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.
Grounds for Dismissal Following This Massachusetts OUI Case
As part of discovery, our Plymouth county OUI attorney requested the dashcam video and reviewed it. It showed the police following our client for perhaps a half-mile or so, down a windy road. The footage was unmistakable: our client negotiated all of the contours of the road perfectly. As the road wound around in a serpentine fashion, our client was seen driving at the appropriate rate of speed and “handling” all of the curves. Not once did his tires touch, let alone go over, the double yellow line.
Based on this video, we didn’t think the police had legal grounds to pull my client over. Nate filed a motion to suppress on the basis that the stop violated his client’s 4th amendment rights. At the hearing, Nate played the video for the judge, who drew the same conclusion he did: there was no basis to stop the car because there was no observed civil motor vehicle infraction. The judge allowed his motion to suppress. Without a valid basis to stop the car, the Commonwealth was unable to move forward on their prosecution and the case was dismissed.