Chemical Test Refusal Appeal Q&A

Posted on by
CTRQuestion: I have a few questions about Melanie’s Law. I was recently charged with O.U.I. in Massachusetts and refused the Breath Test. I missed the 15 day window to appeal the BTR. Is there any way to get an appeal hearing? That being said there are a few thing that i feel should be considered.My charge was a result of a single car motor vehicle accident. I have been getting treated by a doctoer for Vertigo,Light headedness and Dizziness.I was taking medication for anxiety, and I have sleep apnea (now being treated)all in my medical records prior to the accident and is what caused the accident.

As a result of the accident I was knocked out cold, got a cracked skull(left temporal bone), released my bladder and got a concussion. The police didn’t offer any medical treatment and was more concerned about making an arrest. The police claim that I failed a field sobriety test and refused the breath test. I did consume 2 alcoholic beverage that night. It was 1 Sam Adams ale and 1 White Russian(store bought).

The night of the accident, I have no recollection of the crash or any police presence. I was not of sound mind or judgement due to my injuries.I apparently signed the BTR and Medical Refusal form but do not remember doing so. I believe I passed out once or twice while I was handcuffed to a bench at the police station.

I feel that the police departments first priority should be the safety of the people and they should have called an ambulance. I would have been brought to an E.R. where blood could of been drawn and prooved that my B.A.L. was well under the legal limit. I also would of gotten the medical attention that I obviously needed.

I didn’t get the letter from the R.M.V. stating that I had a fifteen day window to appeal because it went to my future ex-wife at my old house and she didn’t hand it to me until after the 15 days(opened). I also have my medical records that support this information and photos of my head hours after the crash that clearly show abnormalities and disfigurement.

I did get an O.U.I. charge in 2009 and it was CWOF. I am now learning that under Melanie’s law that this will count as a 2nd offense and it will be 3 years for BTR. I am fairly confident that the O.U.I. charge will get defeated in a courtroom if not thrown out all together. I want to know if there is any way to get an appeal now for the Breath Test Refusal?

To not have a Drivers License for three years because I have or had a medical condition or wasn’t properly dealt with by the police is an injustice. I believe I should get an appeal hearing considering the circumstances of this case. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Answer: Chemical Test Refusal (CTR) Appeals are governed by G.L. c. 90 § 24(1)(g), which states that “any person whose license, permit or right to operate has been suspended under subparagraph (1) of paragraph (f) shall, within fifteen days of suspension, be entitled to a hearing before the registrar…” Therefore, you only had 15 days to appeal the 3 year breath test refusal suspension. You were issued a notice of suspension at the time of your arrest which notified you of the refusal suspension and your right to appeal.Also, the fact that you didn’t get the suspension notice which the Registry mailed is not sufficient to get around the 15 day requirement. Under Massachusetts law, it was your responsibility to notify the Registry of your address change.Even if you won the chemical test refusal appeal, the Registry would probably revoke your license under the immediate threat law, because you have vertigo, light headedness, dizziness. anxiety, and sleep apnea. The Registry would say that someone involved in a single car accident who experienced a loss of consciousness, with those medical conditions, is a danger to public safety and should not be driving.

In a recent case, I won a 3 year chemical test refusal appeal and the same day the Registry reinstated my client’s license on the CTR, they revoked my client’s license under the immediate threat law. The letter states as follows:

Pursuant to your client’s CTR Appeal, I have carefully reviewed our record and have allowed your appeal. This in no way implies a determination that the Massachusetts State Police Department lacked reasonable grounds or acted improperly at any time during their interaction with you. Since the suspension has been cleared, the $500.00 reinstatement fee has been waived.

NOTE: This is in regard to your client’s suspension for a chemical test refusal, only. At the present time there is also an Immediate Threat suspension affecting the license and that must be resolved separately before the license or right to operate is restored.
I can see the same thing happening in your case.

Unfortunately, you cannot get a hardship license on a CTR suspension. Therefore, they only way to get your license reinstated is to get a not guilty on the 2nd offense DUI charge.

DMV’s Facial recognition system results in 2,500 identity fraud arrests

Posted on by

facial_recognitionNBC News recently reported on the successes of the facial recognition system which has been used by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles since 2010. According to the report, 2,500 people have been arrested for license fraud, when the DMV discovered multiple licenses records for the same person.

The system is manufactured by L-1 Identity Solutions and it is also in use in other states such as North Carolina and Massachusetts. In addition to providing facial recognition solutions to Motor Vehicle Departments such as the Special Investigation Unit of the Massachusetts Registry / State Police, it also provides digital facial biometric technology to casinos and the gambling industry.

Privacy advocates and civil rights advocates are critical of facial recognition systems and the widespread sharing of such data.

The system works by digitizing facial images and comparing them with a database of stored images, using a sophisticated proprietary algorithm. When a match is found between two images, the user is notified and a human makes the final comparison, for verification purposes. The accuracy of this system is extremely high and the Massachusetts State Police use it to detect license fraud. When the system detects multiple licenses for the same individual, MassDOT immediately revokes both licenses and the customer(s) are called into the Registry’s Special Investigation Unit for a license fraud hearing. Providing false information to obtain a license, learner’s permit, or Massachusetts identification card is a felony which carries a potential sentence of 5 years in state prison and a 1 year license revocation.

If you have been accused of license fraud in Massachusetts, you are entitled to legal representation. Contact Attorney Brian E. Simoneau for information and legal assistance.

Mass. Appeals Court Rules on Ignition Interlock Device Requirement

Posted on by

In the case of Commonwealth v. Sean M. Pettit, the Massachusetts Appeals Court announced that a person who is required to use an ignition interlock device in accordance with Melanie’s Law cannot be convicted of operating a motor vehicle without the ignition interlock device unless the driver’s license is active when he or she is caught driving without the IID.

On August 15, 1996, Pettit was convicted of a first offense DUI, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24. On December 9, 1999, he was convicted of a 2nd offense DUI. As a result of his two drunk driving convictions, his driver’s license was revoked on December 16, 1999. On May 24, 2007, well after the enactment of Melanie’s Law, Pettit reinstated his driver’s license with the ignition interlock device restriction. However, Pettit removed the ignition interlock device from his vehicle and his license was revoked due to the removal of the IID.

On July 28, 2009, a police officer caught Pettit driving on a revoked license without an ignition interlock device, allegedly in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24S. His lawyer correctly claimed that the conviction was invalid because Petitt was operating on a revoked and not a restricted license at the time of his arrest. The Mass. Appeals Court ruled that a driver’s license cannot be revoked and restricted at the same time.

Circumvent Your NDR Indefinite Suspension with a Colorado Driver’s License

Posted on by

license_loopholeThe Interstate Driver License Compact (DLC) was designed to prevent drivers from avoiding license suspensions and revocations by obtaining a new license in one state when the driver’s license was suspended or revoked in another state. However, there is a “loophole” which may allow drivers whose licenses are suspended or revoked in Massachusetts to obtain licensure in the State of Colorado.

The Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has procedures in place whereby it will issue drivers licenses to individuals who have had their licenses suspended or revoked in other states. Thus, in accordance with 1 CCR 204-16(B) it may be possible to get a Colorado license even if the Mass. RMV has suspended or revoked your license for a long period of time.

In order to get a Colorado license when your Massachusetts license is revoked or suspended, you must serve one (1) year of the Massachusetts suspension or revocation, during which time you must not have operated a motor vehicle. You cannot have any convictions of motor vehicle violations after the license suspension. You must prove Colorado residency by showing utility bills, voter registration, Colorado employment, or other items which indicate that you are a Colorado resident.

At your licensing hearing before the Department of Revenue, all out of state offenses must be viewed as if they had occurred in Colorado for reinstatement purposes. With credit for time served from the commencement of the suspension or revocation, if you have served the entire suspension under Colorado law, you are eligible to be licensed in Colorado. If your reinstatement date, based on applying Colorado law to your violations, is in the future, you can apply for a Colorado license on that date, even if your license or right to drive is suspended or revoked in Massachusetts.

This “loophole” might present a valuable opportunity to those who have lost their licenses in Massachusetts because, with the passage of Melanie’s Law, the Massachusetts RMV imposes harsh license suspension penalties for repeat drunk drivers. For example, second offenders face 2 year license suspensions, third offenders will have their licenses revoked for 8 years, 4th DUI offenders will lose their licenses for 10 years, and in Massachusetts 5th offenders will have their licenses revoked for life.

In contrast to these severe penalties in the form of long Massachusetts license suspensions, the State of Colorado has comparatively lenient penalties for DUI. For example, for qualified defendants, it has minor charge of driving while ability impaired (DWAI), which carries no license suspension for a first offense. 2nd DUI offenders have their licenses suspended for 2 years, and those who have 3 DUI convictions will only lose their licenses for 2 years in Colorado.

Here is an example of how the “loophole” works. Suppose the Mass. Registry revoked your license for 3 DUI convictions on March 5, 2010.  This mandatory 8 year revocation would run until March 3, 2018. However, on March 5, 2012, you could apply for a Colorado license. The Colorado DMV would override the block in the National Driver Register and issue you a driver’s license despite the mandatory 8 year DUI 3rd offense revocation.

 

The Massachusetts RMV Requires Ignition Interlock for Repeat DUI Offenders, No Exceptions

Posted on by

Question: I was arrested in June of 2004 for my 1st OUI-I was put on probation and lost my license was suspended about 2 or 3 weeks later I was involved in a accident and was arrested on my 2nd OUI and Driving After Suspension-I paid a really large sum of money and my attorney had my 2 OUI’s lumped into 1 and my case was continued without a finding (CWOF)-over the next couple of years I did all that was asked of me by the courts and my probation ended-the only thing I did not do was pay the $600 fine I needed to pay to get my license back -in 2006 I went into the Boston registry to see what it would take to get my license back (I didn’t know about the fine yet) The associate at the registry stated to me (and gave me a paper) that all I had to do to get my license re-instated was to pay the $600.00 fine-that was it-nothing else-(definitely not an Ignition Interlock Device) was never mentioned!! The years went by and I never really needed a reason to have my license-Fast -Forward to 2011 and I went to the registry to get my license re-instated (I was anticipating having to go through the whole license process-starting with getting my permit-I was also told this by a bunch of individuals also) the associate at the registry stated I had to see a Hearings Officer -so I proceeded to wait hours for one-I finally met with one and she stated that I would have to pay the $600.00 fine and in addition i would have to buy a car first and then have an Ignition Interlock Device installed in that car-them my license would be re-instated-I walked out in disgust-I was never told this back in 2006-both my cases were well before Melanie’s Law was signed into law!! I don’t believe this is “right” or “fair”-I have friends and acquaintances that have 2 or more OUI’s and they didn’t even have to get the ignition interlock device-I am so sad and confused -i need your help-I can’t afford to get this device and back in 2006 they never, ever said anything about this device.

How can the RMV can do this? Do I have any recourse? #1 I did not have the $600.00 for the fine for the longest time #2 I started drinking right after my probation was cleared up and became a terrible alcoholic so bad that I locked myself in my house and drank 24/7 -so I didn’t care about my license anyway-I did eventually seek professional help in 2008 and I have been sober ever since-is there anything that can be done to avoid this interlock device? I mean what if I (or someone else in this predicament) had temporary paralysis or any other major health condition that prevented them of making that deadline (Hypothetically speaking)? Thanks again Brian for all your assistance, you are a True gentleman and kind person-best wishes and God bless you and your family.

Question: I was convicted of third offense DUI in 2001 received a hardship license in 2004 with no interlock. I was told 8 years for DWI and 4 years habitual traffic offender. I went for my full time license in March of 2013. The Registry hearing officer told me that I was eligible for my full time license in 2010. The Registry of Motor Vehicles told me that the 12 years didn’t run consecutively. They never sent me any letter that I was eligible. So I have been driving for three extra years on a part time license. I now have to have this ignition interlock device for two more years. Is there anything that I can do to get the ignition interlock device removed sooner than 2 years?

Answer: Unfortunately, Melanie’s law requires anyone reinstating from a DUI suspension after January 1, 2006 to have the ignition interlock device if they have 2 or more operating under the influence (OUI) convictions on their records. Since you have 2 DUI convictions and you did not reinstate your license from the 2nd DUI suspension until after January 1, 2006, you’re ignition interlock required for 2 years. Although you were eligible to reinstate your license prior to January 1, 2006, you did not reinstate it. The Registry does not make exceptions to the ignition interlock device requirement for anyone who has 2 or more OUI convictions, no matter when or where the driving under the influence arrests occurred.

Ignition Interlock Device Failed Initial Start Tests

Posted on by

Question: I received your email address from your web site and had some questions regarding IID start-up lockouts in Massachusetts.

I have had an IID device in my vehicle for a little over a year. The device started giving me false positives on initial start-ups within the last month. In all cases, a reset of the device and an immediate re-test passed and I drove to my destination also passing ROLLING RE-TEST. I have not failed an ROLLING RE-TEST since installation of the device.

I have now received a lockout on the device due to two start-up failures. The documentation I have seen regarding start-up lockout penalties seems to be vague.

Does the RMV care about start-up lockouts?

Would you recommend a hearing to contest this lockout based on data that I blew clean before and immediately after the failure and also blew ROLLING RE-TEST clean?

If currently the RMV does not care about start-up lockouts, is it possible the requirements could change before I complete the program and this could count against me? (Much like my 1st OUI from 1983 which I regret not contesting, interesting how five years became a lifetime.)

Answer:

The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles does not currently suspend or revoke licenses based on initial start failures and there is nothing in the current Massachusetts Ignition Interlock Regulations, 540 CMR 25 et seq., which provides for such action.

The Registry does, however, impose 10 year or lifetime license revocations for other infractions such missed rolling re-tests, failed rolling re-tests, and failure to have the device downloaded and maintained as required by the Ignition Interlock Program Regulations.

Questions & Answers re: NDR & Out of State Issues

Posted on by

Question: I received a DUI in the State of New Hampshire in October of 2012. I am moving to Massachusetts and am looking to find out how to get my license back, so I do not lose my job.

Answer: MassDOT will not issue you a Massachusetts driver’s license if your license or right to operate is under suspension or revocation in any other state. Without this requirement, drunk drivers could simply move around to avoid mandatory DUI license suspensions. In order to get a license in Massachusetts, you must first fully reinstate your New Hampshire license. Once you have done this, the New Hampshire DMV will remove the hold in the Problem Driver Pointer System of the National Driver Register and you can convert your New Hampshire license to a Massachusetts License.

Question: second dui out of state …I am here in Massachusetts working for several months and have been abiding by the law and not driving and taking cab to and from work, which is getting expensive and tedious….Can I get a hardship license here while I am working?

Can a person with dui working here from another state get a temp hardship license?….I have and will be here working for quite a while and a cab to and from work is getting cumbersome NOT to mention expensive.

Answer: No. You must be a resident of Massachusetts to get a Massachusetts Driver’s License. Also, the Registry will check you in the National Driver Register and the RMV will not issue you a Massachusetts license of any kind, including a hardship license, while your license or right to drive is suspended or revoked in any other state. If it were not for this rule, convicted drunk drivers and habitual traffic offenders could move from state to state to avoid license suspensions.

Question: I received a letter from MA RMV that they intend to revoke my license based on info from NDR and the state of Florida. I never had a license in Florida! My first name and DOB match an individual that has lost his license. Florida faxed me a letter stating that I have no record of a driver’s license and MA will not take it! They want a letter with the ref # on it and Florida is not willing to send it without a lot of paperwork. I drive for a living and have already burnt a day of being on hold and getting nowhere.

Answer: If there is a National Driver Register (NDR) block which matches your information, the Registry gives you thirty (30) days notice to clear the block. If you are unable to clear the NDR block within 30 days, the Registry is required to indefinitely revoke your Massachusetts Driver’s License. You cannot reinstate your license until the NDR hold is cleared. In this case, the Registry is simply requiring that the State of Florida include, in the “not the same person” letter, the reference number which corresponds with the NDR record which triggered the revocation. This requirement appears to be reasonable and the Florida DMV should comply. In this case, the reference number is probably the Florida license number of the person whose license is under revocation.

Name Change Triggers Fraud Suspension

Posted on by

FLORIDA_DMV Most brides take their husband’s names. However, increasingly, some men are taking their new wives’ names. This recently resulted in a one year suspension for license fraud. Florida and national news outlets have recently reported that Lazaro Sopena took his new wife’s last name shortly after they got married. Using his marriage license, he obtained a new social security card, passport, and credit cards.  He used these legitimately obtained documents to obtain a new Florida Driver’s License which the DMV willingly issued in his new name. Basically, he followed the same procedures that a woman would follow to take her husband’s last name. However, it did not work out very well in this man’s case.

license_fraud_nameShortly after changing his name, he received a letter from the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles indicating that his right to operate would be suspended for one year for license fraud. He tried obtaining a hardship license, which the Florida DMV allows drunk driving but not in license fraud cases. He had difficulty working as a real estate broker, as he was not able to drive clients to view homes for sale.

Eventually, after suffering with a suspended license, Mr. Sopena, who changed his last name to Dinh, hired a lawyer and appealed the 1 year license fraud suspension. The Florida DMV reconsidered its position and it vacated the license fraud suspension when Mr. Dinh provided legal documentation which showed that he followed all of the proper procedures for changing his name.

This situation would not have occurred in Massachusetts because MassDOT has procedures in place which allow a husband to take his wife’s name. Apparently, only Massachusetts and eight other states, allow a man to change his surname to his wife’s name on his driver’s license.

Mass. Suspension for CT DUI Upheld on Appeal

Posted on by

connecticut_dui_suspensionThomas Scheffler was arrested and charged with operating under in the influence of liquor in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14–227a. Following his arrest, he applied for and was allowed entry into a pre-trial alcohol education diversion program, under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 54–56g. After he successfully completed that program, the charges arising from the Connecticut arrest were dismissed. He did not admit to sufficient facts to establish his guilt. However, his license was suspended for 180 days in Connecticut.

Scheffler received notification from the RMV that his driver’s license would be suspended “because of the official notice of suspension/revocation received … from” Connecticut. On April 14, 2010, Scheffler’s license was officially suspended for one year. Scheffler appealed the suspension of his license to the Board of Appeal, and requested that the Connecticut arrest be expunged from his driving record because it did not qualify as a “like offense” for the purposes of G.L. c. 90, § 24. The Mass. DUI Law establishes more stringent penalties for defendants convicted of OUI in Massachusetts, when they have been “previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth, or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense …”

Scheffler additionally suggested to the Board that, even if a violation of § 14–227a was sufficiently similar to a violation of G.L .c. 90, § 24 to qualify as a “like offense,” the Connecticut arrest was dismissed without a finding of guilt or admission to sufficient facts and, as a result, the Connecticut arrest should still not be considered a “like offense” under § 24.

The Board concluded that Conn. Gen.Stat. § 14–227a was sufficiently similar to G.L.c. 90, § 24 to make the Connecticut arrest a “like offense” for the purposes of § 24. See Bellino v. Bd. of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies & Bonds, Civil Action No. 97–2020 (Suffolk Super.Ct. Jun. 8, 1998) (“Operating Under the Influence in Massachusetts appears to incorporate all level of alcohol related driving impairment … notwithstanding any arguably minor differences between two statutory schemes”).

The Board further determined that because § 24 expressly included completion of alcohol education programs among its criteria for like offenses, and because the disposition of the Connecticut arrest included a license suspension, the Connecticut arrest fell within the ambit of a “like offense” for the purposes of § 24. The Board concluded that the pre-trial disposition was “substantially similar to the Continued Without a Finding (CWOF) disposition offered under G.L.c. 90, § 24.” Consequently, the Board affirmed the RMV suspension of Scheffler’s license and denied his request to expunge the Connecticut arrest from his driving record.

The Board concluded that a violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 14–227a was a “like offense” for the purposes of G.L.c. 90, § 24, because the statutes both proscribed operation of motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol. On appeal, the Worcester Superior Court ruled that “there was no error in this determination.”

Scheffler emphasizes that the disposition of the Connecticut arrest through the pre-trial alcohol education program did not involve a conviction, a determination of guilt, or admission to sufficient facts that he operated under the influence of liquor. However, the Superior Court noted that, “the plain language of § 24 makes clear that none of those conditions is required for the Connecticut arrest to qualify as a ‘like offense.’”

The Superior Court determined that OUI suspensions are triggered by convictions or program assignments and, “the statute does not, by its terms, require a finding or admission of guilt in all cases.”

Finally, the Superior Court ruled that “the Board’s interpretation of § 24 in a manner that renders the Connecticut DUI arrest a ‘like offense’ for the purposes of that statute was proper and consistent in all respects with applicable law.”

Careless Driving in Florida Triggers Massachusetts License Suspension

Posted on by

My office recently received this information from a family who was involved in a traffic accident while on vacation in Florida. The Registry has determined that careless driving in the State of Florida is sufficiently similar to negligent operation in Massachusetts, so that it triggers license suspensions here in Massachusetts.

Never in my wildest dreams would I expect to need legal help but injustice does not choose it seems. Last November we went on a family vacation to Florida. We rented a car online and when we got there we were presented with a small and flimsy looking vehicle – Chevy Aveo. Since it is just the 3 of us (2 adults and a 7-year-old) and not all that much driving to be done, we just went with it. After a few days in Disney we had to drive to my husband’s father’s place for Thanksgiving. It was November 21. On the way we got off the highway once for a bathroom stop.

picAs we were getting out of some Wendy’s parking lot onto the street (not highway yet), we had to cross a few lanes to go to the other side (to turn around and get back on the highway). The light was red and not many cars were coming so we could go to get ourselves in line on the other side for when the light turns green. We were driving very slowly, barely moving. Suddenly we hit a car in the left lane. The blind spot in this car was awful and my husband simply did not notice the car in the left lane. The other car (Escalade) was also barely moving so we basically just bumped into one another. We called the police. The lady in the other car was very nice, and so was the police officer. We ended up with a dent on the rental’s door and on the lady’s car’s bumper. It was not a great thing to have happen while on vacation but it was just a fender bender and everybody just drove away. We got a ticket which we paid as soon as we returned home. We figured we will get 3 points for the minor at-fault accident and some insurance rate increase and move on. And then last Wednesday, my husband got a letter from RMV saying that his license is being revoked for 60 days as a result of a criminal conviction.

This came as a complete shock but we figured it is so unreasonable that it has to be a mistake and a call to the 800 number will straighten things out. The person on the phone told us to go to a hearing at a local RMV, which we did first thing Thursday morning. There it turned out that the suspension is legal and will take effect, just as it states. We were given a form to appeal the whole thing with the BOA. It takes at least 30 days to get to the appeal – in the meantime my husband is being falsely punished and my family’s life is greatly disturbed (by technical difficulties as well as emotional distress). Even worse than having to wait so long for the appeal is the fact that we have no guarantee of winning it because there seems to be a huge legal misunderstanding on the part of the Massachusetts RMV.

I spoke to the Florida policeman from the precinct that issued our ticket, did some research of my own regarding Florida Statute 316.1925, Careless Driving. Section 1 defines what constitutes a violation of the statute, and Section 2 states that a violation of Section 1 constitutes a moving violation.

The policeman said that “Careless Driving” is a catch-all in Florida and issued routinely. When a driver is involved in an accident (even a tiny fender bender!) which was not a major event, meaning that was not the result of running a red light or stop sign, of making an illegal turn, of following too closely, or some other such violation, chances are the officer will cite them for careless driving because the elements under the statute merely require the allegation that the operator was not driving his or her vehicle in a “careful and prudent manner” given the circumstances on the roadway.

I fully understand that the Massachusetts License Suspension Law, G.L. c. 90 § 22(c) states that if a Massachusetts licensed driver is convicted in another state of a motor vehicle violation, the Mass RMV is required to treat the conviction as if it had occurred here in Massachusetts. The Registry has, however, incorrectly interpreted this legal requirement to mean that the Florida offense of “careless driving” should be treated as a conviction for “negligent operation” in Massachusetts. Mass Registry of Motor Vehicles unjustly suspends such person’s driver’s license for 60 days and counts it against the person under the Massachusetts Habitual Traffic Offender Law which is simply wrong. This is an INCORRECT and UNJUST interpretation of the Florida statute by Massachusetts authorities!!!! Florida police officers routinely issue citations for careless driving. There are MAJOR legal differences between the Florida Careless Driving violation and the Massachusetts Negligent Operation offense. Why are they being treated as equal by Mass RMV?

We feel that this is an incorrect and frankly illegal interpretation done by the state of Massachusetts that is causing our family unnecessary distress. Don’t get me wrong – I am all for suspending licenses for reckless/negligent drivers – I see them daily on my commute to and from work. It’s just that my husband’s situation is not such case. A clean record at 41-years-old and then a tiny fender bender while on vacation… and we are in a nightmare from which we cannot wake up. We admit that my husband did bump into that lady’s car (it was an accident!). What we deserve is to get 3 points for a Minor at-fault accident (claim of $500 to $2,000) and not all this criminal treatment at 7 points, license being revoked, fines, penalties… being worse off than having been charged with a DUI. Florida careless driving is a non-criminal civil traffic infraction; it is only a financial issue and not what Massachusetts is making it into.

Until our hearing (which will be God knows when) our lives are a total mess – my husband with no license and a treatment of a common criminal – 7 points and a fee of $1200 to get the license reinstated. Overall worse off than if it was a DUI citation because drunk drivers can get a hardship license to drive to and from work! And it was a little fender bender while on vacation… in a bad rental car… in unfamiliar surroundings. Perfect context for a little fender bender to happen. Even to a person with a perfect driving record – which is the case of my husband.

Here is the narrative from the accident report:

V2 was traveling in the left through lane on westbound W Lake Mary Blvd. V1 exited eastbound I-4 to eastbound W Lake Mary Blvd. V1 was in the center through lane as it was approaching the intersection at Lake Emma Rd. V1 attempted to change lanes to the left through lane. V1 struck V2 as it changed lanes. Driver of V1 stated he did not see V2. Driver of V2 stated V1 changed lanes in front of her. There were no reported injuries. Both drivers refused medical treatment.

diagramThe damage to V2 is approximately $1500. The damage to V1 is approximately $3500. Both vehicles were removed by the driver. Driver of V1 was cited for careless driving.

In the accident report the officer estimated damages at insane amounts of $3500 and $1500. No idea where he got those numbers from but the Escalade bumper was already fully paid for by Allstate Insurance at a total of $641. Hertz still did not file the $ amount but take a look at the attached pictures of our rental car damage. Just a dent. Obviously this was just tapped by that Escalade at very low speeds or else my family would be a human marmalade in an Aveo can. No damage inside the door or to the hinge. Just a dent in the driver’s door’s outer panel. It was 2011 Chevy Aveo – this model is no longer made and the entire car was worth very little even as new so the door’s outer panel must be minor $.

The light was red, everybody was barely moving and the car was in my husband’s blind spot so we slightly bumped into one another. That’s all it was. We should get 3 points for a Minor at-fault accident (claim of $500 to $2,000) and not get a label of a road criminal.

Cases of this nature should be taken to the Board of Appeal. Contact a lawyer if you are facing a Mass. license suspension under similar circumstances.