Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Federal OUI In Massachusetts Lawyers Arrest Probable Cause

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court. 

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a)  Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:
    (1)  Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
    (2)  The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.
Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.  We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Kings v. United States

Facts:

Defendant's OUI arrest occurred after an officer saw him wandering drunkenly. Defendant then got into his van and fell asleep at the wheel with a beer can and the key in the ignition. A search of the van incident to arrest produced drugs. Based on the Fourth Amendment, the court upheld the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. There was a reasonable suspicion to think that the crime of OUI had been committed, which resulted in the search. Defendant's theory that reasonable suspicion of OUI could not exist because he was found asleep behind the wheel with the engine not running was rejected. The court also rejected defendant's argument that hearsay was erroneously admitted in violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment based on Crawford. Crawford stated that a declarant's testimonial out-of-court statement was inadmissible unless one of three exceptions were met. Defendant challenged the admission of testimony indicating that a non-testifying informant stated that defendant was a drug dealer. Although the statement was testimonial, because defendant did not object and because the jury received a limiting instruction, there was no plain error.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help.  You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

  • Reasonable suspicion, a less demanding standard than probable cause, denotes at least a minimal level of objective justification for a stop. In evaluating whether reasonable suspicion is present, a court looks at the totality of the circumstances to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. A declarant's testimonial out-of-court statement is not admissible under the Confrontation Clause unless (1) the declarant testifies, or (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination and the declarant is unavailable, (3) the evidence is admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.
Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.  We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

0 comments:

Powered by Blogger.

Popular Posts

Social Icons

Click here to call us toll free

Email Us:

First Name:
Last Name:
Email @:
Phone #: --
Message:

Our Phone #

Massachusetts

Cambridge 888-437-7747
Worcester 888-437-7747

About Mr. Gilmore

Mr. Gilmore earned his law degree at Boston University School of Law, one of the top law schools in the country. He obtained his undergraduate degree at Assumption College with a double major in Political Science and Philosophy. Prior to attending law school, he was a Bodily Injury Claims Adjuster with a large national insurer. Mr. Gilmore’s previous legal experience includes the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office and the Committee for Public Counsel Services-Trial Division. More about Gilmore