DUI Defense Attorney Joseph J. Higgins III

DUI Defense Attorney Joseph J. Higgins III Massachusetts Drunk Driving attorney, Joseph J. Higgins III, represents individuals charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs throughout Massachusetts.
(4)

Contact us today for a Free Consultation at 508-930-4273. Massachusetts OUI attorney, Joseph J. Higgins III, represents individuals charged with drunk driving offenses (OUI DUI DWI) throughout Massachusetts. With an office based in Norwell, MA, Mr. Higgins has appeared in the courts of Barnstable County, Bristol County, Essex County, Middlesex County, Norfolk County, Plymouth County, Suffolk County, and Worcester County---successfully defending those charged with drinking and driving (OUI DUI DWI). In Massachusetts it is a crime to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, or with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of eight one-hundreths (.08) or greater. If you have been arrested and charged with a drunk driving offense (OUI DUI DWI), you need the assistance of a Massachusetts Drunk Driving lawyer in order to fully protect your interests. A drunk driving charge (OUI DUI DWI) is a serious matter and it needs to be treated that way. Almost always a drunk driving charge results in a driver’s license suspension. That will undoubtedly impact your livelihood. Even more troubling, OUI DUI DWI charges can result in jail time. Since 2002, Massachusetts courts have applied a “lifetime lookback” policy to repeat offenders. This means that a prior drunk driving offense (OUI DUI DWI), no matter how old and even if out of state, will follow you for the rest of your life. With the passage of Melanie’s Law in 2005, drunk driving (OUI DUI DWI) penalties in Massachusetts have been enhanced drastically. Those most affected are repeat offenders. Whether you have been charged with a first offense or a fifth offense OUI DUI DWI, there is a lot at stake. Read more about Massachusetts OUI DUI DWI penalties here. As a former prosecutor in Plymouth County, Mr. Higgins is uniquely familiar with the Massachusetts drunk driving laws and uses that knowledge to the advantage of his clients. Recognizing the importance of having a driver’s license, Mr. Higgins also works with his clients in dealing with the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Attorney Higgins regularly appears in the RMV to contest his clients’ license suspensions in an effort to get them back on the road ASAP. If you have been charged with a drunk driving offense (OUI DUI DWI) and are in need of a Massachusetts DUI Attorney, Mr. Higgins welcomes your inquiry. Please feel free to email or call Mr. Higgins at 508-930-4273 today to schedule a FREE Consultation with a Massachusetts OUI Attorney.

Mission: Serving the following courts: BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURTS BMC-Brighton Division: Allston, Brighton BMC-Central Division: Suffolk County BMC-Charlestown Division: Charlestown BMC-Dorchester Division: Dorchester BMC-East Boston Division: East Boston, Winthrop BMC-Roxbury Division: Roxbury BMC-South Boston Division: South Boston BMC-West Roxbury Division: West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Hyde Park, Roslindale, Mission Hill, Mattapan DISTRICT COURTS (BY COUNTY) Barnstable County: 1. Barnstable District Court: Barnstable, Yarmouth, Sandwich 2. Falmouth District Court: Falmouth, Mashpee, Bourne 3. Orleans District Court: Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Orleans, Harwich, Truro, Wellfleet, Provincetown Bristol County: 1. Attleboro District Court: Attleboro, North Attleboro, Mansfield, Norton 2. Fall River District Court: Fall River, Freetown, Somerset, Swansea, Westport 3. New Bedford District Court: Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Freetown, New Bedford, Westport 4. Taunton District Court: Berkley, Dighton, Easton, Raynham, Rehoboth, Seekonk, Taunton Dukes County: 1. Edgartown District Court: Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, West Tisbury, Chillmark, Aquinaah (formerly Gay Head), Gosnold, Elizabeth Islands Essex County: 1. Gloucester District Court: Essex, Gloucester, Rockport 2. Haverhill District Court: Boxford, Bradford, Georgetown, Groveland, Haverhill 3. Ipswich District Court: Ipswich, Hamilton, Wenham, Topsfield 4. Lawrence District Court: Andover, Lawrence, Methuen, North Andover 5. Lynn District Court: Lynn, Marblehead, Nahant, Saugus, Swampscott 6. Newburyport District Court: Amesbury, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Rowley, Salisbury, West Newbury 7. Peabody District Court: Lynnfield, Peabody 8. Salem District Court: Beverly, Danvers, Manchester by the Sea, Middleton, Salem Middlesex County 1. Ayer District Court: Ashby, Ayer, Boxborough, Dunstable, Groton, Littleton, Pepperell, Shirley, Townsend, Westford, Devens Regional Enterprise Zone 2. Cambridge District Court: Cambridge, Arlington, Belmont 3. Concord District Court: Concord, Carlisle, Lincoln, Lexington, Bedford, Acton, Maynard, Stow 4. Framingham District Court: Ashland, Framingham, Holliston, Hopkinton, Wayland, Sudbury 5. Lowell District Court: Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Lowell, Tewksbury, Tyngsboro 6. Malden District Court: Malden, Melrose, Everett, Wakefield 7. Marlborough District Court: Marlborough, Hudson 8. Natick District Court: Natick, Sherborn 9. Newton District Court: Newton 10. Somerville District Court: Somerville, Medford 11. Waltham District Court: Waltham, Weston, Watertown 12. Woburn District Court: Burlington, North Reading, Reading, Stoneham, Wilmington, Winchester, Woburn Nantucket County 1. Nantucket District Court: Nantucket County Norfolk County 1. Brookline District Court: Brookline 2. Dedham District Court: Dedham, Dover, Medfield, Needham, Norwood, Wellesley, Westwood 3. Quincy District Court: Braintree, Cohasset, Holbrook, Milton, Quincy, Randolph, Weymouth 4. Stoughton District Court: Avon, Canton, Sharon, Stoughton 5. Wrentham District Court: Foxborough, Franklin, Medway, Millis, Norfolk, Plainville, Walpole, Wrentham Plymouth County 1. Brockton District Court: Abington, Bridgewater, Brockton, East Bridgewater, West Bridgewater, Whitman 2. Hingham District Court: Hanover, Hingham, Hull, Norwell, Rockland, Scituate 3. Plymouth District Court: Duxbury, Halifax, Hanson, Kingston, Marshfield, Pembroke, Plymouth, Plympton 4. Wareham District Court: Carver, Lakeville, Marion, Mattapoisett, Middleboro, Rochester, Wareham Suffolk County 1. Chelsea District Court: Chelsea, Revere Worcester County 1. Clinton District Court: Berlin, Bolton, Boylston, Clinton, Harvard, Lancaster, Sterling, West Boylston 2. Dudley District Court: Charlton, Dudley, Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, Webster 3. East Brookfield District Court: Barre, Brookfield, East Brookfield, Hardwick, Leicester, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oakham, Paxton, Rutland, Spencer, Warren, West Brookfield 4. Fitchburg District Court: Fitchburg, Lunenburg 5. Gardner District Court: Gardner, Hubbardston, Petersham, Westminster 6. Leominster District Court: Holden, Princeton, Leominster 7. Milford District Court: Mendon, Upton, Hopedale, Milford, Bellingham 8. Uxbridge District Court: Blackstone, Douglas, Millville, Northbridge, Sutton, Uxbridge 9. Westborough District Court: Grafton, Northborough, Shrewsbury, Southborough, Westborough 10. Winchendon District Court: Ashburnham, Phillipston, Royalston, Templeton, Winchendon 11. Worcester District Court: Auburn, Millbury, Wo

Operating as usual

01/10/2019

Excerpt from Judge Brennan's decision today:

In order to remedy the prejudice caused by OAT’s misconduct against the consolidated
defendants and the resulting damage to the criminal justice system, OAT must first demonstrate
that its current methodology will produce scientifically reliable BAC results. Mindful that OAT,
by EOPSS’s mandate, must ultimately become accredited, the Court is satisfied that this aspect
of prejudice can be mitigated by OAT formally filing its application for accreditation, as long as
the Commonwealth shows that the application is substantially likely to be approved.2 Cf.
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 385 Mass. 165, 177 (1982) (judge may exclude evidence withheld in
violation of discovery obligation as a sanction). The application itself requires OAT to
demonstrate that it is comporting with ANAB standards as defined by the ANAB Accreditation
Requirements manual. Exhibit 21. Yet, this alone is not a sufficient panacea. OAT must also
address the discovery practices that contributed to its misconduct. Specifically, OAT must
promulgate formal discovery protocols consistent with those employed by the State Police Crime
Management Unit. These protocols must include a definition of exculpatory evidence and an
explanation of the obligations pursuant to such evidence. See CPCS, 480 Mass. at 729-734
(2018). Alternatively, the Court will be satisfied by the Commonwealth’s representation that
OAT’s discovery is being handled by the State Police CMU. Regardless, the Commonwealth
must certify that all OAT staff has been trained on the obligations relating to exculpatory
evidence. In the interest of transparency and in the spirit of the Director of Public Safety’s
October 16, 2017 directives, OAT’s application for accreditation must be available for viewing
on the eDiscovery portal, along with the ANAB Accreditation Requirements manual. At each
stage of the accreditation process, updates confirming OAT’s compliance must be posted on the
portal. In addition, OAT’s discovery protocol, once promulgated, must be uploaded onto the
eDiscovery portal, along with any discovery training materials. The Court finds that making this
information available on an electronic public portal will contribute to the restoration of
confidence in the reliability of the scientific results produced by OAT, and thus further remedy
the prejudice caused by OAT’s violation of its obligations.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the period of presumptive exclusion of Alcotest 9510
breathalyzer results in such criminal prosecutions as have been agreed by the parties shall be
extended until the Commonwealth, upon motion to this Court3, demonstrates:

1. that OAT has filed an application for accreditation with ANAB that is
demonstrably substantially likely to succeed;
2. that OAT’s accreditation application has been uploaded onto the eDiscovery
portal;
3. that the ANAB Accreditation Requirements manual is available for viewing on
the eDiscovery portal;
4. that OAT has promulgated discovery protocols consistent with those employed by
the State Police Case Management Unit, including a definition of exculpatory
evidence and an explanation of the obligations pursuant to such evidence; or, in
the alternative, that the CMU is responsible for processing OAT’s discovery;
5. that OAT’s discovery protocol has been uploaded to the eDiscovery portal;
6. that all OAT employees have received training on the meaning of exculpatory
information and the obligations relating to it; and
7. that all written materials used to train OAT employees on discovery, and
particularly on exculpatory evidence, have been uploaded to the eDiscovery
portal.

If all of these requirements have been met, the Court may still, upon motion of the
consolidated defendants, reinstate the period of presumptive exclusion if OAT fails to update the
progress of its application for accreditation on the eDiscovery portal, or otherwise fails to make
good faith efforts to gain accreditation. See Parties’ Joint Stipulation, Exhibit 1, p. 4
(“Accreditation of the Office of Alcohol Testing”).

January 9, 2019
So Ordered,
Robert A. Brennan
Justice of the District Court

Boston 25 News
04/20/2018
Boston 25 News

Boston 25 News

If you got a letter saying your driver's license is suspended it might be due to a a "technical glitch."

Challenging Breathalyzer Tests in Massachusetts
11/29/2017
Challenging Breathalyzer Tests in Massachusetts

Challenging Breathalyzer Tests in Massachusetts

Challenging breathalyzer tests in Massachusetts is possible with the help of an attorney. Find out how Massachusetts DUI defense attorneys defend such cases.

Field sobriety tests admissible in pot cases
09/19/2017
Field sobriety tests admissible in pot cases

Field sobriety tests admissible in pot cases

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that police officers may testify about their observations of field sobriety tests (FSTs) in prosecutions for driving under the influence of marijuana — but may …

08/02/2017

Hingham District Court - Commonwealth v. R. B.

Case Conclusion Date: 08.02.2017

Practice Area: DUI and DWI

Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: OUI SECOND OFFENSE - NOT GUILTY: An off-duty Hull Police Officer was traveling home from his shift at approximately 12:30 a.m.. As he was driving on Route 228 in Hingham, he observed a pickup truck cross over the fog line several times, nearly striking an embankment. Fearing for the safety of the driver and other motorists, the officer called 911. As the vehicle approached the intersection of Route 53 and Route 228, the officer observed the vehicle make a left onto Route 53 while the Left Turn Only arrow was still red. The officer continued to follow the vehicle into the Town of Norwell. The vehicle made a right onto High Street and parked in the Cole School parking lot. The officer testified that the vehicle remained in the parking lot for approximately 5 minutes before returning to the roadway. The officer stated that he observed the left directional illuminate, then the right directional, before the vehicle made a right back onto Route 53. The officer followed the vehicle while he remained on the phone with 911. After approximately 2 miles, two Norwell police cruisers located the vehicle and initiated a stop. The officers testified that the client did not pass the Alphabet Test, the Counting Backwards Test, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, or the One Leg Stand. The officers testified that the client had heavily slurred speech, smelt like alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. The officers also testified that the client admitted to drinking. At trial, through the cross examination of the three officers, Attorney Higgins was able to show that but for the alleged marked lanes violation on Route 228, the client demonstrated an ability to safely operate his vehicle. The officers conceded that from the intersection of Route 228 and Route 53 to the location of the stop, the client did not swerve, weave, or drift. The officers also conceded that the client was able to utilize the vehicle's brakes appropriately, negotiate turns appropriately, and that he maintained an appropriate speed for the roadway. Client was found Not Guilty on both OUI and Negligent Operation.

DUI Defense Attorney Joseph J. Higgins III
07/19/2017

DUI Defense Attorney Joseph J. Higgins III

Understanding subsequent offense OUI’s in Massachusettshttp://ow.ly/fhJI30biR6F #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachuse...
06/02/2017

Understanding subsequent offense OUI’s in Massachusetts
http://ow.ly/fhJI30biR6F #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts

How to prepare for your first court OUI appearance. http://ow.ly/Y7yh30biQRv #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts
05/23/2017

How to prepare for your first court OUI appearance. http://ow.ly/Y7yh30biQRv #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts

I’ve been charged with a DUI – what will happen to my driver’s license?http://ow.ly/74vi30biQMh #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUI...
05/18/2017

I’ve been charged with a DUI – what will happen to my driver’s license?http://ow.ly/74vi30biQMh #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts

What you need to know if you've been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.http://ow.ly/nMWX30biRgR #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUIL...
05/09/2017

What you need to know if you've been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.
http://ow.ly/nMWX30biRgR #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts

How long does your first DUI stay on your record?http://ow.ly/nN3Q30biQF5 #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts
05/09/2017

How long does your first DUI stay on your record?http://ow.ly/nN3Q30biQF5 #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts

Buzzed driving and drunk driving, what's the legal difference? http://ow.ly/ul1530biQqC #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMa...
05/03/2017

Buzzed driving and drunk driving, what's the legal difference? http://ow.ly/ul1530biQqC #AttorneyJoeHiggins #DUILawyerMassachusetts

Address

269 Hanover Street
Hanover, MA
02339

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when DUI Defense Attorney Joseph J. Higgins III posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to DUI Defense Attorney Joseph J. Higgins III: