Massachusetts DUI Law : Mass Lawyer & Attorney for Drunk Driving Arrests in Boston, Worcester, Framingham

The lifetime lookback law has been unsuccessfully challenged numerous times. Massachusetts appellate courts have repeatedly determined that the law is not “ex post facto” and it does not violate the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution. Challenging the law on these grounds is a complete waste of time. It is unfair that a plea to a first offense OUI from some twenty or thirty years ago will now come back to haunt a DUI defendant and old drunk driving cases can now result in severe penalties in the form of very long, and even lifetime, license suspensions. However, the law cannot be successfully challenged. There is considerable confusion, even on the part of Massachusetts DUI Lawyers, regarding the lifetime look-back procedures which the suspension unit of the Massachusetts Registry of Motor  Vehicles now uses to determine the length of DUI license suspensions, which are calculated independently of whether the a subsequent offense DUI charge was reduced by the court.

Motor vehicle violations for which there is a lifetime look-back include: DUI Alcohol, DUI Drugs, both of which are also referred to as operating under the influence, OUI, or driving while intoxicated, OUI Boating, DWI Alcohol / drugs, DWI causing serious bodily injury, CDL DUI Liquor, CDL DUI Drugs, Vehicular Homicide, by reason of alcohol intoxication. These violations count whether they were committed here in Massachusetts or in any other states.

Since November 28, 2002, the Massachusetts DUI Law has required that DUI and related offenses remain on Massachusetts Driving Records for permanently, for life. Prior to this law, there was a 10 year DUI look back period, and prior to that there was a 6 year drunk driving look back period. Now, however, all drunk driving and related convictions, regardless of age, are to be considered for purposes of calculating multiple DUI offenses.

What this means is that prior to November 28, 2002, if a Massachusetts license holder was convicted of an offense of Vehicular Homicide, the Mass. RMV would only "look back" at the drunk driving and/or vehicular homicide findings within a 10 year period. The suspension period would be determined by the individual’s driving record within that 10 year "lookback" period. The Registry uses these old DUI convictions for determining the length of new drunk driving license suspensiosn and for deciding whether a driver is required to have the ignition interlock device. 

Like Melanie's Law, the lifetime lookback law has been unsuccessfully challenged numerous times. Massachusetts appellate courts have repeatedly determined that the lifetime look-back DUI law is not “ex post facto” and it does not violate the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution. Challenging the law on these grounds is a complete waste of time. It is extremely unfair that a plea to a first offense OUI from some twenty or thirty years ago will now come back to haunt a DUI defendant and old drunk driving cases can now result in severe penalties in the form of very long, and even lifetime, license suspensions. However, the law cannot be successfully challenged.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the recent Massachusetts DUI case of Commonwealth v. Fisher, Lawyers Weekly No. 81-411-10, Appeals Court No. 09-P-154, the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the DUI defendant had committed two prior operating under the influence offenses. Those arrested for second or subsequent DUI in Massachusetts are entitled to require the prosecution to prove not only that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence, but that the defendant had been previously convicted of DUI. The prosecution must prove each and every prior drunk driving offense.

Fisher was convicted in District Court of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor (OUI), 3rd offense, and leaving the scene of an accident after causing property damage. The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that Fisher’s DUI conviction, as to the third offense element. Melanie’s Law made it easier to prove prior offenses, but the Commonwealth must still introduce sufficient evidence, usually in the form of court and Registry records, to properly identify the drunk driving defendant and show that he or she was convicted of the prior offenses. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant in the courtroom is the same person named in records showing prior drunk driving convictions. Mere identity of name is not sufficient to indicate an identity of person. Identity must be proven by other demographical and biographical information.

Because the government is required to prove prior offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, it may make sense to take a DUI case to trial on that limited issue. If the Commonwealth is unable to prove its case, by showing prior convictions, the court will not be able to subject the defendant to the enhanced penalties associated with the subsequent drunk driving offense.

However, the Registry Motor Vehicles is not constrained by the requirement to prove prior offenses and, for ignition interlock and license suspension purposes, it can count prior offenses based on the official records of the Registrar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks