Aggressive Defense of All DUI Matters
Published on:

By

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

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

Read article: Marshfield couple faces social host charges.

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

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

Read article: Cambridge man cuffed for almost running over cop

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

OperationSafeStreets3_lgIn my work as a Massachusetts drunk driving criminal defense attorney, I regularly counsel clients involved in DUI cases with multiple charges. A case involving an alleged illegal immigrant charged with drunkenly crashing his car into a state representative’s vehicle promises to be especially complex. The driver, Isaias Naranjo, 27, of Waltham, will not only have to defend himself against several serious charges stemming from the injury-causing accident, but will also have to deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

2184957451_4749c220f0_mA Scituate teenager who crashed his car has been charged with driving under the influence, speeding, and other driving violations after attempting to escape from the police while they interviewed his passengers. The 17-year-old Scituate High School student’s name is being withheld because he is a minor. As a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer, I am glad that no one was hurt in this incident,
Police said that the student’s 2006 Ford Focus totally blocked the intersection of Edith Holmes Drive and Tilden Road, although it was unclear what had led to the crash. Police arrived at the scene around 12:45 a.m. on April 29 and found four teenagers standing outside the car, each of them emitting “a strong odor of liquor.” A witness said that a fifth passenger had been involved and had fled the scene on foot, but police were unable to find him or her. The teens gave police “various names,” suggesting that they were lying about their identities initially, but police eventually ascertained their real names. Three of them had been listed as honor students in the local papers. A Breathalyzer test showed the driver’s blood alcohol content to be 0.16%, twice the legal limit for adults over 21 and eight times the limit for drivers under 21. That impairment measurement may help explain the driver’s unusual choice to get back in his car and try to drive away while police were questioning the three passengers. The driver told police, “I have to drive it home, there is something wrong with the front end,” according to the police report. The driver finally gave up and got out of the car “only after strong verbal language was used,” and the car was towed away. The driver is scheduled for a pre-trial conference in late May.

Read article: Scituate student faces drunk driving charge.

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

2816552570_c25300d775

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

4446135487_4da59f6f2c_mBecause I’m a Massachusetts drunk driving defense attorney, I regularly follow the news about drunk driving cases, and a recent article about an alleged drunk driving case in Fall River caught my interest. Robert Rebello, 40, of Fall River, is being held in Bristol County jail because the prosecutor argued that he is too dangerous to society to be released on bail. Because Rebello had three OUI convictions from 1988, 1990, and 1996, Bristol County Judge Brian Gilligan agreed to keep him in jail pending a dangerousness hearing. At that hearing, the judge will decide whether to keep Rebello in jail until he can be tried.

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

Read article: Fall River driver held pending dangerousness hearing.

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

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

Continue reading →

Contact Information
Boston Office
10 Tremont St #602
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 263-6800 (888) 266-1781
North Andover Office
200 Sutton St #231
North Andover, MA 01845

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Stephen Neyman, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design