February 2012 Archives

February 20, 2012

Second Chances: Implications of Massachusetts' New Criminal Record Sealing Law


On May 4, an amendment to M.G.L. c. 276 s. 100A will significantly relax the requirements for sealing a criminal record. As a criminal defense attorney, I anticipate the potential stream of business from individuals looking to finally put their pasts, in the past, for good. From trivial poor choices to first-degree felonies, everyone makes mistakes and has regrets. But it is only with time for reflection, along with opportunity, that people can grow and better themselves. I trust that this amendment will provide second chance opportunities to many who had previously counted themselves out.

The New Law

Under the current law, a person convicted of a misdemeanor must wait at least ten years from any misdemeanor conviction, all court supervision, probation, and the completion of any sentence before his or her record may be sealed upon request. A felony conviction requires a fifteen-year waiting period from all such court contact.

As of May 4, 2012, the required waiting period to seal a misdemeanor conviction will be cut in half, to five years, and a felony conviction may be sealed after ten years. Additionally, under the new amendment, the waiting period begins from either the time of conviction or release from incarceration; probation no longer tolls the start of the waiting period. This is a significant advantage for anyone seeking to seal his or her record after serving a lengthy probation sentence. For example, if an April 2007 misdemeanor conviction resulted in a five year term of probation, under the current law, the person would have to wait until 2022 before requesting to seal the record (five years of probation from date of conviction, plus applicable waiting period). Now, on May 4, the person can walk into court and have his or her misdemeanor conviction sealed that day.

Protecting the Public: Exceptions to Sealing

I expect this law to cause initial concern among the general public, stirring up thoughts of convicted felons working in law enforcement, or sex offenders teaching our children. If I thought the new amendment had the potential for such unintended consequences, I would be outraged as well. But even with the amendment to s. 100A, the safeguards and exceptions remain in place. Crimes against public justice, such as perjury, escape from prison, resisting arrest, and public official corruption, as well as firearms offenses, are excluded from being sealed under M.G.L. c. 276 s. 100A. Sex Offenses require a fifteen-year waiting period from any and all court supervision and probation before such records may be sealed, and any level 2 or level 3 Sex Offender is prohibited from having any sex offenses sealed.

Further, the statute provides for sealed records to be "unsealed" in specific circumstances. As of May 4, records may be unsealed to be used as evidence in custody or child visitation hearings, abuse in restraining order proceedings, and for sentencing in subsequent criminal proceedings. Under M.G.L. c. 6 s. 172, certain requestors of criminal offender record information (CORI) are provided access to sealed records, including firearm licensing authorities, foster home agencies, law enforcement, and school departments or other organizations working with children. So the entities that protect the public and are entrusted with the care of our children still have unfettered access to all criminal record information; even sealed records. In fact, M.G.L. c. 71 s. 38R requires school districts to conduct criminal background checks on any employees, contractors, and volunteers who may have direct and unmonitored contact with children. The affirmative, mandatory CORI checks should promote public confidence and reinforce the notion that our children's safety comes above all else.

Who Benefits?
With the statutory exceptions to record sealing, we can alleviate the fear of having the most violent and predatory criminal offenders gaining access to firearms and employment that might jeopardize public safety. The amendment to M.G.L. c. 276 s. 100A was not intended for, and still protects us from, such results. The beneficiaries of the amendment are otherwise law-abiding people, and their families, whose lives have been stifled by convictions from several years prior.

While a person with a criminal record will still be prevented from pursuing certain jobs and careers, there is no reason to prevent someone, several years after a minor conviction, from finding a job and finally becoming a contributing member of society. A person with one minor misdemeanor conviction should not have to wait as long as a person convicted of a felony before applying to seal his or her record, and the new law still recognizes that premise. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that most new criminal cases are brought against defendants who already have several prior arrests or convictions on their record. This amendment was not drafted to protect the career criminal. It was drafted in a way that allows the 23 year-old college graduate trying to start a career to not be prevented from doing so by the disorderly conduct conviction he received in high school, at 17 years old. It allows for someone who was convicted of a violent offense twenty years ago, and who subsequently served ten years in prison as a twenty year-old, from now obtaining employment at age forty in order to feed his family. After twenty years to reflect on his mistake and grow as a person, this amendment could provide hope for a second chance, where he might otherwise have given up. This man is grateful for his chance at a fresh start; and so is his family.

February 15, 2012

DUI-Manslaughter Convict Sues his Dead Victims


A Florida man convicted of killing three people while driving under the influence of alcohol is now suing the deceased for his own pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and the medical bills he incurred as a result of a crash he pleaded guilty to causing.

First, let me start off by saying that I can't imagine any sane lawyer would pursue this case. I find the suit meritless for the reasons I will discuss below. Further, it contributes to the distain that people who don't truly understand what I do already have for "drunk driving lawyers." I hope that people who read this article understand the only reason Attorney Tuomey took on this case is that the convict is her brother, David Belniak.

Without even addressing the moral issue of insensitivity (putting it mildly), I find two major legal problems with this lawsuit. First, Belniak pleaded guilty to three counts of DUI-Mansalughter; one count for each deceased person he is now suing. Under Florida law, a person is guilty of DUI-Manslaughter if while driving under the influence of alcohol he causes the death of another as a result of said driving under the influence. Thus, he admitted, under oath, that he caused the three deaths. End of discussion. This is called issue preclusion. He admitted that his operation while under the influence directly caused the three deaths, and the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that to be the case, so he is now precluded from arguing in a civil hearing that the deceased more likely than not (the civil standard of proof) was in fact the cause, rather than him. Even if he wanted to argue that the other driver's negligence was a contributing factor, his admission that he caused 3 deaths because of his drunk driving cannot be re-litigated.

Even if Belniak could argue that one of the deceased caused the accident, the damages that he is suing for are superfluous, weak, and desperate. In order to collect for his "injuries," Belniak must show that a reasonable person should have foreseen that his/her negligent driving would lead to a car accident, the result of which would leave him/her dead, law enforecement would then find evidence that Belniak was drunk so as to charge him with DUI-Manslaughter, the result of which would land him a lengthy jail sentence, causing him "injuries" such as pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity to enjoy life. Belniak must show that all of these claimed damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the dead person's traffic violation. Good luck.

If you were charged with any criminal offense or motor vehicle violation in Massachusetts, contact my office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for your free initial phone consultation:

Law Offices of Benjamin P. Urbelis, LLC
60 State St., Suite 700
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 878- 2089

February 3, 2012

Push to Revoke Driving Privileges for Massachusetts Teens Caught With Marijuana, Alcohol


Since 2009, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. The penalty is a $100 civil citation, and unlike with traffic tickets, there are no collateral consequences from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Principal Antonelli of Westford Academy is leading the charge on a proposed Massachusetts bill that would revoke the driving privileges for any teen under 18 years of age caught with marijuana, alcohol, or any other controlled substance. Under this bill, the driving privileges would not be restored until the teen completes a mandatory 3 month substance abuse program and pay a $1,000 fine. Principal Antonelli cites the growing trend of students not only bringing these substances to school, but also coming to class under the influence after having driven to school, as the primary reason to impose the tougher laws.

Principal Antonelli references the civil penalty of only $100 as being an insufficient deterrent to the marijuana problem in his school. However, there are a few other deterrents outlined in the law if the person cited is under 18. First, the teen's parents are notified of the citation, and there is a drug awareness program that the teen must complete within one year of the citation. If he or she fails to do so, the fine increases to $1,000, and the parents of that teen are held jointly and severally liable for that amount. That means that if the teen cannot come up with the payment, the parents are on the hook for the full $1,000 fine.

In response to Principal Antonelli's concerns that teens are driving while impaired, nothing in the decriminalization of marijuana lessens the penalties for operating under the influence of drugs. The penalties are the same for operating under the influence of marijuana as they are for operating under the influence of alcohol. And for operators under 18, the penalties under Massachusetts law for Operating Under the Influence are much tougher than those for adults.

If you or your teen has been charged with Operating Under the Influence of Drugs or any other Massachusetts criminal offense, contact my office for your free phone consultation:

24 hours a day, 7 days a week
(617) 878-2089