Under the Massachusetts Immediate Threat Law, the RMV can suspend a driver’s license or Mass. motor vehicle registration whenever the license or registration holder has “committed a violation of the motor vehicle laws of a nature which would give the registrar reason to believe that continuing operation by such holder is and will be so seriously improper as to constitute an immediate threat to the public safety.”

Due to the immediate nature of the treat to public safety, the Registry is not legally required to hold a hearing prior to imposing the suspension. Instead, the driver whose license or registration is suspended under the Immediate Threat Law has a right to have a hearing at the Registry of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the indefinite immediate threat suspension.

These immediate threat suspensions usually result from immediate threat reports filed by police officers. In most cases, there is an incident of dangerous driving which may or may not have involved a car accident. The police officer forms an opinion that the driver should be promptly taken off the road until his or her case can be evaluated by the Driver Control Unit of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. As part of the RMV hearing process, the hearings officer will review the individual’s driving record and likely his or her criminal record. These documents may show a pattern of dangerous driving behavior or other previous immediate threat suspensions. Under the law, in order for an immediate threat suspension to be legal, it must be based on a motor vehicle law violation. Driving behavior which does not violate the law is insufficient to trigger the suspension.  These cases usually involve two RMV hearings. At the first hearing, a copy of the immediate threat complaint is obtained and some initial discussions and negotiations with the Registry Hearings Officer takes place. At the second hearing, the client seeks the hearings officer’s approval for license reinstatement. Conditions may include taking and passing a written exam, road test, or successfully completing a driver retraining program, such as the National Safety Council (NSC) Course. Reinstatements are not automatic and the Registry is afforded wide latitude and discretion in this area. Immediate threat suspensions carry a mandatory $500.00 license reinstatement fee.

Many clients ask how long an immediate threat suspension will last. This is a discretionary suspension and unlike mandatory suspensions for offenses such as DUI, habitual traffic offender, leaving the scene of an accident, speeding, false license, reckless driving, or operating so as to endanger, there is no end date. Termination of the suspension and reinstatement of the license or registration is up to the Registry Hearings Officer.

If the incident which triggered the indefinite immediate threat suspension or license revocation resulted in the issuance of a citation or criminal charges, the Registry generally will not rule on a license reinstatement unless and until the criminal or civil automobile law violation case is concluded. Often, in addition to filing an immediate threat complaint, a police officer may issue a citation for speeding, operating so as to endanger, marked lanes violation, or other moving violations. Convictions or responsible findings for these violations may trigger additional separate suspensions.

Drivers who are facing immediate threat license suspensions should be represented by a skilled and experienced RMV lawyer. This is a specialized area of law and lawyers who are not familiar with the immediate threat suspension and reinstatement process may have some difficulties in navigating the system. If the Mass. RMV has indefinitely suspended or revoked your driver’s license, contact a license suspension lawyer such as Attorney Brian E. Simoneau for a free consultation and case review.

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.  

In October, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles made changes to its license renewal procedures. Drivers who personally appear at a registry branch for license renewals are now required to take and pass a vision test administered by the Mass. RMV or submit a vision screening certificate, which is signed by an optometrist or opthalmologist. The new law requires drivers 75 years of age or older who are renewing their licenses to appear, in person, at a Registry Branch. This means that individuals 75 and older will have to take the mandatory vision test or provide a completed screening certificate in order to get their licenses renewed. This law was enacted as part of a driver safety bill which bans text messaging while driving and prohibits junior operators from using cell phones while driving.

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.