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

In a recent news report, Fox News of Chicago recently exposed the inaccuracies of the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device. Fox News reported that “DUI Breath Interlock Devices Frequently Malfunction,” and it mentioned documented examples of mouthwash, pizza crust, bread, English muffins, and even hot dogs causing false positive alcohol readings on ignition interlock devices.

The Illinois interlock program has been criticized because malfunctions and inaccurate readings have discouraged drunk driving offenders from joining the IID program. Massachusetts drivers have no choice. The ignition interlock provision of Melanie’s Law requires mandatory use of the interlock for at least 2 years after getting a full license reinstatement, for second or subsequent DUI offenders. It is required during the entire length of any hardship license for drivers with two or more DUI convictions on their records.

In Illinois, the penalty for ignition interlock alcohol readings is a 3 month license suspension. In Massachusetts, alcohol readings result in 10 year or even lifetime loss of license. The State of Massachusetts has the harshest ignition interlock penalties in the country, with 10 year and lifetime license revocations based on alcohol readings from an inaccurate and unreliable device that was never designed to be an evidentiary breathalyzer.

It is nice to see that the news media recognizes some of the problems associated with these devices and that Fox News of Chicago has the courage to report on the difficulties and lack of scientific accuracy associated with ignition interlock devices. The news story recognized that there is not a lot of sympathy for those who suffer with the ignition interlock device.

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

I’ve noticed that there are a large number of people who are searching the internet for ways to bypass the ignition interlock device. Attempting to do this in Massachusetts is extremely dangerous and it will likely result in a 10 year license suspension or even jail time. The Massachusetts Ignition Interlock Device Law states that those who interfere with or tamper with an interlock device, with the intent to bypass or disable the IID, shall be punished a minimum mandatory sentence of 6 months in jail, and they may be sentenced to up to 5 years in state prison. This means that ignition interlock disabling, bypassing, or tampering is a felony in Massachusetts. Also, the Registry’s interlock regulations provide for a 10 year mandatory license suspension trying to bypass the interlock device.

Given the frustration and inconvenience associated with the ignition interlock device, it may be tempting to try to bypass it. There are even videos on the internet that show how to do so. However, the interlock devices used in Massachusetts employ sophisticated anti-tampering mechanisms which will resist or record tampering or circumvention attempts. If the Mass. RMV discovers that user tired to bypass the ignition interlock device, the interlock user will definitely be called in for a registry hearing and he or she may be charged criminally. Please do not let this happen to you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Numerous states are considering or have enacted tough DUI laws requiring all those convicted of DUI to use the ignition interlock device.

In California, for example, AB 91, the New "Ignition Interlock Device" Law requires first-time DUI offenders to install a device in their vehicles in a test program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties. For DUI first offenses not involving personal injury, this device must be used for 5 months. In DUI cases involving injuries, the device must be used for a full year.

On Dec. 21, 2009, United States Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S. 2920 (Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act of 2009), to require all states to pass laws requiring mandatory use of ignition interlock devices for anyone convicted of DUI, whether a first or repeat offense. Using a familiar “carrot and stick approach,” the bill would penalize states which do not enact the mandatory ignition interlock law by reducing their federal highway funding. The bill was just referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Here in Massachusetts, this federal proposed legislation would likely be used as support for Massachusetts Senate Bill 1925, which would require all Mass. DUI first offenders to use the ignition interlock device. The Massachusetts interlock law currently requires all second and subsequent Mass. OUI offenders to use the device.

Wisconsin’s new Ignition Interlock Device Law requires all repeat drunk driving offenders and first-time DUI offenders who registered a breathalyzer reading of.15 percent or greater to use the ignition interlock devices. The new Wisconsin law provides for fines of up to $600 and jail time of up to six months for those who “fail” interlock breath tests or tamper with the device.
 

Beginning in August of 2010, a bill entitled Leandra’s Law will require all those convicted of any DUI in New York, whether felony or misdemeanor, to have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles. The ignition interlock devices to be used in New York will prevent a DUI offender from starting his or her vehicle if the devices registers a blood alcohol level in excess of.045. This is more than double the limit in Massachusetts, which is .020. The New York interlock devices will require rolling re-tests and they are supposedly capable of sending a photograph of the driver and the driver’s local authorities, in the event of a rolling re-test violation. Leandra’s Law also will result in mandatory reports being filed with the Center of Child Abuse and Maltreatment against those who have been convicted of DUI with a child in the vehicle.
 

In Massachusetts, the mandatory ignition interlock device requirement for DUI first offenders may encourage drivers to take their first offense OUI cases to trial, instead of pleading out. Those who are found not guilty of OUI would, of course, be able to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and risk of false positive alcohol readings which is associated with the controversial devices.

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

Ignition interlock devices used in Massachusetts are manufactured by 4 companies: Consumer Safety Technology (CST), Draeger, Guardian, LifeSafer Interlock, Inc., Sens-O-Lock and Smart Start. None of these devices use infrared spectrometry, which is used in evidentiary breathalyzers. In fact, these interlock devices are not intended for use as evidential breath alcohol testing devices. Instead, they were designed to effectively lockout automobile ignitions and prevent vehicles from starting if the driver’s breath contains alcohol above a certain pre-set limit. In Massachusetts, that blood alcohol limit is .02.

The Mass. RMV requires use of the ignition interlock device for anyone who has 2 or more OUI offenses on his or her record, who is reinstating from a DUI suspension or coming off of a DUI hardship license on or after January 1, 2006, the implementation date of the interlock provision of Melanie’s Law.

The IID requires the user to blow into the device to start his or her vehicle. It also requires random rolling re-tests while the vehicle is in operation. The purposes of these rolling re-tests is to insure that an intoxicated driver did not have someone else blow into the device to start the vehicle.

Massachusetts Ignition Interlock Violations include missing rolling re-tests, tampering with the IID, attempting to circumvent, disconnect, or bypass the interlock device, or registering alcohol readings above .02. Violations of the Registry’s Ignition Interlock Regulations will result in an ignition interlock violation hearing being held. You are entitled to representation at this hearing and you should absolutely have counsel.

The results of your ignition interlock violation hearing will determine whether the Registry will excuse the violation or revoke your license for 10 years or lifetime. These penalties are so severe that many people do not believe that the RMV will actually impose them, only to have their driver’s licenses revoked for 10 years of life. There is no ability to get a hardship license during a Mass. IID license revocation.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles does a very good job in administering the ignition interlock program, especially considering the limited resources available. However, the interlock device is not without technical limitations. False positive results are fairly common and many innocent drivers have been called in for interlock violation hearings. Representation by an experienced Massachusetts Ignition Interlock Device Lawyer can make the difference between winning your interlock hearing or having to serve a 10 year or lifetime loss of license.

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

Massachusetts Senate Bill 1925, which would require DUI offenders to use the ignition interlock device appears to be gaining momentum. According to the Weymouth News, last month Smart Start, Inc., one of the authorized suppliers of Ignition Interlock Devices in Massachusetts,conducted a demonstration of the device at the Hingham Police Department.

A District Court Judge, prosecutor, police officials, politicians, and numerous supporters of the proposed Massachusetts ignition interlock law attended the demonstration. Massachusetts Senator Robert Hedlund filed the new interlock bill on behalf of MADD.

This well attended demonstration shows that there is considerable support for Senate Bill 1925, which would mandate all Massachusetts DUI first offenders to use the ignition interlock device in any vehicle which they lease, operate, or own. Although the Registry of Motor Vehicles does a commendable job administering and operating the ignition interlock program, the interlock device itself is flawed. There are numerous problems with false positive alcohol results which are caused by contamination or malfunction. Nevertheless, the interlock bill is almost certain to pass. Lawmakers and supporters to tough drunk driving laws are not at all sensitive to the difficulties which users of the device routinely encounter. A similar ignition interlock bill was recently enacted in New York.

Unlike breathalyzers, which use infrared spectrometry to determine blood alcohol concentration, the ignition interlock device uses much less reliable fuel cell technology. This results in many food products, drinks, and other common and innocuous chemicals registering as alcohol.

Toughening Melanie’s law by requiring OUI first offenders to use the interlock device may have an unintended consequence. First offense OUI defendants who might have otherwise “plead out,” may now take the drunk driving case to trial. A not guilty verdict would save the Massachusetts OUI defendant from the expense and inconvenience associated with the ignition interlock device.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The State of New York has recently passed a tough new DUI Law entitled Leandra’s Law. This will mandate the use of the breath alcohol ignition interlock device for all New York DUI offenders, unless a judge makes specific findings that the DUI offender has no prior record of alcoholism. In Massachusetts, Senate Bill 1925 will dramatically strengthen Melanie's Law by requiring Massachusetts DUI first offenders to use the device as well. However, there will be no exceptions to the mandatory interlock requirement here.

In addition to requiring the use of the interlock device, Leandra’s Law increase the DUI penalties for commiting a DUI with a child passenger in the vehicle, and DUI while causing injury to a child passenger. Massachusetts already has laws which severely punish those who commit these offenses.

Leandra’s Law has been touted as one of the toughest DUI laws in the country. However, our Legislature may increase Massachusetts DUI penalties with the enactment of DUI laws which are being considered at the Statehouse. 

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

In accordance with G.L. c. 90 Sec. 24.5, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles requires anyone with 2 or more DUI convictions on his or her record, no matter where or when they occurred, who is getting a full license or coming off of a DUI hardship license on or after January 1, 2006 to have an ignition interlock device installed in any vehicle which the DUI offender owns, leases, or drives for a period of two years. The Registry also requires mandatory use of the breath alcohol ignition interlock device while the repeat offender is on a DUI hardship license. These requirements were implemented as a result of Melanie's Law. 

The ignition interlock device is not an evidentiary breath test instrument, even though it is used as such. The device has nowhere near the reliability and accuracy of an evidentiary breathalyzer, such as those used in DUI cases. The interlock device is a lockout device, the purpose of which is to lock the ignition of a driver who has a blood alcohol content which registers above a certain pre-set limit. In Massachusetts, that limit is .02. 

Notwithstanding the lack of scientific accuracy of ignition interlock devices, the Registry relies on their readings to impose 10 year or lifetime license revocations. The Registry has an interlock violation hearing process, whereby it provides the alleged interlock violator with a notice of the violations and an opportunity to explain them. In administering the Massachusetts ignition interlock program, the RMV has a difficult job. It must evaluate the IID readings and consider the user’s explanation for them to decide whether or not to take action against the driver’s license. The wrong decision results in either allowing someone to continue to drive who may be a danger to public safety or unfairly revoking someone’s license for 10 years or life. 

The interlock device is far from perfect and false positive alcohol readings sometimes occur. If this happens to you, you should immediately document all of the facts and circumstances of the incident. Important details include: the time and date of the incident, where you were coming from and going to, what happened immediately before the incident, whether you were eating or drinking anything, possible sources of breath sample contamination, the ideates of any witnesses, anything that would help describe or explain what happened, and any communication with the interlock company or service provider regarding the incident. Your notes regarding the alleged interlock violation should be as detailed as possible and made as close in time to the event as possible. 

Many interlock users panic when their devices register alcohol and they immediately turn the ignition off. To the Registry, this may look like incriminating evidence. In other words, it may appear as if the user really had alcohol on his or her breath and he or she turned the vehicle off to avoid additional alcohol readings. The better course of action is to leave the vehicle running and comply with any rolling re-tests. By taking follow-up re-tests, you are providing additional breath samples which, in most cases, show a sharp decline in alcohol readings. 

If feasible, you should immediately go to a police station or hospital emergency room and request a comparison breath or blood alcohol test. This is powerful exculpatory evidence which can be used to refute the false positive interlock reading. If the police refuse to conduct an evidentiary breath test, you should ask them for a preliminary breath test or PBT. In any event, you should request that the police make a log entry wherein they not your situation. 

In the event of a false positive alcohol reading which trigger a lockout, it is usually advisable to proactively notify the Registry’s interlock unit of the situation. By submitting a detailed letter to the RMV explaining exactly what happened and why the interlock alcohol reading is false, you may be able to avoid a Registry interlock violation hearing and possible a 10 year or lifetime license revocation. At minimum, you should record all of the facts and circumstances, as described above. 

If the Registry has charged you with an ignition interlock violation, do not take this situation lightly. Many believe that the Registry will not actually revoke someone’s license for 10 year or life because of an interlock violation, only to learn that they are wrong. The Registry routinely revokes licenses because of IID violations. By following the steps listed above, you may be able to prevent the loss of your license because of a false positive alcohol reading.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Many Massachusetts license holders contact me after the Mass. RMV has informed them that they will need to use a certified breath alcohol ignition interlock device in any vehicle which the own, lease , or drive. This requirement must remain in place during any Massachusetts hardship license and for 2 years after the driver gets the restricted hours removed from his or her license. Not a week goes by where someone does not question whether, in their particular situation, the use of an ignition interlock device is really required.

In this post, I will explain the Registry's Ignition Interlock requirement.

Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices are lockout devices which prevent a vehicle from starting if the driver’s blood alcohol registers above .02. To insure that the driver did not have someone else blow into his or her device, the interlock device requires drivers to provide breath samples at random intervals while the vehicle is being driven.

Ignition interlock devices are required, by Melanie’s Law, to be used by anyone with 2 or more OUI convictions or alcohol program assignments on his or her record who is reinstating a license or coming off of a hardship license after January 1, 2006. In the vast majority of cases, if the Registry of Motor Vehicles states that a driver is interlock-required, there is no way to get around the requirement. Neither the Mass. RMV nor the Board of Appeal will “bend the law” or make exceptions. If you are legally required to have the interlock device, there is no way around it.

Both the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Board of Appeal view the ignition interlock device as an effective tool which protects the public by physically prohibiting someone who has consumed alcohol from driving. Neither agency has any interest in excusing people from using what its proponents tout as a lifesaving device. In fact, there is legislation pending at the Massachusetts Statehouse which would toughen Melanie’s Law by requiring even first offenders to use the ignition interlock device. It is likely that this legislation will pass. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Under Melanie’s Law, all second or subsequent DUI offenders are required to have an approved ignition interlock device installed in any vehicle which the DUI offender owns, operates, or leases. This requirement applies to DUI suspensions which were imposed on or after January 1, 2006, the effective date of the ignition interlock provision of Melanie’s Law. Interlock devices produced by Consumer Safety Technology (CST), Draeger, Guardian, LifeSafer Interlock, Sens-O-Lock, and Smart Start.

Interlock is required for any hardship or full license issued as a result of a second or subsequent DUI offense. Ignition interlock required drivers must have the device installed for the entire term of any hardship license and for a two year period after getting a full license reinstatement.

The ignition interlock installation is a multi-step process which begins with obtaining clearance to drive, either with a Massachusetts hardship or full license. This clearance is obtained by going to a hearing, either at the Registry of Motor Vehicles or Board of Appeal. Once the driver is approved for either a hardship or full license, the driver must go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles to begin the ignition interlock installation procedure. This process begins by meeting with a Registry Hearing Officer who will review the driver’s record and confirm that he or she is eligible for either a full license reinstatement or a hardship license.

Once the Registry Hearings Officer confirms eligibility, he or she will give the driver an “ignition interlock package.” This package contains forms and affidavits which must be signed in the presence of a notary public. Also included in this package is a list of approved ignition interlock instillation locations. The driver should select an ignition interlock vendor and bring his or her vehicle to the installation location so that the device can be installed. While the device is being installed, the user will receive training on how to operate the device.

Once installation is complete, the driver should bring proof of installation to a Registry of Motor Vehicles hearing officer. The hearing officer will then issue the driver a license with a Z (ignition interlock) restriction. The driver can now legally drive his or her interlock equipped motor vehicle.

In cases where the driver does not own a vehicle and/or needs to get insurance, he or she should have the vehicle towed to the installation facility or driven there with a general registration plate, such a dealer plate. The driver would then have the device installed, get his or her license reinstated by showing proof of installation to a RMV hearing officer, go to his or her insurance company with the RMV-1 form, show the insurance agent that he or she is now licensed, get the RMV-1 form stamped by the insurance company, go back to the RMV and get the vehicle registered, and finally return to the ignition interlock facility and put the new plates on the vehicle.

Interlock required drivers who live out of state can have the device removed, or not installed, so long as they prove out of state residency and sign an affidavit stating that they live out of state and will not drive in Massachusetts without the ignition interlock device.

For interlock-required drivers who live in Massachusetts, there are no absolutely exceptions or ways to avoid the ignition interlock device. If a driver is legally interlock required, he or she must have the device for a minimum of 2 years. If there are violations, the Registry will extend the interlock requirement for a minimum of 6 months.

Interlock required drivers must have the device inspected, maintained, and monitored monthly. If the results of the monthly monitoring show certain alcohol readings, the driver will be called into the Registry of Motor Vehicles for an interlock violation hearing, which could result in a 10 year or lifetime license suspension. If you are facing an ignition interlock violation, please contact me. I have an outstanding track record in the area of interlock violation appeals and I have proven that the ignition interlock device is unreliable and registers false positive readings.

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

The family of Melanie J. Powell, the teenager who was killed by a drunk driver, has been lobbying intensely at the statehouse for the passage of Senate Bill 1925, which would strengthen Melanie’s Law by requiring the OUI First Offenders to use the Ignition Interlock Device.

The Ignition Interlock Device is a breath testing device which is installed in DUI offenders’ vehicles to prevent the vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. Ignition interlock readings are reported back to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and interlock violations can result in 10 year or lifetime license revocations.

Under the current version of Melanie’s Law, ignition interlock devices are required for second or subsequent drunk driving offenders. The new law would expand the requirement to those convicted of a first offense OUI so that first offenders would be required to use the ignition interlock device for the entire term of any DUI hardship license and for six months after getting a full license.

A hearing was recently held at the Statehouse regarding the proposed legislation. Senator Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican introduced the Bill and Senator Steven A. Baddour, D-Methuen co-sponsored the bill. It is predicted that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary will recommend that the bill ought to pass and send it to the full Senate for a vote. It will then go to the Massachusetts House of Representatives for consideration.

If the bill passes, Massachusetts will join 11 other states which require all DUI offenders to use the ignition interlock device.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks