Powderly Gets Results
  • Armed Assault to Murder
  • Result: Dismissed
  • Breaking & Entering
  • Result: Not Guilty
  • Unarmed Robbery
  • Result: Dismissed
  • OUI 2nd Offense
  • Result: Not Guilty
Powderly Probes Crime Lab
James Powderly on WPRI Channel 12
James Powderly on Digging Deeper
James Powderly on Channel 12
Home  >  Drunk Driving

Cape Cod Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer

Recent Drunk Driving Trial Victories

Charge: Drunk Driving – 1st Offense (Blood Alochol Level Above 0.15%)
Arrest Report:
The Police on routine patrol observed the Client make an abrupt u-turn without using a turn signal. The Police, after observing the u-turn, began following the vehicle. The Police observed the vehicle cross over the double yellow lines while traveling. At this point, the Police initiated a motor vehicle stop. Upon speaking with the Client, the Police immediately detected an odor of alcohol emanating from the Client’s breath and observed his eyes to be bloodshot, watery, and droopy. The Client then performed three standardized field sobriety tests, failing each test. The Police then requested that the Client submit to a preliminary breath test, to which he consented. The Client blood alcohol content was estimated at 0.158 on the preliminary breath test. The Client was then placed under arrest and transported to the police station. At the station, the Police requested that he submit to a chemical test to which he consented. The Client’s blood aclohol content at the station registered at 0.150 and 0.154. The Client was then charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol with readings over 0.15.
VERDICT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

Charge: Drunk Driving – 1st Offense (Blood Alochol Level Above .08%)
Arrest Report:
The arresting officer observed the defendant committing moving violations. The officer stopped the defendant and noticed bloodshot/glassy eyes and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. The defendant made an admission of drinking prior to driving. The defendant performed the HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) test, walk and turn test and the one leg stand field sobriety test and fails all tests performed. The defendant was subsequently arrested and failed the breathalyzer test with BAC readings of .124% and .126%.
VERDICT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

Massachusetts has very strict laws on drunk driving/OUI, and the penalties seem to increase in severity year after year.
The penalties listed below are legal guidelines and the range of maximum punishments. Most of the time, people are not sentenced to the maximum penalty, but it is possible. The judge typically issues a sentence based on the facts your case, the perceived risk and danger to society, the evidence against you, and many other factors.

So it makes sense to get a consultation from an experienced Massachusetts OUI lawyer who can tell you the most likely scenario for how the case would play out for you, and what penalties you are likely to face if you are found guilty. Call me now for a free case assessment at (508) 343-0676.

For A Free Initial Consultation Call Now – 508-343-0676 – Available 24/7

Additional Cape Cod OUI Lawyer Information


Recent Drunk Driving Case Victories

*Site includes results from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Past case results do not represent or guarantee of a particular result in your case

CHARGES:

  1. DRUNK DRIVING (2ND OFFENSE)
  2. NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

POLICE REPORT:

 A police officer is dispatched to an accident scene where the defendant was involved in a single car crash with a fence. The defendant made admissions of consuming alcohol, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the defendant and he was unsteady on his feet. The defendant performed three field sobriety tests which the officer deemed to all be failures.
RESULTS:(1)NOT GUILTY (2)NOT GUILTY

CHARGE: DRUNK DRIVING (2ND OFFENSE)
POLICE REPORT:
 The arresting officer stopped the defendant in his car for committing a moving violation. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant, the defendant admitted he had been drinking and he failed all field sobriety tests administered to him. The defendant had a prior DUI within the past 5 years.
RESULT: DISMISSED

CHARGES:

  1. DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
  2. RECKLESS OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

POLICE REPORT:

 The Defendant was involved in a rear-end collision causing a three car accident. The officer indicated the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The officer also indicated the defendant’s speech was slurred when he spoke. The defendant was asked to stand on one foot and count out loud. The Defendant instead began to walk heel to toe. The Defendant was told again to perform the one leg stand test and did so for only 3 seconds. The Defendant could not properly recite the alphabet on two separate attempts. The Defendant was taken to a local hospital where blood was drawn and the results were .153%. BAC.
RESULTS:
(1) DISMISSED
(2) DISMISSED

CHARGES: DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
POLICE REPORT:
 Defendant crashed her car on a sidewalk and into a pole. A responding officer finds defendant with a bleeding head at scene of accident. An independent witness informs the officer the defendant was the operator of the vehicle. The officer testifies defendant had a strong odor of alcohol, was loud, abusive and so unsteady on her feet that field sobriety testing was impossible to administer.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY

CHARGES:

  1. DRUNK DRIVING (2ND OFFENSE)
  2. NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

POLICE REPORT:

 The Defendant was over traveling 100MPH when he hit another car, broke through a guardrail and flipped his car. The officer describes the defendant as emanating a strong odor of alcohol from his mouth, speaking with a slurred speech and having glassy eyes. The officer says the defendant is combative and belligerent.
RESULTS:
(1) NOT GUILTY
(2) NOT GUILTY

CHARGES:

  1. DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
  2. CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL (2ND OFFENSE)

POLICE REPORT:

 The Defendant was stopped for almost causing an accident by hitting a stopped car. The defendant was observed by the arresting officer as having a strong odor of alcohol, flushed face and glassy eyes. The officer administered three field sobriety tests which the defendant failed. The defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test and had a prior refusal from 2006.
RESULTS:
(1) NOT GUILTY
(2) NOT GUILTY

CHARGE: DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
POLICE REPORT:
 The defendant is pulled over after almost causing a car accident. The officer detects an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant who admits to having previously consumed champagne. The defendant fails the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the walk and turn test and the one leg stand test. The defendant took a breathalyzer with readings of .112% and .114%.
RESULTS: DISMISSED

CHARGES:

  1. DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
  2. OPERATING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE

POLICE REPORT:

 The police stop the defendant as his car has suffered major damage and is leaking fluids. The defendant states “he had a few” drinks. The officer administers field sobriety tests which the defendant fails.
RESULTS:
(1) NOT GUILTY
(2) NOT GUILTY

CHARGES:

  1. DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
  2. SUSPENDED LICENSE
  3. NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

POLICE REPORT:

 The Defendant rear-ends a car which was at a complete stop. The Defendant was non compliant with an officer that arrived on scene and was too intoxicated to understand the officer’s directions for the field sobriety tests. Defendant submitted to the breathalyzer test with readings of .16% and .14%.
RESULTS:
(1) NOT GUILTY
(2) DISMISSED
(3) DISMISSED (after successful completion of 1 year probation)


CHARGE: DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE BAC ABOVE 0.15%)
POLICE REPORT:
 The officer is dispatched to the report of a 911 call reporting a drunk driver. The officer indicates the Defendant had an odor of alcohol emanating from him as he spoke, bloodshot/watery eyes and had to hold on to his car for balance. The defendant failed the field sobriety tests and failed the (PBT) breathalyzer test with a .171% BAC. He also failed the breathalyzer test at the police station with readings of .172% and .153%.
RESULTS: DUI REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING dismissed after a one-year period

CHARGE: DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
POLICE REPORT:
 The officer observes the defendant driving 78MPH in a 50MPH zone. The defendant says she drank two beers and took two shots of liquor. The officer says the defendant appeared confused and disorientated. The defendant failed all field sobriety tests and failed the breathalyzer test with readings of .091% and .092%.
RESULTS: DRUNK DRIVING REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING dismissed after a one-year period.

CHARGE: DRUNK DRIVING (1ST OFFENSE)
POLICE REPORT:
 The officer sees the defendant in the driver’s seat of running car which had come to a stop in the breakdown lane. The car had sustained significant damage to the front of the car and the airbags had been deployed. The officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the defendant observed the defendant with a red face and severely bloodshot eyes. The Defendant admitted to recently drinking and failed the HGN test, the nine step walk and turn test and the one leg stand test.
RESULTS: DISMISSED

Massachusetts OUI Laws and Penalties

FIRST OFFENSE OUI (DUI-DWI)

  • Period of incarceration up to 2.5 years
  • Fine: $500-$5,000
  • License loss for 1 year: work/School hardship license after 3 months and a general hardship after 6 months

 

SECOND OFFENSE OUI

  • Period ofincarceration not less then 60 days up to 2.5 years
  • Fine: $600-$10,000
  • License loss for 2 years: work/School hardship license after 1 year and a general hardship after 18 months. Ignition Interlock device installed in your car for 2 years, after hardship eligibility, at your expense.

THIRD OFFENSE OUI

  • Felony Charge
  • Period of incarceration not less then 180 days up to 5 years
  • Fine: $1000-$15,000
  • License loss for 8 years: work/School hardship license after 2 years and a general hardship after 4 years
  • Commonwealth may seize your vehicle

FOURTH OFFENSE OUI

  • Felony Charge
  • Period of incarceration not less then 2 years up to 5 years
  • Fine: $1500-$25,000
  • License loss for 10 years: work/School hardship license after 5 years and a general hardship after 8 years.
  • Commonwealth may seize your vehicle.

FIFTH OFFENSE OUI

  • Felony Charge
  • Period of incarceration not less then 2.5 years up to 5 years
  • Fine: $2000-$50,000
  • License loss for life, no hardship provision


Massachusetts Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (OUI Detection)

HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS (HGN)Nystagmus refers to the involuntary jerking of the pupil which occurs more rapidly with the consumption of enough alcohol. A Cape Cod officer may administer a field sobriety test to a drunk driving suspect which attempts to determine if nystagmus is present and to what degree. In Massachusetts courts however, the HGN test is generally not admissible as it relies on an underlying scientific principal thus requiring expert testimony.
ONE LEG STAND

A Cape Cod police officer learns to administer these field sobriety tests in accordance with the protocol and guidelines set forth in the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council and Massachusetts State Police training manual. This test requires the suspect to stand with feet together and arms down by side while the officer explains and demonstrates the test. The suspect is told to raise either foot of the ground 6 inches high with foot out straight and count one one thousand..two one thousand and to keep counting until told to stop. The officer is to count silently to 30 and then stop the test. The officer is looking for the following clues:

  1. Swaying while balancing
  2. Using arms to balance (more then 6 inches from their side)
  3. Hopping
  4. Putting foot down before 30

NINE-STEP WALK AND TURN
The suspect is told to stand with one foot in front of the other with arms down by side while officer explains and demonstrates the test. The officer is looking for the following clues:

  • Starting before being told to do so
  • Inability to keep balance in instructional phase
  • Failure to touch heel to toe
  • Stepping off line
  • Using arms for balance
  • Improper turn
  • Incorrect number of steps
  • Stops while walking


Blood Alcohol Testing Defenses
There are two types of tests that law enforcement uses to determine a person’s blood alcohol level. Blood alcohol can be measured by a person’s breath and/or blood. Certain factors such as gender, amount of alcohol consumed, weight, type of alcohol consumed, and food consumption can directly impact the results of a blood alcohol test.

Breath Alcohol Testing – During a breath alcohol test, the person blows into an instrument such as the Intoxilyzer. A person’s breath alcohol concentration is believed to be related to their blood alcohol concentration. By measuring a person’s breath alcohol concentration, law enforcement can figure out his or her blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Massachusetts adopted 0.08% as the standard for impairment. This means there is 0.08 grams of alcohol present per 100 milliliters of blood.

Blood Alcohol Testing – Through a blood alcohol test, a person’s blood alcohol content can be directly determined. Blood testing is the most accurate way to determine a person’s blood alcohol concentration. During a blood alcohol test, blood is drawn from a person’s arm, and then it is analyzed. If the blood test reveals the person’s blood alcohol concentration to be 0.08% or greater, that person is considered intoxicated.
Videotape Evidence

Some but not all police departments use cameras to videotape suspects at various stages of the OUI investigation process. Patrol cars can come equipped with a dashboard mounted camera which could provide real time evidence as to the stopping of the OUI suspects vehicle, the field sobriety tests being performed and the demeanor, coordination and speech of the OUI suspect. Equally important it can provide evidence as to the demeanor and activity of the Cape Cod police officer at the time of the investigation. The police station booking room is another place that videotape evidence can be obtained from. A drunk driving suspect on video at the station who is not swaying, stumbling or being belligerent can go a long way for a not guilty at an OUI trial when the officer wrote in his police report that only 10 minutes earlier the OUI suspect was exhibiting all of those signs on the side of the road.

The prosecutor has a duty to preserve videotape evidence if it contains exculpatory evidence. Failing to do so could be grounds for suppression of evidence or even a dismissal of an OUI case in certain circumstances.

Police Reports

After a Cape Cod police officer arrests a suspect and charges them with a crime, the officer will write a police report which is a narrative of the events that took place. In a drunk driving arrest, the Cape Cod officer will typically write what he observed that led him to the conclusion the suspect was operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. This generally will include the vehicle in motion, the interaction with the suspect after the initial traffic stop, the field sobriety tests and any other observations of the suspect’s appearance and/or demeanor.

The police report itself is generally not admissible at a drunk driving trial but a skilled Cape Cod Drunk Driving lawyer will use the police report to impeach (contradict) the officer on various issues at trial.

Hospital Records

Hospital records come into play at an OUI trial generally where there is a car accident and the suspect was transported to the hospital. These records may be beneficial to the prosecutor, to the defense, or to both sides depending on what is contained. Treating physicians, nurses and staff may documents observations that could be helpful to the defense. For instance, a trained nurse making no reference to alcohol or intoxication for the patient is extremely helpful when the police officer is saying the suspect smelled of alcohol and was highly intoxicated at the scene of the accident. Also important are the results of any chemical tests that were performed for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs. Blood tests taken for treatment of the patient may show the persons blood alcohol level and go be used against him if over the limit or for him if below the limit. Blood tests present extremely complex issues in an OUI case and a skilled Cape Cod defense lawyer would help a defendant who is accused of drunk driving and is dealing with evidence of BAC by a blood draw.

  • Top Five Myths about a Cape Cod OUI charge


Myth #5: The Cape Cod cop said I failed the HGN Test so I will not win at trial.
Reality: One of the three Field Sobriety Tests, which have been “Standardized” by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the HGN test. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) checks for the involuntary jerking of your pupil. I have rarely found an arresting officer who truly knows the science and specifics behind HGN. In fact, under Massachusetts’s law, a proper foundation must be laid prior to the HGN being admissible at trial, which seldom ever happens. While the officer may have given you the HGN test on the side of the road, it will generally not be admissible at your trial and therefore not used against you.

Myth #4: I told the Cape Cod cop how much I drank so there is no way of winning my DUI case.
Reality: How much a person “drank” is, by itself, inadequate information. In order for the prosecution to prove you were impaired by alcohol at the time of driving, they would not only need to know how much you drank, but also when you started drinking, when you stopped drinking, what you drank and what you ate. Generally, the Cape Cod police officer investigating the OUI will only ask “how much have you had to drink tonight” and will not properly investigate or ask the important follow up questions listed above.

Myth #3: I failed the Breathalyzer test and Field Sobriety Tests so I can’t beat my case.
Reality: Attorney Powderly has achieved acquittals on cases with readings double to triple the limit. There are many factors, which could cause inflated or incorrect breath test readings to occur. Acid Reflux, mouth alcohol, diabetes, improper machine maintenance and calibration and improper police procedure have all been causes of suppressed or unsubstantiated Breathalyzer readings. The One leg stand test, the walk and turn test and the HGN test are the three field sobriety tests that have been standardized by NHTSA. The HGN is generally inadmissible at trial and the remaining two tests are seldom ever given correctly by the Cape Cod police officer. These are balancing tests that are very unfair and difficult to perform regardless of alcohol consumption. Attorney Powderly has been trained and certified in Standardizes Field Sobriety Testing. He knows exactly how the tests are to be given, how they are to be scored and how to cross-examine the police officer in his reliance on them.

Myth #2: Drunk Driving cases are impossible to win.
Reality: Attorney Powderly averages approximately one Dismissal or Not Guilty per week on DWI cases.

Myth #1: Hiring a good Cape Cod OUI/DUI/DWI attorney is too expensive.
Reality: If you think hiring a good drunk driving lawyer is too expensive, wait to you see the cost of hiring a cheap one. A conviction for a Cape Cod OUI, even first offense, can cost you nearly $10,000 in fines, fees, insurance hikes and additional costs. Not to mention the loss of current and future employment as a result of a drunk driving conviction.