The Impact of OUI Cases Involving the Draeger Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer test

A case on appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts presents several novel and important issues that could affect potentially tens of thousands of operating under the influence (OUI) cases in the state. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Lindsey  Hallihan, the Court must decide two major issues: 1)    What is the standard to be awarded a new trial after a the accused plead guilty when it is disclosed that the State withheld exculpatory evidence? And 2)  If a motion for new trial is allowed, can the Court require the RMV to give a defendant credit for any license loss should there be a conviction after a retrial when a retrial is based on the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence?

Background

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in the case of Commonwealth v. Thomas Gerhardt raising the issue of whether field sobriety tests should be admissible for an OUI marijuana arrest.

While it is difficulty to predict how judges will decide from questions, here are my thoughts.

The Justice stated that it would be improper with an objection for an officer to testify that a defendant passed or failed field sobriety tests in an OUI alcohol or marijuana case.  It appeared as though the Justice seemed to think that because an officer can testify that someone stumbled getting out of the car, that it is not significantly different to say that the individual could not follow instructions on a field sobriety test.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will review a decision from Judge DeAngelo out of the Worcester District Court holding that field sobriety tests are unreliable when attempting to determine if a driver is under the influence of marijuana. The case was argued once before at the SJC as Judge DeAngelo initially reported the question to the court without making a decision. The SJC remanded it to him for an evidentiary hearing. After that hearing he made the following finding in an extremely well reasoned opinion.  As a Massachusetts OUI Lawyer, I expect the SJC will affirm Judge DeAngelo’s decision and hope that this case will be followed nationally by other courts addressing this issue.

Judge DeAngelo questions that the SJC requested that he answered; here is a summary of his findings.

First, he found that there is a correlation between marijuana use and impaired driving.  Despite this correlation, he found that there was no credible evidence as to what physical characteristics permit an inference that an individual is impaired while driving.  He found 4 physical characteristics common to positive marijuana use.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the police had no reasonable suspicion to stop a black male walking on the streets in Roxbury believed to be a suspect in a breaking and entering. As result of the seizure, the police found a hand gun; the Court ordered it suppressed as there was no basis for the detention of the defendant.

The SJC overruled the decision of the motion judge who would found no Constitutional violation under the 4th Amendment or Article 14. The Court decision held:

• Flight provides little or no weigh in an analysis of reasonable suspicion unless the person is committing a crime, as the police could induce flight and thereby create a suspicion where none exits.

The Connecticut State Supreme Court has upheld the abolishment of the death penalty, including for death-row inmates in the re-examination of the case of State v. Santiago.  Last August, the Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional following the legislature’s abolition of capital punishment three years ago. The legislature made the law to apply only to new cases and kept in place the death sentences that were already imposed on those facing execution. This law left 11 men on death row to await execution. Attorneys for the inmates on death row challenged the law, saying that it violated the inmates’ constitutional rights. The justices in the majority wrote that executing an inmate “would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment” and that the death penalty “no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency.” The majority essentially said that it would be unfair to execute the remaining death row inmates when lawmakers had determined that the death penalty was no longer needed for future convicts. Inmates on death row will now be resentenced to life without parole.

The constitution of Connecticut prohibits cruel and unusual punishments under, as held in the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution. The death penalty is categorically excessive and disproportionate when imposed on certain classes of offenders. Further, the death penalty is subject to random and arbitrary imposition due to biases and discrimination. The defendant’s life is left in the hand’s of the jury that has virtually unquestionable discretion whether to sentence him to death if convicted.

The United States is the only Western Country still applying the death penalty. There are currently still 30 states that uphold the death penalty as a sentencing option, as well as the federal government. Of these states, seven have put executions on hiatus without an official end to the death penalty. However, more and more restrictions are being put in place as time goes by. The death penalty may only be used if the defendant is convicted of or pleads guilty to a capital offense. The death penalty has been ruled to be unconstitutional for minors and those with intellectual disabilities.