Violating the Mass. Sex Offender Law is one of the 65 reasons why the Mass. RMV will suspend or revoke your driver's license. Enacted in 1999 to protect the public from sex offenders, the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Law G.L. c. 6, §§ 178C--178Q, requires the registration, risk classification, and public notification of sex offenders living, working, or attending school in Massachusetts. The Mass. Sex Offender Registry Board maintains a database of convicted sex offenders and classifies the level of risk of recidivism and each offender’s degree of dangerousness so that the public may receive information about dangerous sex offenders who live, work, or attend school in the Commonwealth. There are 22 sex offenses which would trigger the registration requirement.

If a Massachusetts sex offender fails to comply with his obligations under the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Law, the Board will inform the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) and the RMV “shall suspend or prohibit issuance or renewal of a license, learner's permit, right to operate a motor vehicle or certificate of motor vehicle registration held by such sex offender.” There is absolutely no way around this mandatory license suspension and the sex offender’s driver’s license will, rightfully, remain indefinitely suspended unless and until the Mass. RMV receives proof of compliance and registration and the sex offender pays a license reinstatement fee to the Registry. The Board of Appeal will not grant any hardship license or any other form of relief from this legally mandated driver’s license license suspension.

Massachusetts residents and license holders who drive in the State of New York should be aware of a new drunk driving law which takes effect on August 15th in New York. Under the new DUI law, those convicted of even a first offense DUI will be required to use the breath alcohol ignition interlock device, for a minimum period of six months. As is the case with the Massachusetts Interlock Program, anyone who drives the car, including family members, will have to provide a breath sample for the vehicle to start. Drivers also have to take and pass rolling re-tests while an interlock-equipped car is being driven. The interlock program in New York is overseen by state probation officials unlike the Massachusetts program which is administered by the interlock unit of the Mass. RMV.

The passage of this law in New York could be a preview of coming attractions for those arrested for a first offense OUI in Massachusetts. Senate Bill 1925, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Hedlund, would require Mass. first offenders to use the ignition interlock device for a minimum of six months. This bill has received strong support and it is likely to pass.

In October, when House Bill 4795, (PDF) the new Massachusetts Safe Driving Law is signed by the Governor, the Registry of Motor Vehicles will no longer require drivers to attend the National Safety Council Driver Retraining Course for having accumulated 5 surchargeable events, which are citations and at fault surchargable accident s within a 5 year period. This requirement will be replaced by a new driver retraining requirement.

Under the new law, the Mass. RMV will require drivers to attend and complete the eight (8) hour driver retraining program offered by the National Safety Council (NSC) when a driver has accumulated three (3) surchargeable events within a two year period. The RMV requires successful completion of the NSC driving course is required within ninety (90) days from the date of the suspension notice. If the NSC does not electronically notify the Mass. Registry of program completion within the required time period, the Registry will indefinitely suspend the driver’s license and right to operate in Massachusetts. Through the National Driver Register, this mandatory indefinite suspension will prohibit the driver from operating in other states. No hardship license can be granted and the 3 surchargeable event suspension cannot be delayed or shortened, unless the driver’s record upon which the suspension is based is found to be inaccurate.

It appears that the goal of requiring the driving course after 3 surchargeable events within a 2 year period is to encourage safe driving, because the drivers will be required to take and pass the NSC course at an earlier point in time, as compared to the old 5 surchargeable event system.

The law does not change the requirement for the Registry to suspend the license of anyone who accumulates seven (7) surchargebale events within any three (3) year period. Contrary to what the Registry states in the suspension letter, it is possible to successfully appeal these suspensions and, in some cases, the suspensions can be completely vacated, reduced, or the driver can obtain a limited 12 hour Massachusetts hardship license.

If you have any questions regarding 3, 5, or 7 surchargeable event license suspensions, e-mail Attorney Brian E. Simoneau or contact him by telephone at 508-565-0057.  

Massachusetts DUI Lawyer Paul B. Watkins recently represented a 29 year old woman in South Boston District Court who was cited for allowing her ex-boyfriend, who has a suspended driver’s license, to drive her vehicle. Under Melanie’s law, this is a criminal offense which carries a 1 year jail sentence. Also, the law allows the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to suspend for up to one year, the registration of the vehicle which was illegally driven or the driver’s license of the vehicle’s owner.  A conviction of this offense would have resulted in a substantial hardship for Paul’s client. Paul was able to get the matter dismissed prior to arraignment. This means that the woman will maintain a clean record and not face the one year license and/or registration suspension. A conviction would have subjected her to "hidden" costs in the form of Mass. RMV license reinstatement fees and insurance surcharge increases.  

After being involved in an accident, on March 17, 2007 Harry Norton was arrested for OUI, driving to endanger, driving an uninsured motor vehicle, and driving an unregistered vehicle. The first officer who responded to Norton’s rear-end accident testified that he smelled a "moderate" amount of alcohol on Mr. Norton's breath and observed that Norton was "stumbling and unsteady on his feet."  He also noted that Mr. Norton was speaking slowly, slurring his words and had glassy eyes.  The officer testified that Mr. Norton could not produce a license or proof of registration.  The officer also administered field sobriety tests at the scene, and testified that Mr. Norton performed poorly. A second officer noted that Norton's eyes were watery and glassy, he had a moderate amount of alcohol on his breath, had trouble standing in one place and was speaking slowly and slurring his words.

The second officer testified that based on his observations, Mr. Norton was "operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor."  Norton’s drunk driving attorney did not object to this statement. The Superior Court concluded that the DUI lawyer’s failure to lodge an objection fell measurably below the expected standard. It is well-established that the admission of statements by percipient witnesses that touch upon the ultimate guilt of a defendant intrude on the jury's fact-finding function as to proof of elements of a crime. The DUI attorney should have objected to the officer’s testimony that Norton was operating under the influence. That’s the ultimate issue to be decided by the jury in the DUI trial and the officer impermissibly invaded the sole province of the jury when he made that statement. Although this was an error, it was no sufficient to win a reversal of Norton’s DUI conviction.

The DUI lawyer also failed to object to the introduction of the certified Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles document which indicated that Norton’s car was unregistered and uninsured at the time of the accident and DUI arrest. On appeal, Norton’s new DUI lawyer attempted to argue that the Registry record was testimonial, and that Norton’s right to confront witnesses against him, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, was violated. On appeal, Norton claimed that the DUI attorney who handled his trial failed to object to the evidence and said failure was unreasonable, given that the United States Supreme Court had, at the time of trial, granted certiorari in Melendez-Diaz, a case in which the testimonial nature of drug analysis documents was in question.  Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). 

In Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court found that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him was violated when documents prepared by laboratory analysts for the Commonwealth were admitted at trial and the analysts were not called to the stand.  The Commonwealth had characterized the documents--which contained the results of tests conducted to determine whether a substance found on the defendant was an illegal narcotic--as "certificates."  The Supreme Court rejected this characterization, instead finding the documents to be affidavits, which are considered to be testimonial.

Here, the admission of the Mass. RMV certificate did not violate Mr. Norton's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.  Unlike the affidavits in Melendez-Diaz, the Registry certificate was created and maintained independent of any prosecutorial purpose, and is admissible as an ordinary business record pursuant to G.L. c. 233 § 78, as well as an authenticated record of a governmental department pursuant to G.L. c. 233 § 76.  The Registry of Motor Vehicles is an independent agency of the State charged not only with keeping complete records of the status of drivers' licenses, but also with keeping complete records of any convictions of persons charged with motor vehicle violations, rendering the maintenance of those records independent from a prosecutorial purpose and admissible as evidence.  Because admission into evidence of the certificate did not violate Mr. Norton's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel to fail to object to its admission.
Based on the above-cited facts and law, the Superior Court refused to vacate Norton’s drunk driving conviction and grant him a new DUI trial.

Massachusetts has just become the 29th state to ban texting while driving. Under a bill which was signed recently signed and will take effect in October, Massachusetts drivers will be banned from text messaging while driving, a first offense will result in a $100 fine, $250 fine for the second offense and a $500 fine for third and subsequent texting while driving violations. Under the new law, texting while driving is a primary enforcement offense, meaning that Massachusetts police officers can stop motorists who they believe are texting while driving. Violations of the text message law will not be counted as “surchargable events” for insurance or license suspension purposes.

The new law does not just apply to texting. It outlaws internet surfing and use of wireless mobile electronic devices. However, there is an exemption for using cell phone and mobile devices for certain enumerated emergency purposes.

Under another part of the law, drivers under age 18 will prohibited from using any cell phone or wireless mobile device while driving. Violations of this law will result in Junior Operator’s License or Learner’s Permit license suspensions. Junior Operator's Licenses or Learner's Permits will be suspended for 60 days for a first offense, 180 days for a second offense, and 1 year for a third or subsequent violation. 

Texting while driving and use of a cell phone by a JOL license Holder are not considered surchargable events for the purpose of the Massachusetts Safe Driver Insurance Plan (SDIP) and for 3 and 7 Surchargable Event Suspensions.

A conviction for being a minor in possession of alcohol will result in an automatic 90 day license suspension under the Massachusetts Minor in Possession law, G.L. c. 138 § 34C. The law states that “A conviction of a violation of this section shall be reported forthwith to the registrar of motor vehicles by the court, and said registrar shall thereupon suspend for a period of ninety days the license of such person to operate a motor vehicle.” There is no ability to get a hardship license from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. However, in some cases, it may be possible to get hardship relief by going to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance Board of Appeal.

Because of the automatic loss of license triggered by a minor in possession conviction, it is advisable to try to get the case resolved with an admission to sufficient facts followed by a continuance without a finding. Unlike a conviction or guilty plea, a CWOF will not trigger the automatic 90 day license suspension. Similarly, a conviction of being a minor and attempting to purchase alcohol, misrepresenting your age, or defacing or falsifying a license or identification card, with the intent to purchase alcohol, will trigger a 180 day driver’s license suspension pursuant to G.L. c. 138 § 34A.

The Massachusetts alcohol law further provides that anyone who transfers, alters or defaces any Mass. RMV Liquor ID card or driver’s license, or who makes, uses, carries, sells or distributes a false identification card or license, or uses the identification card or motor vehicle license of another, or furnishes false information in obtaining a Registry ID card or license, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The law states further that the Mass. RMV may, suspend the license or right to operate and the certificate of registrations of any person for up to 6 months, whenever the Registry, after a license suspension hearing, has reason to believe that said person has violated the law listed above. It is noteworthy that a conviction is not required in these situations and all that is required is a “reason to believe” that there was a violation of the Mass. False ID Law, G.L. c. 138 § 34B.

If you have been called in for a Regsitry hearingt due to Minor in Possession or False ID allegations, you are entitled to be represented by a lawyer. Call for a free, no obligation case review & confidential consultation.

I just received a call from a gentleman who recently pled out in District Court to driving on a suspended license, 2 counts, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The nitwit public defender handling his case informed the man that by pleading out and paying the court costs, her client would be able to apply for a hardship license. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the gentleman pled out, he triggered a 4 year loss of license under the habitual traffic offender law and additional automatic license suspensions triggered by convictions for operating after suspension and negligent operation. Now, he will not be eligible for hardship consideration for quite some time and he will have to go to the Board of Appeal, instead of the Registry. The RMV will not grant hardship licenses in circumstances such as these, where there are multiple habitual traffic offender and recent operating after suspension charges.  Given the man’s long driving and criminal records, it is highly unlikely that the Board of Appeal will afford him any relief either, especially with the new convictions on his record. These convictions were the product of this man following bad legal advice, given from a lawyer who had no understanding of the collateral consequences associated with convictions of automobile law violations.

The above-mentioned disaster stands in contrast to another situation where a criminal defense lawyer contacted me to find out, with certainty, what the consequences would be to a conviction for 2nd offense DUI, with the first offense occurring more than 10 year ago, where her client refused the breathalyzer. This lawyer knew enough to realize what she didn’t know and she found a resource, so that she could get the right answer and properly represent and advise her DUI client.

Fox Boston recently reported on a controversial policy which allows illegal immigrants in Massachusetts to register their motor vehicles, even when they do not have driver’s licenses. It is a misconception that a valid license is required to register a car in Massachusetts. The Registry does not require that vehicle owners have active drivers licenses in order to register their vehicles. The RMV acknowledged that approximately three thousand vehicles are currently registered to individuals who do not have Massachusetts Driver’s Licenses.

There is nothing in the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Laws which requires a valid license to register a car. In such cases, where the owner of a vehicle does not have a license, the Mass. RMV assigns the owner a number beginning with an “X,” commonly referred to as an “X” number. This is used in the Registry computer to identify the unlicensed vehicle owner.

Although it is possible to have a vehicle registered to someone who is unlicensed, if someone’s license is suspended or revoked, his or her vehicle registration can also be suspended or revoked. The Registry makes a distinction between “unlicensed” and “suspended.” The practice of revoking the registration and plates of someone with a suspended license is designed to prevent them from driving on a suspended license.