Category Archives: Mass. DUI Attorney Paul B. Watkins

Incriminating Answers not Required in Mass. DUI Cases

Posted by DUI Attorney Paul B. Watkins on April 20, 2011 784 comments

Those arrested for DUI must go through a booking process, wherein a police officer asks the defendant certain questions regarding biographical information and the like. Booking questions are not generally designed to elicit incriminating information. However, in DUI cases, some police departments use “intoxication questionnaires” and ask questions directly related to alcohol consumption and intoxication. Those arrested for operating under the influence often confuse these incriminating questions with the standard booking questions and Massachusetts DUI lawyers often cringe when they learn of the damaging statements which often result from these questions.

Intoxication booking reports contain question such as are you ill, have you been drinking, what have you been drinking, are you under a doctor’s care, are you taking medicine, do you have diabetes, have you been to a dentist, are you using mouthwash, and how much sleep did you get last night? These questions are clearly designed to illicit incriminating information from the person arrested and there is no need to answer them.

Failing to provide basic biographical information may result in a delay of the DUI defendant’s release from custody, on the grounds that the booking procedures have not been completed. However, person’s arrested for DUI are certainly not required to incriminate themselves by providing information regarding alcohol consumption, where they had been drinking, how much they’ve had to drink, how much sleep they’ve gotten, medical conditions, and so forth.  The refusal to answer these intrusive questions cannot be used against the defendant in a DUI trial. Nevertheless, the police are not required to provide Miranda rights, which include the warning that anything that the person arrested says can be used against him or her, prior to asking what Massachusetts courts consider “routine booking questions.”

Those arrested for operating under the influence should provide nothing more than the most basic biographical information and there is generally no benefit to answering incriminating questions regarding alcohol consumption. The best practice is to politely refuse to answer these incriminating questions, as a refusal to answer cannot legally delay your release from custody and your refusal, unlike your answers, cannot be used against you.

Accentuate the Positive in Mass. DUI Cases

Posted by DUI Attorney Paul B. Watkins on April 16, 2011 3,333 comments

When I attended the police academy, many years ago, I was trained on how to detect and investigate drunk drivers. The training emphasized the importance of observing and reporting what a DUI suspect did wrong. For example, swerving, weaving, and not staying within marked lanes.

Now, in my role as a Massachusetts DUI lawyer, I often counter this “incriminating” evidence by cross-examining the police officer on what the driver did right. Often, the arresting officer will have no independent memory of this. When asked a series of pointed questions, the officer will be forced to admit either that he has a lack of memory or that at least some of the defendant’s actions suggest that he or she was not under the influence.

For example, police officers often write of a person who is slow to pull over, strikes the curb, drives off the road, or stops very abruptly in the travel lane when the officer activates his blue lights. They also describe how a driver is incoherent, unable to follow instructions, fumbles for his or her license, cannot locate the vehicle registration, has trouble standing or walking, exhibits unintelligible speech, or has to support himself when exiting his car.

In cases where these facts are not present, it makes for powerful cross-examination to get the police officer to admit that these factors were not present and that the driver’s performance was satisfactory in the above-listed areas. If the officer claims a lack of memory, it can hurt his or her credibility. It would seem strange that the officer could only remember the incriminating facts and not those which would tend to exculpate the defendant.

In 1944 Johnny Mercer wrote a song which contained the message, “’you got to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.” By using my police training and experience in the manner described above, this is what I do in Mass. DUI cases. Accentuating the positive is one of the many tools which I use to regularly achieve the desired result for my clients: a not guilty verdict or dismissal of the drunk driving charges. Contact me via phone at 508-656-0057, complete the contact form on this site.

Mass. Police Get New Tool

Posted by Brian Simoneau on April 10, 2011 3,145 comments

Police officers in Massachusetts are armed with a new tool which many give them a reason to stop more drivers and make more arrests for driving while suspended and operating under the influence. The tool is an Automated License Plate Reader, which is installed in a police cruiser and can read 1,000 license plates in an hour.

The device works by scanning license plates of vehicles as the police cruiser drives by. The plates are automatically transmitted to a computer which alerts the police officer in cases where the license plates are revoked, the vehicle is stolen, and other situations which may warrant police attention. According to a posting on the Town of Amherst’s website, the new device will be used to identify drivers whose licenses are revoked due to an operating under the influence conviction.

This new technology makes it clear that driving on a suspended license is dangerous and if your license was suspended or revoked for a drunk driving conviction, you will face mandatory jail time. The best way to avoid this is to fight your drunk driving charge, by using a Mass. DUI Lawyer, and get a not guilty verdict or dismissal of the charges. This will prevent your license from being suspended or revoked for DUI in the first place.

If you are serving a drunk driving suspension, you should try to get a 12 hour DUI hardship license instead of driving on a suspended license. Hardship licenses are available from the RMV or Board of Appeal and Attorney Brian E. Simoneau has an impressive track record when it comes to getting these licenses for deserving clients.

If you are facing an operating after suspension for OUI charge, you should contact a qualified lawyer who has experience in dealing with these seemingly minor, but actually serious charges. Attorney Paul Watkiks has prevented many of his clients, who were arrested for this charge, from going to jail. Attorney Watkins kept them out of jail, even when the law calls for a minimum mandatory jail sentence, because of Melanie’s Law.

Watkins Scores Win in Registry Case

Posted by Attorney Brian E. Simoneau on March 2, 2011 960 comments

Attorney Paul B. Watkins, a former Massachusetts Police Officer and Certified Drug Recognition Expert, recently achieved an excellent result for his client at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The client faced an automatic revocation of her vehicle’s registration for allowing her husband, whose driver’s license was suspended, to drive her vehicle.

A little-known provision of Melanie’s Law makes it a crime to knowingly allow someone whose license is suspended to drive your car. Through his effective legal advocacy, Attorney Watkins was able to completely vacate the pending revocation of his client’s registration.

The Use of PBTs in Massachusetts DUI Cases

Posted by Attorney Brian E. Simoneau on March 2, 2011 539 comments

Part of pre-arrest screening often includes the use of a portable breath test. Police administer these roadside tests to preliminarily determine a DUI suspect’s blood alcohol content. A preliminary breath test instrument (PBT) is not a breathalyzer. It does not meet the breathalyzer accuracy standards and it does not use infrared technology to determine a driver’s blood alcohol content. Therefore, PBT results are legally inadmissible at any DUI trial. Furthermore, a preliminary breath test is considered a field sobriety evaluation and a refusal to submit to a PBT, like the other field sobriety tests, is also inadmissible.
Many drivers feel compelled to submit to a PBT, because they believe that failure to do so will result in abreathalyzer refusal license suspension. This is a misconception. There is absolutely no penalty for refusing to submit to a preliminary breath test and refusing to submit cannot be held against the DUI suspect.

If a DUI suspect demonstrates signs and symptoms of intoxication during the pre-arrest screening and the PBT indicates no alcohol, the police will suspect that the driver may have been operating under the influence of drugs instead of alcohol. Most Massachusetts police officers lack the training and education to properly detect and screen for this. However, in addition to being certified in the administration of NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Evaluations, DUI Lawyer Paul B. Watkins is a trained and certified Drug Recognition Expert.

Mass. DUI Lawyer Paul B. Watkins Instructs on DUI Drugs

Posted by Attorney Brian E. Simoneau on March 2, 2011 1,301 comments

Massachusetts DUI Lawyer Paul B. Watkins, a former police officer and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) appeared as guest speaker before the Essex County Bar Association Advocates tonight. He addressed a group of Essex County DUI Lawyers regarding effective cross-examination of quasi-expert police officer witnesses who are certified as drug recognition experts.
Massachusetts DUI prosecutors have attempted to utilize police officers as expert witnesses for their opinions as to whether or not a DUI defendant was under the influence of drugs. Mainly due to the growing number of DUI arrests nationwide, there is no greater use of police officers as expert witnesses in criminal trials than in this relatively new area of drug recognition. A new class of Massachusetts Drug Recognition Experts just graduated and more classes have been scheduled. These police officers will be on the streets, eager to apply their training by making arrests for OUI Drugs.

In cases where a driver suspected of drunk driving may exhibit signs and symptoms of intoxication, but a preliminary breath test (PBT) shows little or no alcohol, the arresting officer may call for a police officer specially trained in the area of drug recognition in order to further the investigation. This officer is later called as a witness and allowed to give his or her “expert” opinion regarding whether or not the DUI defendant was operating under the influence of drugs. In Massachusetts, the crime of DUI drugs carries the same harsh penalties as DUI alcohol. These include license suspensions, fines, fees, probation, mandatory use of the unreliable ignition interlock device for repeat offenders and, in some cases, incarceration.

At tonight’s meeting, Paul instructed the Massachusetts DUI lawyers on how to aggressively defend against DUI Drugs by cross-examining police officers who have been trained as Drug Recognition Experts. Just as it takes specialized training to arrest and effectively prosecute those suspected of DUI Drugs, it takes the same type of training to successfully defend against those charges. As a former police officer who has made a number of DUI arrests and Drug Recognition Expert,

Attorney Paul Watkins will be valuable resource for Massachusetts DUI Lawyers. In addition to representing DUI defendants in cases across the Commonwealth, Paul will make himself available to testify as a defense expert witness in DUI drug cases throughout New England. His unique education, training, background, and experience will help level the playing field so that the prosecutors are not the only ones with a Drug Recognition Expert at their disposal.