COVID-19 Update: How We Are Serving and Protecting Our Clients

Recent Supreme Court Rulings Weaken “Implied Consent” Justification for Blood-Alcohol Tests

Jurisdictions across the country, including in Massachusetts, have relied on legal loopholes referred to as implied consent laws to allow law enforcement officers to obtain a blood-alcohol test from a suspect without a warrant. Implied consent laws generally function as a part of the motor vehicle licensing code and have been used to allow officers to assume that a licensed motorist has consented to a blood alcohol test simply being licensed to drive in the state. The Court of Appeals of Massachusetts recently heard a challenge to this law. The court considered new rulings by the United States Supreme Court and reversed a defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI).

The defendant in the recently decided case was charged with an OUI offense after officers responded to the scene of an accident where the defendant had crashed his vehicle into a utility pole. The defendant was injured in the accident, and police were initially unable to obtain his consent for a blood draw as he was not fully conscious and coherent at the scene of the accident. After the defendant’s demeanor had changed and he was able to comprehend the officer’s questions at the hospital, he was provided a form explaining the implied consent laws in Massachusetts, and he was instructed to sign the form, after which blood was taken from him. The blood sample indicated that the defendant had been operating a motor vehicle at or above the legal limit, and he was charged with OUI.

Before trial, the defendant asked the court to suppress the blood test evidence, as it was obtained without a warrant and without the direct consent of the defendant. The trial judge denied the motion, finding that the defendant signed the implied consent waiver that was handed to him and did not directly object to the blood draw. The defendant appealed the ruling to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, arguing that recent Supreme Court rulings heightened the standard for consent to a blood alcohol test. The high court agreed with the defendant, finding that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) clearly states that implied consent laws do not give constitutionally adequate consent for all the searches they appear to authorize. The Court found that the defendant did not give constitutionally adequate consent for the blood draw. As a result of this ruling, the defendant’s consent was deemed invalid, and the blood test evidence should not have been admitted at trial. Because of this, the high court reversed the defendant’s conviction for OUI.

Have You Been Charged with Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated (or OWI) in Massachusetts, law enforcement may have overstepped their bounds in obtaining a blood-alcohol test to use as evidence against you. Considering the recent changes to the applicability of the implied consent laws used by law enforcement in Massachusetts, there may be a way for you to avoid a conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Murphy understands the evolution of constitutional law as it applies to Boston OWI offenses, and with our skilled representation, you can have a better chance of beating the charges against you. Our attorneys represent clients charged with all types of Massachusetts crimes, including OWI offenses. Contact our office at 617-367-0450 to schedule a free and confidential consultation with a Boston criminal defense attorney.

Contact Information