Operating Under the Influence (OUI)

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CHILD ENDANGERMENT CASE

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence: An identified civilian called West Bridgewater Police to report an erratic operator, later identified as the Defendant. The witness was following directly behind Defendant’s vehicle and saw the Defendant’s vehicle swerve entirely off the road almost striking a fence then quickly swerve back crossing into the oncoming lane. The witness stated that the Defendant stopped at a traffic light, stuck her head out the window, and proceeded to vomit twice. The witness went to the police station and filled out a written statement. West Bridgewater Police were dispatched to locate the Defendant’s vehicle. The police officer observe the Defendant traveling on a residential street and saw the vehicle cross over the center line and travel a quarter-mile with its wheels in the oncoming lane. The officer stopped the vehicle and observed vomit all over the side door and on the Defendant’s clothing. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and observed that her speech was very slow and deliberate. Defendant admitted to drinking at a party. The police officer administered 5 field sobriety tests. In the officer’s opinion, Defendant failed all 5 field sobriety tests. The officer testified as to Defendant’s poor performance on all field sobriety tests and gave his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant had her three young children in the car. Due to the fact that the Defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol with her three children in the car, she was charged with the aggravated felony offense of Child Endangerment, which carries an enhanced penalty.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the arresting officer by showing that the officer rushed to judgment and did not conduct a fair investigation. Attorney Noonan argued that as soon as the officer observed the vomit he made up his mind to arrest the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. Attorney Noonan showed that: Before the officer conducted any investigation, he told the Defendant to call someone to come and pick up her kids because he had already made up his mind to arrest her for drunk driving. Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s friend to testify as a witness. The friend testified that she received a phone call from the Defendant who stated that she had been pulled over and needed her to come and pick up the kids. The friend testified that the officer grabbed the phone and told her to get down here immediately. Attorney Noonan argued the phone call was made while the Defendant was still sitting in the driver’s seat before she was asked to exit the car and submit to field sobriety tests. Shortly after receiving the phone call, the friend arrived to the scene and the Defendant was already under arrest. Attorney Noonan introduced the footwear the Defendant was wearing, which were boots with 2 inch heels. Attorney Noonan argued that it was difficult for the Defendant to perform the field sobriety tests demanded of her in these heels. Specifically, Defendant was asked to balance on one foot for 30 seconds while wearing these heels. In addition, the officer had Defendant walk 9 steps, back and forth, on an invisible line and maintain her balance in these heels. With regards to the vomit, Attorney called two witnesses to testify. These witnesses testified that they attended a funeral reception with the Defendant prior to her arrest. These witnesses testified that they ate the same food as the Defendant, chicken broccoli Alfredo. These witnesses testified that the chicken broccoli Alfredo was not cooked properly, smelled weird, and had a funky taste. They testified that they tasted the food and stopped eating it because it was gross. They testified to having conversations with the Defendant and others at the reception about the funky tasting food. They testified that the Defendant tasted the food and remarked that it tasted funky. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant vomited because of the bad food. The most compelling evidence came from the testimony of the owner and operator of a day care facility. Prior to getting pulled over, Defendant had picked up her kids at a day care facility and was on her way home when she was arrested. This witness testified that the Defendant dropped her three children off in the early morning while she attended the funeral. This witness testified that the Defendant came to pick up her three kids. This witness testified that they had a 10-minute conversation. This witness testified that she did not observe any signs to suggest that the Defendant may have been impaired by alcohol. This witness gave her opinion that the Defendant was not impaired by alcohol in any way. The witness testified that, as a licensed day care provider and a mandated reporter, she would have stopped the Defendant from driving away with her kids if she had any suspicion that Defendant was impaired by alcohol. After a two day trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS A NOT GUILTY ON A SECOND-OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

The client is a 33-year-old financial consultant from Easton, MA. The police officer testified that he was stopped at a gas station when his attention was drawn to the sound of a car horn beeping for about 5 seconds. The officer followed the vehicles as they approached an intersection. The police officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut off the other driver causing the other vehicle to slam on its brakes and swerve to avoid a collision. The officer pulled over the Defendant’s car. When he approached the Defendant’s window, the officer observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and he could smell an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The officer testified that the Defendant initially stated that he did not consume any alcohol but later admitted to drinking at a strip club. The officer testified that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test. The officer testified that the Defendant failed the Alphabet Test twice, the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn Test, and the Defendant failed the One-Leg Stand after attempting it twice.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the police officer and pointed out the inconsistencies in his testimony. Attorney Noonan pointed out everything the Defendant did well on the field sobriety tests, which the officer left out in his direct examination. Attorney Noonan introduced photos of the Defendant’s shoes to show how difficult it would be for someone to perform these field sobriety tests with this type of footwear, which had no ankle support. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the other driver and pointed out that the other driver had been speeding and he lost his patience when following the Defendant because the Defendant was not driving fast enough. Attorney Noonan called as a witness the police officer who booked the Defendant at the police station. Attorney Noonan established that the booking officer had booked the Defendant, in a small booking room, for about an hour. In a critical line of questioning, Attorney Noonan got the booking officer to testify that he could not formulate an opinion about the Defendant’s sobriety even though he had booked him for about an hour. After Attorney Noonan’s closing argument, the judge immediately found the Defendant Not Guilty. This was the Defendant’s second offense for drunk driving and he was facing possible jail time, a three year loss of license, and mandatory inpatient treatment.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE STATE POLICE UNLAWFULLY DETAINED HIS CLIENT AT A DRUNK-DRIVING ROADBLOCK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE EVEN THOUGH HIS CLIENT HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OF 0.81%.

On May 28, 2016, the State Police were conducting an OUI Roadblock, as referred to as a Sobriety Checkpoint, on Route 18 in Abington. The Client, who was returning from a wedding, approached the checkpoint in his vehicle. At the checkpoint, the State Trooper believed that the Client was exhibiting signs of intoxication so he had the client get out of his car and submit to field sobriety tests. The State Trooper found that the client failed three of the field sobriety tests. The State Trooper had the client blow into a portable breath test device, which showed that the client had a blood alcohol content of 0.81%, which is above the legal limit in Massachusetts. The State Trooper then arrested the client and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his Client was unlawfully detained by the State Trooper. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to order his Client to get out of his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests. At a Hearing in which the State Trooper testified, Attorney Noonan proved that the only evidence of possible intoxication that led the Trooper to detain his client was the Trooper’s observation that the Client’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Attorney Noonan introduced a color copy of the Client’s booking photo, which clearly showed that his Client did not have glassy or bloodshot eyes. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to detain his client. Therefore, the Judge suppressed all evidence that was obtained as a result of his Client’s unlawful detention, which included all field sobriety tests and the breath test result of 0.81%. Because the majority of the evidence was suppressed, the District Attorney was forced to dismiss the case.