OUI Attorneys Quincy, MA
If you have been arrested for a drunk driving offense in Quincy, and your blood was drawn against your consent, you should immediately seek the advice of a knowledgeable lawyer. One of our skilled Quincy OUI attorneys can make sure the prosecution doesn't use that sample as evidence against you.
Talk to a skilled lawyer at the Bellotti Law Group, P C in Quincy, MA, as soon as possible to learn how this Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision can help you. The law firm has years of experience representing Norfolk County clients in OUI and other criminal cases, as well as personal injury law. Our law offices' seasoned attorneys are ready to fight for your rights in a criminal defense or personal injury claim. Call (617) 778-1000 to schedule a free initial consultation, or submit our online form.Blood Samples Without Consent Can't Be Used in OUI Cases
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled in Commonwealth v. Bohigian that blood alcohol content (BAC) evidence cannot be used in OUI driving cases unless the driver consented to the blood draw. According to the 52-page decision, this protection applies even if the police obtained a search warrant before taking the blood sample.Massachusetts OUI Attorney Peter Bellotti Explains:
In this case, defendant Charles Bohigian was convicted of operating while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), operating negligently so as to endanger, and OUI causing serious bodily injury in a 2014 accident.
At the time of his arrest, Bohigian refused to give consent for the police to draw his blood. Despite this refusal, the police officers obtained a search warrant, and forcibly took a blood sample. The blood evidence showed that Bohigian's BAC was over 0.16%, more than twice the legal limit.
The decision relied on the interpretation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 24. Section 24(1)(e) only allows for the admission of blood testing evidence that was "made by or at the direction of a police officer" if "it was made with the consent of the defendant." Similarly, Section 24(1)(f)(1) states that if the arrested person refuses to submit to blood testing, "no such test or analysis shall be made."
Despite the prosecution's protests that the search warrant was issued by a magistrate, not a police officer, requiring an exception to the rule, the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court justices agreed with Bohigian that the blood evidence should not have been admitted.