Operating Under the Influence (OUI)

After an office Christmas party, this gal got into a fairly serious accident that resulted in charges of drunk driving, negligent operation, and leaving the scene of an accident. Without getting into the details, things aren’t always as they seem, and the Commonwealth agreed with my theory. The negligent operation and leaving the scene of an accident charges were dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth. The OUI charge was continued without a finding for 1 year and will be dismissed in Spring 2024.

Summer kids on Nantucket and the Cape drink alcohol and sometimes get in trouble for it. This young man, a standout student at a top college, got busted at a summer beach party. While not the crime of the century, this is the type of stuff that can really trip people up down the line if not handled properly. The facts of this case don’t standout except for the fact that he, along with his buddies, were drinking on the beach and were later surrounded by a crowd as the police busted them. Things got a little out of hand with the crowd as the on-lookers chanted and heckled the police. This obviously made things worse for my poor client who took no part in the melee. After a few letters, some advocacy, and a $200 fine, his charges were dismissed.

It’s common knowledge that college kids like to drink and it’s common knowledge that some drinking-age college kids buy alcohol for underage drinkers. But when it happens at a major Boston bar and the police get involved, a typical night out can leave a blemish on an otherwise spotless record. Through some artful negotiation and a compassionate clerk, this criminal charge didn’t see the light of day. The case was dismissed.

I handle a fair amount of drunk driving defense cases as a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, these cases are usually controlled by state law because the state owns the highways and roads. At least in Massachusetts, there are a few limited circumstances where a DUI is a federal offense, and I recently had the opportunity to take one to trial.  Driving under the influence is deemed a federal crime if it happens on any property under federal jurisdiction, owned by the federal government, or another location that is considered federal property.

The location of the offense—state property versus federal property—determines the applicable substantive law.  There are at least two pieces of federal land in Massachusetts that produce federal DUIs: the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston and the Cape Cod National Seashore.  These areas are patrolled by United States Park Rangers, a federal law enforcement agency.

On a cold January night last year, my client rented a Zipcar in Dorchester and drove it to his friend’s house in Charlestown.  On his way back to Dorchester, he was stopped by a Park Ranger because his Zipcar did not have a front license plate, as required by Massachusetts law. This routine traffic stop quickly turned into my client’s worst nightmare.

The Park Ranger noticed an open water bottle in the console that appeared to contain beer (it didn’t help that my client then drank from it in front of the Ranger). Based on this, the Park Ranger asked my client to perform a battery of field sobriety tests, including counting backward from 83-68, reciting the alphabet from C-W, the “finger-count test,” the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and the Modified Romberg.  My client also took a preliminary breath test in the field.  And, as you can imagine, the Ranger testified that my client did poorly on all the tests and that he was impaired.

Nevertheless, I was able to win an acquittal. How? As I always stress, you cannot win a case without a theory of defense that sells a plausible alternative reality. Sometimes, it’s not what you see, but what you don’t see that carries the day.  In this case, the Park Ranger failed to detail all of the things my client did right. By bringing this out on cross-examination, I was able to show a disconnect between his appearance of normalcy (all the things he did right) versus the Ranger’s opinion that he was impaired. The evidence was too overwhelming—the Ranger was simply mistaken in his opinion. My client wasn’t impaired, he was scared.

Have you been arrested and charged with a DUI/OUI in Massachusetts? Our experienced Plymouth OUI attorney here at Nate Amendola Defense specializes in OUI DWI DUI Defense, license suspension law, and represents clients across Norwell, and the surrounding areas. We specialize in getting people through the courts and back on the road.

You can contact us online or call our office directly at 781-650-3177 to schedule your free consultation with one of our top-notch defense lawyers.

Why Having a Battle-Tested Massachusetts OUI Lawyer at Your Side Makes a Difference

These days, lots of police cruisers are equipped with dashcam video. The idea is that the camera captures whatever the police see as they’re driving. This can be tremendously helpful in impaired driving cases because our Massachusetts OUI lawyer gets to compare what he sees on the video with the narrative of the police report. Lots of drunk driving cases begin with the police observing erratic operations, which then gives them the legal ground to stop a car. In Massachusetts, the police can stop a vehicle if they observe a civil motor vehicle infraction. 

In this particular case, the police stopped our client’s car because they saw it serve over the double yellow lines “multiple times.” They pulled our client over and observed the so-called classic signs of impairment: red, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and delayed movements. These observations provided probable cause to ask our client to exit the car and perform field sobriety tests, which in the opinion of the police, he failed. He was subsequently arrested and charged with OUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and marked lanes.

The key to winning a case at trial is to develop a believable theory of the case. A winning theory weaves multiple elements. First and foremost, it must be a logical and sellable story. The story must be consistent with every piece of evidence, including bad facts. Of course, the theory must also consider the relevant law. And finally, a good theory of the case contains elements of human emotion. When assembled and delivered the right way, a theory of the case will always lead to a conclusion of innocence.

What Led to a Mistaken OUI Arrest in Massachusetts

I recently won a not guilty verdict on a first offense OUI trial by developing a simple and straightforward theory of the case. The basic facts were these. My client was at a friend’s BBQ, hung out for a few hours, had a few beers, ate some food, and left. On his way home, he was pulled over for swerving and almost hitting another car. After talking with my client, the officer noticed the odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The cop asked my client to recite the alphabet without singing it and to count backward from 69-54. Lastly, my client was asked to perform the three standardized field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the 9 step walk and turn, and the one leg stand. Based on all of the evidence conducted at the side of the road, the cop determined that my client was impaired and arrested him for OUI.

A client of mine is building a new house.  After work one night, he stopped by the construction site with a few handy friends to complete some Do-It-Yourself work.  They worked for a few hours and capped the evening off with a celebratory beer.  On the way back home, my client was pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign.  Noticing a single beer can behind the passenger seat, the officer asked my client to perform field sobriety tests.  My client respectfully declined.  He was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and was taken back to the police station, where the police then requested that he take the breathalyzer.  He respectfully declined that too.  As a result, he was charged with Operating under the Influence, Negligent Operation, and Open Container. After several meetings with the prosecutor, I was able to get all these charges dismissed prior to arraignment. It was a win of epic proportions. So, how did I do it?

You Are Under No Obligation To Talk To The Police Or Take Field Sobriety Test

First, you must understand that my client set the stage. The prosecutor spoke with the arresting officer, who commented on the level of respect and politeness my client showed during the entire process. He didn’t cry, whine, or beg to be let off.  He simply answered—or rather declined to answer—the officer’s questions in a polite manner, by saying: “Officer, I respectfully decline to answer that question or Officer, I respectfully decline to take the Field Sobriety Tests.”  Remember: you are under no obligation to talk to the police, and you are under no obligation to take the field sobriety tests.  You, like my client, can decline to do both.

Little Evidence To Support A Conviction

Because he declined to take both the field sobriety tests and the breathalyzer, the Commonwealth had very little evidence to support a conviction. What’s more, his interactions with the police were not consistent with somebody who is impaired—he was polite and respectful. These two facts helped me persuade the prosecutor that this would not be a successful case for them at trial. I can assure you that had my client acted differently during this interaction, the result would be different.

As the judge stepped up to the bench, I could feel my client’s nervous breath as I watched her eyes dart around the room.  This was the biggest day of her life.  Before getting arrested for drunk driving, she had never been in trouble with the law.  The courtroom may as well have been Antarctica; she was completely lost. I was her guide, and she was on trial. We both waited with bated breath for the Judge’s decision.  When he handed down the not guilty verdict, we both let out an audible sense of relief. We were thrilled. She would not have a criminal record. So how did we win? And why did we take this case in front of a judge and not a jury?

The Theory of the Case

Criminal trials are a battle of competing stories.  The most important thing a defense lawyer does is to come up with a theory of the case. You must understand that in a drunk driving case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle, on a public way, while impaired. The theory of the case must somehow undermine or discredit how the government will prove those elements.