Commonwealth v. D.F. – Attleboro District Court

OUI-LIQUOR (0.124% BAC): NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: NOT GUILTY

On January 17, 2013, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a police officer claimed he was traveling on West Main Street when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling in front of him. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and that the Defendant’s vehicle took an abrupt right hand turn into a parking lot. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle then exited the parking lot at an excessive rate of speed. The officer then claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was traveling erratically and failed to use a turn signal. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan established that the officer’s observations of the Defendant’s operation were incredible. First, the officer was in no position to observe that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and he was in no position to see the Defendant’s vehicle make an abrupt turn into the parking lot. Attorney Noonan established that this officer was not traveling behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was traveling in the oncoming direction / lane when he happened to observe the Defendant’s vehicle. Second, the officer had no basis upon which to determine that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding or traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. The officer simply believed that the Defendant’s was speeding when he passed him in the oncoming direction. The officer turned around to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. When the officer turned around, he was not traveling directly behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was several cars behind the Defendant and was in no position to make any observations of erratic operation. It was established that this officer was not the officer that conducted the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. A different officer made the stop based on the other officer’s observations. Attorney Noonan established that the stopping officer made no observations that would warrant a stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the stopping officer relied on the observations of the first officer. The stopping officer did not even write a police report with regards to the case. Attorney Noonan argued that the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle was pre-textual. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the officer pre-determined that he would stop the Defendant’s vehicle because it was seen exiting a bar at 1:30 a.m. Defendant admitted to consuming “four beers” at the bar but the officer omitted the Defendant’s statements that he consumed the beverages over course of several hours. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. Attorney Noonan introduced a color photo of the Defendant’s booking photograph, which contradicted the officer’s testimony in that the color booking photo did not show that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, or glassy. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s speech was thick and slurred. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle smelled strongly of alcohol. The officer claimed that the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Legged Stand Tests. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant was not a very coordinated individual. Defendant had poor posture with a hunched back. Defendant was bow-legged and walked with his feet facing outward. Defendant had difficulty walking in a straight line and balancing not because he was intoxicated but because he was not a very coordinated person. Prior to trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan suppressed from evidence the results of the Defendant’s breathalyzer test, which was 0.124%.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan won Not Guilty Verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation.