2-23-18 License reinstated after immediate threat suspension

Client’s license was suspended indefinitely after he was involved in a motor vehicle crash and was subsequently charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. At a hearing before the Board of Appeals in Marlborough, Attorney Gaudreau was able to show, through the client’s driving record and lack of criminal history, that the client’s continued operation of a vehicle did not pose a safety risk. Client’s license was reinstated with no restrictions

2-13-18 Hardship license granted

Client was arrested and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol and negligent operation after an officer observed the client driving the wrong way in a rotary. Client was found not guilty of the oui and guilty of the negligent operation and received a 60-day license loss. The RMV would not grant a hardship license. Attorney Gaudreau represented the client at a hearing before the Board of Appeals in Plymouth and was able to show that the client’s driving posed no risk to the public and that the client needed a license for work. The Board granted client a hardship license.

12-28-17 License reinstated immediate threat suspension

Clients license was suspended after colliding with two parked cars. Client was never arrested however police reported that they were concerned that client’s medical issues made it unsafe for her to operate a motor vehicle. Attorney Gaudreau was able to present evidence from physicians and letters of recommendation showing that client’s medical conditions did not affect her ability to drive. License was restored without restrictions.

11-21-17 Immediate threat license suspension overturned

Client’s license was suspended indefinitely after police observed erratic driving and client admitted to consuming marijuana earlier in the day. At a Board hearing in Plymouth Attorney Gaudreau was able to show, through physician’s notes and a clean driving record that the client’s continued operation of a motor vehicle did not pose a risk to the public. Full license restored.

9-12-17- Second offense hardship allowed

Client had two convictions for OUI drugs and had been denied a hardship license at the RMV. Attorney Gaudreau was able to argue before the Board that the client had made significant strides in recovery and that she required a license to continue with treatment and to get to work. Hardship license was granted.

Additional Julie Wins

Client was charged with OUI after he was pulled over for speeding. At trial, the officer testified that the client smelled like alcohol and that he had bloodshot glassy eyes. The client was asked to perform the nine step walk and turn and the one leg stand. The officer testified that the client could only hold his foot up for six seconds and that he stepped off the line and missed heel to toe on three steps on the walk and turn. During cross examination, Attorney Gaudreau was able to elicit testimony that the defendant never made any marked lanes violations, that he promptly reacted when the officer activated his lights, that he did not have slurred speech, that his balance was perfect getting out of the car and walking around on the side of the road and during booking at that he performed very well on the nine step walk and turn. After trial, a Dudley District Court judge found the defendant not guilty of the OUI.

Police were called to a home in Hingham where the calling party had reported that his boyfriend smashed a window at his home. When police arrived they spoke to the reporting party who told officers that my client had broken a window in the home and punched him. After reviewing the report and speaking with the client Attorney Gaudreau formed the opinion that the alleged victim had contributed to the incident. On the trial date Attorney Gaudreau asked the court to have the alleged victim be evaluated for a 5th amendment privilege. After the alleged victim was evaluated and asserted his 5th, Attorney Gaudreau asked that the case be dismissed. A Hingham Court District Court judge dismissed the charge.

Client was charged with OUI drugs second offense. The police report indicated that the officers smelled the odor of alcohol and made observations consistent with alcohol consumption but there were no observations consistent with drug use. Attorney Gaudreau argued that the case should be dismissed. A Hingham District Court judge agreed and the case was dismissed.

Trooper testified he observed client driving under the speed limit and weaving on 495. Trooper further testified that when he spoke with the client he observed his eyes to be extremely bloodshot and that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from inside the client’s vehicle. Client was asked to perform the nine step walk and turn, the one leg stand and to recite the alphabet. The trooper testified that the client was unable to complete any of the tests successfully. At trial, Attorney Gaudreau was able to show that the client’s driving was consistent with someone who was lost and following their GPS. She was also able to elicit testimony that showed that the client did not have slurred speech which is a commonly seen in a person who is under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, on cross the Trooper admitted that while the client did not perform the tests perfectly he did perform many aspects of the test correctly. After trial a Brockton District Court found the client not guilty of both the OUI and the negligent operation charge.

Client was involved in a motorcycle accident. Police alleged that the client crossed into the opposite lane of traffic without slowing and crashed into a boulder on a resident’s lawn. Attorney Gaudreau was able to speak with the District Attorney about the client’s background, lack of record and the circumstances surrounding the accident. The District Attorney agreed to dismiss the matter outright.

Client was charged with operating under the influence and negligent operation after police were called to a motor vehicle accident in Ashland. Police alleged that the client smelled of alcohol and was swaying. The officer asked the client to complete the nine step walk and turn, the one leg stand and to recite the ABCs. The officer’s report indicated that the client was unable to successfully perform the tests and the client was placed under arrest. At the station the client submitted to a breath test with a .20 result. Attorney Gaudreau was able to successfully argue to the court that the client qualified for diversion under the Brave Act due to his military service. The matter was continued so that the client could complete out patient therapy offered through the VA. Upon completion of the treatment all charges were dismissed.

State trooper observed client driving on Route 290. A run of the client’s vehicle showed that the plates attached to the car belonged to a van and that the vehicle’s registration was revoked. The client was pulled over and subsequently admitted to the trooper that he had put the wrong plate on his vehicle to drive to work. Attorney Gaudreau was able to explain that the client had correctly registered his car and the complaint was dismissed on $100.

observed attempting to leave Target with more than $400.00 of goods. When confronted by loss prevention and police officers client admitted to attempting to leave without paying for goods. At the clerk’s hearing Attorney Gaudreau was able to explain that the client had no prior record and that she was dealing with significant health and mental issues at the time of the incident. The Clerk did not issue the complaint and the client’s criminal record is clean.

asleep while driving and collided with a stone wall. Officer testified that when he arrived he smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s breath and that she had slurred speech and bloodshot glassy eyes. Officer further testified that she failed two field sobriety tests. On cross examination Attorney Gaudreau was able to show that the officer only thought the client’s speech was slightly slurred and that she was alert, cooperative and showed good judgement in reporting the accident herself. She was also able to show that the client performed the nine step walk and turn very well; maintaining a straight line throughout and only missing heel to toe on two out of eighteen steps. Lastly, Attorney Gaudreau was able to present booking video evidence that showed the client had good balance, clear speech and showed fine motor skills. After a trial before the judge the client was found NOT GUILTY.

Client observed attempting to leave Target with more than $400.00 of goods. When confronted by loss prevention and police officers client admitted to attempting to leave without paying for goods. At the clerk’s hearing Attorney Gaudreau was able to explain that the client had no prior record and that she was dealing with significant health and mental issues at the time of the incident. The Clerk did not issue the complaint and the client’s criminal record is clean.

State trooper observed client driving on Route 290. A run of the client’s vehicle showed that the plates attached to the car belonged to a van and that the vehicle’s registration was revoked. The client was pulled over and subsequently admitted to the trooper that he had put the wrong plate on his vehicle to drive to work. Attorney Gaudreau was able to explain that the client had correctly registered his car and the compliant was dismissed on $100.

Client was pulled over in Hull after officer observed her driving on the dividing line of travel, without her headlights on. Officer testified client had red bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, smelled of alcohol and could not complete the alphabet test. At trial, Attorney 

Gaudreau was able to cross examine the office about the nature of the roadway and the client’s balance. The evidence showed that the area of the roadway was confusing and that the client never swerved or weaved while driving and that she appropriately drove through two intersections. Attorney Gaudreau was also able to elicit testimony that the client was cooperative and had no difficulty conversing with the officer or maintaining her balance. After a bench trial client was found not guilty.

Wrentham District Court- Client rear ended another vehicle and backed into a stop sign. Officer testified that client was unsteady on his feet, smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, red glassy eyes and was unable to complete the ABCs. The officer further testified that the client was extremely belligerent both at the scene and during booking at the station. Attorney Gaudreau introduced the booking video to show that the client was not unsteady on his feet and had no difficulty walking around the booking area. She was also able to show that it was unclear how the accident occurred. The jury ultimately returned a not guilty verdict on both the operating under the influence of alcohol charge and the negligent operation charge.

Client was pulled over by a West Bridgewater police officer after the officer observed the client crossing the center and fog line. Officer testified that client didn’t immediately react to the police lights and continued down the road before stopping. Officer further testified that when he spoke with the client he observed him to have bloodshot glassy eyes, slurred speech, and that he smelled of alcohol. The client admitted to the officer that he had three drinks. The officer testified that the client was unable to recite the alphabet, was unable to count backwards in correct order, and that he failed the two physical tests asked of him. The officer also testified that the client was sick during booking and that he was uncooperative at times. At trial, Attorney Gaudreau was able to cross examine the officer and show that the marked lanes violations could have been caused by pot holes in the road, and that when the officer did activate his lights the client was able to safely drive without crossing the lines. Additionally, she was able to point out the many things the client did well on the field sobriety tests especially in light of the fact that it was very cold that evening and that he was very nervous. Attorney Gaudreau also called the client to the stand so he could explain that he had had a very long day and that he was tired, nervous, and frustrated throughout the incident, but that he was not impaired by alcohol. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Client was pulled over in Dover, after officer observed him driving 53 mph in a 30 mph zone. Officer testified that client smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and slow deliberate speech. Officer further testified that client had difficulty counting backwards. On cross examination Attorney Gaudreau was able to show that the client performed extremely well on the physical field sobriety tests. The officer admitted that the tests were not performed on a flat surface as his training requires and that even with the more difficult setting the client did well with only one slight misstep on the nine step walk and turn. The client was found not guilty by the jury.

Client was stopped by a state police trooper in Dorchester for speeding and marked lanes violations. The trooper testified at trial that the defendant had an open container of alcohol in the car and that he failed the field sobriety tests, however he did not have a strong memory of how the client actually performed. Attorney Gaudreau was able to show on cross examination that the client actually performed well on tests. The trooper admitted on cross that the client was not unsteady at all when holding his leg up for the one leg stand and that on the nine step walk and turn the client walked nine steps out, did the turn correctly, stayed on a straight line and counted out loud in order. Attorney Gaudreau also called the client to the stand who was able to tell the jury that he was not speeding and that the alcohol in the car was unopened. After jury trial the client was found not guilty.

Client was arrested by Holden State Trooper after he was observed driving at a high rate of speed and making marked lanes violations. On direct examination, the trooper testified that the client had slurred speech, smelled of alcohol and did poorly on the field sobriety tests. At trial Attorney Julie Gaudreau cross examined the trooper and was able to show that the client actually performed well on the tests in light of the stressful situation. After trial, the client was found not guilty of first offense OUI.

Client was stopped in a roadblock. Two state troopers testified that the client had attempted to avoid the roadblock. The arresting trooper testified that the client had slurred speech, smelled of alcohol and failed the field sobriety tests. Attorney Julie Gaudreau cross examined the troopers and was able to show that the both of the troopers observed the client driving safely and appropriately. She was also able to show through the introduction of the client’s medical records and the testimony of one of the troopers that the clients slurred speech, odor of alcohol on her breath and performance on the tests could have been caused by the client’s diabetes diagnosis. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Clerk’s Hearing

Two counts of assault and Battery Fall River District Court Complaint not issued