Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer James M. Lynch reviews the Massachusetts legislature’s recent changes to Melanie’s Law.
As predicted here on May 18, 2012, the Massachusetts Legislature is moving quickly to close the loophole identified in 2005 omnibus statute known as “Melanie’s Law” by the state Supreme Judicial Court’s recent, which narrowed the definition of repeat offenders currently applied by the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) in breathalyzer test refusals. On May 17, 2012, the SJC ruled that offenders who, in prior cases, had admitted sufficient facts, or had been received alcohol program assignment, or a continuance without a finding (CWOF) could not be considered as having been “previously convicted” of drunk driving as that term is applied by the RMV in determining offender status because the statute didn’t include such offenders.
Now the Legislature is moving quickly to close the Melanie’s Law loophole by including such offenders in its definition of “convicted”. On Wednesday, May 23, 2011, the State Senate voted unanimously to adopt an amendment designed to close the suspension loophole to expand the suspension statute to include prior admissions, CWOF’s and alcohol program participants as de facto prior convictions.
Look for the House of Representatives to quickly follow suit.
About the Author: James M. Lynch is a Massachusetts lawyer for Lynch & Owens, located in Hingham, Massachusetts, whose practice areas include DUI defense, divorce and personal injury.
Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. You are invited to contact our office. Contacting the office does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to the office until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. This blog is considered an advertisement for The Law Office of Lynch & Owens, P.C. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct broadly govern all advertisements and communications made by attorneys and law firms in the Commonwealth. Generally, legal websites and any other content published on the internet by lawyers are considered a type of communication and an advertisement, according to the Comments to Rule 7.2.