NOT GUILTY: .14 Breath Test Suppressed After Booking Video Lost — OUI Charge Defeated
A breath test result of .14 — nearly twice the legal limit — might seem like an insurmountable obstacle in an OUI case. But breath test results are only admissible if the Commonwealth can prove the test was administered properly. When the evidence that would prove proper administration is lost or destroyed, the defendant has a right to challenge that result.
On July 2, 2026, in Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2568 CR 0856, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY verdict for a client charged with Operating Under the Influence despite a recorded breath test of .14. The key: the booking video that would have shown whether the breath test was administered in compliance with regulations was lost or destroyed and never provided to the defense.
The Lost Booking Video
Breath tests in Massachusetts must be administered according to strict protocols established by the Office of Alcohol Testing. The booking video — recorded at the police station — typically captures the entire breath test process, including the required 15-minute observation period, the verbal instructions given to the defendant, and the defendant’s demeanor during the test.
In this case, that video was lost or destroyed. It was never provided to the defense.
Attorney Murray filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the Commonwealth’s failure to preserve this potentially exculpatory evidence. The judge denied the motion to dismiss but agreed that suppression was the appropriate remedy: the .14 breath test result was excluded from evidence.
Without the breath test, the Commonwealth had to prove impairment through other evidence. They couldn’t.
An Equipment Violation — Not Impaired Driving
My client was stopped for a faulty headlight — an equipment violation. Not for weaving. Not for speeding. Not for running a red light. Not for any driving behavior that would suggest impairment.
This distinction matters. In an OUI case, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while their ability to operate safely was impaired by alcohol. A broken headlight tells you nothing about how someone was driving.
Strong Performance on Field Sobriety Tests
At trial, Attorney Murray argued that his client performed well on the field sobriety tests despite extremely difficult conditions:
- Late at night
- Roadside — uneven surface, passing traffic, headlights in face
- In the presence of armed police officers
- Cold weather
- Fatigue
Field sobriety tests are designed to be difficult. They are administered under stressful conditions that would challenge anyone — sober or not. A skilled defense attorney knows how to put the jury in the defendant’s shoes and demonstrate that the so-called “failures” were actually reasonable responses to an unreasonable situation.
The Result: NOT GUILTY
With the breath test suppressed, no evidence of impaired driving, and a client who performed well on field tests under difficult conditions, the Commonwealth could not meet its burden.
What This Case Teaches
A breath test result is not a conviction. It is a piece of evidence — and like all evidence, it can be challenged. When the Commonwealth loses or destroys evidence that could have helped the defense, there are consequences. In this case, suppression of the breath test changed everything.
If you are facing OUI charges in Massachusetts — even with a high breath test result — do not assume your case is hopeless. An experienced OUI defense attorney will examine every piece of evidence, every procedure, and every potential failure by the Commonwealth to preserve your rights.
Facing OUI Charges with a Breath Test Result?
Contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation. A breath test is not the end of the story — it’s the beginning of the fight.
*The defendant’s name has been omitted to protect their privacy. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts.