The two central questions to be decided in every Massachusetts hardship license case is the applicant’s need to drive and the risk to public safety which may be created by putting the hardship license applicant back on the road. Both the RMV and Board of Appeal balance these risks when deciding whether or not to grant a hardship license.

Many people think that hardship licenses are automatically granted and that there is a right to obtain a hardship license, once the applicant has served enough time. This is wrong. Hardship licenses are discretionary and there no automatic right to get one. Even if a driver meets all of the RMV hardship license criteria and requirements, both the RMV and the Board of Appeal can refuse to afford hardship relief. For all intents and purposes, the decision of the Board of Appeal in hardship license cases is final. It is next to impossible to win a hardship license appeal in superior court.

One of the central parts of a hardship license hearing is documentation in the form of letters which support the issuance of a hardship license. These letters should address the applicant’s need to drive and risk of recidivism, or lack thereof. The letters should be written by people who know the applicant and can provide a personal firsthand prespective regarding the applicant’s recovery efforts and/or need for a license. The letters should explain how the hardship license applicant has brought the causes of the past and present violations under control such that he or she can be entrusted to safely drive a vehicle.

Many applicants misunderstand the above-described requirement and they provide “character reference” type letters. These letters are only marginally helpful and the real focus should be on how the hardship license candidate can be trusted to resume driving and how the lack of a license has impacted the candidate and his or her family.

In every case where a license is being sought for work purposes, the hearing package should include a letter from the candidate's employer, on letterhead, not less than 30 days old, which explains the candidate's work hours and need to drive. If applicable, the letter should also explain how there is no public transportation available. Individuals who are self employed can write their own letter and provide proof of self-employment.

Hiring a lawyer who specializes in Massachusetts Hardship License Appeals can dramatically increase your chances of success at both Registry and Board of Appeal hearings.

Many Massachusetts drivers who have been convicted of certain drug offenses are surprised to learn that their convictions will result in automatic license suspensions, even when the Massachusetts drug charges have absolutely nothing to do with driving or a motor vehicle. Some unfortunate drug defendants learn about these suspensions, for the first time, after they plead out. Many would not have do ne so, had they been aware of the consequences of their guilty pleas.

The good news is that the law allows for hardship licensing in drug suspension cases after the driver has served ½ of the suspension time. These hardship licenses, however, are not automatically granted. Instead, the driver must convincingly prove that he or she has any substance abuse problem under control and that he or she is not using illegal drugs.

In Massachusetts drug suspension cases, hardship licenses can be obtained from the Mass. RMV only where there are no prior drug convictions on the applicant’s record, which the Registry hearing officer will thoroughly review. In cases where there are previous drug offenses, a hardship license can only be obtained by going to the RMV Board of Appeal.

In any drug hardship license case, the applicant should present documentation in the form of clean drug screen reports, evidence of completion of a drug program, documentary evidence showing the need to drive, and evidence of attendance at NA, AA, Alanon, or some type of on-going self help and/or counseling program. Proof of compliance with probation should also be presented. The Registry has strict requirements such as 3 clean drug screens, spaced 30 days apart, conducted during the 90 day period immediately prior to the RMV hardship license hearing.

At the Board of Appeal hardship license hearing, the applicant must be prepared to explain the charges on his or her criminal record. The applicant must also be able to candidly discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding his or her drug arrest. In making this presentation, hardship license applicants should be mindful of the 2 central issues in every Massachusetts hardship license case: likelihood of recidivism and need to drive.

Ok. I’m repeating myself, but I can’t help it. I continue to get a high volume of inquiries from people who are trying to get out of having the ignition interlock device installed in their vehicles. Given the problems, frustration, inconvenience, embarrassment, anxiety, and expense associated with the interlock devices, I don’t blame them. However, the Registry and RMV Board of Appeal adhere to strict rules regarding interlock requirements. In the vast majority of cases, if the Registry or Board of Appeal determine that a Massachusetts driver is ignition-interlock required, there is no way to successfully challenge this requirement.

The ignition interlock aspect of Melanie’s law went into effect on January 1, 2006. It says that anyone who has 2 or more DUI convictions or alcohol program assignments, anywhere in the world at anytime, must have the ignition interlock device for 2 years after getting a full reinstatement and for the entire length of any DUI hardship license, when they are reinstating or coming off of a hardship license on or after January 1, 2006, the Massachusetts interlock cutoff date.

If someone is legally interlock required, there is absolutely, positively, definitely no way around this requirement, other than moving out of Massachusetts. In those cases, where an interlock driver establishes residency outside of the Commonwealth, the RMV –may- excuse him or her from the interlock requirement. However, the driver must prove non-residency at a RMV hearing and he or she will not be allowed to drive in Massachusetts without interlock.

This mandatory interlock requirement has presented serious obstacles. For example, some people are required to drive company vehicles and their employer will not allow the device to be installed therein. Others, such as real estate brokers, for example, must transport customers and clients in their vehicles. The interlock device is a huge source of embarrassment and humiliation for these drivers. Nevertheless, the interlock law is applied and enforced with a zero tolerance approach. The Board of Appeal and Massachusetts Registry take the approach that interlock-required drivers are fortunate to have licenses at all and the interlock is a small price to pay for the privilege of driving in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles requires that all vehicles registered in this state to have mandatory liability insurance. This compulsory insurance requirement exists so that there will be funds available in the event that a Massachusetts driver causes personal injury or property damage to another. It is a criminal offense in Massachusetts to own or operate an uninsured motor vehicle, whether it is on a public or private way. This means that you cannot legally drive an uninsured vehicle or allow it to be driven in Massachusetts. Further, you cannot allow an uninsured car to remain on virtually any street in Massachusetts, whether public or private. A conviction for “no liability policy” will result in an automatic license suspension.

Non-payment of automobile insurance premiums is the biggest cause of lack of insurance. If an insurance bill remains unpaid, the Mass. RMV will revoke the vehicle’s registration. It is therefore important to make sure that your automobile insurance bill is paid and that both the RMV and your insurance company have your correct mailing address.

If your license was suspended or revoked for “no liability policy,” you may be able to shorten the suspension or get a Massachusetts Hardship License by appealing to the RMV Board of Appeal. The Board has the power to grant a hardship or full license even when the Registry refuses to do so.

Young drivers in Massachusetts must exercise extreme caution both behind the wheel and in situations involving alcohol. In my law practice, I have seen firsthand the harsh penalties and consequences associated with violations of the JOL law and other Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Laws. A single speeding ticket on a JOL will trigger an automatic 90 day suspension. Two tickets on a JOL will result in a 1 year license suspension. In both cases, the JOL license holder will have to take 2 driving classes, pay a mandatory $500.00 reinstatement fee, and take the written and road tests all over again. JOL passenger and hour restrictions will also result in automatic license suspensions.

Drivers under 21 years of age who refuse the breathalyzer will automatically lose their licenses for at least 3 years. Those who are convicted of DUI or fail the breathalyzer will also incur enhanced license suspensions. Today, I just spoke with the parent of a teenager who was riding in a car where the driver had an open container of alcohol. The police cited the driver for “open container,” a $500.00 civil infraction. He paid the citation and got an unpleasant surprise, a license suspension. Being a minor in possession of alcohol will also result in a license suspension. Likewise, using a false ID will trigger a 6 moth license loss.

Every new driver in Massachusetts should proceed with extreme caution. Minor mistakes can have major consequences. Many habitual traffic offenders who I represent stared off as young drivers with minor infractions which snowballed and eventually resulted in harsh 4 year license revocations. New drivers in Massachusetts cannot be too cautious when it comes to obeying the rules of the road and staying away from alcohol. In my law practice, I have seen firsthand the effects of immaturity and carelessness. In most cases, the driver’s family suffers, as family members must now transport the suspended driver to school, work, and other obligations.

The RMV Board of Appeal affords hardship and other relief in select cases involving young drivers. However, it is often difficult for young people to receive favorable consideration. The Board takes the position that new drivers should be taught early on that dangerous driving and other violations of law have consequences. It is thought that, by imposing license suspensions early on, future acts of bad driving will be prevented and public safety will be enhanced.

I represented several clients at the RMV Board of Appeal today. While I was waiting for my cases to be called,  a woman who caused a fatal accident in Framingham, Massachusetts a few years ago pled her case for a hardship license. The tragic accident result in the woman’s  19 year old boyfriend being thrown through the windshield of the vehicle and killed. Her license was revoked for 10 years a result of the vehicular homicide conviction.

One of the clients who I represented is facing a potential license revocation for more than 10 years, all because she disconnected the head of her ignition interlock device while driving, because it was beeping, she was lost, her children were crying, and she was running out of gas. We presented documentation explaining why she has trouble providing the required breath sample , especially during periods of stress. For temporarily disconnecting the interlock device, out of frustration, this woman might lose her license for a longer period than the driver who negligently killed someone.

The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and the RMV Board of Appeal treat the act of disconnecting an ignition interlock device as circumvention, which is a criminal offense. Ignition interlock circumvention carries a mandatory 10 year license suspension. Plus, if it is done while the driver is on a Massachusetts hardship license, the original suspension will be reinstated and stacked against the 10 year suspension, so that the driver will be off the road for longer than 10 years.  She could have previously killed someone and she would face less of a suspension. It is no coincidence that the Mass. RMV uses restriction code “Z” for  ignition interlock restricted licenses. “Z” stands for zero tolerance and the Registry seems to afford even less than zero tolerance when it comes to ignition interlock violations. Take no chances.

Drivers convicted of DUI in New Jersey will now be required to use the ignition interlock device, under “Ricci’s Law,” which the New Jersey acting governor signed earlier this month. It was named after Richard “Ricci” Branca, a 17 year old who was the victim of a fatal DUI accident. The new ignition interlock device requirement applies to all subsequent DUI offenders and first offenders who registered a blood alcohol level of .015 or above. The ignition interlock device will be mandatory in all breathalyzer refusal cases, according to the new law.

First offenders will be interlock required for 6 months to 1 year and subsequent offenders will be interlock required for a period of 3 years. Like Massachusetts, NJ will require the interlock during the term of any DUI hardship license.

A similar bill is being considered in Massachusetts. Senate Bill 1925 will require all Massachusetts DUI First Offenders to use the ignition interlock device while on a hardship license and for at least a 6 month period thereafter. I can virtually guarantee that this bill will pass and the Massachusetts interlock program will be expanded to include first offenders.

Proponents of ignition interlock programs tout it as a lifesaving measures designed to protect the public. However, substances other than alcohol can and do trigger false positive readings. The devices are far from infallible and in Massachusetts, for example, these alcohol readings can result in a 10 year or lifetime license revocation. With such high stakes, drivers who have experienced interlock malfunctions and false positive alcohol readings in Massachusetts suffer frustration and incredible anxiety, with their driver’s licenses hanging in the balance. Depending on the penalties in New Jersey, drivers there may soon suffer the same fate.

Under the Massachusetts Traffic Ticket Law, a police officer must generally issue a citation at the time and place of the traffic violation. The failure to deliver the speeding ticket or other traffic citation to the alleged violator at the time and place of the alleged offense may constitute a defense and result in a dismissal or not responsible finding. This requirement was enacted “to prevent the manipulation and misuse of traffic citations, and to provide prompt and definite notice of the nature of the alleged offense to the putative violator.” The objective is “to prevent a situation in which a person cannot establish a defence due to his being charged with a violation long after it occurs.” "The procedures of Section 2 are to be enforced with due strictness." Commonwealth v. Marchand, 18 Mass. App.Ct. 932, 933 (1984), citing Commonwealth v. Clinton, 374 Mass. 719 , 721 (1978)

There are a few statutory exceptions to the rule requiring prompt issuance of the traffic ticket. Late issuance of a traffic citation has been permitted (1) where the allege violator could not have been stopped, (2) where additional time was needed to investigate the violation or determine the offender’s identity, or (3) where the court finds that the delay was not inconsistent with the purposes of the Massachusetts Traffic Citation Law.

Massachusetts traffic ticket lawyers have successfully used an officer’s failure to write the ticket at the time and place of the motor vehicle stop as a defense, achieving “not responsible” findings for their clients. For example, in Commonwealth v. Marchand, 18 Mass. App.Ct. 932, 933 (1984), a criminal complaint for operating to endanger was dismissed because the police officer had waited too long to issue the citation. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Ryan, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 970, 971-972 (1986), the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the dismissal of the charges of failure to stop for a stop sign, failure to stop for a police officer, and operating to endanger where the police officer failed to issue any citation until several days after alleged violations and defendant had called to inquire whether any citation would be issued.

With the assistance of the Massachusetts State Police, the Mass. RMV did a little housecleaning yesterday. Two Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles employees were arrested for making and selling fraudulent licenses. According to articles published today in the Metrowest Daily News and Boston Herald, RMV auditors and the MSP Compliance Unit discovered that a clerk at the Watertown RMV Branch was performing fraudulent transactions and selling licenses to people. The licenses had the photograph one person and the identifying information of another.

The Mass. State Police also arrested the Assistant Manager of the Haverhill, Massachusetts RMV branch yesterday for running a similar scheme, where she would issue fraudulent licenses to customers who paid her cash. Authorities caught her by auditing her computer transactions which showed an unusually high number of out of state license conversions. The Boston Herald reported that she manipulated the RMV computer system by using the out of state conversion feature to issue the false licenses.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles will undoubtedly conduct an audit of all transactions performed by these clerks and revoke any licenses which were improperly issued. Also, the Massachusetts State Police and RMV operate a sophisticated facial recognition system which will detect instances of someone’s photograph appearing on two different licenses. While it may seem tempting, especially for those who are serving a long license suspension or revocation, buying a license is never a good move. It is shortsighted and, chances are, the license will not be valid for very long. The Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Massachusetts State Police Compliance Unit are both very good at detecting, aggressively investigating, and prosecuting license fraud. In Massachusetts license fraud 5 year felony criminal offense.

If your Massachusetts license is suspended or revoked, you are much better off trying to get a hardship license than trying to buy a license. 

I am writing regarding the dangers of tampering with, bypassing, disconnecting, or attempting to circumvent, in any way, breath alcohol ignition interlock devices; such action could cost you your license and result in criminal charges.

Because of Melanie’s Law, Massachusetts drivers who have 2 or more DUI convictions on their records and who are reinstating after January 1, 2006, the effective date of the ignition interlock requirements of Melanie’s Law must have the devices installed in any vehicle which the subsequent offender owns, leases, or operates. Interlock usage will be mandatory during the term of any Massachusetts hardship license and for 2 years thereafter.

The ignition interlock device is a fuel-cell based electronic device which is designed to prevent a vehicle from starting if his or her blood alcohol content registers above a certain limit. In Massachusetts, that limit is set by Registry regulation at .02, a very low threshold.

Ignition interlock devices were built to resist and record any attempt to tamper with or circumvent them. They are equipped with memories which record any loss of power, low voltage, high voltage, battery disconnection, remote head disconnection and other similar occurrences. Ignition interlocks used in Massachusetts have special tamper seals which will show if an interlock device was opened without authorization. The Mass. RMV takes a zero tolerance approach to interlock violations and the simple act of temporarily disconnecting the remote head may result in a 10 year license revocation.

Ignition interlock devices are prone to false positive readings and having to use one can be inconvenient and embarrassing. Bypassing the interlock device may be tempting. However, the interlock was designed to resist and record any attempt to bypass or defeat it. It is highly likely that any attempt to bypass the interlock device will be detected at the monthly monitoring appointment and reported forthwith to the Registry of Motor Vehicles.