Source: http://oui-law.com/tag/excessive-speed/
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 04:36:13
Document Index: 81142457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 23', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 23']

Excessive Speed	OUI Dukes Massachusetts Jurisdiction Evidence Speeding Collision Lawyer	OUI Dukes Massachusetts Jurisdiction Evidence Speeding Collision Lawyer
Commonwealth v. Max
At the conclusion of a bifurcated trial in the Superior Court Department (Massachusetts), defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, seventh offense, under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); operating to endanger under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(2)(a); and operating after revocation of his license under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 23. Defendant appealed.
OUI Dukes Massachusetts Jurisdiction Evidence Speeding Collision Lawyer
Whether the motion judge abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress?
Defendant challenged the pretrial denial of his motion to suppress, contending that the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked jurisdictional authority to stop him in another town and that the substantial incriminating evidence resulting from the stop should have been inadmissible because neither statutory nor common-law sources permitted an extraterritorially stop under the circumstances. The appellate court found no error, noting that defendant at excessive speed drove into an oncoming lane and forced the first police cruiser to drive off the road in order to avoid a head-on collision. The officer began pursuit and directed his dispatcher to inform a neighboring town of the chase and need for assistance. The officer forced defendant to pull over after a short chase and took defendant’s keys and driver’s license. As he did so, the officer from the neighboring town, where the stop occurred, took over. Those facts established the practical certainty of discovery of defendant by the second officer.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Appellate Court, Bifurcated Trial, Common Law, Defendant, Dispatcher, Excessive Speed, Head On Collision, Incriminating Evidence, Inevitable Discovery, Jurisdictional Authority, Law Sources, Lawyer Massachusetts, Massachusetts Lawyer, Max Facts, Motion Judge, Motor Vehicle, Police Cruiser, Revocation, Superior Court, V Max	OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Inevitable Discovery Attorneys Norfolk County	OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Inevitable Discovery Attorneys Norfolk County
Commonwealth v. Lawrence
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Inevitable Discovery Attorneys Norfolk County
Whether the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery?
Defendant challenged the pretrial denial of his motion to suppress, contending that the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked jurisdictional authority to stop him in another town and that the substantial incriminating evidence resulting from the stop should have been inadmissible because neither statutory nor common-law sources permitted an extraterritorially stop under the circumstances. The appellate court found no error, noting that defendant at excessive speed drove into an oncoming lane and forced the first police cruiser to drive off the road in order to avoid a head-on collision. The officer began pursuit and directed his dispatcher to inform a neighboring town of the chase and need for assistance. The officer forced defendant to pull over after a short chase and took defendant’s keys and driver’s license. As he did so, the officer from the neighboring town, where the stop occurred, took over. Those facts established the practical certainty of discovery of defendant by the second officer
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Appellate Court, Bifurcated Trial, Chase, Common Law, Defendant, Dispatcher, Excessive Speed, Head On Collision, Incriminating Evidence, Inevitable Discovery, Jurisdictional Authority, Law Sources, Liquor, Massachusetts Attorneys, Motion Judge, Motor Vehicle, Norfolk County, Police Cruiser, Revocation, Superior Court	OUI Vehicle Massachusetts License Revocation Discovery Essex County	OUI Vehicle Massachusetts License Revocation Discovery Essex County
At the conclusion of a bifurcated trial in the Essex Superior Court Department (Massachusetts), defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, seventh offense, under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); operating to endanger under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(2)(a); and operating after revocation of his license under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 23. Defendant appealed.
OUI Vehicle Massachusetts License Revocation Discovery
Whether judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused the decision?
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Appellate Court, Bifurcated Trial, Chase, Common Law, Defendant, Dispatcher, Essex County, Essex Superior Court, Excessive Speed, Head On Collision, Incriminating Evidence, Inevitable Discovery, Jurisdictional Authority, Law Sources, License Revocation, Liquor, Massachusetts License, Motion Judge, Motor Vehicle, Police Cruiser	CLIENT MEETING LOCATIONS