Court's Power to Review DUI Breathalyzer Refusal Suspensions Upheld
In the case of Commonwealth v. Dennis Bauer, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided today that the practice of allowing judges to review, and potentially vacate, breathalyzer refusal suspensions in Massachusetts DUI cases is proper and constitutional.
After being arrested for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), Bauer refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Because he had 3 prior OUI convictions, his license was revoked for life pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (f) (1). After a jury trial, Bauer was found not guilty and his DUI lawyer filed a motion to have his license returned. The judge denied Bauer’s motion.
Bauer challenged the judge’s authority to uphold the license revocation on the grounds that the judge’s order violated the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers mandated by art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Bauer claimed that the authority to suspend and restore a driver’s license or right to drive lies only within the exclusive purview of the executive branch of government.
In deciding Bauer’s case, the highest court in Massachusetts declared that, “[t]here is nothing unconstitutional about the legislative allocation of authority over restoration decisions described in G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (f) (1).” A judge’s power to review and possibly reverse a chemical test refusal suspension has been judicially affirmed.
