Author name: The Law Office of Brian Simoneau, P.C

The case of Dascoli v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2011), illustrates the importance of appealing chemical test refusal suspensions to the Registry in Boston within the statutory 15 day appeal period. Dascoli claimed that the police gave him incorrect information in connection with this […]

The Registry of Motor Vehicles will suspend or revoke your Massachusetts Driver’s License, or right to operate in Massachusetts, whenever the Registry receives notification from the police that you used or were found in possession of a so-called “fake ID” or license belonging to another. This violation carries a 6 month license suspension. Being caught

If the Registry suspends your license or right to drive in Massachusetts, you cannot even legally drive a moped or motorized scooter. Under Massachusetts law, a valid Massachusetts learner’s permit or driver’s license is required to operate mopeds or scooters. This means that a license suspension prevents you from legally driving not only a car

I have been dealing with the issue of whether a CWOF counts as a prior conviction with respect to breathalyzer refusal suspensions for years, and I was pleased to have written the Amicus Brief in the case of Souza v. Registrar. The court’s ruling vindicated the argument that I had been making at the Board

In order to get a hardship license from the Registry of Motor Vehicles, you must have completed the appropriate alcohol program. Not all alcohol programs are the same and the Registry’s alcohol program requirements for a hardship license may differ from the program to which you were assigned by the court or probation. First offenders

The Board of Appeal has the legal authority to order the Registry to clear a suspension and issue a driver’s license, including a hardship license, even where the Registry has previously denied hardship relief and refused to do so. After a hearing, the Division of Insurance Board of Appeal issues a “Finding and Order,” which

On October 28, 2005, “Melanie’s Law,” became effective. It substantially increased the penalties for Operating Under the Influence (“OUI”) by increasing the chemical test refusal (“CTR”) suspension period from one year to three years for those who refuse a Breathalyzer with a prior conviction. It also increased, from 3 years to 5 years, the penalties for

My office has been inundated by inquiries regarding the case of Souza v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles. I am very familiar with this case, as I have been fighting the Registry on this issue for years and I wrote the amicus brief in the Souza case. In Souza, the SJC adopted the legal arguments which I raised

For years prior to December 10, 2009, the Board of Appeal had been ordering the Registry to reduce breathalyzer refusal suspensions which were increased based on the driver having a prior DUI which was resolved by an admission to sufficient facts and continuance without a finding (CWOF). The basis for reducing these license suspensions was