Newburyport District Court – Commonwealth v. F.B. (Amesbury PD)
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: An Amesbury police officer observed the client turn into the parking lot of a closed car dealership at approximately 2:00 a.m. The officer observed the client travel to the end of a row of parked cars, position his vehicle next to them and then shut his vehicle’s lights off. Suspicious of these actions, the officer began to investigate. When the officer spoke with the client, he observed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and that there was a strong odor of alcohol emanating from his person. When asked where he was going, the client provided answers that did not make sense to the officer. The client admitted that he was coming from a bar and that he had consumed four or five drinks. When the officer concluded his investigation, he formed the opinion that the client was drunk and placed him under arrest. Having two prior offenses for drunk driving, the client was charged with OUI-Third Offense. At a jury-waived trial, Attorney Higgins, through the cross examination of the officer, highlighted for the judge that there was nothing about the client’s operation of his vehicle that would suggest that his ability to operate was impaired. The judge agreed with Attorney Higgins and found the client Not Guilty. Following the trial, the judge allowed Attorney Higgins’ motion to return the client’s license, getting him out from under a five-year suspension.
Brockton District Court – Commonwealth v. B.B. (Massachusetts State Police)
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper observed the client driving without headlights or taillights at 9:15 p.m. in the City of Brockton. The Trooper activated both his siren and emergency lights in an attempt to stop the client. The client continued to drive for nearly half a mile according to the Trooper before pulling into a driveway on Newbury Street. The trooper testified that he observed the client stagger as he exited the vehicle. The trooper observed the client to have extremely slurred speech, bloodshot/glassy eyes and that he smelled strongly of alcohol. The client admitted that he was coming from a friend’s house after leaving a bar. The trooper also testified that the client nearly fell while performing the Nine Step Walk and Turn. At one point, the Trooper instructed the client to sit against the push bar of his cruiser. When the client attempted to sit against it, the trooper said that the client nearly fell. After forming the opinion that the client was intoxicated, the trooper charged him with Operating Under the Influence of Liquor – Third Offense (minimum sentence of 180 days with 150 to be served in jail), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Operating on a Suspended License for OUI while OUI (a conviction calls for a minimum jail sentence of 1-year on top of any sentence imposed on the OUI) and Operating a Motor Vehicle without an Ignition Interlock Device (6 month minimum jail sentence). Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins was able to have the OAS for OUI while OUI, Negligent Operation and IID charge dismissed, leaving only the OUI-3rd Offense. At a jury trial and through the cross examination of the trooper, Attorney Higgins was able to convince the jury that the client was Not Guilty. Upon the jury’s verdict, Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Return the client’s license, which was allowed by the judge.
Lynn District Court – Commonwealth v. S.G. (Massachusetts State Police)
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper observed the client traveling at 80 mph in a 50 mph zone while weaving between three lanes of traffic. After effectuating a motor vehicle stop of the client, the Trooper observed that the client had bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and smelt strongly of an alcoholic beverage. The client admitted to drinking at dinner prior to driving. The client was given two field sobriety tests, which the Trooper deemed him to have failed. The client was placed under arrest and transported to the Danvers State Police barracks. When offered a Breath Test, the client refused, incurring a 3 years license suspension. At a jury-waived trial, through the cross examination and the use of Body Worn Camera footage, Attorney Higgins established for the judge that the client was Not Guilty of OUI. Following the trial, the judge allowed a Motion to Return the client’s driver’s license.
Brockton District Court - Commonwealth v. P.A. (Bridgewater PD)
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Bridgewater police officer was traveling on Pleasant Street when he observed a gray Buick crossing both the double yellow center lines and the fog line. The officer observed at least four of these marked lanes violations. As the Buick continued, it came to a stop sign, but failed to stop. The officer then activated his cruiser’s emergency blue lights and conducted a motor vehicle stop. The officer approached the driver, later identified at the client, P.A. The officer asked the client where he was going and where he was coming from. When the client responded, the officer observed that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage, the client’s speech was slurred, and his eyes appeared glassy. The client admitted consuming two and a half beers. Suspecting that the client was under the influence of alcohol, the officer ordered the client to exit his vehicle. When the client attempted to get out of his car, he fell into the driver’s door. The officer then escorted the client to a safe location, where he administered a battery of field sobriety tests to include the Alphabet Tests, the Counting Backwards Test, the Finger-to-Nose Test, and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer testified that following the client’s performance, he formed the opinion that the client was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. Although not admitted into evidence at trial, the client registered a .15 BAC on the Breath Test back at the station. Through the cross examination of the arresting officer, Attorney Higgins was able to highlight for the jury the many things the client did correctly, demonstrating that his ability to drive was not impaired. After a 30 minute deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The verdict spared the client a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days.
Quincy District Court - Commonwealth v. J.H. (Massachusetts State Police)
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper was traveling in the right lane of Route 3 South in the Town of Weymouth when his attention was drawn to a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed in the left lane. The trooper clocked the vehicle at 85 mile per hour. The trooper then observed the vehicle travel into the middle lane without signaling, and into the right lane, again without signaling. The trooper activated his blue lights and initiated a stop. The operator of the vehicle was identified as the client. When the trooper spoke with the client, he observed that the clients eyes were pinpoint, bloodshot and glassy. The trooper also detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s person. The client admitted to smoking marijuana before driving. Shortly after the trooper ordered the client out of the vehicle, he formed the opinion that the client was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. At a jury-waived trial, through the cross examination of the trooper, Attorney Higgins was able to demonstrate to the judge that the evidence did not rise to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the applicable standard at trial, resulting in a NOT GUILTY verdict. The client being charged with a 3rd Offense was spared a minimum mandatory jail sentence.
Peabody District Court - Commonwealth v. K.G.
Description: OUI FOURTH OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper was working a construction detail on Route 1 North in the City of Peabody when a passing motorist drew his attention to a vehicle that was operating erratically. The trooper pursued the vehicle and observed it to be straddling the marked lanes. The trooper activated his blue lights and initiated a stop of the vehicle. The trooper approached the vehicle, identified the client as the operator. The trooper detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from within the vehicle. Suspecting that the client might be under the influence of alcohol, he instructed her to pull into the parking lot of a Bertucci’s restaurant that was right there. The client did as she was told and the trooper called for backup. A second trooper arrived on scene for the purpose of taking over the investigation. This trooper observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and that her speech was slurred. When asked, the client admitted to having two martinis. Upon learning this, the trooper ordered the client out of her vehicle for the purpose of administering field sobriety tests. The client was subsequently administered the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, the Alphabet Test, and the Counting Backwards Test. At the conclusion of the tests, the trooper formed the opinion that the client was intoxicated and placed her under arrest. Upon being arrested, the client pleaded with the trooper to let her go and became uncooperative. At a jury trial, Attorney Higgins cross examined both State Troopers, addressing deficiencies in the investigation, as well as appropriate actions taken on the part of the client. After a 45 minute deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The client, facing a Fourth Offense, was spared a 1-year minimum mandatory jail sentence.
Brockton District Court (Bridgewater Police) - Commonwealth v. R.H.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – A Bridgewater Police officer was conducting routine patrol in the area of Central Square when he observed the client’s vehicle enter a rotary traveling in the wrong direction. The officer activated his blue lights and the client corrected his direction of travel and pulled over. The officer testified that the client had bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage. When the officer asked the client where he was coming from, the client responded by saying “the Brockton/Bridgewater line”, despite the two municipalities not sharing a common boundary. The officer then asked the client to exit his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. The client was asked to recite the Alphabet, which he was able to do, but according to the officer, with slurred speech. The client was then asked to count backwards from 99-76. The client mixed up several of the numbers and stated “I’m bad at math.” The officer then asked the client to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the officer testified that the client used his arms for balance and did not touch heel to toe. On the One Leg Stand, the officer testified that the client could not keep his foot off the ground for more than three seconds. At the conclusion of field sobriety testing, the officer testified that he formed the opinion that the client was “drunk.” Through the cross-examination of the officer and by highlighting many of the things the client did correctly, Attorney Higgins was able to convince the jury that the client was Not Guilty of OUI.
Plymouth District Court (Halifax Police) - Commonwealth v. S.S.
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – Halifax Police officers were dispatched to the area of Thompson Street for a report of an erratic operator. As one of the officers turned onto Thompson Street, he observed the client’s vehicle approaching him from the opposite direction. As the client’s vehicle neared, the officer observed the client’s passenger-side tires cross the fog line. The officer conducted a U-turn and activated his blue lights in an attempt to stop the client. The client made a righthand turn onto Route 106. As the officer was behind her, the client made a left turn onto a local residential street and came to a stop. When the officer approached the client’s driver’s side, he noticed that the window was up. The officer knocked on the window and the client rolled it down. The officer was met with a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s breath and observed that her eyes were glossy and bloodshot. When the officer asked the client where she was going, the client responded by stating that she was heading to Middleboro. The officer informed the client that she was traveling in the opposite direction of Middleboro. The officer asked the client for her license, but the client was unable to produce it. Believing that the client was drunk, the officer asked her to get out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. When the client exited, the officer noted that she appeared unsteady on her feet. The client repeatedly stated that she did not know what was going on. The officer administered the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand and the Finger-to-Nose test. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the client stepped on her own foot on steps two and three. The officer stopped the test. On the One Leg Stand, the client placed her foot down on three occasions and was unable to hold her foot up off the ground for more than a few seconds at a time. On the Finger-to-Nose Test, the client touched the middle of her nose, as opposed to the tip of her nose, as she had been instructed. Following her performance on the field sobriety tests, the client was placed under arrest. At the station, the client refused to submit to the Breath Test, resulting in a 5-year license loss. During the pendency of the case, Attorney Higgins filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements alleged to have made by the client. That motion was allowed, resulting in the exclusion of many damaging statements from evidence at trial. During the trial, through the cross examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, Attorney Higgins was able to demonstrate to the jury that there were many things that the client did correctly, and despite both officers forming the opinion that the client was “drunk”, the evidence supported the conclusion that she was not. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, sparing the client a minimum mandatory jail sentence. Following the trial, Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Return License. The judge allowed that motion, ordering the Massachusetts RMV to reinstate the client’s license.
Concord District Court (Maynard Police) - Commonwealth v. J.I.
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – A Maynard Police Officer observed the client’s vehicle approaching him from behind at approximately 8:30 p.m. in September of 2018. As the client’s vehicle neared, the officer pulled his cruiser into a nearby parking lot. When the client’s vehicle passed the officer’s location, the officer detected an overwhelming odor of burnt marijuana. The officer activated his cruiser’s blue lights and began pursuing the client’s vehicle. The client did not stop immediately, rather he continued for approximately 3/4 of a mile. While the officer was behind the client, he observed the client’s vehicle leave the roadway and travel onto the curb. When the client eventually stopped, the officer approached and observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, he had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person, and his speech was slurred. The officer also detected the odor of marijuana. When the officer asked the client to get out of his vehicle, he observed that the client was unsteady on his feet. The client was then asked to perform the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer observed the client to have great difficulty with these exercises and placed him under arrest. Attorney Higgins filed a pre-trial Motion to Suppress the stop of the client’s vehicle, arguing that the odor of marijuana was insufficient to provide the officer with “reasonable suspicion” to justify the stop. At a hearing on the motion, the judge agreed. Following the allowance of the motion, the case was dismissed.
Taunton District Court (Taunton Police) - Commonwealth v. L.C.
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – Taunton Police officers were dispatched to a report of a motor vehicle accident involving a pickup truck into a telephone pole. When the first officer arrived and interacted with the operator, later identified as the client, she placed him in the back of her cruiser until another officer arrived. When that officer arrived on scene, he began questioning the client regarding his whereabouts and alcohol consumption. At a pre-trial motion to suppress challenging the admissibility of the client’s answers, Attorney Higgins was successfully able to have those statements excluded from evidence. At the actual trial, during the cross examination of the two police officers, as well as a civilian witness, Attorney Higgins highlighted drastic inconsistencies in the testimony and offered plausible explanations for the client’s poor performance on Field Sobriety Tests. One officer testified that she could not detect any odor of alcohol coming from the client and that his speech was not slurred, while the other officer testified that he did detect an odor of alcohol and that the client’s speech was slurred. Attorney Higgins offered evidence that the client suffered from a medical condition that seriously impacted his balance and coordination, effectively discrediting the observations made by the officer during Field Sobriety Testing. In the end, having found reasonable doubt, the judge returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Hingham District Court (Hingham Police) - Commonwealth v. M.W.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – A Hingham Police Officer heard the screeching of the client’s vehicle’s tires as he went around a rotary at a high rate of speed. The officer began to follow the client and observed that the rear license plate bulb was not working. The officer activated his blue lights and conducted a motor vehicle stop. When the officer approached the client, he testified that the client had slurred speech, smelt like alcohol, and had bloodshot and glassy eyes. When the client exited his vehicle, a few items that had been resting on his lap fell to the ground. The officer testified that the client was unsteady on his feet. The client, who suffered from anxiety and ADHD, was asked to perform the One Leg Stand, the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the Alphabet Test. The entire investigation was captured on a cruiser camera. At trial, through the cross examination of the officer, the video footage, as well as the client’s medical records, Attorney Higgins was able to provide the judge with “reasonable doubt”, resulting in a Not Guilty verdict.
Dudley District Court (Sturbridge Police) - Commonwealth v. K.B.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – A Sergeant on the Sturbridge Police Department was traveling eastbound on Route 131 when he observed a vehicle approaching him from the other direction. The Sergeant attention was drawn to the vehicle because it appeared as though it was speeding. After the vehicle passed the Sergeant’s cruiser, he reversed direction and caught up to the vehicle, which was now sitting at a red light. The Sergeant activated his blue lights and approached the operator, later identified as the client. The entire stop and interaction was captured on a cruiser camera. When the Sergeant spoke with the client, he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her person and observed that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The Sergeant asked the client if she had been drinking. Initially, the client stated that she had not been drinking, but then said that she had consumed two Heineken beers. The Sergeant asked the client to exit her vehicle and perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client was administer the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand. The Sergeant determined that the client had failed all of the tests and placed her under arrest. At a jury-waived trial in the East Brookfield District Court, through the cross examination of the Sergeant, and the use of the dash cam video, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Quincy District Court (MSP) - Commonwealth v. E.O.
Description: The client was involved in a motor vehicle accident and the Massachusetts State Police responded. After speaking with the client, the Troopers formed the opinion that he was under the influence of alcohol. The client was evaluated by EMS personnel and transported to the hospital. The State Police neglected to issue the client a citation in a timely manner. Instead, several days went by and the client was mailed a citation. Applying the pertinent case law and statute, Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Dismiss. That motion was allowed.
Taunton District Court (Easton Police) - Commonwealth v. E.I.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – An officer from the Easton Police Department observed the client take a “wide radius” turn onto Bay Road. The officer testified that she observed the vehicle cross over the middle yellow line and into the opposite lane of travel. The vehicle continued to travel down Bay Road straddling the two lanes. After making these observations, the officer activated her cruiser’s blue lights and effectuated a stop. When the officer approached the client, she detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, observed that his eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, and that his speech was slightly slurred. Based on these observations, the officer asked the client to perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client was given the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (not introduced at trial), the One Leg Stand, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and a Portable Breath Test (.136 BAC which was not introduced at trial). The officer concluded that the client had failed all of the tests and placed him under arrest. At a jury-waived trial, Attorney Higgins was able to highlight the things the client did well during the course of the investigation, creating “reasonable doubt” in the mind of the judge. Accordingly, a Not Guilty verdict was returned.
Plymouth District Court (Plymouth PD) - Commonwealth v. J.O.
Description: A Plymouth Police Officer was dispatched for a report of a motor vehicle accident. When he arrived, the officer observed the client’s vehicle off of the roadway, having run over a mailbox and colliding with an unoccupied vehicle. While assessing the damage to the client’s vehicle, the officer observed 8 empty nip bottles on the floor of the backseat. When the officer spoke with the client, he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person. The officer asked the client to perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client was then administered a battery of tests, which concluded in his arrest. When the client was brought back to the police station, he was booked in the usual manner. During the booking process, however, the client made a series of incriminating statements regarding his alcohol consumption. At a pre-trial motion to suppress, Attorney Higgins was successfully able to have to statements excluded from evidence. At a subsequent jury-waived trial, through the cross examination of the officer, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict for the client.
Orleans District Court (Dennis Police) - Commonwealth v. A.S.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – A Dennis Police Officer observed a Dodge pickup truck traveling at a high rate of speed on Route 134. When the truck reached the intersection of Route 134 and Upper County Road, the officer observed it cut in front of two vehicles and make a left turn onto Upper County Road, nearly causing an accident. Upon seeing this infraction, the officer activated his emergency blue lights and siren. The officer lost sight of the truck for a period of time, but located it again on Great Western Road. The truck at that time was traveling 65 mph in a 40 mph zone. When the officer caught up to the truck, it pulled over to the side of the road. The officer approached the operator, later identified as the client, and asked him to produce his license, which he did. The officer observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. The officer also noticed that he was slurring his words. The client denied consuming alcohol, but the officer observed several empty beer cans in the bed of the truck. There was spilt liquid near the cans, suggesting that they had recently been consumed. The client was then asked to perform a series of field sobriety tests, including the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (not introduced at trial), the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and the Alphabet Test. At the conclusion of Field Sobriety Testing, the client was arrested. At a jury-waived trial, during the cross-examination of the arresting officer, Attorney Higgins was able to show that the client actually did pretty well on the Field Sobriety Tests. He was also able to offer explanations as to why the client was driving the way that he was. The result was a Not Guilty verdict. Following the trial, Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Return License. The client’s license, having been suspended as a result of refusing the Breath Test at the police station, was restored.
Salem District Court (MSP Newbury) - Commonwealth v. J.S.
Description: On June 18, 2017, at approximately 8:25 a.m., a Massachusetts State Trooper was conducting speed enforcement when he observed the client traveling 82 mph on Route 95 in the Town of Georgetown. As the trooper pursued the client, he observed the client’s vehicle reach 100 mph before slamming on the brakes and coming to a stop in the breakdown lane. When the trooper spoke with the client, he observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and that there was a slight odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the vehicle. When the client was asked if he knew how fast he was going, he stated that he did not know. The client admitted that he had consumed 12 beers the night before and “slept it off.” The client was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. The trooper administer the Alphabet Test, the Counting Backwards Test, the HGN, the One Leg Stand, and the Walk and Turn. The trooper determined that the client failed all tests and placed him under arrest. At the State Police Barracks in Newbury, the client registered a .14 of the Breath Test (not introduced at trial).
Wareham District Court (Middleborough PD) - Commonwealth v. M.D.
Description: The client was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Purchase Street in the Town of Middleborough. When the police arrived on scene, they observed that the client’s vehicle had crashed into a tree. Both the client and her passenger were laying in the roadway next to the vehicle. The client was crying, breathing heaving, and having difficulty speaking. When EMS arrived, the client was heard saying that she had been drinking tequila just prior to the accident. At trial, through the cross examination of the police officer and two civilian witnesses, and the use of the client’s medical records, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Plymouth District Court (Plymouth PD) - Commonwealth v. F.F.
Description: On September 6, 2017, at approximately 9:30 p.m., officers from the Plymouth Police Department were dispatched to a single motor vehicle accident with property damage on Herring Pond Road in Plymouth. The caller described the vehicle involved as a white Chevy pickup truck. When the officers arrived, the truck had left the scene. A check of the registration revealed that our client was the owner of the truck. The police then went to the client’s registered address, spoke with his parents, and learned that the client was at his girlfriend’s house. The police then responded to the girlfriend’s house where they located the client. The client acknowledged that he had hit a fence and left the scene. When the police spoke with him, they observed that he smelt of alcohol, and his eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. The client admitted that he had consumed a couple of beers. The officers asked the client to perform the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. After the tests were performed, the officers placed the client under arrest and transported him to the Plymouth Police Department. At trial, Attorney Higgins was able to show that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the client was under the influence of alcohol at the time of operation. The evidence arguably could have shown that he was under the influence at the time the police interacted with him, but not when he was driving. The Judge returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Brockton District Court (East Bridgewater PD) - Commonwealth v. MA
Description: An East Bridgewater Police Officer was traveling north on Washington Street when he observed a black pickup truck traveling south at 56 mph. The speed limit in the area was 35 mph. When the officer approached the operator, later identified as the client, he noticed that the client’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The officer also noted that the client had a large bruise over his eye and appeared to have blood on his ear, neck and hands. The client indicated that he had been involved in a fight at a party in Lowell earlier in the evening. The client admitted to consuming 4 nips of alcohol. At that point, the officer asked the client to exit his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. The client complied and was given the Alphabet Test, the Counting Backwards Test, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and a Portable Breath Test. At the conclusion of the tests, the client was arrested and charged with OUI. Back at the station, the client consented to a Breath Test, which revealed a .08 BAC. At a jury-waived trial where the Breath Test was not introduced into evidence, Attorney Higgins, through the cross-examination of the arresting officer, was able to establish that the Commonwealth had fallen short of establishing their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not Guilty.
Worcester District Court (Mendon PD) - Commonwealth v. D.D.
Description: A Mendon police officer was monitoring traffic on Millville Street when he observed a vehicle traveling 54 mph in a 25 mph zone. The officer activated his lights and attempted to catch up to the vehicle. While following behind the vehicle, the officer observed it cross over the double yellow lines on two separate occasions and the fog line on one occasion. Once the vehicle stopped, the officer approached the operator, later identified as the client. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s breath and also observed that his eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. The officer illuminated the interior of the vehicle with his flashlight and observed an open 24-pack of Bud Light on the passenger floor, within reach of the client. The officer also noticed several empty cans on the back passenger floor. The client was then asked to exit his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Following his performance on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and a portable breath test, the client was arrested and charged with OUI. At the station, the client consented to a Breath Test, which revealed a .09 BAC. At a jury-waived trial, through the cross examination of the arresting officer, Attorney Higgins was able to show that the client actually performed the field sobriety tests pretty well and that the officer’s observations of his operation of the vehicle did not demonstrate that he was impaired by alcohol. Accordingly, the Judge returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Brockton District Court - Commonwealth v. P.S.
Description: CHILD ENDANGERMENT WHILE OUI & OUI THIRD OFFENSE – A Bridgewater Police officer was traveling south on Route 18 when he observed a red SUV cross over the fog line and into the shoulder of the roadway. The officer observed the vehicle do this multiple times. At the intersection of Route 18 and Winter Street, the vehicle turned into Winter Place. The officer activated his blue lights as the vehicle parked in a parking spot. When the officer approached the operator, later identified as the client, he observed a moderate odor of alcohol on the client’s breath. The officer also observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Seated in the rear of the vehicle was the client’s son and two nephews, all minors. The officer ran a check of the client’s license and determined that it was suspended. The client was asked to get out of his vehicle and was placed under arrest. At the station, the client consented to a Breath Test, which yielded a BAC of .09. At a pre-trial motion to suppress, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a favorable decision, resulting in the exclusion from evidence of many incriminating statements made by the client. Additionally, after reviewing the Breath Test documents, Attorney Higgins was able to have the breathalyzer result excluded. At a jury trial, Attorney Higgins was able to secure Not Guilty verdicts on both the OUI Child Endangerment charge and the OUI Third Offense charge.
Hingham District Court - Commonwealth v. C.F.
Description: A Sergeant on the Hingham Police Department was traveling south on Main Street when he observed a vehicle approaching him from the opposite direction. The vehicle appeared to cross over the white fog line and almost strike the curb. These observations were all captured on a dash-mounted cruiser camera. As the vehicle passed the Sergeant, it began to accelerate to a high rate of speed. The Sergeant then turned his cruiser around, activated his blue lights and initiated a stop of the vehicle. When the Sergeant approached the operator, later identified as the client, he observed that the client’s eyes were very red and glassy. He also detected a slight odor of alcoholic beverage coming from inside the vehicle. When the client was asked if he had been drinking, he told the Sergeant that he had been earlier. The Sergeant observed that the client’s speech was slurred. Based on his observations, the Sergeant requested that the client get out of the vehicle and perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client was administer the HGN, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and the Alphabet Test. All of these tests, again, were captured on the dash-mounted cruiser camera. At a jury trial, through the cross examination of the Sergeant and the use of the video footage, Attorney Higgins obtained a Not Guilty verdict from the jury.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. C.H.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE: A Falmouth Police Officer was traveling on Palmer Avenue in Falmouth when she noticed a vehicle approaching her at a very high rate of speed. It appeared as though the vehicle was crossing over the center line of the roadway and was going to hit her head-on. After making these observations, the officer activated her blue lights and attempted to stop the vehicle. The vehicle, however, made a turn onto West Falmouth Highway and began to accelerate to a very high rate of speed. The officer pursued the vehicle until it finally came to a stop on Blair Lane. When the officer approached the operator, later identified as the client, and engaged him in conversation, she noticed that his face was very red, his eyes were very glossy and bloodshot, he was slurring his speech and could barely put a full sentence together. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted that he had. The officer at that point had detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client as he spoke. After a brief exchange, the client was placed under arrest and transported to the Falmouth Police Station. The officer testified that when they arrived at the station, the client could barely stand and was almost “legless.” At a jury trial, through the cross examination of the arresting officer and argument before the jury, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict. After trial, the judge allowed a motion to reinstate the client’s driver’s license.
Malden District Court - Commonwealth v. J.C.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE: A Wakefield Police officer observed a vehicle traveling westbound on Water Street. As the vehicle passed his location, the officer observed that it had a defective taillight. When the vehicle turned onto Main Street, the officer activated his blue lights and initiated a motor vehicle stop. When the officer approached the operator, later identified as the client, he could detect an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the the client’s breath. The client admitted to drinking two glasses of wine with his dinner. The officer also observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot, glassy and wet. When the officer asked the client for his driver’s license, the client began to hand him a credit card. Based on his observations, the officer asked the client to perform a series of field sobriety tests. The client was administered the HGN, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. After the officer determined that the client had failed all of the tests, he placed the client under arrest. At the station, the client consented to a Breath Test, resulting in a .12 BAC. At a jury trial, the Breath Test evidence was not introduced, and through the cross examination of the arresting officer, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Fall River District Court - Commonwealth v. D.W.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – A Massachusetts State Trooper was on patrol in the City of Fall River when he observed a vehicle traveling East on Rodman Street. As the vehicle approached the intersection with Hartwell Street, the Trooper observed the vehicle turn left without signaling or yielding the right of way to him. The Trooper then observed the vehicle travel through a stop sign, prompting him to initiate a motor vehicle stop. When the Trooper spoke with the operator, later identified as the client, he could detect a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from inside the vehicle. He also noticed that the client had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and that her speech was slurred. The Trooper asked the client to recite the Alphabet. The client said it from A to V, then stated “H, I, J, K.” The Trooper then asked the client to get out of her vehicle. When she did, the Trooper noticed that she was swaying and stumbling backwards, and had to grab onto the driver’s door for balance. The client was then asked to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. The Trooper observed that the client could not maintain her balance on either test. Following her performance, the client was placed under arrest and transported to the State Police Barracks in Dartmouth. At the barracks, the client consented to a Breath Test, resulting in a .09 BAC. At a jury-waived trial, the Breath Test evidence was not introduced and, through the cross examination of the arresting Trooper, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a Not Guilty verdict from the judge.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. A.P.
Description: The client rear-ended another car causing major damage to both vehicles. When the police arrived they spoke with the client and observed that her eyes were bloodshot. They also detected a moderate odor of alcohol coming from her breath as she spoke. The client informed the officers that she was coming from a local bar and admitted to consuming two drinks with dinner. She later stated that she “only had four drinks.” The client said that the vehicle in front of her stopped short, causing her to collide with it. The other operator said that the client was tailgating him, so much so that he could not see her headlights in his rearview mirror. Based on the nature of the accident and the client’s admission to alcohol consumption, the client was asked to perform the Alphabet Test, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. After her performance, she was placed under arrest and transported to the Plymouth Police Station. At a jury trial, through the cross examination of both the officer and civilian witness, the direct examination of the client herself, and the use of a booking video, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a Not Guilty verdict.
Westborough District Court - Commonwealth v. G.A.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – At approximately 2:10 a.m., a Northborough police officer observed a vehicle speeding on Route 9. In response, the officer conducted a motor vehicle stop. The operator of the vehicle, later identified as the client, came to a stop in the Right-Turn-Only lane. When the officer spoke with the client, he observed that the client’s eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy, and that his speech was slurred. He also detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. The client admitted to consuming three tall beers prior to leaving a local bar. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the officer testified that the client missed heel-to-toe on several steps, stepped off line and did not do the turn as instructed. On the One Leg Stand, the officer testified that the client used his arms for balance and miscounted the numbers 14, 15, and 16 by completely skipping the number 13. The officer concluded that the client failed the tests and placed him under arrest. At the station, the client submitted to a breath test that showed a .08 BAC (not introduced at trial).
Worcester District Court - Commonwealth v. J.L.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – The State Police received a 911 call reporting an erratic operator that had struck a jersey barrier on Route 146 in the Town of Uxbridge. A short time later, a state trooper located the vehicle in the parking lot of a local XTRA Mart gas station. When the trooper approached, he observed the client asleep in the driver’s seat. The client did not wake up at first. When she did, the trooper observed that the client’s speech was extremely slurred. He also detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breath and observed that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The client admitted to consuming alcohol. After the trooper opined that the client failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand, the client was placed under arrest for OUI-2nd Offense. At the barracks, the client consented to a breath test that resulted in a .19 BAC (not introduced at trial).
Concord District Court - Commonwealth v. J.T.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – A Massachusetts State Trooper observed a vehicle traveling at 71 mph in a posted 55 mph zone. As the trooper began to follow the car, he noticed that it swerved from the middle lane and into the left lane. The car then swerved back and crossed over into the right lane. The trooper activated his lights and signaled the client to stop. When the trooper encountered the client in the breakdown lane, he observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and detected a strong odor of alcohol. The client was asked to perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (not introduced at trial), the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. The trooper deemed the client to be under the influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. At a jury trial, Attorney Higgins successfully cross examined the trooper and jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. S.K.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – A Plymouth police officer received a report of a vehicle that was swerving and traveling slow. The officer located the vehicle and observed it to be traveling at only 20 mph in a 45 mph zone. When the officer stopped the car, he noticed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot, her speech was slurred, and there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her breath. The client admitted that she had been drinking and stated “Sorry, can you just follow me home?” The officer had the client recite the alphabet. When she got to the letter “T”, she stopped and said “wait I know this.” The officer gave her a second attempt that yielded similar results. The client was then asked to perform both the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. The officer concluded that she failed those tests and placed the client under arrest. At trial, through the cross examination of the arresting officer and the booking officer, as well as the use of the client’s medical records, the court found the client Not Guilty.
Newburyport District Court - Commonwealth v. R.V.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – A Newburyport police officer heard the sound of a racing engine and observed the client’s vehicle traveling at approximately 65 miles per hour in a posted 30 mph zone. In response, the officer conducted a stop. When the officer approached the client he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. The client admitted to consuming alcohol with his dinner at a local tavern. The officer observed the client’s speech to be slurred. The client, who had been battling cancer, told the officer that his medication makes him dizzy. When the officer asked the client if he should be combining alcohol with his medication, the client stated “probably not.” After performing and failing the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand, the client was arrested and charged with OUI-2nd Offense. At a jury trial, through the cross examination of the arresting officer, as well as the testimony of the client himself, the client was found Not Guilty. Following the successful trial, a Motion to Return License was allowed.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. G.B.
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE: A Massachusetts State Trooper testified that he observed the client speeding as he approached the Sagamore Bridge in March of 2015. The Trooper said that as the client traveled over the bridge, he straddled the lanes of travel and maintained a speed of 72 mph. The client exited the highway in Sandwich and the trooper stopped him. When the trooper approached the client, he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and observed an open case of been on the rear passenger floorboard. The client said that he was coming from Boston and that he had a few drinks a couple of hours earlier. When asked to produce his license and registration, the trooper testified that the client fumbled with a stack of cards from his wallet and placed them in the door handle of the car. The client was asked to exit his vehicle and perform the One Leg Stand, as well as the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The trooper testified that the client could not keep his foot off the ground for more than 11 seconds and stated “I’m sorry.” The trooper also testified that the client did not make heel to toe contact and that almost all of his steps were off line. Following a jury trial in Falmouth District Court, the client was found Not Guilty of OUI-3rd Offense. This verdict spared the client of a minimum mandatory jail sentence. After trial, Attorney Higgins filed a motion asking that the court restore the client’s right to drive. That motion was allowed.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. G.F.
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE: A Duxbury Police Officer testified that he observed the client speeding, prompting him to initiate a stop of the client. When the officer approached the client, he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s person, and observed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The client admitted to drinking in Plymouth. The officer testified that the client did not perform field sobriety tests to his satisfaction and that he placed the client under arrest for OUI-3rd Offense. At the station, the client refused to take the breathalyzer, which generated a 5-year license loss. At trial, through the cross examination of the arresting officer, Attorney Higgins was able to cast sufficient doubt to generate a Not Guilty verdict. Following the trial, Attorney Higgins filed a motion asking the court to reinstate the client’s license. That motion was allowed by the court and the client received his license back.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. A.R.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE: A Massachusetts State Trooper observed the client crossing the fog line on multiple occasions on Route 25 in the Town of Bourne. These observations prompted the trooper to stop the client’s vehicle. The trooper detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. The trooper testified that the client appeared confused and had difficulty answering simple questions. When asked if he had been drinking, the client stated that he had “a couple of beers.” When the client exited his vehicle, the trooper testified that he was unsteady on his feet. After being placed under arrest and charged with OUI, the client was taken to the Bourne State Police Barracks, where he consented to a Breath Test. The result was a .089. After a jury-waived trial in Falmouth District Court, the client was found Not Guilty. The breath test result was not introduced at trial.
Worcester District Court - Commonwealth v. J.D.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE: A Massachusetts State Trooper testified that with his LIDAR unit he observed the client driving at 91 mph on 495 South, which caused him to pull the client over. The trooper detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from inside the vehicle and observed that the client’s movements were very slow and lethargic. When asked where she was going, the client stated “Franklin.” When asked where she was coming from earlier, the client again stated “Franklin.” The client admitted to consuming alcohol and was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests. After the trooper determined that the client failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn, as well as the One Leg Stand, the client was arrested and charged with Operating Under the Influence. Following a jury-waived trial in Worcester District Court, Attorney Higgins obtained a Not Guilty verdict.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. M.B.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE: On New Years Eve, a Sergeant on the Plymouth Police Department was conducting radar patrol as part of “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over.” At approximately 1:40 a.m., he observed the client traveling 57 mph in a 35 mph zone. The Sergeant initiated a stop and approached the client’s vehicle. The Sergeant detected a moderate odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s breath, observed that his eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, and that his speech was slurred. The client admitted that he drank three 16 ounce craft beers. The Sergeant then asked the client to perform field sobriety tests. At trial, the Sergeant testified that the client could not complete the Alphabet Test and that he struggled maintaining his balance while performing the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. The Sergeant concluded that the client was under the influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. Back at the police station, the client consented to a breathalyzer. The result was a .08. At trial, through cross examination of two Sergeants and the introduction of the booking video, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Hingham District Court - Commonwealth v. R. B.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: An off-duty Hull Police Officer was traveling home from his shift at approximately 12:30 a.m.. As he was driving on Route 228 in Hingham, he observed a pickup truck cross over the fog line several times, nearly striking an embankment. Fearing for the safety of the driver and other motorists, the officer called 911. As the vehicle approached the intersection of Route 53 and Route 228, the officer observed the vehicle make a left onto Route 53 while the Left Turn Only arrow was still red. The officer continued to follow the vehicle into the Town of Norwell. The vehicle made a right onto High Street and parked in the Cole School parking lot. The officer testified that the vehicle remained in the parking lot for approximately 5 minutes before returning to the roadway. The officer stated that he observed the left directional illuminate, then the right directional, before the vehicle made a right back onto Route 53. The officer followed the vehicle while he remained on the phone with 911. After approximately 2 miles, two Norwell police cruisers located the vehicle and initiated a stop. The officers testified that the client did not pass the Alphabet Test, the Counting Backwards Test, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, or the One Leg Stand. The officers testified that the client had heavily slurred speech, smelt like alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. The officers also testified that the client admitted to drinking. At trial, through the cross examination of the three officers, Attorney Higgins was able to show that but for the alleged marked lanes violation on Route 228, the client demonstrated an ability to safely operate his vehicle. The officers conceded that from the intersection of Route 228 and Route 53 to the location of the stop, the client did not swerve, weave, or drift. The officers also conceded that the client was able to utilize the vehicle’s brakes appropriately, negotiate turns appropriately, and that he maintained an appropriate speed for the roadway. Client was found Not Guilty on both OUI and Negligent Operation.
Brockton District Court - Commonwealth v. T.L.
Description: OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: West Bridgewater Police received a 911 call at approximately 12:05 in the afternoon reporting a male party asleep behind the wheel of his truck in the parking lot of Market Basket. Two WBPD officers responded to the location. When they arrived, they observed the client in the driver’s seat of his running Ford F250 truck. The officers knocked on the client’s window several times before the client woke up. The officers asked the client if he was ok. The client stated that he was extremely tired and that he was waiting for his wife, but did not know where she was. While speaking to the client, the officers detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from his person. The officers testified that the client’s speech was slurred. In the center console, the officers observed a half empty bottle of Bass Ale. When asked if he had been drinking, the client stated that he had consumed “a few beers.” The officers then asked the client to recite the alphabet. One of the officers testified that the client missed several letters and mixed many letters up. The officers then asked the client to get out of his truck and perform field sobriety tests. Prior to taking the tests, the client admitted to taking a Percocet earlier in the day. Following his performance on the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand, the client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI-3rd Offense. Pursuant to an inventory search of the client’s truck, the officers located a half-empty bottle of Southern Comfort and a 12-pack of Bass Ale with 3 bottles missing. After being transported back to the station, the client consented to a Breath Test. The result was a .15 BAC. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins filed a motion seeking to exclude the Breath Test result. That motion was allowed and it was ordered that the Breath Test was not to be mentioned at trial. Following a two day jury trial, the client was acquitted, sparing him a minimum mandatory jail sentence.
Somerville District Court - Commonwealth v. J.M.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: Client was stopped by a Somerville Police Officer after running a red light just after 3:00 a.m. At trial, two Somerville police officers testified. They said that the client smelt of alcohol and admitted to drinking alcohol at a friend’s party. They also testified the client’s eyes appeared glassy and that his speech was slurred. The officers said that the client failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Through cross examination of both officers, Attorney Higgins highlighted deficiencies in their investigation, specifically with respect to their administration of the field sobriety tests, while at the same time pointed out observations that suggested that the client was not impaired. At a jury-waived trial, the client was acquitted.
Plymouth District Court - MSP v. B.K.
Outcome: COMPLAINT NOT TO ISSUEDescription: CLERK MAGISTRATE’S HEARING: Client’s license was suspended for an OUI on Cape Cod. While her license was suspended, she was caught driving on Route 3 South by a Massachusetts State Trooper. The Trooper stopped the client and cited her for Operating on a Suspended License, NOT Operating on a Suspended License for OUI (a charge that calls for a mandatory jail sentence). Attorney Higgins had the client turn in the citation to request a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. The Court summonsed the client for an arraignment instead and Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Dismiss, requesting that the case be remanded to a Clerk’s Hearing. That motion was allowed. When the client received the summons for the Clerk’s Hearing, the State Police had amended the charge to Operating on a Suspended License for OUI, but never issued the client a new citation. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Higgins highlighted this defect and the complaint did not issue against the client.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. P.H.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper observed a vehicle commit a series of marked lanes violations on Route 3 North in Plymouth, prompting him to initiate a motor vehicle stop. When he approached the operator, later identified as the client, the Trooper observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and he smelt like alcohol. The Trooper asked the client where he was coming from and the client said that he was coming from the Red Sox game. When asked if he had consumed any alcohol, the client admitted to having a couple of beers at the game. The trooper testified that he was confused as to why the client was traveling North on Route 3 if he was coming from Boston and requested that the client submit to field sobriety tests. Following the client’s performance on the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand, the client was arrested and transported to the State Police barracks in Norwell. While in custody and a little over an hour after being stopped, the client submitted to a Breath Test. The result was a .06. Following a jury-waived trial, the client was found Not Guilty.
Chelsea District Court - Commonwealth v. J.H.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper was conducting stationary traffic enforcement on Route 1 North in the early morning hours when he observed an Audi A6 traveling at approximately 110 miles per hour. The trooper accelerated and attempted to catch up to the vehicle. While doing so, the Trooper observed the vehicle make a series of unsafe lane changes. The trooper then observed the vehicle take the exit for Route 60 in Revere. The trooper activated his lights in an attempt to stop the vehicle. The vehicle did not stop immediately, but rather made a left turn into a parking lot. When the trooper approached, he observed that the client had vomit on his lap and that there was vomit all over the center console. The Trooper testified that he could detect a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and that the client was the sole occupant of the vehicle. The trooper testified that the client failed both the 9-Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. Following a jury trial in which Attorney Higgins cross examined the Trooper and called three witnesses of his own, a Not Guilty verdict was returned.
Worcester District Court - Commonwealth v. C.P.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: Client was involved in a head on collision in the Town of Millbury. When the police arrived, the client appeared to be unsteady on her feet, and had bloodshot and glassy eyes. The officer detected an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the client and asked her if she had been drinking. The client then admitted to consuming alcohol. Following a jury-waived trial that involved the testimony of the other party involved in the accident and two Millbury police officers, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a verdict of Not Guilty.
Wareham District Court - Commonwealth v. J.S.
Description: OUI DRUGS – NOT GUILTY: A State Trooper observed the client cross the marked lanes on Rt. 25 in Wareham. After stopping the client, the trooper approached the client’s driver’s side door. The trooper immediately detected a strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana and observed that the client had pieces of marijuana on the front of his shirt. The client admitted that he was smoking marijuana while driving and acknowledged that he should not have been. The Trooper located a marijuana pipe and marijuana grinder in the client’s car. Following a jury-waived trial in Wareham District Court, Attorney Higgins secured Not Guilty verdicts on both the OUI and Negligent Operation charges.
Orleans District Court - Commonwealth v. S.S.
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Dennis Police officer observed the client fail to stop at a 4-way intersection. After following the client for some distance, the officer pulled him over. The officer testified that the client began telling him a convoluted story about almost hitting a man with his car and then giving the man a ride to a local bar. The officer testified that the client stated that he had consumed five beers and that he had given the man a ride to a local hotel. During their conversation, the officer stated that he could smell a strong odor of alcohol coming from the client’s breath and that he had slurred speech. The officer testified that the client performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested. Prior to the trial date, Attorney Higgins was able to exclude the Breath Test result (.13) that the client produced at the police department following his arrest. At trial, and in the absence of the Breath Test, through cross examination of two police officers, Attorney Higgins obtained verdicts of Not Guilty on both the OUI and Negligent Operation charges.
Dedham District Court - Commonwealth v. D.R.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A state trooper had responded to a rollover accident involving a tractor trailer on I-95 in Canton. The accident caused a substantial traffic back up. The trooper testified that while he was re-directing traffic, he observed a man running in his direction. The man was banging on the side of the client’s car. The trooper signaled the client to pull over. When he approached the client, the Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot/glassy and that he exhibited slurred speech. The client admitted to consuming alcohol. The Trooper also located a Bud Light beer can in the client’s vehicle. After conducting an OUI investigation, the Trooper placed the client under arrest. Following a jury trial in Dedham District Court, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Edgartown District Court - Commonwealth v. A.H.
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – DISMISSED: A Tisbury Police officer had a vehicle stopped on the side of the road. As the client drove by the officer, she came close to striking him. The officer yelled to the client to pull over, which she did. When the officer approached the client, he observed that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from her person. The client performed the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, the Alphabet Test. The client performed reasonably well on all of the tests, but consented to a PBT the revealed a .129 BAC. After being placed under arrest, the client consented to a Breath Test and registered a .13 BAC. At a pre-trial hearing, Attorney Higgins learned that the Breath Test result would not be offered at trial. The DA’s office agreed to dismiss the OUI charge and the client received a CWOF for 6 months on a charge of Negligent Operation. The client did not incur any license loss.
Waltham District Court - Commonwealth v. K.S.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – DISMISSED: Client was stopped for speeding by a Watertown Police officer. The officer observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that his speech was slurred. The officer also observed that the client had an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted that he had. After the client submitted to field sobriety tests, he was arrested and charged with OUI. Following the disclosure that the officer was no longer employed by the Watertown Police Department, Attorney Higgins filed a series of motions that ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the case.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. H.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Falmouth Police officer observed the client’s vehicle traveling 15-18 mph on Route 151. As the officer began following the client, he observed that she crossed over the double yellow lines as well as the fog line. After stopping the client, the officer observed that she had bloodshot/glassy eyes, a slight odor of alcohol on her breath, and was exhibiting slurred speech. The officer requested that the client perform the Alphabet Test and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. Following her performance, the client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI Second Offense. At trial, the officers testified that the client was extremely belligerent, calling the officers various names. Through the cross examination of the two officers, Attorney Higgins was able to secured a jury trial verdict of Not Guilty. Client’s driving privileges were timely restored.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. F.W.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: Marshfield Police received a 911 call reporting a road rage incident outside of a local convenience store. The 911 caller provided the license plate number of the client and the Marshfield Police responded to his residence. When the police arrived, an argument ensued. The client denied driving and according to the police, appeared to be under the influence. At trial, the DA’s office called the 911 caller and two Marshfield Police officers as witnesses. The 911 caller identified the client as the driver of the car involved in the road rage incident. The two police officers testified that they believed the client was under the influence of alcohol. Through cross-examination of the government’s witnesses and the testimony of a witness for the client, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict following a two-day jury-waived trial.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. GTL
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: Massachusetts State Police received a 911 call reporting an erratic operator heading south on Route 3. The caller stated that the client exited Route 3 in the area of the Sagamore Bridge and got back onto Route 3 North. The caller continued to follow the client and the State Police transferred the call to Plymouth Police. The caller reported that the client was all over the road. Just south of Exit 5 in Plymouth, the Plymouth Police stopped the client. The officers testified at trial that client came to a stop while still halfway in the right travel lane. When the officers approached the client, they testified that they could detect an odor of alcohol coming from the client and that her speech appeared to be slightly slurred. Shortly after asking the client to exit her vehicle, the client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI 2nd Offense. At the police station, the client refused to submit to the breath test, resulting in a 3-year license loss. Through a chemical test petition for judicial review, Attorney Higgins was able to overturn that suspension and the client received her license back while she awaited trial. At trial, through the cross examination of two Plymouth Police officers and the utilization of a booking video, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict after a jury-waived trial.
Wareham District Court - Commonwealth v. J.M.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: OUI FIRST OFFENSE – DISMISSED: Client was a combat veteran of the U.S. Army. Following his deployments, he suffered from PTSD that resulted in a substance abuse issue. Client was involved in a rollover motor vehicle accident in 2016 that landed him in the hospital. After a Clerk’s Hearing, the client was summonsed to court for an arraignment on a charge of OUI. Pursuant to the Valor Act, Attorney Higgins requested that the arraignment be continued and that the client be assessed through the VA. The client completed a treatment program through the VA and the case was ultimately dismissed prior to arraignment. The client did NOT suffer a driver’s license loss and there was no entry on his criminal record as a result.
Dorchester Boston Municipal Court - Commonwealth v. B.B.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Two Massachusetts State Troopers were dispatched to Route 93 South following a 911 call reporting an erratic operator. When the Troopers arrived, they observed the client’s vehicle disabled in the middle of the road with a broken axle. The Troopers testified that the client had a strong odor of alcohol coming from his person, had bloodshot/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The Troopers also testified that the client failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn, as well as the One Leg Stand. Through cross-examination of the 911 caller and the Trooper, plus utilizing the 911 recording to contradict portions of their testimony, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty Verdict from the jury. Client was under 21 at the time and incurred a 3-year license loss for refusing the Breath Test. Following the Not Guilty verdict, the judge restored the client’s license.
Newburyport District Court - Commonwealth v. T.M.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client charged with Operating a Boat While Under the Influence of Alcohol. Newburyport Police were dispatch to Cashman Park for a report of a boat that was caught in another boat’s mooring. When the police arrived, the Harbor Master had already boarded the boat. At trial, members from the Harbor Master’s Office and the Newburyport Police testified that client was belligerent and argumentative. They also testified that the client was unsteady on his feet, was slurring his speech, and appeared to have an odor of alcohol coming from his breath. Following his arrest, the client consented to field sobriety tests at the Newburyport Police Station. The arresting officer testified that the client failed all of them. At trial, through cross-examination of the government’s witnesses and the testimony of the client, his wife and his brother, Attorney Higgins was able to show the jury that the investigation was incomplete, presumptuous, and most importantly, that the client was Not Guilty.
Lawrence District Court - Commonwealth v. B.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Methuen police officers were dispatched to Oakland Avenue for a report of a two-car crash. Upon arrival, officers noticed significant damage to the front ends of both vehicles. When speaking with the client, the officers detected a strong smell of an alcoholic beverage and observed that his speech was slurred. At trial, the officers testified that the client had admitted to consuming a Long Island Iced Tea before driving. The officers testified that the client was unable to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn, as well as the One Leg Stand. They testified that the client demonstrated a lack of balance and that they believed that he was under the influence of alcohol. Through the cross-examination of the officers and the testimony of the client himself, Attorney Higgins was able to show the jury that the client was NOT GUILTY.
Peabody District Court - Commonwealth v. G.M.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: On July 1, 2016, two Massachusetts State Troopers were patrolling Route 95 South in Lynnfield when they observed a vehicle drifting within its lane and ultimately cross over into another lane. Troopers activated their blue lights as the vehicle exited 95 and proceeded south on Route 1. Instead of pulling to the right and stopping, the vehicle pulled to the left and turned onto Salem Street. When the Troopers approached, they detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the client’s breath. They also observed an open beer can in the seat pocket of the front passenger seat. When asked how much he had to drink, the client stated “A couple of beers.” The client told the Troopers that he had consumed one beer about 30 minutes earlier and that he had not yet finished his second beer, motioning the the can in the seat pocket. The client was then asked to submit to a series of field sobriety tests. Following his performance, the client consented to a portable breath test, which revealed a BAC of .086. He was then placed under arrest and charged with OUI-2nd Offense. At trial, through the cross-examination of the Troopers, Attorney Higgins was able to convince the jury that the client was Not Guilty. Client released from custody and returned to his family.
Quincy District Court - Commonwealth v. K.V.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Client involved in a hit and run accident in the parking lot of a hospital. When the police arrived at the client’s home, they determined that he was under the influence. Client was hospitalized and charged with a OUI-3rd Offense. At a Clerk Magistrate’s hearing that spanned several months, Attorney Higgins was able to demonstrate that not only was the evidence against the client weak, but that the client had taken the necessary steps to receive professional help to address his issue with alcohol. After providing evidence of the client’s treatment and sustained sobriety, the complaint did not issue and the charges were dismissed.
Boston Municipal Court - Commonwealth v. J.J.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Client stopped by a Massachusetts State Trooper in downtown Boston. The trooper determined that the client’s license was suspended due to a Chemical Test Refusal from a previous OUI. Client was arrested and charged with Operating on a Suspended License for OUI, a charge that calls for a minimum mandatory jail sentence upon conviction. Attorney Higgins filed a motion to dismiss the portion of the charge that alleged that the suspension was “for OUI.” Given the governing statutes and the way in which the client’s license suspensions were running, the motion was allowed and the charge was reduced to a simple Operating on a Suspended License. Following the allowance of the motion, the case was dismissed upon the client’s payment of nominal court costs.
Worcester District Court - Commonwealth v. C.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Milford Police received a 911 call reporting an erratic operator. Officers respond to the location and observe the client’s vehicle parked at an angle on the side of the road. The client then accelerated at a high rate of speed. The officer activated his blue lights and siren. The client turned down another street and parked in his driveway. When the client got out of his truck, the officer testified that he stumbled, had slurred speech, exhibited a moderate odor of alcohol, and had bloodshot and glassy eyes. The client admitted to drinking. Through the cross-examination of the officer, as well as the testimony of the defendant and his girlfriend, Attorney Higgins was able to show that the Commonwealth was incapable of proving that the client was under the influence of alcohol, resulting in a Not Guilty verdict.
Wareham District Court - Commonwealth v. B.S.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped for speeding while traveling on Sandwich Road in Wareham. When the Trooper approached, he detected a strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana and observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. The client admitted that he was coming from a smoke shop and that he had just smoked marijuana out of his recently purchased pipe. The Trooper formed the opinion that the client was under the influence of marijuana and placed him under arrest for OUI Drugs and Negligent Operation. An inventory of the vehicle revealed a second pipe with marijuana residue as well as a grinder. Following a jury-waived trial, the client was found Not Guilty on both counts.
Quincy District Court - Commonwealth v. V.A.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: State Trooper was traveling on Route 93 Southbound at approximately 2:45 a.m., when he observed the client’s vehicle stationary and blocking the two left lanes just prior to the off-ramp to Route 24 Southbound. As the trooper approached, another vehicle passed him and struck the client’s vehicle. Thankfully, the client had already exited the car. When speaking with the client, the Trooper detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his person. When asked to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the client swayed, was unsteady on his feed, failed to touch heel to toe and used his arms for balance. When asked to perform the One Leg Stand, the client was unable to count past the number 9 and placed his foot down twice. Following a jury-waived trial in Quincy District Court, the client was found Not Guilty of OUI Second Offense.
Lawrence District Court - Commonwealth v. D.S.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Officer observed the client completely cross into a left-turn only lane and abruptly pull back into the travel lane. As the officer followed the client, he observed the vehicle veer onto the yellow line several times. After stopping the client, the officer observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and that there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person. The client told the officer that he was on his way to his girlfriend’s house on Lincoln Street and that he had consumed a couple of drinks at a festival. Following his performance on the HGN, the One Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn, the client was placed under arrested and charged with OUI. Following a jury trial in Lawrence District Court, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict for the client.
Fall River District Court - Commonwealth v. G.P.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Officer observed the client cross the centerline with both passenger-side tires on two occasions. After stopping the client, the officer could detect a slight odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle and noticed that the client’s eyes were glassy and slightly bloodshot. While speaking with the client, the officer noticed a bottle of Smirnoff Ice in the back passenger area. The officer also located another Smirnoff Ice bottle as well as a Budweiser. The client admitted to having a couple of beers at a friend’s house. Following his performance of the Alphabet Test, the client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI. The client was under the age of 21 at the time. Following a jury-waived trial in Fall River District Court, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict and the client’s license was reinstated.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. T.R.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: A Plymouth police officer was parked at the intersection of Main Street and Leyden Street at approximately 1:00 a.m. He observed a black pickup truck drive through a red light at a high rate of speed. The officer reversed direction and initiated a stop of the vehicle in front of the John Carver Inn. The operator was identified as the client. As the officer spoke with the client, he observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot/glassy and that there was a strong odor of alcohol. In the center console, the officer observed an open Bud Light can. The officer asked the client if he had been drinking. The client admitted that he had consumed a “few beers” and that he had just been drinking from the open Bud Light. The officer returned to his cruiser to run the client’s information. When he returned to the client’s vehicle, the officer noticed that the Bud Light can was no longer in the center console. When confronted about this, the client stated that he did not know what the officer was talking about. The client was asked to get out of the truck and perform the Alphabet Test, the One Leg Stand, and the Walk and Turn. The officer determined that the client failed all three tests and placed him under arrest for OUI. A search of the client’s truck revealed multiple Bud Light cans—some empty and some full. Following a jury-waived trial during which he cross-examined two Plymouth police officers, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict for the client.
Edgartown District Court - Commonwealth v. P.D.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Edgartown Police received a 911 call reporting an erratic operator in the area of 16th Street. An officer responded to the location and observed a vehicle matching the description provided by the 911 caller. The officer noted that both of the vehicle’s passenger side tires were shredded and that the vehicle was leaning to its right. The officer also testified that the vehicle was swerving. After making these observations, the officer activated his cruiser’s blue lights and began pursuing the vehicle. The officer testified that the vehicle was slow to stop. Upon approach, the officer identified the driver as the client. The officer noted that the client had bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech and an odor of alcohol coming from his person. The officer testified that he had to ask the client twice for his license and registration, and that the client struggled to produce those items. The officer also testified that the client acknowledged that he had hit something, but could not identify what exactly he hit. When asked about his alcohol consumption, the client admitted to drinking. The officer administer the 9 Step Walk and Turn, and determined that the client failed. The officer, as well as a State Trooper, testified that they believed the client was intoxicated. The client was arrested and charged with OUI-Second Offense. Following his arrest, the client consented to a Breath Test. Due to a problem with the Breath Test machine, the police were not able to obtain a Breath Test sample. As such, the police requested that the client consent to a blood test. The client refused. After a jury trial, the client was found Not Guilty of OUI-Second Offense. Following the jury’s verdict, the judge allowed Attorney Higgins’ motion requesting that the court restore the client’s driver’s license.
Lynn District Court - Commonwealth v. J.D.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Off-duty State Trooper came upon a rollover accident on Atlantic Avenue in Swampscott. The Trooper observed the client standing outside of the vehicle. Swampscott Police arrived on scene and observed that the client appeared unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person. The officers testified that when asked what happened, the client stated that he “blacked out.” The officers also testified that the client admitted to drinking. Both officers testified that they believed that the client was intoxicated. The client was arrested for Operating Under the Influence of Liquor and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. During an inventory search of the client’s vehicle, the police located 2 empty beer cans and 7 empty nips. After a jury trial, the client was found NOT GUILTY on both counts.
Woburn District Court - Commonwealth v. B.T.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Client charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle without an Ignition Interlock Device when his license was subject to that restriction. Through a pre-trial motion, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain an order from the judge that the Commonwealth would not be able to introduce RMV records (a necessary component to the Commonwealth’s case) in the absence of a representative from the RMV, resulting in the dismissal of the case.ey Higgins was able to secure a “Not Guilty” verdict for the client.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. G.B.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Two Marshfield Police officers observed a vehicle cross over the fog line and swerve back into the travel lane. The officers testified that the vehicle nearly went off of the roadway. After stopping the vehicle, the officers encountered the driver and identified him as the client. Both officers testified that the client’s speech was slurred and that he had a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted to having “a few.” On the Alphabet Test, one of the officers testified that the client said the letters so fast that he could not understand what he was saying. On the One Leg Stand, both officers testified that the client put his foot down multiple times prior to reaching 15 seconds. On the 9 Step Walk and Turn, both officers testified that the client missed touching his heel to his toe on multiple occasions and stepped off line several times. Through cross examination of the two officers and the use of a booking video, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a “Not Guilty” verdict for the client.
Newton District Court - Commonwealth v. L.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Newton Police responded to a report of a single motor vehicle accident shortly after 11:00 p.m. on New Years Eve. A civilian witness stated that she heard 2-3 bangs and then what sounded like a crash. Moments later she observed the client standing outside the driver’s-side door of the crashed vehicle. The client was barefoot and walking through broken glass on the roadway. The witness testified that the client said that she met a guy at the bar, that he crashed her car and ran away. The witness also testified that she did not see anyone else in the area. When the police arrived, the client was seated back in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. At trial, the officers testified that the client was drunk—she had slurred speech, was unsteady on her feet, had bloodshot eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breath. The arresting officer testified that the client could not provide a description of the guy she was with, other then to say that he was “hot.” In the vehicle, the officers located the client’s cell phone down near the gas pedal and brake. The client was evaluated by EMS personnel and transported to a local hospital. At the hospital, when asked more about what happened, the officer testified that the client admitted she was driving, then quickly corrected herself and stated that the guy crashed her car. At trial, Attorney Higgins was able to show the jury that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the client was the operator of the vehicle, resulting in a “Not Guilty” verdict.
Woburn District Court - Commonwealth v. C.B.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: State Trooper observed client traveling 87 mph in a 65 mph zone. When the Trooper began following the client, he observed the client’s vehicle go onto the fog line and abruptly swerve back to the right. This observation prompted the Trooper to initiate a stop. When the Trooper spoke with the client, he observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and that the client was slurring some of his words. The client admitted to drinking 4 Bud Light bottles and going to a night club. The Trooper asked the client to get out of the vehicle and administered the HGN, the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand and the Portable Breath Test. The PBT resulted in a .14 reading. Following a jury trial, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. J.M.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: On February 1, 2014, Plymouth Police responded to Court Street for a report of a male slumped behind the wheel of a parked, running vehicle. Upon the officer’s arrival, she observed the client asleep in the driver’s seat. The vehicle was running and the engine was revving, as the client’s foot was on the gas pedal. The officer knocked on the window and the client did not wake up, forcing the officer to open the door and begin shaking the client. When the client awoke, the officer testified that he appeared confused and had difficulty following her simple instructions. She also testified that the client’s speech was slightly slurred, his eyes appeared glassy and that there was a moderate odor of alcohol coming from his breath. The client admitted to drinking beers at a local bar and even stated that he “wasn’t driving for a reason.” When asked to perform the alphabet test, the officer testified that the client was not able to complete the test on two separate attempts. When asked to get out of the car, the officer testified that the client was unsteady on his feet and swayed side to side. The client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI. Both the arresting officer and the Sergeant that conducted the booking procedure testified that the client was uncooperative, belligerent, argumentative and disrespectful. At trial, through the cross examination of both officers, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to secure a “Not Guilty” verdict.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. K.F.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Marshfield police officer observed a vehicle traveling with its high beams on on Ocean Street at approximately 4:00 a.m.. As the vehicle approached, its headlights went off completely and never came back on. Based on this observation, the officer stopped the vehicle. The driver was identified as the client, a 20 year-old young man. The client admitted to consuming alcohol and told the officer he was heading home to Plymouth from a friend’s house. The officer observed that the client’s speech was slurred, his eyes appeared red, glassy, and bloodshot, and that there was an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. When asked to get out of the vehicle, the officer testified that the client stumbled into the travel lane of the roadway. The officer testified that the client could not recite the alphabet and that he omitted several letters. The officer also testified that the client could not count backwards from 87 to 72. When asked to complete the One Leg Stand, the officer testified that the client placed his foot back on the ground after only one second. After being placed under arrest and taken back to the police station, the client completed a Breath Test, registering a .21 BAC. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins was able to exclude the Breath Test result from evidence. At trial, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict from the jury.
Somerville District Court - Commonwealth v. C.F.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Massachusetts State Troopers responded to a two-car crash on Route 93 South. Upon their arrival they spoke with the client. Two Troopers testified that they observed the client to be unsteady on his feet as he was swaying from side to side. They also testified that the client’s speech was slurred, his eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, and that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person. When asked if he had been drinking, the arresting trooper testified that the client stated that he had been drinking Presidente beer but that he didn’t know how much. The client was asked to perform three field sobriety tests: 1) The Alphabet Test; 2) The One Leg Stand; and 3) The Nine Step Walk and Turn. The Trooper testified that he instructed the client to recite the alphabet from the letter “A” to the letter “M.” The Trooper testified that the client made it to the letter “F,” made 3-4 mistakes, and continued past the letter “M,” stopping at the letter “P.” During the One Leg Stand, the Trooper testified that the client repeatedly put his foot down, did not count out loud, swayed from side to side and used his arms for the balance. During the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the Trooper testified that the client did not touch heel to toe on any of the steps, used his arms for balance, took 12 steps instead of 9, stepped off line and did the turn incorrectly. Following his performance on these tests, the Trooper placed the client under arrest and transported him to the State Police Barracks in Medford. While at the barracks, the client consented to a breathalyzer, the result of which was a .096—above the legal limit of .08. At a pre-trial motion to suppress, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a ruling excluding the breath test result from evidence. At trial, through cross examination of the Troopers, and the use of the client’s medical records to show that he was not a good candidate for performing the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn, Attorney Higgins was able to show that the client was Not Guilty of both OUI and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle.
Dedham District Court - Commonwealth v. A.M.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: A Massachusetts State Trooper was dispatched to investigate a single motor vehicle crash on the off ramp of Exit 2A on Route 93 North in the Town of Canton. Upon his arrival, the Trooper observed a Honda Accord on top of a snow bank with its headlights pointing towards the sky. The Trooper testified that he observed a lone male, later identified as the client, walking around the vehicle. The Trooper observed that the client appeared consistently unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech and a moderate odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his person. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted to consuming alcohol prior to the crash. The Trooper testified that the client turned his back and began to walk away from him on several occasions. The Trooper also testified that he had to repeatedly escort the client away from the lane of travel and back to a safe location in the breakdown lane. When the Trooper requested that the client perform field sobriety tests, the client agreed, but when it came time for him to perform the One Leg Stand, the client became uncooperative and argumentative. The Trooper then placed the client under arrest and charged him with: 1) OUI-Liquor; 2) Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle; and 3) Marked Lanes Violation. Following a jury trial, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a Not Guilty verdict on both the OUI and Negligent Operation charges, as well as a Not Responsible finding on the civil Marked Lanes Violation.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. M.P.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Plymouth police officer was traveling on Carver Road when he observed two vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. As the vehicles neared, the second vehicle veered across the double yellow line and into the opposite lane—heading directly toward the officer’s cruiser. The officer slammed on his brakes and pulled the cruiser into the shoulder of the roadway to avoid a collision. After passing the officer’s cruiser, the vehicle made a quick left turn onto a nearby street. The officer turned his cruiser around to pursue the vehicle. When the officer located the vehicle, it was parked in a driveway—the engine was still running and the headlights were on. The officer observed the client standing in the driveway. The homeowners were shouting that they did not know the client and had no idea why he was there. The client returned to his truck and attempted to leave. The officer instructed the client to stop and to turn the vehicle off. In doing so, the officer observed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred and he had an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his person. The officer also observed a “nip” in the cupholder of the client’s truck. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted that he had been. The officer asked the client to perform a series of field sobriety test, including the Alphabet Test, the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer determined that the client had failed each of the tests and placed him under arrest for OUI. Pursuant to an inventory search, the police located a nip and an empty Budweiser bottle. At trial, through cross examination of the arresting officer and argument before the judge, Attorney Higgins was able to achieve a “Not Guilty” verdict for the client. This outcome was crucial to the client’s ability to maintain his job, as the client holds a Commercial Driver’s License.
Newburyport District Court - Commonwealth v. J.F.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: State Trooper observed client traveling at approximately 85 mph on Interstate 495 in Merrimack. As the Trooper was clocking the client’s speed, he observed the client’s vehicle travel over the fog line and rumble strip. The client took the off ramp at approximately 61 mph, when the speed limit for the ramp is 25 mph. The Trooper testified that the client had to brake extremely hard to negotiate the left turn at the end of the ramp. The Trooper then observed a marked lanes violation on Broad Street, prompting him to stop the client. The client’s eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. The Trooper testified that the client stumped and had to use the vehicle to regain his balance. When initially asked how much alcohol he drank, the client stated “Not that much,” but later told the Trooper that he hadn’t been drinking. At one point the client admitted to drinking 2-3 beers. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test and formed the opinion that the client was “obviously intoxicated.” Through cross-examination and the introduction of medical records, Attorney Higgins was able to prevent the government from satisfying their burden of proof, resulting in a Not Guilty verdict.
Concord District Court - Commonwealth v. K.P.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Lincoln Police Officers observed client traveling between 40 and 60+ mph on Route 2 West shortly after 2 a.m. They observed the client weave within the passing lane, cross over into the travel lane and jerk the vehicle back into the passing lane. After pulling the client over, the officer, a high-ranking member of the police department with over 20 years of experience, detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed the client’s eyes to be red and glassy and her speech intermittently slurred. After administering 5 field sobriety tests (Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, Finger to Nose, Alphabet and Counting Backwards), during which the client appeared unsteady on her feet and was swaying side to side, the officer placed her under arrest of OUI-2nd Offense.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. F.L.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Massachusetts State Trooper observed client’s vehicle weaving between lanes while traveling on Scenic Highway along the Cape Cod Canal. When the Trooper pulled the client over he detected an overwhelming odor of freshly burnt marijuana. Client admitted to smoking marijuana prior to driving. After conducting an investigation, the Trooper determined that the client was operating under the influence of marijuana and charged him with OUI-Drugs.
Quincy District Court - Commonwealth v. C.G.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Client charged with Operating After License Suspended for OUI—a charge that comes with a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 60 days. The client’s license was, and is, suspended for life as a result of an OUI conviction. The Commonwealth alleged that the client was the operator of a vehicle that was involved in a 2-car crash in Quincy. The client was also charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins filed a series of Motions In Limine—requests that the judge exclude certain pieces of evidence. Following a hearing on those motions, the Commonwealth was unable to proceed on the charges, resulting in a dismissal of all counts.
Malden District Court- Commonwealth v. L.M.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: 3rd Offense OUI—Malden Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-car accident. Upon arrival, the arresting officer observed a Toyota Scion with its front end pushed up against a tree. There was extensive damage to the vehicle’s rear. In fact, the driver’s side rear tire was snapped off the axle. Down the street the officer observed a Mazda 3 parked in the middle of the road. The Mazda had significant damage to its front. It was clear that the Mazda had collided with the Scion. Both vehicles were unoccupied. The officer, a Captain on the police force, testified that he observed the client walking in the street towards the scene. He stated that the client was walking with a stutter step, that she had bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol coming from her person. When asked how much she had to drink, the client stated “enough to get me drunk.” When asked where her car was, the client pointed to the Mazda 3. The client refused field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest. At the station, when the client was asked how she was doing, she stated “I’m great, I’m drunk.” During the booking procedure, the police located a set of keys in the client’s possession. At trial, Attorney Higgins was able to establish that the Commonwealth had not satisfied their burden of proof with respect to the element of “operation” —a necessary element to convict on an OUI charge. Attorney Higgins, through cross examination, established that the evidence never placed the client in the car, that there was no first-hand observation of the accident, and that there was no evidence that the keys located on the client’s person belonged to either of the cars involved in the accident. Further, while the client admitted that the Mazda 3 was her car, there was no evidence that the client admitted that she was the one driving the car. Following a jury-waived trial, the judge found the client Not Guilty, sparing her a felony conviction and a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days.
Hingham District Court - Commonwealth v. S.R.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Scituate Police received a 911 call reporting an erratic operator. An officer on duty observed the subject vehicle and witnessed it cross into the oncoming traffic. The vehicle was traveling approximately 15 mph below the speed limit. The officer activated his cruiser’s blue lights and signaled the operator to stop. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed our client as the operator. The officer noted that the client’s eyes were half open and glassy, the she appeared confused, and that her speech was slow and drawn out. As the conversation continued, the officer observed the client begin to nod off. When the officer asked the client if she had taken any medication, the client indicated that she had and that she might have taken too much. The officer formed the opinion that the client was operating under the influence of drugs. A subsequent search revealed that the client was in possession of a suboxone pill, abilify, and lyrica. In a pre-trial motion, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain an order from the court that precluded the Commonwealth from offering testimony as to the element of “under the influence”, a necessary element to prove a charge of OUI Drugs. This order resulted in the charge being dismissed.
Fall River District Court - Commonwealth v. D.A.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Two Swansea police officers testified that their attention was initially drawn to the client’s truck when they heard the revving of its engine. The officers explained that they observed the client cross into the breakdown lane and pass another vehicle on the right. This occurred on Wilbur Avenue, which has one lane of travel in each direction. The officers testified that the client then accelerated to 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, quickly catching up to the next vehicle on the roadway. The officers then observed the client slam on the brakes to avoid hitting that vehicle. When the officers activated their cruiser’s blue lights, the client did not stop right away. Instead, he turned onto another road and finally came to a stop hundreds of yards later. The client informed the officers that he was suffering from an anxiety attack and was on his way to pick up his medication. While speaking with the client, the arresting officer observed the client’s eyes to be bloodshot and glossy, and his speech to be slurred. The officer also detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s breath. The arresting officer testified that he observed the client attempt to hide two empty Bud Light cans that were sitting on the front passenger seat. The client was asked to perform the Alphabet Test, the Counting Backwards Test, the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer determined that the client failed all four tests and placed the client under arrest for OUI. Following the arrest, the officers located over 30 empty Bud Light cans in the truck. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain an order from the court excluding the empty Bud Lights from evidence. After that order, the case was tried before a jury in Fall River District Court. Through cross examination of both officers, Attorney Higgins was able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the client was Not Guilty of OUI.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. T.F.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client was observed by State Trooper racing her friend on Route 28 South near the Otis Rotary. The Trooper testified both vehicles weaved through traffic in the rotary at close to 90 miles per hour. After the rotary, the Trooper testified that he clocked the client’s vehicle at 110 miles per hour. The Trooper stopped both vehicles. When the Trooper spoke with the client he detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. When asked if she had consumed any alcohol, the client admitted to drinking. The client was then asked to exit her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. The Trooper testified that when she exited the vehicle she had difficulty maintaining her balance and appeared unsteady. After performing two field sobriety tests and registering a .116 on the Portable Breath Test, the client was placed under arrest for OUI. During an inventory search of her vehicle, the Trooper located a 12 pack of beer with 11 of the bottles missing. After trial, client found Not Guilty of OUI.
Worcester District Court - Commonwealth v. B.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client sped by two Millville police officers traveling on Main Street in Millville. The officers signaled the client to pull over. When he did so, he left half of his car parked in the travel lane, despite there being plenty of room in the breakdown lane. When the officers approached, the client’s eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy and they detected an odor of alcohol. The officers observed an empty Bud Light can, as well as a near-full Miller Light can that the client had been drinking from. The officer asked the client if he had been drinking. The client initially stated that he had consumed 3-4 beers, but later told the officer he actually had 7-8 beers. When asked to exit the vehicle, the officer testified that the client staggered as he walked and had difficulty maintaining his balance. After failing the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk-and-Turn, the client was arrested and charged with OUI. At the station, the client consented to a Breath Test and produced a result of .08. At trial, Attorney Higgins, through cross-examination of the arresting officer, was able to convince the judge that not only was the client’s ability to operate a motor vehicle not impaired by alcohol, but that the evidence was insufficient to show that his BAC was at or above a .08 at the time he was driving.
Wareham District Court - Commonwealth v. A.G.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped by Wareham Police after she was observed speeding and committing several marked lanes violations. The officers testified that the client smelt strongly of alcohol, her eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, she was unsteady on her feet and she was slurring her speech. Both officers testified that the client was extremely uncooperative and belligerent. Following her failed performance on field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest for OUI.
Dedham District Court - Commonwealth v. T.K.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: While sitting at a traffic light, the officer observed the client travel through an intersection at a high rate of speed and slam on her brakes. Fearful that the client was not going to stop in time to avoid an accident, the officer proceeded in that direction, but lost sight of the client’s vehicle when the client executed an illegal turn. The officer re-acquired visual of the client and attempted to initiate a stop. The officer testified that the client did not stop right away and when she did, it was as though the vehicle was thrown into park while still moving. The officer testified that the client had difficulty locating her license and registration, admitted to consuming two glasses of wine, appeared to have bloodshot/glassy eyes, and was visibly upset. The officer testified that the client was unable to count backwards as instructed, failed the 9-Step Walk and Turn, and failed the 1-Leg Stand. Through cross examination of the officer and the introduction of the client’s medical records showing a problematic ankle, Attorney Higgins convinced the jury that the client was Not Guilty.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. J.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped for marked lanes violation shortly after 1:30 a.m. Officer testified that client smelt strongly of an alcoholic beverage and had bloodshot/glassy eyes. Client admitted to consuming alcohol at a local bar prior to driving. Officer testified that client was unsteady on his feet upon exiting his vehicle and that he failed the 9-Step Walk and Turn, as well as the 1-Leg Stand. Through cross examination of the arresting officer and the introduction of medical records showing a prior surgery on the client’s ankle, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the mind of the judge to result in a Not Guilty verdict.
Dorchester BMC - Commonwealth v. C.S.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Client observed traveling 87 mph in a 65 mph zone on Rte 93 South shortly after midnight. Trooper observed client swerve across 4 lanes of travel and exit highway. Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed client’s eyes to be bloodshot/glassy and his speech slurred. Client admitted to drinking after work with his last drink approximately 20 minutes bTrooper administered 6 field sobriety tests and placed client under arrest. At the barracks, client consented to a Breath Test and generated a result of .10 BAC.
Quincy District Court - Commonwealth v. D.T.S.
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: 911 caller reported that client had driven up onto the island dividing the roadway. When the caller confronted client and asked her if she was driving drunk, caller reported that client swore at him. The police stopped the client shortly thereafter, observed her eyes to be bloodshot/glassy and her speech slurred. Officers determined that client was unable to perform field sobriety tests and that she was under the influence of alcohol.
Worcester District Court - Commonwealth v. M.L.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped for speeding and charged with first offense OUI. Upon his refusal to take the breath test, Massachusetts RMV suspended his license for 3 years. At trial, Attorney Higgins, through cross-examination, was able to show the court that the client demonstrated mental clarity and manual dexterity, and that the officer’s observations were inconsistent with someone under the influence of alcohol. Following a Not Guilty verdict, Attorney Higgins convinced the Judge to allow a motion reinstating the client’s driver’s license.
Barnstable District Court - Commonwealth v. J.M.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Trooper testified that he observed client attempt to enter parking lot while pedestrians crossing. Trooper testified that client’s eyes were bloodshot/glassy, his speech was slurred and there was an odor of alcohol coming from his person. Client was asked to get out of his vehicle. Trooper testified that client was unsteady on his feet. Trooper testified that client admitted to drinking vodka/cranberries at a bar and could not find his hotel. After failing field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. R.C.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client failed to yield while merging into rotary, cutting off a Massachusetts State Trooper. The trooper followed the client and ultimately pulled him over. The trooper testified that the client smelt strongly of an alcoholic beverage, had bloodshot/glassy eyes, and admitted to have two vodka drink that were “too big” recently. When asked to get out of his car, the trooper observed the client to be unsteady on his feet and swaying from side to side. Client was arrested and charged with OUI.
Natick District Court - Commonwealth v. R.L.
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped shortly after midnight. The officer testified that the client appeared to lose focus as he was speaking with him. The officer also testified that client’s eyes were bloodshot/glassy, his speech was mumbled, and he smelt strongly of alcohol. Client admitted to drinking and was arrested. Client was charged with a 2nd Offense OUI.
Cambridge District Court - Commonwealth v. B.P.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Cambridge Police located client asleep behind the wheel in a parking lot across the street from the MBTA parking lot. When officers interacted with the client, he appeared visibly intoxicated. Client was asked how much he had to drink on two occasions. He indicated that he had “a bunch” and “a lot”. Client was asked to perform a series of field sobriety tests and the officers determined that he failed them all. Through photographs and cross examination, Attorney Higgins convinced the judge that the parking lot in which the client was located was not a “public way”—a necessary element for the charge of OUI. This precluded the Commonwealth from being able to satisfy their burden.
Wareham District Court - Commonwealth v. S.C.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped for weaving between lanes of travel on Rt. 25 in Wareham. Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed clients eyes to be bloodshot and glassy, and her speech to be slurred. Client also admitted to consuming 2 glasses of wine. After failing the field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol and negligent operation.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. C.M.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client involved in a minor car accident in the Bourne Rotary directly in front of the State Police Barracks. Client admitted to drinking, failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, the Counting Backwards Test and blew a .14 on the PBT. At trial, through cross examination of the arresting Trooper, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the mind of the judge, resulting in a favorable verdict. Client’s driver’s license restored.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. T.Z.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped in parking lot of fast food restaurant after police received a 911 call reporting erratic operation. After failed field sobriety tests, client was arrested and charged with OUI. At the police station, client registered a .17 on the Breathalyzer. At trial, 911 call and the breath test result were excluded from evidence.
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. P.T.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: .10 Breath Test suppressed prior to trial. Off-duty State Trooper observed erratic operation on Rte. 139 in Hanover. As client entered Rt. 3 Southbound, Trooper called 911. Shortly after, client was stopped. After admission to drinking 4 beers, client asked to do field sobriety tests. Trooper formed the opinion client was under the influence and arrested him. At the State Police Barracks, client blew a .10 on the Breath Test.
Fitchburg District Court - Commonwealth v. J.M.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: OUI 2nd Offense. State Trooper observed client traveling in the wrong direction on the roadway and enter a parking lot through the “Exit Only” exit portion of the lot. After failed field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI-2nd Offense
Plymouth District Court - Commonwealth v. F.R.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped after Trooper observed marked lanes violations. After admissions to drinking and failed field sobriety tests, client was arrested for OUI. At the barracks, client produced breath test readings of .089 and .092.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. J.L.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: After being stopped for marked lanes violations and failing field sobriety test, client was arrested and charged with 2nd Offense OUI.
Malden District Court - Commonwealth v. V.S.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: .08 Breath Test – Not Guilty. Client stopped for driving at night without headlights on. After admitting to drinking and failed field sobriety test, client was arrested for OUI. During a search of client’s car, Trooper found a half empty bottle of rum.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. J.H.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: NOT GUILTY
Description: Client stopped for speeding and admitted to drinking. Police officer located an open beer can at client’s feet and another empty beer can in the back seat. After trial, client found Not Guilty.
Falmouth District Court - Commonwealth v. B.S.
Practice Area: DUI / DWI
Outcome: DISMISSED
Description: Client stopped and arrested for OUI after spouse called police to report that she was intoxicated. Following an allowed motion to suppress the stop, the case was dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth.
