Massachusetts Man Arrested for Operating Under the Influence Twice in Three Days
December 11, 2012
On Wednesday, December 5, Kevin Smith was arrested for Operating Under the Influence and Domestic Assault and Battery. Then, on Saturday, December 8, just three days later, he was arrested for Operating Under the Influence; again.
It is likely that Mr. Smith was arraigned in court on Thursday, December 6, for the first set of charges. At a criminal arraignment, the defendant is formally advised of the charges against him. If after being arraigned the court releases him on his personal recognizance (meaning, no monetary bail is set and the defendant is free to go on his way), or if bail is set and the defendant posts that bail and is released, he is advised of the conditions of his release. In a domestic violence case, the defendant is almost always advised that his release is conditioned on a “no-abuse” order of the alleged victim. In an operating under the influence case, the defendant is usually advised that he may not drive until his right to do so has been reinstated by the RMV. And at every criminal arraignment, the defendant is advised that if he is charged with any new criminal offense before the case at bar is resolved, his personal recognizance or bail on the first case may be revoked, and he can be held in jail for up to sixty days for violating the conditions of his release if the court determines that his release may cause a threat to the safety of another person or the community.
In this case, the Court likely determined that based on the fact that Mr. Smith was arrested for the same offense within a three day period, he blatantly disregarded the court’s order and put the community at risk of serious danger. Not only was he charged with a new crime, but his license was also almost certainly suspended as a result of the first Operating Under the Influence charge; if he failed the breath test, his license was suspended immediately for 30 days, whereas if he declined to take the breath test, his license would have been suspended for 180 days. Either way, in 19 out of 20 cases, the person is requested to take a breath test, so in all likelihood he was driving with a suspended license when he was arrested for the second time that week. Based on the blatant disregard of the court’s warning by not only driving his car without a license, but also doing so while under the influence of alcohol, AGAIN, I am not surprised at all that Mr. Smith was held without bail.