It is no crime to get into a car and drive after you have been drinking alcoholic beverages. This activity is only criminal if the alcohol consumption has diminished your ability to safely drive the car. Likewise, to obtain a DUI conviction, the prosecution need not prove that the driver was “drunk.” A DUI conviction can be obtained by convincing a jury that the driver was “under the influence,” such that his capacity to operate safely was reduced. This is why the term “drunk driving” is a misnomer and the more accurate term is “operating under the influence.” The common understanding of “under the influence” is that a person is in some way affected — in his conduct, appearance, or mental processes — by alcohol.

Thus, in Massachusetts DUI cases, the issue is not necessarily whether the defendant consumed alcohol prior to driving, rather, the issue is whether or not the alcohol consumption impaired the driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle to such a degree that it may have threatened the public welfare. This rule, which applies to all Massachusetts DUI cases, means that although a person need not be proven to be actually drunk in order to be found to be “under the influence” of alcohol, the prosecuting attorney must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the driver’s capacity to operate safely was diminished by alcohol consumption.

In many DUI cases, police observe no deficient operation of a vehicle and the driver has committed no moving violations, but yet he or she is arrested for and charged with DUI. For example, if a person comes to the attention to the police at a DUI Sobriety Checkpoint or “roadblock” and the officer smells the odor alcoholic beverages coming from the driver’s breath, he or she can be legally suspected of DUI, even without deficient operation. Common signs and symptoms of being under the influence include: the odor of alcoholic beverages, bloodshot eyes, glassy eyes, slurred speech, watery eyes, and being unsteady on one’s feet. None of these signs and symptoms directly relate to driving. However, a DUI prosecutor will attempt to have the jury infer that a person exhibiting these signs and symptoms is likely so intoxicated by alcohol that he or she could not drive safely.

The best DUI lawyers will try to produce explanations for the above-listed signs and symptoms, which have nothing to do with being under the influence of alcohol. For example, the person accused of DUI may have red, glassy, and bloodshot eyes due to a medical condition or lack of sleep. The DUI defendant may be unsteady on his or her feet due to footwear, a slippery surface, an unlevel surface, a balance problem, bad knees, sitting in the car for too long, arthritis, or some other cause. The best DUI lawyers are able to dispel the inference which the prosecutor is attempting to create by producing plausible innocent explanations for the evidence which suggests alcohol intoxication.

It is important to realize that DUI cases are not “black and white.” Instead, they involve presumptions, inferences, and facts and circumstances which can work for and against the prosecution and defense. DUI attorneys attempt to identify the information which is helpful to their clients and they use this information to persuade the fact finder that the prosecution has not met its burden to prove that the person accused of operating under the influence of alcohol drove a vehicle while his or her ability to drive safely was impaired by alcohol consumption. Generally, the more knowledge and experience a DUI lawyer has, the more adept he will likely be in convincing a jury that although a person may have been drinking, his or her ability to drive has not been diminished to the extent required by law.