Welcome! Login | Register
 

Chamber of Commerce Launches Interactive Map to Promote Economic Development—The Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce recently developed…

Where will you WOO?  Week of February 26th—Where will you WOO for the week of…

Leather Storrs: Organic Gardening and The Power of Poop—The subject of fecal transplanting seems a suicide…

Elizabeth Warren To Education Dept: Stop Profiting Off Student Loans—U.S. Senators send letter to U.S. Department of…

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation Awards Grants To Worcester Organizations—Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation awarded nearly $2.9…

Holy Cross Closes Home Schedule With 63-60 Win Over Loyola—Holy Cross beats Loyola 63-60

Newport Manners + Etiquette: The Blue Tuxedo + Other Updates—Wedding etiquette on trend with colorful tuxedos

Horowitz: Giuliani Keeps Digging—And Its Not Helping—Refusing to apologize and only backing down a…

3rd Annual Conference for Bullying Prevention to Be Held on Wednesday—The third annual Conference for Bullying Prevention to…

Organize + Energize: 5 Reasons You Procrastinate—You have a project you’ve wanted to tackle.…

 
 

Leonardo Angiulo: The Right to Refuse a Breath Test

Monday, December 03, 2012

 

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Expert

The charge of operating under the influence in Massachusetts breaks down into three major parts.  The first is operation of a motor vehicle, second is doing so on a public way.  The third piece is the kicker: operating said motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  While this subject has appeared in my column before, a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case highlights an important issue at trial for people who refuse breath testing after arrest. 

Being under the influence is usually proven by the opinion of the officer who meets with a defendant at roadside and observes their condition.  Every so often, however, there are also blood alcohol tests conducted at the station when a person takes a breath test.  The thing is, though, that no one is forced to take that breath test.

There are some incentives to taking the test.  First time offenders, for example, get a thirty day loss of license for failing a breath test instead of 180 days for refusing to take it.  There are, however, some detriments as well.

By taking a breath test and failing, you are voluntarily providing evidence against yourself.  Notice the word “voluntarily” I put in there.  As mentioned in other columns, a fundamental part of our federal and state constitution is the right against self-incrimination.  The provisions of each constitution have been interpreted differently and, often, the Massachusetts State Constitution may offer additional protections not found in federal jurisprudence.

A recent case, Commonwealth v. Gibson, provides a study in this distinction.  Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights is the state counterpart to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  As the appeals court points out in Commonwealth v. Gibson, article 12 offers people certain protections unavailable in other states: the ability to refuse breath tests after arrest and the right to a trial without having that refusal introduced in evidence.

The facts of Commonwealth v. Gibson are interesting because it describes a trial that transpired properly.  The issue arose when the jury filed a question as to why a breath test may or may not be administered.  In response the court gave a supplemental instruction that, among other things, mentioned a person's right to refuse breath tests.  The jury later convicted the defendant. 

The Appeals court stated, in these factual circumstances, that mentioning the mere possibility that a defendant could refuse breath testing is such a significant constitutional error that the conviction must be reversed.  The problem is not so much the words themselves, but the inference that the lack of test could be attributed to the defendant's choice.  This is to say that it is unconstitutional for a conviction to be based on the presumption that “an innocent person has nothing to hide” and this defendant acted like a guilty person by refusing the breath test.

So, the moral of the story is that, under the current state of the law, your breath test refusal will not come into evidence.  That doesn't make the resulting license suspension any easier though.

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.