Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Currently there are 61 people serving life sentences for murders they committed as teens, and today it is unclear how this ruling will impact them. The Massachusetts Department of Corrections said that the 61 prisoners were serving the state’s toughest sentence for murders committed before the age of 18.
Justice Elena Kagen believes that the mandatory sentencing “prevents those meting out punishment from considering a juvenile’s ‘lessened culpability’ and greater ‘capacity for change.’” Kagen went on to say, “We therefore hold that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.”
Many defense attorneys are hopeful that the Supreme Court ruling may lead to new trials and the chance for release of their clients, which may not have been possible before. In the future, a juvenile can still be sentenced to life without parole, but as of today, that would no longer be a mandatory sentence.
Massachusetts child advocate Gail Garinger says she’s ecstatic about the ruling. “As a former juvenile court judge I’ve seen the kind of turnabouts that young adults can make in their lives.”
Jake Wark, the spokesperson for the Suffolk County district attorney’s office told the Boston Herald that the state needs to amend the existing statute and referred to the immediate impact of today’s ruling as “minimal.” Wark went on to say that, “Very few juveniles were ever subject to this sentence, and those who were have no guarantee that they’ll be released one day due to this ruling.”
At this time, officials with the Department of Corrections are determining which cases will be appropriate for review under this new ruling.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
Monday, June 25, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
CWOF Does Not Equal A Prior Conviction When Dealing With The RMV
On May 17th, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that within the Massachusetts OUI statute, a “continuance without finding” or CWOF is not the same as being “convicted.” For the purpose of RMV license suspensions, a CWOF cannot be treated as a prior conviction for a Breathalyzer test refusal on an OUI, even if an individual received a CWOF on a prior offense.
An issue arose when a Paul Souza appealed the RMV’s decision to suspend his license over a period of three years. In a previous OUI case, he admitted to sufficient facts and his case was continued without finding. Subsequently, Souza was arrested a second time for OUI and this time refused the Breathalyzer test. He was given a 3 year suspension on his drivers license, however, he believed that his license should only be suspended for 180 days due to the fact that he was never found guilty and therefore was not previously “convicted” of an OUI. In light of Melanie’s Law, the RMV felt as though a CWOF is equal to a guilty plea. Stated in Massachusetts General Laws, a person that refuses to submit to a Breathalyzer test following arrest for suspicion of OUI faces suspension of their license. If the driver has a prior “conviction” for OUI the time frame that the license is suspended increases. This increase corresponds directly with the number of previous “convictions” one has on their record.
The Supreme Judicial Court argued that if legislature had intended on including an admission of sufficient facts in the definition of “conviction,” they would have done so. The SJC went on to signify that the meaning of the word “conviction” is confined to a finding of guilty, a judgement of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere when in the context of an Administrative License Suspension Hearing. Within the context of criminal law, a CWOF is not interpreted as a criminal conviction, however, a CWOF case will appear on a CORI check.
When sufficient facts are admitted by the defendant and a CWOF is received, the case can be dismissed if the defendant has satisfied all of the conditions of their probation. A CWOF is a common disposition for defendants in regards to a first offense of OUI. One of the benefits is not having to indicate that there is a conviction on your record because a guilty finding was not entered.
After the SJC’s ruling, House Judiciary Chair Eugene O'Flaherty, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and state Senator Katherine Clark came together to work towards amending the definition of “conviction” to now include CWOFs and to close what they perceive as a “loophole.”
The outcome of Souza’s case is important and can effect your case if you have previously admitted to sufficient facts in a first OUI offense. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
An issue arose when a Paul Souza appealed the RMV’s decision to suspend his license over a period of three years. In a previous OUI case, he admitted to sufficient facts and his case was continued without finding. Subsequently, Souza was arrested a second time for OUI and this time refused the Breathalyzer test. He was given a 3 year suspension on his drivers license, however, he believed that his license should only be suspended for 180 days due to the fact that he was never found guilty and therefore was not previously “convicted” of an OUI. In light of Melanie’s Law, the RMV felt as though a CWOF is equal to a guilty plea. Stated in Massachusetts General Laws, a person that refuses to submit to a Breathalyzer test following arrest for suspicion of OUI faces suspension of their license. If the driver has a prior “conviction” for OUI the time frame that the license is suspended increases. This increase corresponds directly with the number of previous “convictions” one has on their record.
The Supreme Judicial Court argued that if legislature had intended on including an admission of sufficient facts in the definition of “conviction,” they would have done so. The SJC went on to signify that the meaning of the word “conviction” is confined to a finding of guilty, a judgement of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere when in the context of an Administrative License Suspension Hearing. Within the context of criminal law, a CWOF is not interpreted as a criminal conviction, however, a CWOF case will appear on a CORI check.
When sufficient facts are admitted by the defendant and a CWOF is received, the case can be dismissed if the defendant has satisfied all of the conditions of their probation. A CWOF is a common disposition for defendants in regards to a first offense of OUI. One of the benefits is not having to indicate that there is a conviction on your record because a guilty finding was not entered.
After the SJC’s ruling, House Judiciary Chair Eugene O'Flaherty, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and state Senator Katherine Clark came together to work towards amending the definition of “conviction” to now include CWOFs and to close what they perceive as a “loophole.”
The outcome of Souza’s case is important and can effect your case if you have previously admitted to sufficient facts in a first OUI offense. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The New CORI Reform And How It Can Help You
On August 6th, 2010, Governor Patrick signed into law Chapter 256 of the Acts of 2010, also known as CORI Reform which made significant changes to the CORI law. The new provisions of the reform went into effect on May 4, 2012.
CORI stands for Criminal Offender Record Information.
When a person is charged with a crime, it is documented on a permanent record. That documentation remains forever whether the charges are dismissed, you are found not guilty after trial, or you are sentenced to prison. It is permanent unless you file a motion to have your record sealed.
Previous to the changes of the CORI Reform, one of the conditions for sealing your CORI was that 10 to 15 years had to pass since the end of the probation of the prison sentence. The new law shortens these waiting periods to 5 years for a misdemeanor and 10 years for a felony. In addition to the waiting period, you cannot have been found guilty of any criminal offense during that waiting period. The exception to this rule are motor vehicle offenses in which the penalty does not exceed a fine of $50.
While Abuse Orders and Harassment Orders are considered misdemeanors for the purpose of sentencing, under the new law these crimes are considered felonies for the purpose of sealing. Any person with a conviction of these crimes will now have to wait 10 years to seal their record, rather than the typical 5.
The change to the law also includes an employers ability to now receive CORI information over the internet for the first time ever. Employment applications are now prohibited from questioning someone’s criminal record, however, a potential employer can verbally ask this question during a job interview. This is a way of giving an ex-offender a greater chance of obtaining a job.
The reform of the new CORI law means that prior charges will become eligible for sealing. Sealing is an area of the law that is largely misunderstood, so the best way to determine if your record can be sealed is to work with an attorney that has experience in filing motions or petitions to seal your record and also understands what needs to be done in order to increase your chances of sealing your records in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Do not hesitate to contact Massachusetts Attorney Paul R. Moraski for more information, at 1-978-744-1200.
CORI stands for Criminal Offender Record Information.
When a person is charged with a crime, it is documented on a permanent record. That documentation remains forever whether the charges are dismissed, you are found not guilty after trial, or you are sentenced to prison. It is permanent unless you file a motion to have your record sealed.
Previous to the changes of the CORI Reform, one of the conditions for sealing your CORI was that 10 to 15 years had to pass since the end of the probation of the prison sentence. The new law shortens these waiting periods to 5 years for a misdemeanor and 10 years for a felony. In addition to the waiting period, you cannot have been found guilty of any criminal offense during that waiting period. The exception to this rule are motor vehicle offenses in which the penalty does not exceed a fine of $50.
While Abuse Orders and Harassment Orders are considered misdemeanors for the purpose of sentencing, under the new law these crimes are considered felonies for the purpose of sealing. Any person with a conviction of these crimes will now have to wait 10 years to seal their record, rather than the typical 5.
The change to the law also includes an employers ability to now receive CORI information over the internet for the first time ever. Employment applications are now prohibited from questioning someone’s criminal record, however, a potential employer can verbally ask this question during a job interview. This is a way of giving an ex-offender a greater chance of obtaining a job.
The reform of the new CORI law means that prior charges will become eligible for sealing. Sealing is an area of the law that is largely misunderstood, so the best way to determine if your record can be sealed is to work with an attorney that has experience in filing motions or petitions to seal your record and also understands what needs to be done in order to increase your chances of sealing your records in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Do not hesitate to contact Massachusetts Attorney Paul R. Moraski for more information, at 1-978-744-1200.
Paul R. Moraski, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Your Fourth Amendment Rights
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us all the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also provides a buffer between citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement.
Implemented during the American Revolution, the Bill made it so that law enforcement officers must acknowledge only the evidence pertaining to the immediate scope of the alleged offense. Now, with probable cause, any warrant must be judicially sanctioned before a search is allowed. Under the Fourth Amendment, any evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court under the Exclusionary Rule.
There are many facts and circumstances that involve each case and therefore lead to many exceptions to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. To understand if your Fourth Amendment Rights have been violated, a test is given to determine whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. As an example, a person can expect a greater amount of privacy in one’s home and privacy to a lesser degree in one’s vehicle. The lack of privacy in a vehicle is due to the fact that there is a risk of a suspect fleeing the scene with evidence.
The lack of privacy is also to protect police officers. Many times an officer may ask if they can search your vehicle, you have the right to say no. Once a person gives consent to a search, that search is now made legal and many police officers are trained in savvy methods of making you waive your rights.
During a traffic stop, a police officer is able to search a vehicle without a warrant if the vehicle has been pulled over for a valid infraction and there is reason to believe that the car contains illegal items. Under federal law, the driver and passengers may be ordered out of the vehicle without any justification by the officer and if an officer has any reason to believe that any occupant in the vehicle is dangerous, the officer may perform a protective search of the vehicle. Without probable cause, a warrant, or the driver’s consent, the police may not search a vehicle, however, within the “plain view” doctrine, an officer may confiscate any weapons or contraband and use them as evidence if they are visible from outside the vehicle.
When you are pulled over, respectfully decline when asked by officers to search your vehicle and never offer more information than asked. Since each is fact based, depending on the circumstances behind the Search and Seizure, it is extremely important for you to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. If you find yourself arrested after a Search and Seizure, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
Paul R. Moraski, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Implemented during the American Revolution, the Bill made it so that law enforcement officers must acknowledge only the evidence pertaining to the immediate scope of the alleged offense. Now, with probable cause, any warrant must be judicially sanctioned before a search is allowed. Under the Fourth Amendment, any evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court under the Exclusionary Rule.
There are many facts and circumstances that involve each case and therefore lead to many exceptions to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. To understand if your Fourth Amendment Rights have been violated, a test is given to determine whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. As an example, a person can expect a greater amount of privacy in one’s home and privacy to a lesser degree in one’s vehicle. The lack of privacy in a vehicle is due to the fact that there is a risk of a suspect fleeing the scene with evidence.
The lack of privacy is also to protect police officers. Many times an officer may ask if they can search your vehicle, you have the right to say no. Once a person gives consent to a search, that search is now made legal and many police officers are trained in savvy methods of making you waive your rights.
During a traffic stop, a police officer is able to search a vehicle without a warrant if the vehicle has been pulled over for a valid infraction and there is reason to believe that the car contains illegal items. Under federal law, the driver and passengers may be ordered out of the vehicle without any justification by the officer and if an officer has any reason to believe that any occupant in the vehicle is dangerous, the officer may perform a protective search of the vehicle. Without probable cause, a warrant, or the driver’s consent, the police may not search a vehicle, however, within the “plain view” doctrine, an officer may confiscate any weapons or contraband and use them as evidence if they are visible from outside the vehicle.
When you are pulled over, respectfully decline when asked by officers to search your vehicle and never offer more information than asked. Since each is fact based, depending on the circumstances behind the Search and Seizure, it is extremely important for you to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. If you find yourself arrested after a Search and Seizure, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
Paul R. Moraski, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370
Fax: 978.825.1370
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Whether You Should Take the Breathalyzer?
When prompted by a Police Officer to take a Breathalyzer test after you have been arrested for DUI/OUI, it is very important to understand your options. Most people assume that they have no choice but to take the Breathalyzer test, however, this is not the case. There are several things to keep in mind when you find yourself in this situation.
You need to know that you are not required to take a Breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take this test, you will have your license suspended for a period of time but the prosecutor will not be able to use this test against you in court. However, if you choose to take the test and fail, the results will definitely be used against you at your trial. Please keep in mind that we live in an era where most of your potential jurors are of the CSI mindset. Meaning if they hear evidence that you were over the legal limit in Massachusetts, which is .08%, it will be very hard to convince them that you were not impaired at the time of your DUI/OUI arrest. Although you face a license loss (described below in more detail) if you choose not to take the breathalyzer and are found over the legal limit, at the time of trial, the prosecutor will have less evidence to work with.
If you are over 21 the time of your arrest without any prior OUI/DUI driving offenses on your record and you refuse the Breathalyzer, your driver’s license will be suspended for 180 days. In the instance that you have 1 previous offense and refuse the test, your license will be suspended for 3 years. In the situation that you have 2 prior offenses and refuse, your license can be suspended for 5 years. If you have had 3 or more previous OUI/DUI offenses and refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, you may face a lifetime suspension.
The amount of time for a license suspension varies for people under the age of 21 and even under 18. If you are under 21 and refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, your license will be suspended for at least 3.5 years up to 4 years if you are under the age of 18; even if there are no previous offenses for OUI/DUI. If there is one or more prior offenses, your license will be suspended for even longer.
Even if you take the Breathalyzer and the result is over the legal limit, all is not lost, as far as defending your case. A successful Motion to Suppress can be brought on your behalf, by a seasoned attorney, who knows the ins and outs of the Breath Test Procedure. Sometimes, Law Enforcement Officers do not follow the correct breath test procedure or the breath test machine is not properly maintained. An experienced DUI/OUI Attorney will be able to request all of these records in the discovery process to determine whether or not you have a good opportunity to suppress the Breathalyzer Results. Additionally, these records may show that the particular Breathalyzer Machine used at the Police Station had been giving inaccurate Breath Test Results for a period of time, before and after, your particular case. If any of these issues are raised at the Motion to Suppress and a trial Judge finds that there is no indicia of reliability for the Breath Test Results, the Breathalyzer will be suppressed, leaving you with less evidence against you.
It is imperative that you understand your options in this scenario because it can make all the difference in your DUI/OUI trial. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
You need to know that you are not required to take a Breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take this test, you will have your license suspended for a period of time but the prosecutor will not be able to use this test against you in court. However, if you choose to take the test and fail, the results will definitely be used against you at your trial. Please keep in mind that we live in an era where most of your potential jurors are of the CSI mindset. Meaning if they hear evidence that you were over the legal limit in Massachusetts, which is .08%, it will be very hard to convince them that you were not impaired at the time of your DUI/OUI arrest. Although you face a license loss (described below in more detail) if you choose not to take the breathalyzer and are found over the legal limit, at the time of trial, the prosecutor will have less evidence to work with.
If you are over 21 the time of your arrest without any prior OUI/DUI driving offenses on your record and you refuse the Breathalyzer, your driver’s license will be suspended for 180 days. In the instance that you have 1 previous offense and refuse the test, your license will be suspended for 3 years. In the situation that you have 2 prior offenses and refuse, your license can be suspended for 5 years. If you have had 3 or more previous OUI/DUI offenses and refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, you may face a lifetime suspension.
The amount of time for a license suspension varies for people under the age of 21 and even under 18. If you are under 21 and refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, your license will be suspended for at least 3.5 years up to 4 years if you are under the age of 18; even if there are no previous offenses for OUI/DUI. If there is one or more prior offenses, your license will be suspended for even longer.
Even if you take the Breathalyzer and the result is over the legal limit, all is not lost, as far as defending your case. A successful Motion to Suppress can be brought on your behalf, by a seasoned attorney, who knows the ins and outs of the Breath Test Procedure. Sometimes, Law Enforcement Officers do not follow the correct breath test procedure or the breath test machine is not properly maintained. An experienced DUI/OUI Attorney will be able to request all of these records in the discovery process to determine whether or not you have a good opportunity to suppress the Breathalyzer Results. Additionally, these records may show that the particular Breathalyzer Machine used at the Police Station had been giving inaccurate Breath Test Results for a period of time, before and after, your particular case. If any of these issues are raised at the Motion to Suppress and a trial Judge finds that there is no indicia of reliability for the Breath Test Results, the Breathalyzer will be suppressed, leaving you with less evidence against you.
It is imperative that you understand your options in this scenario because it can make all the difference in your DUI/OUI trial. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Some of the Things You Should Think About If You Are Asked to Perform Field Sobriety Tests
If you ever find yourself pulled over by a Police Officer and the Officer suspects that you may be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a combination of both, the Officer will ask you to exit your vehicle. The Officer will then ask you to perform some field sobriety tests. As a Criminal Defense Attorney, some of the most common questions I get regarding DUI/OUI cases, is “do I need to take these "tests" and whether I should take them?”
What most people do not realize is that these tests are designed in such a way that it is easy for people to fail them, even if they are not under the influence. For example, in the so-called "One-Legged Stand Test," the Police Officer is trained to look for eight separate things. Even if you were to do six of the eight things correctly (which would have been a passing grade in school, 75% or a C), it is still considered to be a failure. Furthermore, there are numerous reasons why people do not perform these tests adequately. For example, some people will not perform these tests to the Police Officers liking because, they have an injury, they are overweight, they are tired, they are nervous or because they have a learning disability.
The good news is that, unlike the case with refusing the breathalyzer test, your license will not be suspended just because you refuse to take the "field sobriety tests." It is also great news that, in Massachusetts, the prosecutor and the police are not allowed at trial to make any mention of the fact that you refused these "tests." In fact, sometimes jurors are left with the impression that the police officer conducted a shoddy investigation and didn't even give you the tests. Thus, there are some very good reasons to refuse these tests, depending on the circumstances.
However, even if you have taken these "tests" and done poorly, all hope is not lost. With the help of a top-notch attorney, many people who failed the tests can still beat their DUI/OUI Case. Oftentimes, what the Police Officer claims is an indicator of impairment can be parsed out with good cross-examination to show a Jury or a Judge, that the Police Officer made a mistake. For example, what the Police Officer interpreted to be a failing score on a field sobriety test can easily be explained with medical documentation that you were injured. That is why it is so important to contact an attorney immediately if you have been arrested and charged with a DUI/OUI. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
What most people do not realize is that these tests are designed in such a way that it is easy for people to fail them, even if they are not under the influence. For example, in the so-called "One-Legged Stand Test," the Police Officer is trained to look for eight separate things. Even if you were to do six of the eight things correctly (which would have been a passing grade in school, 75% or a C), it is still considered to be a failure. Furthermore, there are numerous reasons why people do not perform these tests adequately. For example, some people will not perform these tests to the Police Officers liking because, they have an injury, they are overweight, they are tired, they are nervous or because they have a learning disability.
The good news is that, unlike the case with refusing the breathalyzer test, your license will not be suspended just because you refuse to take the "field sobriety tests." It is also great news that, in Massachusetts, the prosecutor and the police are not allowed at trial to make any mention of the fact that you refused these "tests." In fact, sometimes jurors are left with the impression that the police officer conducted a shoddy investigation and didn't even give you the tests. Thus, there are some very good reasons to refuse these tests, depending on the circumstances.
However, even if you have taken these "tests" and done poorly, all hope is not lost. With the help of a top-notch attorney, many people who failed the tests can still beat their DUI/OUI Case. Oftentimes, what the Police Officer claims is an indicator of impairment can be parsed out with good cross-examination to show a Jury or a Judge, that the Police Officer made a mistake. For example, what the Police Officer interpreted to be a failing score on a field sobriety test can easily be explained with medical documentation that you were injured. That is why it is so important to contact an attorney immediately if you have been arrested and charged with a DUI/OUI. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Penalties Regarding First Time Offender DUI/OUI Charges and Why Litigation May be the Best Option
If you are charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI ) and you are a First Time Offender you can be looking at about $1,800.00 worth of fines and fees and a one year probationary period. Additionally, if you want to obtain the minimum license loss of 45 days, you will have to enroll in an Alcohol Education Program, which typically takes 16 week to complete. This type of disposition is commonly referred to as a 24D (section of statute) Disposition. It allows First Time DUI/OUI Offenders to receive a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF) and a shorter license loss.
The bad news for First Time Offenders, is that even with a successful completion of probation, this First Time Offense (even though it shows up as dismissed on your record) is considered to be a Second Offense if you are charged arrested again for Operating Under the Influence, pursuant to Melanie’s Law. Furthermore, if you do not complete your probationary period successfully your Continuance Without a Finding can be turned into a Guilty Finding, and you could potentially face 2 ½ years in Jail.
This is why it is important to hire an attorney who can aggressively and zealously advocate on your behalf. What most people do not realize is that DUI/OUI Charges can be litigated successfully, by an experienced attorney. Police Officers have to abide by the Constitution and need to have “probable cause” in order to pull your vehicle over in the first place. Secondly, Police need to have a legitimate reason to ask you to get out of your vehicle and issue you an “exit order.” If Police Officers violate your rights in anyway, a Motion to Suppress can be filed and if allowed by the Court, all of the evidence may be suppressed and your case dismissed.
Just because you failed a couple of Field Sobriety Tests, does not mean that you will be found guilty by a Jury. Field Sobriety Tests are designed in such a manner so that it is easy for people to fail them, even if they are not intoxicated. Police Officers are trained to look for certain clues of impairment. Oftentimes, what may be interpreted as a clue of impairment to a Police Officer is later seen by a Jury to be nervousness or unfamiliarity with the test. Remember, most Field Sobriety Tests take place at nighttime, in a poorly lit area, while you are on the side of the road attempting tests that you have never done before, while traffic is zipping by you. What a Police Officer may interpret as a failing score can usually be explained by being nervous, tired, injured, overweight or unfamiliar. A careful and thorough cross examination of the Arresting Police Officer can usually shed light on why you may not have passed the Field Sobriety Tests.
If you find yourself charged with DUI/OUI, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The bad news for First Time Offenders, is that even with a successful completion of probation, this First Time Offense (even though it shows up as dismissed on your record) is considered to be a Second Offense if you are charged arrested again for Operating Under the Influence, pursuant to Melanie’s Law. Furthermore, if you do not complete your probationary period successfully your Continuance Without a Finding can be turned into a Guilty Finding, and you could potentially face 2 ½ years in Jail.
This is why it is important to hire an attorney who can aggressively and zealously advocate on your behalf. What most people do not realize is that DUI/OUI Charges can be litigated successfully, by an experienced attorney. Police Officers have to abide by the Constitution and need to have “probable cause” in order to pull your vehicle over in the first place. Secondly, Police need to have a legitimate reason to ask you to get out of your vehicle and issue you an “exit order.” If Police Officers violate your rights in anyway, a Motion to Suppress can be filed and if allowed by the Court, all of the evidence may be suppressed and your case dismissed.
Just because you failed a couple of Field Sobriety Tests, does not mean that you will be found guilty by a Jury. Field Sobriety Tests are designed in such a manner so that it is easy for people to fail them, even if they are not intoxicated. Police Officers are trained to look for certain clues of impairment. Oftentimes, what may be interpreted as a clue of impairment to a Police Officer is later seen by a Jury to be nervousness or unfamiliarity with the test. Remember, most Field Sobriety Tests take place at nighttime, in a poorly lit area, while you are on the side of the road attempting tests that you have never done before, while traffic is zipping by you. What a Police Officer may interpret as a failing score can usually be explained by being nervous, tired, injured, overweight or unfamiliar. A careful and thorough cross examination of the Arresting Police Officer can usually shed light on why you may not have passed the Field Sobriety Tests.
If you find yourself charged with DUI/OUI, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)