Source: https://www.massachusettscriminallawyer-blog.com/category/duioui/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:14:53+00:00

Document:
In a decision recently issued by the Appeals Court – Commonwealth v. Palacios – the Court held that ambulance records are admissible under G. L. c. 233, § 79G, which governs the admissibility of hospital records. Therefore, the Court held that the trial judge’s decision to admit such records was not an error.
The background of the case was as follows. “The defendant ran a stop sign and crashed into … another driver’s car…. The responding police officer found the defendant to be glassy-eyed and unsteady on her feet…. [I]n response to [the officer’s] questioning, [the defendant stated] that ‘she had been drinking and had approximately two to three drinks.’ Because the defendant claimed to be injured,” she was transported by Cataldo Ambulance Services to Whidden Memorial Hospital. “Cataldo emergency medical technicians (EMTs) made several observations of the defendant, which they recorded on a form that was admitted as an exhibit in redacted form. The ‘clinical impressions’ section of the form states, ‘Primary Impression: pain — arm; Secondary Impressions: intoxication — alcohol acute.’ The ‘narrative’ section of the form include[s] details of the defendant’s condition, including references to her consumption of alcohol: ‘…. Pt is A&Ox4 but smelling of alcohol…. [P]t … complaining of left arm pain…. [B]ecause she is inebriated pt is counseled to be transported to hospital for evaluation and agrees.’ The Whidden records of the defendant’s visit were also admitted in evidence in redacted form. [Those] records convey that the defendant … had neck and arm pain. [They also] contain notes about the defendant’s alcohol consumption including, ‘alcohol intoxication’; ‘Acute alcohol intoxication’; ‘Patient … also intoxicated’; and ‘Pt admits to drinking tonight.’” The defendant was ultimately charged with operating under the influence alcohol under G. L. c. 90, § 24.
According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman who was recently arrested for operating under the influence sang to the officers that arrested her. The article states that the police reportedly found the woman sleeping in her parked car on Concord Road at 2:45am. The article describes the car as “partially obstructing traffic” and states that it was in a parking spot, but hanging out into the street by “several feet.” The police apparently knocked on the car’s windows in an attempt to rouse the woman but were unsuccessful. The police then opened the car doors and yelled at the woman to wake her up. When she did awaken, she began singing to the officers and reportedly made several sexual gestures. One of the officers asked the woman if she had taken any drugs to which she responded “I don’t know what I took, but I took something.” She also admitted to having between eight and twelve glasses of wine. It is unclear when she may have taken any substances, and/or when she drank the wine. The officers also had her perform some field sobriety tests. Although the article states that the woman reportedly failed the tests, there is no further information as to what tasks she may have performed incorrectly. The police ultimately charged the woman with driving under the influence under G. L. c. 90, § 24, and civilly cited her for obstructing traffic.
According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a man involved in a car crash on Route 9 in Southborough fled the scene after he was pulled out of his smoking car. The article states that the driver rolled his car during the course of the accident and that it was resting on its side when others arrived on the scene. The passersby noticed that the car was smoking and worked together to pull the man out, breaking windows in the car to do so. When they pulled the driver out, they noticed that he was unsteady and possibly drunk. One of the passersby stated that the driver stumbled and nearly vomited after being taken from the car. He further stated that driver did not seem not understand what his rescuers were trying to do, even though his car was filling with smoke. Following the rescue, the driver reportedly “took off running into the swamp.” Police searched for the man and eventually apprehended him.
According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a man was recently arrested following a car accident on Winthrop Street in Framingham. The article states that several people flagged a Framingham police officer down and told him there was a serious crash. The officer proceeded to the location of the crash and found a Toyota Celica on its roof on the lawn of 197 Winthrop Street. The article states that the car appeared to have “veered right and completely off the road into the driveway,” and that the car “appeared to be speeding.” The officer found three individuals outside the car – two women, ages seventeen and eighteen, and a man, later identified as the driver. The two women stated that they were passengers. One of the women stated that she was pregnant and asked to go to the hospital. The driver was also injured and had numerous lacerations on his arms, face, and knee. The car had apparently hit a street sign, and damaged the house as well. The responding officer reportedly noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the driver’s mouth, and observed his eyes to be bloodshot. The officer apparently questioned the driver, who initially denied having had anything to drink. At some later point, however, he admitted to having had two shots of vodka. The driver refused to perform any field sobriety tests, and refused to take a breathalyzer. He also apparently told the officer “I don’t care about myself. I am not going to the hospital. I just care about them,” in reference to the passengers. The man was ultimately charged for operating under the influence and driving to endanger. He was also civilly cited for speeding and a marked lanes violation.
For the Commonwealth to obtain a conviction against the driver for operating under the influence under G. L. c. 90, § 24, it would have to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the driver operated a motor vehicle; (2) that the driver did so on a public way; and (3) that while operating the vehicle, the driver was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. As to the third element, a person is under the influence of alcohol if he has consumed enough alcohol to reduce his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely by decreasing his alertness, judgment and ability to respond promptly. The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the driver was in fact drunk or that he actually drove in an unsafe or erratic manner, but it is required to prove that his ability to drive safely was diminished by alcohol.
According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Walpole man was recently charged with his fifth drunken driving offense. The article states that the defendant was riding in the passenger seat of his car, which his girlfriend was driving. According to the girlfriend, the defendant was intoxicated and threw a cellular telephone at her. The phone did not hit the girlfriend, but when she pulled over to pick it up, the defendant reportedly hit the her in the face with his hand. The girlfriend then drove to a nearby pizza shop in Ashland to try and get help. When she exited the vehicle, the defendant reportedly grabbed her and tried to pull her back into the car. He then got into the driver’s seat and drove away from her, but hit a parked car as he left. The police stopped the defendant a short distance away, still in the vehicle. The police asked the defendant if he had been drinking, and he stated that he had not. The police also asked if he would be willing to perform field sobriety tests, which he declined to do. According to the article, the police found empty beer cans and nips in the car. When the police ran the defendant’s record, they saw that he had four prior convictions for operating under the influence of liquor. He was subsequently charged with the following offenses: (1) driving under the influence of liquor (fifth offense)); (2) driving to endanger; (3) driving with a license suspended for drunken driving while intoxicated; (4) leaving the scene of an accident; and (5) domestic assault and battery.
According to a recent article in the MetroWest Daily News, the state’s Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT), which certifies breath testing machines used around Massachusetts, appears to have known about a software issue that complicated dozens of drunken driving cases months before anyone moved to fix the problem. The article states that OAT recognized breath testing machines were failing to properly detect errors during calibration tests as early as February 2014. Although some police departments were instructed to give calibration tests extra scrutiny, it was not until fourteen months later, in April 2015, that the secretary of public safety asked the manufacturer of the machines to come up with a solution to the defective equipment.
Massachusetts began rolling out new breath testing machines in 2011. To demonstrate they are working properly, the machines are designed to measure a small sample of gas with an alcohol concentration of .080 percent. Under state regulations, the machines must return a measurement between .074 and .086 percent in order to pass the calibration test. By default, however, the machines are programmed with a wider tolerance. The machines accept measurements between .070 and .090 unless they are reprogrammed by the manufacturer. The state failed to customize the instruments with the correct settings when it bought them four years ago. Some calibration tests that should have failed under the state’s tighter regulations were therefore allowed to pass.
Police departments are required to periodically check their breath testing equipment by running a series of calibration tests. If any one of the measurements is outside the allowable range, the so-called “periodic test” has failed. Every subsequent breath test conducted with the machine is then called into question until the device completes another successful periodic test. Given the fact that the police are required to conduct these periodic checks, public safety officials maintain that the police should have caught the errors and thereby prevented breath test evidence from becoming tainted. The more significant issue, however, is that the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) failed to notify court officials and defendants about the issues for a significant period of time. The article states that court records and interviews with defendants show that in some cases, it was months before people who were on probation for drunken driving charges learned of problems with the evidence in their cases.
Last week, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision – Commonwealth v. Camblin – that calls the admissibility of breath test evidence into question in operating under the influence cases. The facts of the case are as follows: Camblin pulled over in the breakdown lane on Route 495 to urinate. A Massachusetts State Trooper saw Camblin standing outside his car, pulled over behind him, and spoke to him. During the course of their interaction, the trooper became suspicious that Camblin had been driving under the influence of alcohol and administered several field sobriety tests. Camblin performed poorly on the tests and the trooper transported him to the state police barracks where Camblin was asked if he would be willing to take a breathlyzer test. The trooper administered the test using an “Alcotest” device. The device indicated that the Camblin’s blood alcohol level was 0.16 – two times the legal limit of .08. Camblin was subsequently charged with OUI, second offense.
The case went to trial and Camblin’s attorney challenged the admissibility of the results of the breathalyzer. Specifically, Camblin’s attorney filed a motion in limine to exclude the Alcotest results on the ground that the test was scientifically unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994), both of which govern the admissibility of scientific test results at trial. For the results of a scientific test to be admissible under the Daubert-Lanigan standard, the party seeking to introduce the scientific evidence must lay an adequate foundation for its introduction, either by establishing general acceptance of the test in the scientific community, or by showing that the evidence is reliable or valid through an alternate means.

References: v. 
 § 79
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 v.