Having an open container of alcohol while in a motor vehicle in Massachusetts used to be a criminal offense. On Friday, however, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the act should in fact be a civil offense.
The decision comes as the result of a closed case in which defendant Shawn Mansur was charged in Marlborough with a misdemeanor for operating under the influence, as well as with a criminal conviction for possessing an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle.
Under previous laws, all motor vehicle offenses that don’t include operation as a required element must be categorized as criminal offenses, even if the offense is only punishable by a monetary fine.
In a May 2019 brief to the SJC, Mansur’s attorney, Edward Crane, argued that the state legislature did not intend this to mean offenses punishable solely by fine should also be criminal violations just because they don’t involve operation.
“This result is absurd and runs contrary to the legislature’s intent,” Crane wrote in the brief. “Instead, the legislature intended to make all motor vehicle offenses that are solely punishable by a fine into civil offenses, regardless of whether operation is a required element of the offense or not.”
Crane said in an interview that different courts would have varying interpretations of this kind of offense — one court might classify open containers as a criminal offense, while another would view it as a civil one.
“Whenever there’s an inconsistent application of a statute, especially a criminal statute, you want to get that resolved,” Crane said. “And that’s ultimately why I think the SJC took the case.”
Crane is satisfied with the decision, he said, because the purpose of it was to standardize the misdemeanor as a civil offense statewide to avoid continued confusion.
“I don’t think that this is going to encourage people to go around drinking and driving,” Crane said. “No one’s going to say, ‘Oh, you know what, I’m gonna crack a beer in my car because I know now that it’s just a civil offense.’”
The decision to classify certain motor vehicle offenses as civil rather than criminal can have significant implications for how these laws are enforced and understood. For those involved in drink driving or DUI cases, the distinction between criminal and civil offenses can influence legal strategies and outcomes.
A well-versed drink driving lawyer perth can provide crucial guidance in navigating these complexities, ensuring that clients receive fair representation and understand the nuances of their specific case. Their expertise is essential for addressing the legal ramifications and ensuring that justice is served appropriately.
Despite the shift towards a civil classification, the core issue of drink driving remains a serious matter with far-reaching consequences. The law aims to deter individuals from engaging in risky behaviors that endanger themselves and others on the road.
A dedicated DUI lawyer can help address these challenges by offering robust defense strategies and advocating for the best possible outcome. Their role is to balance the legal nuances with the overarching goal of maintaining road safety and ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their actions while receiving due process.
Boston-based criminal defense attorney Joe Serpa also said he does not believe the rule change will have a large impact on his cases.
“An open container charge is a misdemeanor,” Serpa said. “The OUI is the more serious offense, it’s the one that we’re focused on.”
When it comes to navigating legal nuances like those discussed by Crane and Serpa, having comprehensive legal services can make a significant difference.
For individuals in Toowoomba, Queensland, firms like McConnell & Saldumbide Criminal Lawyers specialize in providing tailored defense strategies for a range of criminal, regulatory, and traffic offenses. With their expertise, they ensure that clients receive personalized attention and effective representation, especially in cases where the interpretation of statutes can vary between jurisdictions.
This boutique firm’s commitment to clarity and consistency in legal outcomes aligns with the need highlighted by Crane to standardize legal interpretations and avoid confusion.
Serpa, who has been a practicing lawyer for more than 20 years, said that just under 50 percent of cases involving drinking under the influence he has been involved in include an open container of alcohol.
“The significance of the open container is it tends to give the police more reason to continue an OUI investigation after they pull somebody over,” Serpa said. “I mean, the fact that you have an open container in the car sometimes suggests that you’re probably impaired by alcohol.”
Jacob Urena, 22, of Mattapan said he finds the change concerning as it could lead to a potential “blurring of the lines.” But regardless of the lesser charge, Urena said having an open container in the car still means the driver is more likely to be guilty of an OUI.
“Obviously, if you have an open container, and they do the breathalyzer, and your tests are low,” Urena said, “maybe it is like a bit of leniency toward the investigation process but I believe that they found it in your system.
Francis Tucker, 60, of Fenway said the new rule serves to communicate a message.
“Alcohol and driving obviously is not a match,” Tucker said. “I think that’s quite a statement to have been made, to now have this legislation.”
Roberta Toner, 68, of Brighton said she is glad having an open container of alcohol while driving is at least still a civil offense, and although it is now a lesser charge, that does not diminish the criminality of driving under the influence.
“It may not be [a criminal offense],” Toner said, “but what’s to stop them from arresting you for drunk driving?”
I hope this doesn’t result in more shattered jaws