Alcohol Abuse Advice

OUI Sobriety Checkpoint Massachusetts State Trooper

COMMONWEALTH vs. CHERYL A. BAZINET.

No. 08-P-1681.

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

76 Mass. App. Ct. 908; 924 N.E.2d 755

April 13, 2010, Decided

Cheryl Bazinet, the defendant, was stopped at an OUI sobriety checkpoint. A State trooper working the checkpoint spoke with her and detected an odor of alcohol. Consequently, the trooper directed her to an area adjacent to the checkpoint for administration of field sobriety tests.  When Bazinet stepped out of the vehicle, the trooper observed that she had “glossy, bloodshot eyes” accompanied by “a strong odor of an intoxicating beverage on her breath as she spoke”.  Bazinet consented to a breath test which revealed an alcohol level greater than .08%, and she was charged with operating under the influence.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the OUI checkpoint procedures were not consistent with constitutional requirements.

Whether the odor of alcohol is sufficient reasonable suspicion to further detain an operator for further testing?

The court said that the “odor of alcohol” was one of the “clues of impaired operation” for which the screening officers were to check and which, if observed, would provide a basis for further screening and investigation.

Whether the Massachusetts State Police guideline on sobriety checkpoints as applied to the sobriety checkpoint stop in question through the Division Commander’s Order constitutionally valid?

The court held that “it appears that the OUI checkpoint the State police conducted in this case was governed both by General Order TRF-15 and by operational instructions contained in a letter from the troop commander to the officer in charge of the checkpoint, as well as by Order 07-DFS-056. Order TRF-15 and the operational instructions are, in all material respects, identical to the instructions discussed by the court in Commonwealth v. Murphy, 454 Mass. 318, 910 N.E.2d 281 (2009).  As noted, the court ruled that OUI checkpoints carried out in accordance with those orders were constitutional

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.