Articles Posted in OUI/DUI/DWI

The Massachusetts State Police crime laboratory changed how it analyzes blood in operating-under-the-influence cases as of February 19, 2026. Every blood sample drawn in an OUI investigation across Suffolk County and the Commonwealth now goes through both alcohol and drug testing, even when the alcohol result alone would explain the arrest. For anyone facing an OUI charge in Boston, that shift quietly widens the field of evidence the Commonwealth can use.

A positive drug result does not prove impairment on its own. Under M.G.L. c. 90 § 24, the Commonwealth still has to prove that a driver was actually impaired at the time of operation, and a substance showing up in the blood is not the same as proof that it affected the driving. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy has defended OUI cases in the Boston Municipal Court and across Suffolk County for more than 27 years, and this change makes early review of the full toxicology file more useful to the defense than before.

What the New Blood Testing Rule Changes for a Boston OUI Case

The laboratory used to run drug testing on OUI blood only when the alcohol concentration came back under 0.08, or when something in the case file suggested drugs were involved. That screening filter is gone. The toxicology unit now tests for both alcohol and drugs on every blood submission, and it issues the results in two stages. The alcohol report comes first, and a separate drug report follows once that analysis finishes.

Continue reading

A Massachusetts sobriety checkpoint now routinely produces a complete audio and video record of a driver’s roadside encounter, captured on troopers’ body-worn cameras. The Supreme Judicial Court addressed that kind of recording for the first time in a decision issued June 2, 2026, holding that footage from a State Police checkpoint can be used as evidence in an operating under the influence prosecution. For a driver facing an OUI charge in Boston or elsewhere in Suffolk County, the ruling shapes both what the Commonwealth can show a jury and where the defense can still push back.

The recordings are admissible because the troopers did not secretly record the driver. The Court reasoned that a large, reflective sign warning of recording at the checkpoint, combined with body-worn cameras worn openly at chest level with visible red lights, meant there was no willful interception under the Massachusetts wiretap statute. That holding does not hand the prosecution an automatic conviction. Video of field sobriety testing often helps the defense as much as the Commonwealth, and Attorney Patrick J. Murphy has spent more than three decades defending OUI cases in Boston and across Suffolk County by holding the Commonwealth to every element it must prove.

What a Sobriety Checkpoint Stop Actually Looks Like in Massachusetts

If you face an OUI charge in Suffolk County, a Boston OUI lawyer will usually start with one practical point. A strong legal issue does not always end a case early, yet it can still change the outcome when you build the record the right way. A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision issued on February 3, 2026, reinforces that reality. When a District Court judge denies a motion to dismiss based on a police jurisdiction argument, the higher court generally expects the case to follow the normal trial-track process rather than getting fast-tracked through extraordinary relief.

The Recent Massachusetts Decision That Set the Ground Rules

The February 3, 2026, decision involved OUI and related District Court charges, in which the accused argued that the arresting officer acted outside the territorial jurisdiction. Instead of pursuing the usual litigation path, the accused sought relief under the SJC’s superintendence power, seeking intervention before trial. The single justice denied the request, and the full court affirmed, stressing that extraordinary relief is reserved for situations in which no adequate alternative remedy exists. In this setting, the usual remedy is to litigate the jurisdiction issue in the trial court, preserve it, and address it through ordinary review if the case proceeds.

If you are facing charges tied to operating a vehicle with a revoked license due to a past OUI or motor vehicle homicide, your case may fall under Massachusetts laws that carry steep penalties. A recent opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth v. Foley, decided on July 15, 2025, explains how prior convictions influence new charges and sentencing enhancements. The ruling confirms how the state applies repeat-offender laws in cases involving serious driving offenses and outlines what prosecutors must prove to support those charges.

If your current charge stems from a prior OUI or similar offense, this case may help you better understand what the government needs to show and how an experienced lawyer can challenge parts of the case.

How the Court Interpreted Repeat Offender Statutes in This Case

If you are charged with a third-offense OUI in Massachusetts, you may believe that refusing a breath test protects you from chemical evidence at trial. However, a recent case confirmed that prosecutors can still introduce blood alcohol content (BAC) calculations based on hospital records. Even without your permission, hospital blood work collected during medical care may lead to a conviction.

In this case, police stopped a driver who showed signs of intoxication. He refused a breath test at the station and was later taken to a hospital for treatment. Medical professionals drew his blood for clinical reasons, not for law enforcement. Police later obtained a warrant for the samples and sent them to a crime lab. A judge suppressed those results, but prosecutors still moved forward using records from the hospital and a scientific conversion to estimate his BAC. The state’s highest court ruled that this converted evidence could be used.

Prosecutors’ Use of  Medical Data After Test Refusals

Over the past several years, there has been extensive litigation in Massachusetts regarding a specific kind of breathalyzer machine called the Alcotest 9510 device. Challenges to this machine have revealed malfunctions and inconsistencies in the breath test results that the Commonwealth has consistently used in criminal proceedings.

Because of the Alcotest litigation, we now know that many defendants may have been unfairly convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) or operating under the influence (OUI). Breath test results from the Alcotest 9510 produced between June 2011 and April 17, 2019 are now banned from being entered into evidence in criminal cases. How does this reality affect criminal defendants who pled guilty to such a crime during the relevant time period?

Withdrawing Pleas in General

Under Massachusetts law, it is possible to withdraw a guilty plea under certain circumstances. Rules of criminal procedure say specifically that a defendant may successfully petition to withdraw a guilty plea if it appears that “justice may not have been done” at the trial stage. Courts can interpret this language however they see fit.

Continue reading

Driving under the influence (OUI) cases are complex legal matters that require a thorough understanding of state laws and procedures. In Massachusetts, OUI laws are stringent, and recent judicial opinions shed light on critical aspects of these cases, particularly concerning authorities who perform blood alcohol testing without the consent of the defendant.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on an OUI case where the defendant challenged the admissibility of blood test results used in his prosecution. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was involved in an accident that resulted in the death of one victim, and the defendant was suspected of OUI by the officer. After the accident, the defendant’s blood was drawn at the hospital as part of routine treatment. The following day, law enforcement obtained a search warrant to collect the defendant’s blood samples for a blood alcohol content (BAC) test, which revealed a significant level of alcohol in the defendant’s system.

The defendant, facing charges including operating under the influence (OUI) causing serious bodily injury and manslaughter, sought to suppress the BAC results, arguing that the test was conducted without consent. However, the court upheld the admissibility of the BAC results, citing Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 24(1)(e).

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects criminal defendants from being compelled to testify against themselves when being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. The Massachusetts state constitution and code contain similar provisions that are designed to protect residents who are suspected of crimes from being coerced into making incriminating statements. To ensure the federal constitutional right is functionally protected, courts have ruled that a criminal suspect, as part of a “Miranda warning,” must be notified of their right against self-incrimination before being arrested for a crime.

Failure by law enforcement to properly give and comply with the Miranda rights of a suspect may result in the exclusion of any evidence gained from the improper questioning. A Massachusetts man convicted of an OUI offense recently challenged the court’s admission of evidence that was obtained before he was given a proper Miranda warning, which was then used to obtain a conviction against him.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant was pulled over while driving because his registration tags were expired. After the stop, the responding officer suspected that the defendant was intoxicated and spoke with the man, observing the defendant’s speech was slurred. This observation was made before the man was arrested or given his Miranda rights. The evidence of the defendant’s slurred speech was admitted at trial, and the defendant was convicted of OUI by the finder of fact.

Facing criminal charges in Massachusetts can be a daunting experience, especially when errors occur during the legal process. In a recent Massachusetts case, a defendant charged with OUI fifth offense and other offenses raised concerns about the denial of attorney-led voir dire. The Recent appellate ruling demonstrates that judges can make mistakes during a trial, but the result may stand if the error is deemed harmless.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the case involved the defendant being witnessed driving erratically near the Sagamore Bridge. After he was stopped, the defendant faced multiple charges, including OUI fifth offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident, and more. As part of their case in chief, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant’s erratic behavior, including tailgating, throwing objects from the vehicle, and ultimately crashing into a tree.

The defendant’s defense team sought attorney-led voir dire under Massachusetts District Court Standing Order 1-18(2018). The motion was denied without explanation, leading to a contention that the denial violated the standing order. On appeal, the higher court agreed with the defendant that he should have been permitted to perform the voir dire. While the judge’s error is acknowledged, the critical question arises: does this error warrant relief?

For many individuals facing DUI charges in Massachusetts, the absence of breathalyzer evidence might seem like a silver lining. However, a recent judicial opinion sheds light on how prosecutors can still secure DUI convictions without relying on this traditional piece of evidence. At the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy, we understand the intricacies of DUI cases and aim to equip potential clients with knowledge about the evolving landscape of DUI trials.

Understanding the Judicial Opinion

In a recent case, the absence of breathalyzer evidence took center stage, with the judge delivering a specific instruction to the jury to disregard any considerations related to the breathalyzer. Despite the defendant’s objection, the judge emphasized the appropriateness of the instruction, creating a unique scenario where the trial continued without breathalyzer evidence playing a role. Although the defendant was not required to submit to a breathalyzer test, his counsel feared that the lack of breathalyzer evidence could make the jury think that the defeadnt refused the test, which could suggest he was impaired at the time.

Admission of the Booking Video

The defendant also contested the admission of a booking video, arguing that it was prejudicial. The court, however, maintained that the video was relevant to establishing the defendant’s impairment. In DUI cases, driving performance, appearance, demeanor, and field sobriety test execution are crucial aspects. The booking video, taken shortly after roadside tests, became a focal point, providing insights into the defendant’s walking ability and potential limitations due to injury.

Continue reading