. The Abington Police arrived and observed the client near the vehicle. The police engaged the client in conversation to determine where he was coming from and how the accident occurred. The police observed the client to be unsteady on his feet, have an odor of alcohol and his speech was slurred. The client refused to take Field Sobriety Tests. The police provided photos that were inconsistent with their own account of how the accident happened.
Commonwealth v. E.D – Quincy District Court
Charge: OUI-Second Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Weymouth police responded to a call alleging the client left the scene of an accident. Witnesses observed the client’s vehicle scrape the other vehicle at the restaurant and got the registration of the motor vehicle. The client lived just around the corner from the restaurant. They knocked on the door and his wife let the Weymouth Police into the home. They engaged the client in conversation noticing an odor of alcohol and problems with his speech.
The Weymouth Police asked the client to perform Field Sobriety Tests in his pajamas and slippers and it was extremely cold outside. Also, the client showed concern that his son was watching him perform the tests. The client had witnesses to confirm his whereabouts the entire day and how much alcohol he consumed. All of them testified on the client’s behalf and contributed to the Not Guilty finding.
Commonwealth v. R.H – Brockton District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Case Dismissed afte Motion to Dismiss
Client was stopped at a Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint in Bridgewater. The client was coming from a Patriots game and was on his motorcycle. The client was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, which he did not complete. The client was placed under arrest and elected to take the breath test and registered a sample above a .08.
The Motion was allowed because the State Police failed to follow their own regulations.
Commonwealth v. B.P. – Brockton District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Case Dismissed after Motion to Dismiss
Client was stopped at a Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint in Bridgewater. The client was coming from dinner with his wife in the car. The client was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, which he performed reasonably well under the nerve racking circumstances. The client was placed under arrest and elected to take the breath test and registered a sample above a .08.
The Motion was allowed because the State Police failed to follow their own regulations.
Commonwealth v. T.P – Lawrence District Court
Charge: OUI-Second Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was arrested by the Massachusetts State Police on Route 93 North. The client was observed by a civilian swerving and called the State Police. The State Trooper observed the client swerving as he entered a work zone. The State Trooper activated his lights and the client pulled over.
The trooper observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and red/glassy eyes. The client was asked to exit his truck and perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client was asked to perform two tests the One Leg Stand and the 9 Step Walk and Turn. The client did not do well on either by his own admission.
The client was approximately 120 pounds overweight, Diabetic who suffered from neuropathy in his legs and suffered from Sleep Apnea. The State Police Sobriety Testing Manual states that a person who is 50 or more pounds overweight will have difficulty on the One Leg Stand test, thus the client should not have been given this test. Moreover, the client’s doctor administered a test called a “tandem walk” in his office which is very similar to the 9 step walk and turn and he could not do it in a well lit flat doctor’s office never mind a dark road with several troopers watching him perform the tests. The client hired an expert named Dr. John Penek from New Jersey who provided invaluable testimony for the client in the areas of sleep apnea and diabetes.
Commonwealth v. E.K – Cambridge District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Case Dismissed
Client was at a work function and had consumed a reasonable amount of alcohol and was driving numerous people home when she was pulled over. Client had witnesses to confirm her whereabouts and alcohol consumption.
On the trial date the government witnesses did not appear and the case was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. S.K – Plymouth District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was working the third shift and after work went a friend’s house and consumed a few beers. As he was exiting route 3 at exit 12 in Marshfield the vehicle he was driving slid off the ramp into the median. The vehicle got stuck in the snow. A Massachusetts State Trooper responded to the scene to investigate. The client took field sobriety tests on the side of a ramp in loafers that were filled with snow from when he got of the vehicle in a snow bank.
Commonwealth v. L.M – Ayer District Court
Charge: OUI/Child Endangerment
Result: Not Guilty
Client was a mother of two and coming from a holiday neighborhood party. She drove her babysitter home. In route she took a wide right hand turn, crossing briefly into the oncoming lane. The officer activated his lights and the client pulled into the apartment complex. The babysitter went to her apartment as her mother watched the officer engage the client in conversation. The client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and she did not complete them to the satisfaction of the officer. The officer testified that the parking lot was well lit and a flat level surface. The client was arrested and elected to take the breath test with a result of a .13.
At trial, the officer was confronted with photographs of the parking lot clearly showing that it was far from level. Also, the overhead lighting he indicated was present was non-existent. No to mention the fact that the client performed the tests in her bare feet in about 32 degree weather. As far as the breath test, the government was unable to introduce the breath test due to the unavailability of a necessary witness.
Commonwealth v. J.M. – Plymouth District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Dismissal
Client was stopped for marked lanes violations. The Marshfield police officer observed the client’s speech to be slurred, his eyes to be red and bloodshot and a strong odor of alcohol. The client elected to perform field sobriety tests and did not do well.
The government elected not to proceed to trial for reasons that were kept internal. Either way the client was a very happy person.
Commonwealth v. R.M. – Cambridge District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was pulled over on Route 2 in Cambridge by a Massachusetts State Trooper for speeding. The Trooper observed the client to show signs of being impaired by alcohol and as a result asked the client to exit his car. The client refused to get out of his car (Unless you are placed under arrest there is no obligation to get out of your car). The Trooper after several requests proceeded to CUT OUT the client’s seat belt and physically assisted the client from exiting the car. Client refused to take the breath test.
Commonwealth v. R.M. – Hingham District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was on his Harley Davidson motorcycle in Rockland and was travelling well in excess of the speed limit and had apparently travelled through a red light in the process. The officer activated his lights and noticed the client was unsteady on his feet and he put the bike on its stand. The client produced his license and registration with no problems but the officer observed the client to have red/glassy eyes and problems with his speech. The client did not perform well on the field tests but was able to provide reasonable explanations as to why he could not pass the field tests. Additionally, the client provided witnesses to confirm his whereabouts and how much alcohol he consumed. Client refused to take the breath test.
Commonwealth v. S.M. – Dorchester District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was stopped at a Massachusetts State Police roadblock on Gallivan Boulevard in Dorchester. The Trooper sent the client to a location known as the “pit area” to perform field sobriety tests. Despite doing reasonably well on the tests he was placed under arrest. Client refused to take the breath test.
Commonwealth v. S.M.
Charge: OUI Alcohol and OUI Drugs
Commonwealth v. P.S. – Plymouth District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Dismissed
Client was pulled over in Halifax for going through a red light and committing a marked lane violation. The client pulled over with no problem. The officer approached the client and made some observations consistent with alcohol. The Halifax officer asked the client to perform some field sobriety tests, which he performed reasonably well. Client refused to take the breath test.
At trial, the government was unable to proceed resulting in a dismissal. Client had no record .
Commonwealth v. M.S. – Edgartown District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was working on Martha’s Vineyard for the simmer. Client was stopped for crossing marked lanes and taking a wide turn. The entire incident was caught on a dash-mounted video camera in the cruiser. The client pulled over with no difficulty, the officer made some observations consistent with alcohol consumption. The officer asked the client to perform Field Sobriety Tests. On the video, the client performed reasonably well on the tests. The client elected to take the breath test and blew a reading above a .08. At trial, the officer responsible for the breath test was not available at trial, thus the breath test was not admitted into evidence.
Commonwealth v. S.P – Westboro District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was stopped by a Massachusetts State Trooper
Commonwealth v. W.S. – Quincy District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Case Dismissed after Motion to Dismiss
Client was stopped at a Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint at Quincy Shore Boulevard in Quincy. The client was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, which he performed reasonably well under the nerve racking circumstances.
The Motion was allowed because the State Police failed to follow their own regulations.
Commonwealth v. E.S – Somerville District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was stopped by a Massachusetts State Trooper on Rt. 93 South in Somerville. The client pulled over on a ramp. The State Trooper approached and asked for his license and registration, which he produced with no issues. The Trooper asked him to exit his car to perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client performed the tests and elected to take a breath test which yielded a reading above a .08.
At trial, the Trooper got caught in some inconsistent statements, which the jury was left to question. This case is a perfect example of how you can beat a breath test. The trooper demonstrated very limited knowledge about the breath test and how it worked. As such the jury could not find that the machine was reliable and scientifically accurate.
Commonwealth v. F.T. – Great Barrington District Court
Charge: OUI-Third Offense/Leaving the Scene after causing property Damage
Result: Not Guilty
Client was accused of crashing his brand new pickup truck into a dealership lot causing approximately 95,000 in damage to other vehicles in the lot. A Sheffield police officer had observed the damage to the vehicles and from there the investigation began. The truck was registered to Mr., T, so they responded to his residence and asked him about his truck. He had indicated that he left it a friend’s business. Client indicated that he left the truck at the business and from there went out drinking with his father and a friend. It was common for the client to leave the keys in his truck. His father has driven him home. Thus someone must have taken his truck.
Prior to this incident a Great Barrington police officer observed a man walking on the side of the road in the area of the accident about one hour before the accident was discovered by the Sheffield police officer. The Great Barrington Officer indicated that the person was wearing jeans and a dark hooded sweatshirt. The client admitted to wearing similar clothing and the police found a set of keys to the truck inside the home. The police also observed a bruise on his shoulder consistent with seatbelt bruising from an accident and a cut on his lip. Thus the police opined that he must have been driving the truck and caused the accident. The defendant refused to take the breath test and was not offered field sobriety tests, which did not matter because everyone agreed that he was impaired by alcohol.
At trial, the police admitted that they really did not look inside the truck or around the truck to see if another set of keys was inside the vehicle. Also, the set of clothing did not have any blood or airbag residue on them or at least the police did not look. More importantly, the cut on his lip was a cold soar that was documented through medical records. Also, the bruise on his should was from carrying lumber on his shoulder as he was a carpenter. At trial, the client’s father, friend and wife testified that while he was drunk, he never drove that truck home. The jury agreed.
Commonwealth v. P.H – Quincy District Court
Charge: OUI-Fourth Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client was stopped by the Weymouth Police for marked lanes violations. The Weymouth police officer asked for a license and registration which he produced with no difficulty. The officer asked him to perform field sobriety tests which he did not complete to the officer satisfaction. The client refused to take the breath test.
At trial, through cross examination that the client actually did fairly well on the Field Sobriety Tests and showed mental acuity.
Commonwealth v. D.V. – Attleboro District Court
Charge: OUI-Second Offense
Result: Case Dismissed
Client was stopped by a Massachusetts State Police Officer for weaving and nearly hitting a jersey barrier. The trooper approached and noticed sign of impairment. The client failed the Field Sobriety Tests and was placed under arrest. Client refused to take the breath test.
At trial the government was unable to proceed on the trial date, thus the case was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. F.O. – Stoughton District Court
Charge: OUI-Second Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Mot new trial Stoughton police officer observed braked aggressively and travelling at a high rate of speed through a stop sign nearly striking police cruiser. Client then pulled into his driveway. Officer approached client and he was verbally abusive and placed under arrest no fst no bt.
Commonwealth v. K.H. – Plymouth District Court
Charge: OUI-First Offense
Result: Not Guilty
Client stopped for speeding during a winter storm. Plympton police Roadway was snow covered and slick strong odor eyes glassy and bloodshot admission to drinking finger to nose exited vehicle slowly, one leg stand and walk and turn did not complete, refused BT.
Trial snow conditions were an issue casting doubt on validity of tests passenger girlfriend was sober and testified.
Commonwealth v. T.P. – Dedham District Court (2011) – Needham Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed speeding and pulled over in front over a firehouse. Client decided that blocking the firehouse was not the best idea so client proceeded 100 yards up the road. The officer believed client may have been was trying to evade him. Officer approached and asked for license and registration. Officer indicated that client’s eyes were red bloodshot and glassy and his speech was slurred. There was also a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath.
Client was asked to perform field sobriety tests. Client performed the alphabet and went A-U and then abruptly stopped. Client performed the 9 step walk and turn and successfully completed this test. Client performed the one leg stand and although officer indicated it was a failure in his report, he conceded that he passed the test on cross-examination. Client held his foot off the ground from 1-35, 5 seconds past the 30 seconds he was asked to do. Client was then placed under arrest and client refused to take the breath test.
Commonwealth v. B.B. – Brockton DC (2011) – Bridgewater State College
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Client was observed going through a stop sign and then taking a left. Officer conducted a motor vehicle stop. Officer noticed a moderate odor of alcohol and client admitted to drinking two beers. Client produced license and registration with no difficulty. Client was asked to exit his vehicle and did so with no balance problems.
Client was asked to perform the 9 step walk and turn which he passed, only exhibiting one out of the eight clues the officer is trained to look for. The second test was the one leg stand. After cross examination, the officer admitted that while the client miscounted, he held his foot off the ground for over 30 seconds and based upon the training manuals this also was a passed test.
At the booking, client admitted to consuming more alcohol, than two beers but these statement were not admitted at trial due to procedural issues. Additionally, Client elected to take a breath test with a result of a .16. This test was excluded from admission into evidence prior to the trial due to procedural errors.
Commonwealth v. M.C. – Quincy DC (2011) – Weymouth
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Dismissal
Client was seen sleeping with his vehicle in drive against a snow bank in a storage facilities parking lot. The store manager was summonsed to court and she indicated that the business was closed to the public at the time of the client’s arrest. Therefore, this was not a public way as defined by our statutes and relevant case law.
Commonwealth v. Z.L. – Framingham District Court (2011) – Sudbury Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Result: Not Guilty
Police had been dispatched for a report of a verbal altercation. Police observed female walking down road with car following her. Police asked my client to pull over and exit vehicle and engaged client in conversation about what had transpired. Client told police he had gotten into an argument with his girlfriend. Officer observed the client to have a strong odor of alcohol, swaying back and forth appearing unsteady on his feet.
Client agreed to perform field sobriety tests and failed all tests. Client was placed under arrest and brought to station for booking. Declined to take Breath Test. The booking was videotaped and appeared to be balanced and mentally clear throughout the booking procedure. The video created enough doubt to believe he was impaired by alcohol
Commonwealth v. J.A. - Ayer District Court (2011) – Littleton Police
Charge: Operating Under the Influence
Result: Not Guilty on OUI and Not Guilty on .08 per se violation
Client crashed into a snow bank on a dark rural road in Littleton. The weather was very cold. The police arrived and observed client standing next to the vehicle. Police observed operator to be unsteady on his feet, bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech. Client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and complied with the request.
Walk and Turn: client failed to maintain required stance, took nine steps touching his heel to toe and spun around on the turn and returned 9 steps touching heal to toe. Client did however raise his arms away from this side.
One Leg Stand: began when instructed and started counting at 9 one thousand and then continued to 24 placing his foot down and then went to 34 and then stopped.
Due to performance on tests the officer deemed my client to be intoxicated and placed him under arrest. He was transported to the police station for booking. Client consented to the breath test with a reading of .15.
On cross-examination several issues were raised about the performance on the field tests and the time of the client operated his motor vehicle in relation to the arrival of the police. Client hired an expert to educate the Jury about the technology of the breath testing device and its application to the client and his reading.