Prior to 2003 in Massachusetts, the .08% BAC level was not a per se law; it was “evidence but not proof of drunkenness.” However, in 2003, however, Massachusetts adopted a per se BAC law in response to 23 U.S.C. §163, a statute ratified by President Clinton that would withdraw state highway funding if a state failed to enact the .08 BAC level.

Under the current law, to get a drunk driving conviction, all the prosecution has to show is that the person accused of OUI operated a motor vehicle on a public way, or place where the public has a right of access, with a blood alcohol content at or above .08. Whether the alcohol diminished the driver’s ability to operate safely is irrelevant under the .08 law.

Under the Massachusetts “per se” law, only the blood alcohol content (BAC) test result at or above .08 as sufficient evidence to satisfy the intoxication requirement. By reducing the evidentiary burden, the per se laws assist states in the prosecuting OUI offenders. In these per se cases, the central issue at the DUI trial is often the accuracy of the BAC test result and the manner in which the breathalyzer test was conducted.

Obviously, the .08 law cannot be used in cases where the driver refuses to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test. In those cases, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the driver’s ability to drive safely was diminished by alcohol. Thus, there is an incentive to refuse to submit to a breath test. Without breathalyzer readings or alcohol blood test results, the “intoxication” element of the drunk driving charge will be more difficult to prove.

Of course, refusing the breath test is not without consequences. In Massachusetts, a breathalyzer refusal will trigger a license suspension of at least 6 months, up to lifetime, depending on the number of DUI convictions on the driver’s record and whether he or she is 21 years old or not.

In courthouses across Massachusetts, those charged with drunk driving are faced with the question of whether to “plead out” or not.

Admissions and guilty pleas carry extensive consequences, most of which typically are not discussed during the plea bargaining procedure or when the court accepts a plea.

The acceptance of a plea in Massachusetts DUI cases is governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, Massachusetts laws, and the Massachusetts state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution.

The law requires DUI lawyers to explain: (1) the nature of the charges and the elements that the government would need to prove to convict; (2) the possible sentences applicable to the charges, including any mandatory minimum and possible maximum sentence; and (3) that the defendant is foregoing the right to a trial, including the rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence in defense against any charge. Also, the judge must inform the defendant that if the defendant is not a citizen, a guilty plea may result in deportation or denial of readmission to the United States.

For those on probation or parole, who plead out to DUI, there may be adverse parole or probation consequences. In exchange for accepting an admission to sufficient facts or a guilty plea, courts often require defendants to pay restitution, victim-witness fees, court costs, counsel fees, or probation fees. Pleading guilty to a criminal charge may also encourage or impact prosecution in an accompanying civil suit, leading to civil liability, or may be a catalyst to administrative proceedings, exposing the defendant to administrative fines, fees, and penalties.

A guilty plea and the resulting conviction may completely bar employment or, at least, drastically limit available job opportunities for a defendant. Most job applications and interviewers ask an applicant if he or she has ever been convicted of a crime, and many employers conduct criminal background checks for prospective employees. Any employer can choose not to hire a given individual on the basis of that applicant’s criminal record. Individuals with criminal records may also be denied opportunities to enlist in or maintain positions within the armed forces. Guilty pleas may also prohibit an individual from holding public office, or may result in revocation or suspension of a defendant’s business or professional license by administrative bodies.

The privilege of holding a driver’s license is forfeited by entry of certain guilty pleas or admissions to sufficient facts. While a defendant pleading guilty to traffic violations or drunk-driving may anticipate license suspension or revocation, many defendants are caught unaware when their licenses are revoked after pleading guilty to certain charges having nothing to do with automobile operation, such as drug offenses.

Pleading guilty to drunk driving and other crimes in Massachusetts courts can have innumerable other effects on defendants’ lives, including expulsion from or denied access to higher education opportunities, difficulty finding available housing, negative implications in child custody battles, and the revocation of ability to carry firearms.

Defendants often do not learn of the collateral consequences of their guilty pleas until they are adversely affected by such consequences. Sometimes this occurs several years after the plea, when, for example, a defendant is charged with a subsequent offense and learns that he faces harsher penalties due to his earlier plea. Or, the defendant later violates probation only to learn that a mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed as a result of such violation. In these cases — and in any case where a judge has already accepted the plea and sentenced the defendant — the defendant’s only recourse is to move to withdraw the earlier guilty plea. This can be extremely difficult to do.

To avoid the many potential pitfalls associated with pleading guilty or making an admission to sufficient facts, consultation with a DUI lawyer who understands how the Registry operates is essential. Call today.

While on routine patrol, a police officer saw a car travel over the double solid line into the opposing lane several times and then proceed through a red light without stopping. When he attempted to stop the car, the driver did not stop immediately.

When she was finally pulled over, she admitted to drinking 2 Bud Light Beers. Her eyes were blood shot, red and glassy. The police officer could smell a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her facial area. Her voice was thick and her words were slightly slurred. She was unsteady on her feet. She failed three field sobriety test (9 step walk and turn, one leg stand & HGN.)

The driver, a healthcare professional, was arrested and charged with OUI- Alcohol 2nd Offense, Failure to stay within marked lanes, and failure to stop for a red light. She refused to submit to a chemical test.

If convicted, she would have been required to attend a 14 day in-patient alcohol program and 26 weeks of aftercare, been placed on supervised probation for 2 years, and she would have to pay thousands in fines, fees, court costs, and surcharges. Fortunately, she hired the right lawyer, DUI Attorney George E. McCarthy, Jr. Yesterday, a jury found her not guilty of DUI 2nd offense.

If you’ve been charged with DUI, call for a free consultation and review of your case.