Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was talking to a couple of guys at my department about OUIs. Normally when I lock someone up for O.U.I. I will also charge them with 90/24 (Operating a MV negligently as to endanger). The reasoning is the mere fact that your operating a motor vehicle under the influence is operating negligently.
Well today I was told by the powers that be that unless someone's life was actually in danger, to simply charge OUI. I could go round and round, but left it alone.... In my opinion the person I'm locking up is in danger of him/herself....
Just looking to see what everyone else does. Am I the only one that charges 90/24 x 2?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
We also have been told not to charge for OTE unless we can show in our report that someone was put in danger due to his operation.....I spoke to one of our clerk magistrates and he said he if we are just looking to include a charge that they can plead out to..to not bother, they will ammend the complaint to an OTE charge if it comes down to that plea....who cares....get them off the road and force a 3,000 lawyer bill on them, that's the only punishment they will get anyways......
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
Same here, I agree with you ppd34 but I got the same speech from one of my lieutenants.

Like jack said, you got them off the road and it's gonna cost them either way.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,693 Posts
Just crush them under their own car=street justice!
 

·
Chapter 90 Enforcer
Joined
·
3,299 Posts
If there is other traffic present, wouldn't that suffice? They placed the other vehicles in potential danger. The general public...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
HEY, CHARGE'EM WITH BREACH OF THE PEACE. THE SHERIFFS DO IT IN MASS. (Easy now. Not intended to start a shit fight). rhl
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,952 Posts
ppd34";p="66134 said:
I was talking to a couple of guys at my department about OUIs. Normally when I lock someone up for O.U.I. I will also charge them with 90/24 (Operating a MV negligently as to endanger). The reasoning is the mere fact that your operating a motor vehicle under the influence is operating negligently.
Well today I was told by the powers that be that unless someone's life was actually in danger, to simply charge OUI. I could go round and round, but left it alone.... In my opinion the person I'm locking up is in danger of him/herself....
Just looking to see what everyone else does. Am I the only one that charges 90/24 x 2?
PPD, tell your admin to blow out the corn hole...

MGL 90 § 24 (2)(a)

(2) (a) Whoever upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or upon a bet or wager or in a race, or whoever operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of making a record and thereby violates any provision of section seventeen or any regulation under section eighteen, or whoever without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property, or whoever loans or knowingly permits his license or learner's permit to operate motor vehicles to be used by any person, or whoever makes false statements in an application for such a license or learner's permit, or whoever knowingly makes any false statement in an application for registration of a motor vehicle, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; and whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for a second offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in the state prison or by both fine and imprisonment. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant for arrest upon a complaint for a violation of any provision of this paragraph if in the judgment of the court or justice receiving the complaint there is reason to believe that the defendant will appear upon a summons.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
569 Posts
Go back to your "reasonble person" standard. If a reasonable person saw the vehicle driving down the road, would they consider it to be operating recklessly or negligently? If yes, charge it, if not, let it go. You'll have a helluva hard time proving reckless or negligent operation of a vehicle that is not exibiting some moving violation other than OUI. You did your job locking the guy up, let it go at that. Piling on redundant charges, in my opinion, weakens your case in front of John Q. Public sitting on the jury. You just look like a jerk trying to jam the guy. Just one man's opinion :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,952 Posts
I was thinking about this more today and I agree with Chief, if you charge OTE solely on the fact they were drunk, then it is almost like charging them twice with OUI, for example, you cannot charge manslaughter and murder. If, however, they crossed into the oncoming traffic lane (whether or not anyone was actually there), then, I'd say it would be ok. But just for the fact they were OUI then I'd say no, you shouldn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I have a strong preference for charging OTE every time a suspect is charged with OUI. In marginal cases where it may be difficult to persuade a judge or jury that the defendant was impaired by alchohol the actions that led the arresting officer to make the OUI arrest are often clearly OTE. It also keeps defense counsel from being able to persuade the factfinder that sure, the defendant ws impaired, but that it was because of some reason other than liquor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
I recently arrested someone for O.U.I I only charged the guy with OUI and speeding. I was told by department court prosecutor that I should always put Operating to Endanger on the ticket. Out of all my arrests for OUI (3 years on job) this is the only time that I thought OTE might not pertain. The guy was just speeding. I was told the the DA added the OTE charge. It is almost saying that the OUI charge will not stick in court even before the case hits trial. :roll:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top