Motor Vehicle Offenses

Commonly Charged Driving Offenses

c. 90 s. 24(1)(a)(1) Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

c. 90 s. 24(2)(a) Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle

c. 90 s. 24(2)(a) Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle

c. 90 s. 24(2)(a) Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

c. 90 s. 24(2)(a½)(1) Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury

c. 90 s.24G(b) Negligent Motor Vehicle Homicide

c. 90 s. 23 Operating with a Suspended License

c. 90 s. 23 Operating with a Suspended Registration

c. 90 s. 23 Attaching the Wrong Plates to Conceal Identification

c. 90 s. 23 Operating While License Suspended for OUI

c. 90 s. 34J Compulsory Insurance Violation

Defenses to driving crimes

Common defenses to driving violations:

A reasonable person would have driven in a similar manner as the client.
The conditions made it more difficult to drive (weather, lighting, lack of signage, roadway hazards).
The client's driving actions were necessary to prevent more significant bodily harm or danger.
The client’s actions warranted a civil motor vehicle infraction citation, but did not amount to a crime.
The "vehicle" in the case does not fit the defining criteria under M.G.L. Ch. 90 s.1.

Common defenses to leaving the scene of property damage or personal injury:

The government cannot prove that the client was actually driving the vehicle.
The client made his or her identity known to officials before leaving the scene of the car accident.
The client never actually left the scene of the car accident.
The government cannot prove that the client solely caused the alleged damage or injury.
No damage or personal injury actually occurred.
The client did not know that he or she was in a car accident, so therefore, the client could not have “knowingly” left the scene of an accident.

Common defenses for driving without a valid license, registration, or vehicle insurance:

The client’s RMV documentation was valid, and the citation or arrest came as a result of a clerical error.
The client never operated the vehicle in question.
The client’s driver’s license was suspended for a different reason than the complaint alleges. This defense is specific to clients charged with operating a vehicle with a license suspended for an OUI conviction.