Joseph J. Higgins, III
Top rated DUI-DWI attorney in Rockland, Massachusetts
Law Offices of Milligan & Higgins
Practice areas: DUI-DWI; view more
Licensed in Massachusetts since: 2009
Education: Suffolk University Law School
Selected to Rising Stars: 2014 - 2023 Call today:
617-676-9676
Law Offices of Milligan & Higgins
300 Ledgewood PlSuite 201
Rockland, MA 02370 Visit website
Details 
Joseph J. Higgins III stands as a distinguished partner at the Law Offices of Milligan & Higgins in Rockland, Massachusetts, where he dedicates his legal competence exclusively to defending individuals accused of drunk driving. With a focus on DUI/OUI defense, he has earned recognition from The National College for DUI Defense, underscoring his unwavering commitment and profound dedication to this complex area of law.
As a consummate professional through and through, Mr. Higgins possesses a unique ability to navigate the intricacies of each case, skillfully collaborating with a diverse array of individuals, including clients, law enforcement officers, opposing counsel, probation officers and court personnel. His approach is not just about legal representation; it's about crafting the most favorable outcomes for his clients. Known for his exceptional intelligence and professional acumen, he also brings a warm and approachable demeanor that reassures his clients they have chosen the right advocate to guide them through their legal challenges.
Mr. Higgins’ journey in law began with a solid educational foundation, having graduated from Connecticut College, followed by Suffolk University Law School. He initially honed his legal skills as an assistant district attorney in Plymouth County, where he was tasked with prosecuting a multitude of drunk driving cases annually. This role provided him with invaluable experience, allowing him to engage with some of the most skilled defense attorneys in the state. It was through these experiences that he realized his true calling lay in defending those charged with DUI/OUI offenses.
Transitioning from prosecution to defense, Mr. Higgins has since appeared in over 60 courts across Massachusetts, leveraging his deep understanding of DUI/OUI law to advocate for his clients. His career is a testament to his belief in using his extensive knowledge and experience to support and defend individuals facing challenging legal situations, ensuring they receive the justice and representation they deserve.
Practice areas
Criminal Defense: DUI/DWIFocus areas
DUI/DWI
- 100% Criminal Defense: DUI/DWI
First Admitted: 2009, Massachusetts
Professional Webpage: https://milliganhiggins.com/joseph-j-higgins/
Bar / Professional Activity
- National College for DUI Defense, 2024
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2024
- National College for DUI Defense, 2023
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2023
- National College for DUI Defense, 2022
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2022
- National College for DUI Defense, 2021
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2021
- National College for DUI Defense, 2020
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2020
- National College for DUI Defense, 2019
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2019
- National College for DUI Defense, 2018
- DUI Defense Lawyers Association, 2018
Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)
- Commonwealth v. S.C. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, R-file on Speeding, 2024
- Commonwealth v. R.B. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI 3rd, Not Guilty on Neg Op, N-Resp. on Speeding, R-$100 fine on Markend Lanes, 2024
- Commonwealth v. J.S. - WORCESTER DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, CWOF 6 months on Neg Op, 2023
- Commonwealth v. J.S. - FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, Not Guilty on Neg Op, N-Resp. on Open Container, 2023
- Commonwealth v. T.L. - ORLEANS DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Nolle Prosequi. Motion to Suppress Statements and Breath Test allowed., 2023
- Commonwealth v. D.P. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI, Neg Op Dismissed. Motion to Suppress allowed, 2023
- Commonwealth v. J.H. - ORLEANS DISTRICT COURT Not Guilty on OUI, Guilty on Neg Op, Not Guilty on Leaving the Scene, 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.M. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, Guilty on Minor in Possession, R-$35 fine on Misc. MV Infraction, 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.S. - CHARLESTOWN DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, Not Guilty on ABPO, Not Guilty on Resisting Arrest, Guitly-$100 on Fail to Stop for Police, 2023
- Commonwealth v. B.D. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, Resp. on Marked Lanes, Resp. on Speeding, NR on Open Container, R on Lights Violation, 2023
- Commonwealth v. W.H. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, R-file on Open Container, 2023
- COMMONWEALTH V. F.B. - Newburyport District Court - OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: An Amesbury police officer observed the client turn into the parking lot of a closed car dealership at approximately 2:00 a.m. The officer observed the client travel to the end of a row of parked cars, position his vehicle next to them and then shut his vehicle’s lights off. Suspicious of these actions, the officer began to investigate. When the officer spoke with the client, he observed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and that there was a strong odor of alcohol emanating from his person. When asked where he was going, the client provided answers that did not make sense to the officer. The client admitted that he was coming from a bar and that he had consumed four or five drinks. When the officer concluded his investigation, he formed the opinion that the client was drunk and placed him under arrest. Having two prior offenses for drunk driving, the client was charged with OUI-Third Offense. At a jury-waived trial, Attorney Higgins, through the cross examination of the officer, highlighted for the judge that there was nothing about the client’s operation of his vehicle that would suggest that his ability to operate was impaired. The judge agreed with Attorney Higgins and found the client Not Guilty. Following the trial, the judge allowed Attorney Higgins’ motion to return the client’s license, getting him out from under a five-year suspension., 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.S. - GARDNER DISTRICT COURT - Leaving the Scene of Property Damage - Dismissed upon ruling on ID Motion, 2023
- Commonwealth v. D.J. - NEWBURYPORT DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, 2023
- Commonwealth v. B.G. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.M. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI 4th, Guilty on Neg Op-6 months HOC ss 2 years, Guilty on OAS-10 days HOC ss 2 years, 2023
- Commonwealth v. P.C. - FRAMINGHAM DISTRICT COURT Not Guilty on OUI 3rd, Not Guilty on Neg Op, NR on Marked Lanes, 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.M. - TAUNTON DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, CWOF 6 months on Neg Op, 2023
- Commonwealth v. L.S. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI 2nd, Guilty-1 year probation on Neg Op., 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.G. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT Not Guilty on OUI, R-$150 on Open Container, R-$100 on Marked Lanes, 2023
- Commonwealth v. N.D. - FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, CWOF-6 months on Neg Op before trial, 2023
- Commonwealth v. S.S. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI 3rd Offense, 2023
- Commonwealth v. M.M. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - Guilty-1 year probation, 24D Program, 45 Day Loss of License, 2023
- Commonwealth v. S.B. - HAVERHILL DISTRICT COURT - Not Guilty on OUI, R-file on Marked Lanes, 2023
- Commonwealth v. S.S. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Speeding R-file, 2023
- Commonwealth v. J.G. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2023
- Commonwealth v. L.M. - BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT - Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle - Not Guilty. , 2023
- Commonwealth v. J.B. - CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op - Dismissed, Possession Class C Dismissed, R-file on Speeding, 2023
- Commonwealth v. K.B. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op - Dismissed, 2023
- Commonwealth v. G.S. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, CWOF-1 year on Neg Op, 2023
- Commonwealth v. J.C. - NEW BEDFORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, NR on Marked Lanes, 2023
- Commonwealth v. S.D. - FRAMINGHAM DISTRICT COURTY - OUI 3rd-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, NR on Speeding and Marked Lanes, 2023
- Commonwealth v. D.B. - SOMERVILLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, NR on civil infraction, 2023
- Commonwealth v. B.C. - QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-NG, NR on civil infractions, 2023
- Commonwealth v. G.O. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT OUI 2nd - Not Guilty; Neg Op - Guilty 4 months probation, 2023
- Commonwealth v. S.G. - LYNN DISTRICT COURT - OUI SECOND OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper observed the client traveling at 80 mph in a 50 mph zone while weaving between three lanes of traffic. After effectuating a motor vehicle stop of the client, the Trooper observed that the client had bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and smelt strongly of an alcoholic beverage. The client admitted to drinking at dinner prior to driving. The client was given two field sobriety tests, which the Trooper deemed him to have failed. The client was placed under arrest and transported to the Danvers State Police barracks. When offered a Breath Test, the client refused, incurring a 3 years license suspension. At a jury-waived trial, through the cross examination and the use of Body Worn Camera footage, Attorney Higgins established for the judge that the client was Not Guilty of OUI. Following the trial, the judge allowed a Motion to Return the client’s driver’s license. , 2023
- Commonwealth v. B.B. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Massachusetts State Trooper observed the client driving without headlights or taillights at 9:15 p.m. in the City of Brockton. The Trooper activated both his siren and emergency lights in an attempt to stop the client. The client continued to drive for nearly half a mile according to the Trooper before pulling into a driveway on Newbury Street. The trooper testified that he observed the client stagger as he exited the vehicle. The trooper observed the client to have extremely slurred speech, bloodshot/glassy eyes and that he smelled strongly of alcohol. The client admitted that he was coming from a friend’s house after leaving a bar. The trooper also testified that the client nearly fell while performing the Nine Step Walk and Turn. At one point, the Trooper instructed the client to sit against the push bar of his cruiser. When the client attempted to sit against it, the trooper said that the client nearly fell. After forming the opinion that the client was intoxicated, the trooper charged him with Operating Under the Influence of Liquor – Third Offense (minimum sentence of 180 days with 150 to be served in jail), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Operating on a Suspended License for OUI while OUI (a conviction calls for a minimum jail sentence of 1-year on top of any sentence imposed on the OUI) and Operating a Motor Vehicle without an Ignition Interlock Device (6 month minimum jail sentence). Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins was able to have the OAS for OUI while OUI, Negligent Operation and IID charge dismissed, leaving only the OUI-3rd Offense. At a jury trial and through the cross examination of the trooper, Attorney Higgins was able to convince the jury that the client was Not Guilty. Upon the jury’s verdict, Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Return the client’s license, which was allowed by the judge., 2023
- Commonwealth v. C.C. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, Leaving the Scene of Property Damage-Guilty 1 year probation, 2022
- Commonwealth v. G.G. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI- Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. M.C. - LOWELL DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd - Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. G.M. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Reckless Op - Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. C.T. - FRAMINGHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. S.O. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Guilty 1 year probation, 2022
- Commonwealth v. S.J. - CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, NR on Open Container and Lights Violation, 2022
- Commonwealth v. R.D. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Leaving the Scene of Property Damage -Dismissed, 2022
- Commonwealth v. S.D. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd- Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. J.M. - BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. S.B. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-CWOF 6 months, 2022
- Commonwealth v. J.L. - LOWELL DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. A.A. - CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd- Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. S.R. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. R.H. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-2nd-Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. C.P. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd- Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. B.F. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT OUI-2nd-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, LSPD-Not Guilty, 2022
- Commonwealth v. S.J. - NEWBURYPORT DISTRICT COURT - OUI-5th-Guilty as to a 3rd Offense-2.5 years, 18 months TBS, balance ss 4 years, 2022
- Commonwealth v. M.S. - BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT - OUI-2nd-Dismissed. Trooper did not show, 2022
- Commonwealth v. D.R. - BRIGHTON BMC - OUI-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. T.W. - DORCHESTER - OUI-Dismissed; Trooper Retired, 2021
- Commonwealth v. M.C. - BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT - OUI 2nd-Not Guilty; Neg Op-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. R.C - CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Marked Lanes-NR, 2021
- Commonwealth v. J.S. - NEWBURYPORT DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Guilty-1 year probation, 24D Program; 60 Day License Loss, 2021
- Commonwealth v. V.C. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. W.M. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3rd-Not Guilty; Not Guilty on Neg Op, R-$250 fine on Speeding, 2021
- Commonwealth v. J.L. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Neg Op-Not Guilty, Speeding-NR, 2021
- Commonwealth v. H.V. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. M.R. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI Drugs-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. J.R. - LAWRENCE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. C.T. - PEABODY DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; R-file on Civil Infractions, 2021
- Commonwealth v. C.C. - SALEM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2021
- Commonwealth v. P.A. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI THIRD OFFENSE – NOT GUILTY: A Bridgewater police officer was traveling on Pleasant Street when he observed a gray Buick crossing both the double yellow center lines and the fog line. The officer observed at least four of these marked lanes violations. As the Buick continued, it came to a stop sign, but failed to stop. The officer then activated his cruiser’s emergency blue lights and conducted a motor vehicle stop. The officer approached the driver, later identified at the client, P.A. The officer asked the client where he was going and where he was coming from. When the client responded, the officer observed that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage, the client’s speech was slurred, and his eyes appeared glassy. The client admitted consuming two and a half beers. Suspecting that the client was under the influence of alcohol, the officer ordered the client to exit his vehicle. When the client attempted to get out of his car, he fell into the driver’s door. The officer then escorted the client to a safe location, where he administered a battery of field sobriety tests to include the Alphabet Tests, the Counting Backwards Test, the Finger-to-Nose Test, and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer testified that following the client’s performance, he formed the opinion that the client was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. Although not admitted into evidence at trial, the client registered a .15 BAC on the Breath Test back at the station. Through the cross examination of the arresting officer, Attorney Higgins was able to highlight for the jury the many things the client did correctly, demonstrating that his ability to drive was not impaired. After a 30 minute deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The verdict spared the client a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days., 2020
- Commonwealth v. N.S. - BRIGHTON BMC - OUI-Not Guilty, OAS-Dismissed, R-$500 on Open Container, 2020
- Commonwealth v. J.H. - QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3rd-Not Guilty, R-$100 on Marked Lanes, R-$250 fine and $50 surfine on Speeding, 2020
- Commonwealth v. E.I - TAUNTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd - Not Guilty, Neg Op - Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. K.B. - EAST BROOKFIELD DISTRICT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, Speeding-NR, 2019
- Commonwealth v. E.O. - QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Dismissed. Motion to Dismiss allowed, 2019
- Commonwealth v. S.B. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, Marked Lanes-Responsible Filed, 2019
- Commonwealth v. M.B. - WORCESTER DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd-Guilty, 2 years probation, 14 Day Inpatient Program, 2019
- Commonwealth v. R.G. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI Boat-Not Guilty, Unsafe Op of Mboat-G 1 year probation, 2019
- Commonwealth v. S.O. - BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Marked Lanes-Responsible $100 fine; Speeding-Responsible $100 fine, 2019
- Commonwealth v. J.M. - WORCESTER DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. I.A. - WESTBOROUGH DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, Open Container-$500 fine, Marked Lanes-$100 fine, 2019
- Commonwealth v. M.M. - NEWBURYPORT DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd-Not Guilty, NR on Marked Lanes, 2019
- Commonwealth v. N.A. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. W.R. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3-Guilty as to a 2nd Offense-2 years probation, 14 Day Inpatient Program and Aftercare, 2019
- Commonwealth v. S.C. - QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. K.G. - PEABODY DISTRICT COURT - OUI 4-Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. S.S. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3-Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. B.C. - DUDLEY DISTRICT COURT - OUI Drugs 3rd Offense-Not Guilty, Possession of Class E (x2)-Dismissed, Neg Op-Guilty 6 months probation by way of plea, 2019
- Commonwealth v. S.C. - BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, OAS for OUI-Not Guilty, LSPD-Not Guilty. All on motion for required finding , 2019
- Commonwealth v. C.A. - MALDEN DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Guilty, 1 year probation, 24D Program, 45 Day License loss, 2019
- Commonwealth v. W.N. - HINGHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd-Not Guilty, Neg Op, OAS, Uninsured, Unregistered Not Guilties by way of Motion for Required Finding, 2019
- Commonwealth v. R.H. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Guilty $20 fine, recommend no license loss, 2019
- Commonwealth v. J.I. - CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3-Dismissed following Motion to Suppress being allowed, 2019
- Commonwealth v. C.F. - EDGARTOWN DISTRICT COURT - OUI 4-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, OAS for OUI severed prior to trial, 2019
- Commonwealth v. S.C. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Marked Lanes-Not Guilty, 2019
- Commonwealth v. C.P. - BMC WEST ROXBURY - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-CWOF 1 year, NR on Wrong Way Violation, 2019
- Commonwealth v. L.C. - TAUNTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, Marked Lanes-NR, 2019
- Commonwealth v. C.R. - UXBRIDGE DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, 2019
- TAUNTON DISTRICT COURT - Commonwealth v. L.C.: OUI THIRD OFFENSE - Taunton Police officers were dispatched to a report of a motor vehicle accident involving a pickup truck into a telephone pole. When the first officer arrived and interacted with the operator, later identified as the client, she placed him in the back of her cruiser until another officer arrived. When that officer arrived on scene, he began questioning the client regarding his whereabouts and alcohol consumption. At a pre-trial motion to suppress challenging the admissibility of the client's answers, Attorney Higgins was successfully able to have those statements excluded from evidence. At the actual trial, during the cross examination of the two police officers, as well as a civilian witness, Attorney Higgins highlighted drastic inconsistencies in the testimony and offered plausible explanations for the client's poor performance on Field Sobriety Tests. One officer testified that she could not detect any odor of alcohol coming from the client and that his speech was not slurred, while the other officer testified that he did detect an odor of alcohol and that the client's speech was slurred. Attorney Higgins offered evidence that the client suffered from a medical condition that seriously impacted his balance and coordination, effectively discrediting the observations made by the officer during Field Sobriety Testing. In the end, having found reasonable doubt, the judge returned a verdict of Not Guilty., 2019
- Commonwealth v. J.A. - QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Dismissed; Civil Infractions-NR, 2019
- Commonwealth v. M.W. - HINGHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Not Guilty, NR on Civil Infractions, 2019
- Commonwealth v. C.B. - HINGHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3rd- reduced to OUI 2nd based on Motion In Limine. Guilty-1 year HOC, ss for 2 years. Guilty-2 years probation on Neg Op, 2019
- Commonwealth v. J.O. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty, Neg Op-Guilty 1 year probation., 2019
- Commonwealth v. N.K. - CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd -Guilty, 2 years probation, 14 Day Inpatient Program, 2019
- Commonwealth v. A.S. - ORLEANS DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2nd-Not Guilty, Neg Op- Guilty 6 months probation, 2019
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT (Halifax PD) Commonwealth v. S.S.: NOT GUILTY OUI THIRD OFFENSE - Halifax Police officers were dispatched to the area of Thompson Street for a report of an erratic operator. As one of the officers turned onto Thompson Street, he observed the client's vehicle approaching him from the opposite direction. As the client's vehicle neared, the officer observed the client's passenger-side tires cross the fog line. The officer conducted a U-turn and activated his blue lights in an attempt to stop the client. The client made a righthand turn onto Route 106. As the officer was behind her, the client made a left turn onto a local residential street and came to a stop. When the officer approached the client's driver's side, he noticed that the window was up. The officer knocked on the window and the client rolled it down. The officer was met with a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client's breath and observed that her eyes were glossy and bloodshot. When the officer asked the client where she was going, the client responded by stating that she was heading to Middleboro. The officer informed the client that she was traveling in the opposite direction of Middleboro. The officer asked the client for her license, but the client was unable to produce it. Believing that the client was drunk, the officer asked her to get out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. When the client exited, the officer noted that she appeared unsteady on her feet. The client repeatedly stated that she did not know what was going on. The officer administered the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand and the Finger-to-Nose test. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the client stepped on her own foot on steps two and three. The officer stopped the test. On the One Leg Stand, the client placed her foot down on three occasions and was unable to hold her foot up off the ground for more than a few seconds at a time. On the Finger-to-Nose Test, the client touched the middle of her nose, as opposed to the tip of her nose, as she had been instructed. Following her performance on the field sobriety tests, the client was placed under arrest. At the station, the client refused to submit to the Breath Test, resulting in a 5-year license loss. During the pendency of the case, Attorney Higgins filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements alleged to have made by the client. That motion was allowed, resulting in the exclusion of many damaging statements from evidence at trial. During the trial, through the cross examination of the Commonwealth's witnesses, Attorney Higgins was able to demonstrate to the jury that there were many things that the client did correctly, and despite both officers forming the opinion that the client was "drunk", the evidence supported the conclusion that she was not. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, sparing the client a minimum mandatory jail sentence. Following the trial, Attorney Higgins filed a Motion to Return License. The judge allowed that motion, ordering the Massachusetts RMV to reinstate the client's license., 2019
- Commonwealth v. J.C. - MALDEN DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2- Not Guilty; Lights Violation-NR, 2018
- Commonwealth v. R.L. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Guilty 1 year probation, 24D Program, 45 Day License Loss, 2018
- Commonwealth v. C.F. - HINGHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Neg Op-Guilty $200 fine; NR on both Civil Infractions, 2018
- Commonwealth v. C.G. - WORCESTER DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Reckless Op-Not Guilty; Carrying FA while Intox.-Not Guilty, 2018
- Commonwealth v. P.S. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI 3- Not Guilty; Child Endangerment While OUI-Not Guilty; OAS-G $500 fine, 2018
- Commonwealth v. D.D. - WORCESTER DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Open Container-NR; Marked Lanes- R $100 fine; Speeding- R $250 fine, 2018
- Commonwealth v. F.F. - PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Leaving the Scene of PD-CWOF-1 year, 2018
- Commonwealth v. A.M. - LYNN DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Guilty 1 year probation, 24D Program, 45 Day License Loss; Leaving the Scene-NG, 2018
- Commonwealth v. J.P. - WRENTHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2-Guilty 2 years HOC, 60 days TBS, balance suspended for 2 years, 2018
- Commonwealth v. M.D. - WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; Neg Op-CWOF 1 year; Responsible on both Civil Infractions , 2018
- Commonwealth v. M.A. - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT - OUI-Not Guilty; R-file on Speeding, 2018
- Commonwealth v. P.M. - AYER DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2-Guilty 2 years probation; 14 Day Inpatient; Neg Op-Guilty, 2018
- Commonwealth v. C.H. - FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - OUI 2 - Not Guilty; Fail to Stop for Police - G $100 fine; Speeding - R $50 fine, 2018
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. T.F.: NOT GUILTYClient was observed by State Trooper racing her friend on Route 28 South near the Otis Rotary. The Trooper testified both vehicles weaved through traffic in the rotary at close to 90 miles per hour. After the rotary, the Trooper testified that he clocked the client's vehicle at 110 miles per hour. The Trooper stopped both vehicles. When the Trooper spoke with the client he detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the client's eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. When asked if she had consumed any alcohol, the client admitted to drinking. The client was then asked to exit her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. The Trooper testified that when she exited the vehicle she had difficulty maintaining her balance and appeared unsteady. After performing two field sobriety tests and registering a .116 on the Portable Breath Test, the client was placed under arrest for OUI. During an inventory search of her vehicle, the Trooper located a 12 pack of beer with 11 of the bottles missing. After trial, client found Not Guilty of OUI., 2015
- WOBURN DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. C.B.: NOT GUILTYState Trooper observed client traveling 87 mph in a 65 mph zone. When the Trooper began following the client, he observed the client's vehicle go onto the fog line and abruptly swerve back to the right. This observation prompted the Trooper to initiate a stop. When the Trooper spoke with the client, he observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and that the client was slurring some of his words. The client admitted to drinking 4 Bud Light bottles and going to a night club. The Trooper asked the client to get out of the vehicle and administered the HGN, the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand and the Portable Breath Test. The PBT resulted in a .14 reading. Following a jury trial, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict., 2015
- SOMERVILLE DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. C.F.: NOT GUILTYMassachusetts State Troopers responded to a two-car crash on Route 93 South. Upon their arrival they spoke with the client. Two Troopers testified that they observed the client to be unsteady on his feet as he was swaying from side to side. They also testified that the client's speech was slurred, his eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, and that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his person. When asked if he had been drinking, the arresting trooper testified that the client stated that he had been drinking Presidente beer but that he didn't know how much. The client was asked to perform three field sobriety tests: 1) The Alphabet Test; 2) The One Leg Stand; and 3) The Nine Step Walk and Turn. The Trooper testified that he instructed the client to recite the alphabet from the letter "A" to the letter "M." The Trooper testified that the client made it to the letter "F," made 3-4 mistakes, and continued past the letter "M," stopping at the letter "P." During the One Leg Stand, the Trooper testified that the client repeatedly put his foot down, did not count out loud, swayed from side to side and used his arms for the balance. During the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the Trooper testified that the client did not touch heel to toe on any of the steps, used his arms for balance, took 12 steps instead of 9, stepped off line and did the turn incorrectly. Following his performance on these tests, the Trooper placed the client under arrest and transported him to the State Police Barracks in Medford. While at the barracks, the client consented to a breathalyzer, the result of which was a .096---above the legal limit of .08. At a pre-trial motion to suppress, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a ruling excluding the breath test result from evidence. At trial, through cross examination of the Troopers, and the use of the client's medical records to show that he was not a good candidate for performing the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn, Attorney Higgins was able to show that the client was Not Guilty of both OUI and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle., 2015
- NEWBURYPORT DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.F.: NOT GUILTYState Trooper observed client traveling at approximately 85 mph on Interstate 495 in Merrimack. As the Trooper was clocking the client's speed, he observed the client's vehicle travel over the fog line and rumble strip. The client took the off ramp at approximately 61 mph, when the speed limit for the ramp is 25 mph. The Trooper testified that the client had to brake extremely hard to negotiate the left turn at the end of the ramp. The Trooper then observed a marked lanes violation on Broad Street, prompting him to stop the client. The client's eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. The Trooper testified that the client stumped and had to use the vehicle to regain his balance. When initially asked how much alcohol he drank, the client stated "Not that much," but later told the Trooper that he hadn't been drinking. At one point the client admitted to drinking 2-3 beers. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test and formed the opinion that the client was "obviously intoxicated." Through cross-examination and the introduction of medical records, Attorney Higgins was able to prevent the government from satisfying their burden of proof, resulting in a Not Guilty verdict., 2015
- QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. C.G.: DISMISSEDClient charged with Operating After License Suspended for OUI---a charge that comes with a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 60 days. The client's license was, and is, suspended for life as a result of an OUI conviction. The Commonwealth alleged that the client was the operator of a vehicle that was involved in a 2-car crash in Quincy. The client was also charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins filed a series of Motions In Limine---requests that the judge exclude certain pieces of evidence. Following a hearing on those motions, the Commonwealth was unable to proceed on the charges, resulting in a dismissal of all counts., 2015
- FALL RIVER DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. D.A.: NOT GUILTYTwo Swansea police officers testified that their attention was initially drawn to the client's truck when they heard the revving of its engine. The officers explained that they observed the client cross into the breakdown lane and pass another vehicle on the right. This occurred on Wilbur Avenue, which has one lane of travel in each direction. The officers testified that the client then accelerated to 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, quickly catching up to the next vehicle on the roadway. The officers then observed the client slam on the brakes to avoid hitting that vehicle. When the officers activated their cruiser's blue lights, the client did not stop right away. Instead, he turned onto another road and finally came to a stop hundreds of yards later. The client informed the officers that he was suffering from an anxiety attack and was on his way to pick up his medication. While speaking with the client, the arresting officer observed the client's eyes to be bloodshot and glossy, and his speech to be slurred. The officer also detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the client's breath. The arresting officer testified that he observed the client attempt to hide two empty Bud Light cans that were sitting on the front passenger seat. The client was asked to perform the Alphabet Test, the Counting Backwards Test, the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer determined that the client failed all four tests and placed the client under arrest for OUI. Following the arrest, the officers located over 30 empty Bud Light cans in the truck. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain an order from the court excluding the empty Bud Lights from evidence. After that order, the case was tried before a jury in Fall River District Court. Through cross examination of both officers, Attorney Higgins was able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the client was Not Guilty of OUI., 2015
- WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. A.G.: NOT GUILTYClient stopped by Wareham Police after she was observed speeding and committing several marked lanes violations. The officers testified that the client smelt strongly of alcohol, her eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy, she was unsteady on her feet and she was slurring her speech. Both officers testified that the client was extremely uncooperative and belligerent. Following her failed performance on field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest for OUI., 2015
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. K.F.: NOT GUILTYMarshfield police officer observed a vehicle traveling with its high beams on on Ocean Street at approximately 4:00 a.m.. As the vehicle approached, its headlights went off completely and never came back on. Based on this observation, the officer stopped the vehicle. The driver was identified as the client, a 20 year-old young man. The client admitted to consuming alcohol and told the officer he was heading home to Plymouth from a friend's house. The officer observed that the client's speech was slurred, his eyes appeared red, glassy, and bloodshot, and that there was an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. When asked to get out of the vehicle, the officer testified that the client stumbled into the travel lane of the roadway. The officer testified that the client could not recite the alphabet and that he omitted several letters. The officer also testified that the client could not count backwards from 87 to 72. When asked to complete the One Leg Stand, the officer testified that the client placed his foot back on the ground after only one second. After being placed under arrest and taken back to the police station, the client completed a Breath Test, registering a .21 BAC. Prior to trial, Attorney Higgins was able to exclude the Breath Test result from evidence. At trial, Attorney Higgins was able to secure a 'Not Guilty' verdict from the jury., 2015
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. M.P.: NOT GUILTYPlymouth police officer was traveling on Carver Road when he observed two vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. As the vehicles neared, the second vehicle veered across the double yellow line and into the opposite lane---heading directly toward the officer's cruiser. The officer slammed on his brakes and pulled the cruiser into the shoulder of the roadway to avoid a collision. After passing the officer's cruiser, the vehicle made a quick left turn onto a nearby street. The officer turned his cruiser around to pursue the vehicle. When the officer located the vehicle, it was parked in a driveway---the engine was still running and the headlights were on. The officer observed the client standing in the driveway. The homeowners were shouting that they did not know the client and had no idea why he was there. The client returned to his truck and attempted to leave. The officer instructed the client to stop and to turn the vehicle off. In doing so, the officer observed that the client's eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred and he had an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his person. The officer also observed a "nip" in the cupholder of the client's truck. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted that he had been. The officer asked the client to perform a series of field sobriety test, including the Alphabet Test, the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk and Turn. The officer determined that the client had failed each of the tests and placed him under arrest for OUI. Pursuant to an inventory search, the police located a nip and an empty Budweiser bottle. At trial, through cross examination of the arresting officer and argument before the judge, Attorney Higgins was able to achieve a "Not Guilty" verdict for the client. This outcome was crucial to the client's ability to maintain his job, as the client holds a Commercial Driver's License., 2015
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. F.R.: DISMISSEDMassachusetts State Trooper observed client's vehicle weaving between lanes while traveling on Scenic Highway along the Cape Cod Canal. When the Trooper pulled the client over he detected an overwhelming odor of freshly burnt marijuana. Client admitted to smoking marijuana prior to driving. After conducting an investigation, the Trooper determined that the client was operating under the influence of marijuana and charged him with OUI-Drugs., 2015
- HINGHAM DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. S.R.: DISMISSEDScituate Police received a 911 call reporting an erratic operator. An officer on duty observed the subject vehicle and witnessed it cross into the oncoming traffic. The vehicle was traveling approximately 15 mph below the speed limit. The officer activated his cruiser's blue lights and signaled the operator to stop. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed our client as the operator. The officer noted that the client's eyes were half open and glassy, the she appeared confused, and that her speech was slow and drawn out. As the conversation continued, the officer observed the client begin to nod off. When the officer asked the client if she had taken any medication, the client indicated that she had and that she might have taken too much. The officer formed the opinion that the client was operating under the influence of drugs. A subsequent search revealed that the client was in possession of a suboxone pill, abilify, and lyrica. In a pre-trial motion, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain an order from the court that precluded the Commonwealth from offering testimony as to the element of "under the influence", a necessary element to prove a charge of OUI Drugs. This order resulted in the charge being dismissed., 2015
- WORCESTER DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. B.C.: NOT GUILTYClient sped by two Millville police officers traveling on Main Street in Millville. The officers signaled the client to pull over. When he did so, he left half of his car parked in the travel lane, despite there being plenty of room in the breakdown lane. When the officers approached, the client's eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy and they detected an odor of alcohol. The officers observed an empty Bud Light can, as well as a near-full Miller Light can that the client had been drinking from. The officer asked the client if he had been drinking. The client initially stated that he had consumed 3-4 beers, but later told the officer he actually had 7-8 beers. When asked to exit the vehicle, the officer testified that the client staggered as he walked and had difficulty maintaining his balance. After failing the One Leg Stand and the Nine Step Walk-and-Turn, the client was arrested and charged with OUI. At the station, the client consented to a Breath Test and produced a result of .08. At trial, Attorney Higgins, through cross-examination of the arresting officer, was able to convince the judge that not only was the client's ability to operate a motor vehicle not impaired by alcohol, but that the evidence was insufficient to show that his BAC was at or above a .08 at the time he was driving., 2015
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.M.: NOT GUILTYOn February 1, 2014, Plymouth Police responded to Court Street for a report of a male slumped behind the wheel of a parked, running vehicle. Upon the officer's arrival, she observed the client asleep in the driver's seat. The vehicle was running and the engine was revving, as the client's foot was on the gas pedal. The officer knocked on the window and the client did not wake up, forcing the officer to open the door and begin shaking the client. When the client awoke, the officer testified that he appeared confused and had difficulty following her simple instructions. She also testified that the client's speech was slightly slurred, his eyes appeared glassy and that there was a moderate odor of alcohol coming from his breath. The client admitted to drinking beers at a local bar and even stated that he "wasn't driving for a reason." When asked to perform the alphabet test, the officer testified that the client was not able to complete the test on two separate attempts. When asked to get out of the car, the officer testified that the client was unsteady on his feet and swayed side to side. The client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI. Both the arresting officer and the Sergeant that conducted the booking procedure testified that the client was uncooperative, belligerent, argumentative and disrespectful. At trial, through the cross examination of both officers, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to secure a "Not Guilty" verdict., 2015
- DEDHAM DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. A.M.: NOT GUILTYA Massachusetts State Trooper was dispatched to investigate a single motor vehicle crash on the off ramp of Exit 2A on Route 93 North in the Town of Canton. Upon his arrival, the Trooper observed a Honda Accord on top of a snow bank with its headlights pointing towards the sky. The Trooper testified that he observed a lone male, later identified as the client, walking around the vehicle. The Trooper observed that the client appeared consistently unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech and a moderate odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his person. When asked if he had been drinking, the client admitted to consuming alcohol prior to the crash. The Trooper testified that the client turned his back and began to walk away from him on several occasions. The Trooper also testified that he had to repeatedly escort the client away from the lane of travel and back to a safe location in the breakdown lane. When the Trooper requested that the client perform field sobriety tests, the client agreed, but when it came time for him to perform the One Leg Stand, the client became uncooperative and argumentative. The Trooper then placed the client under arrest and charged him with: 1) OUI-Liquor; 2) Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle; and 3) Marked Lanes Violation. Following a jury trial, Attorney Higgins was able to obtain a Not Guilty verdict on both the OUI and Negligent Operation charges, as well as a Not Responsible finding on the civil Marked Lanes Violation., 2015
- CONCORD DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. K.P.: NOT GUILTYLincoln Police Officers observed client traveling between 40 and 60+ mph on Route 2 West shortly after 2 a.m. They observed the client weave within the passing lane, cross over into the travel lane and jerk the vehicle back into the passing lane. After pulling the client over, the officer, a high-ranking member of the police department with over 20 years of experience, detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed the client's eyes to be red and glassy and her speech intermittently slurred. After administering 5 field sobriety tests (Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, Finger to Nose, Alphabet and Counting Backwards), during which the client appeared unsteady on her feet and was swaying side to side, the officer placed her under arrest of OUI-2nd Offense., 2015
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. C.M. : Not Guilty. Client involved in a minor car accident in the Bourne Rotary directly in front of the State Police Barracks. Client admitted to drinking, failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, the Counting Backwards Test and blew a .14 on the PBT. At trial, through cross examination of the arresting Trooper, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the mind of the judge, resulting in a favorable verdict. Client's driver's license restored., 2014
- CAMBRIDGE DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. B.P. : Not Guilty. Cambridge Police located client asleep behind the wheel in a parking lot across the street from the MBTA parking lot. When officers interacted with the client, he appeared visibly intoxicated. Client was asked how much he had to drink on two occasions. He indicated that he had "a bunch" and "a lot". Client was asked to perform a series of field sobriety tests and the officers determined that he failed them all. Through photographs and cross examination, Attorney Higgins convinced the judge that the parking lot in which the client was located was not a "public way"---a necessary element for the charge of OUI. This precluded the Commonwealth from being able to satisfy their burden., 2014
- DEDHAM DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. T.K.: NOT GUILTYWhile sitting at a traffic light, the officer observed the client travel through an intersection at a high rate of speed and slam on her brakes. Fearful that the client was not going to stop in time to avoid an accident, the officer proceeded in that direction, but lost sight of the client's vehicle when the client executed an illegal turn. The officer re-acquired visual of the client and attempted to initiate a stop. The officer testified that the client did not stop right away and when she did, it was as though the vehicle was thrown into park while still moving. The officer testified that the client had difficulty locating her license and registration, admitted to consuming two glasses of wine, appeared to have bloodshot/glassy eyes, and was visibly upset. The officer testified that the client was unable to count backwards as instructed, failed the 9-Step Walk and Turn, and failed the 1-Leg Stand. Through cross examination of the officer and the introduction of the client's medical records showing a problematic ankle, Attorney Higgins convinced the jury that the client was Not Guilty., 2014
- WESTBOROUGH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. M.L.: NOT GUILTYClient stopped for speeding and charged with first offense OUI. Upon his refusal to take the breath test, Massachusetts RMV suspended his license for 3 years. At trial, Attorney Higgins, through cross-examination, was able to show the court that the client demonstrated mental clarity and manual dexterity, and that the officer's observations were inconsistent with someone under the influence of alcohol. Following a Not Guilty verdict, Attorney Higgins convinced the Judge to allow a motion reinstating the client's driver's license., 2014
- FITCHBURG DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.M.: Dismissed. OUI 2nd Offense. State Trooper observed client traveling in the wrong direction on the roadway and enter a parking lot through the "Exit Only" exit portion of the lot. After failed field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI-2nd Offense, 2014
- QUINCY DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. D.T.S.: DISMISSED911 caller reported that client had driven up onto the island dividing the roadway. When the caller confronted client and asked her if she was driving drunk, caller reported that client swore at him. The police stopped the client shortly thereafter, observed her eyes to be bloodshot/glassy and her speech slurred. Officers determined that client was unable to perform field sobriety tests and that she was under the influence of alcohol., 2014
- WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. S.C. : Not Guilty. Client stopped for weaving between lanes of travel on Rt. 25 in Wareham. Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed clients eyes to be bloodshot and glassy, and her speech to be slurred. Client also admitted to consuming 2 glasses of wine. After failing the field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol and negligent operation. , 2014
- BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.M.: NOT GUILTYTrooper testified that he observed client attempt to enter parking lot while pedestrians crossing. Trooper testified that client's eyes were bloodshot/glassy, his speech was slurred and there was an odor of alcohol coming from his person. Client was asked to get out of his vehicle. Trooper testified that client was unsteady on his feet. Trooper testified that client admitted to drinking vodka/cranberries at a bar and could not find his hotel. After failing field sobriety tests, client was placed under arrest and charged with OUI., 2014
- DORCHESTER BMC - COMMONWEALTH v. C.S.: DISMISSEDClient observed traveling 87 mph in a 65 mph zone on Rte 93 South shortly after midnight. Trooper observed client swerve across 4 lanes of travel and exit highway. Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed client's eyes to be bloodshot/glassy and his speech slurred. Client admitted to drinking after work with his last drink approximately 20 minutes bTrooper administered 6 field sobriety tests and placed client under arrest. At the barracks, client consented to a Breath Test and generated a result of .10 BAC., 2014
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.C.: NOT GUILTYClient stopped for marked lanes violation shortly after 1:30 a.m. Officer testified that client smelt strongly of an alcoholic beverage and had bloodshot/glassy eyes. Client admitted to consuming alcohol at a local bar prior to driving. Officer testified that client was unsteady on his feet upon exiting his vehicle and that he failed the 9-Step Walk and Turn, as well as the 1-Leg Stand. Through cross examination of the arresting officer and the introduction of medical records showing a prior surgery on the client's ankle, Attorney Higgins was able to cast enough doubt in the mind of the judge to result in a Not Guilty verdict., 2014
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. T.Z. : Not Guilty. Client stopped in parking lot of fast food restaurant after police received a 911 call reporting erratic operation. After failed field sobriety tests, client was arrested and charged with OUI. At the police station, client registered a .17 on the Breathalyzer. At trial, 911 call and the breath test result were excluded from evidence., 2014
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. P.T.: Not Guilty. .10 Breath Test suppressed prior to trial. Off-duty State Trooper observed erratic operation on Rte. 139 in Hanover. As client entered Rt. 3 Southbound, Trooper called 911. Shortly after, client was stopped. After admission to drinking 4 beers, client asked to do field sobriety tests. Trooper formed the opinion client was under the influence and arrested him. At the State Police Barracks, client blew a .10 on the Breath Test., 2013
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.B.: Dismissed. After being stopped for marked lanes violations and failing field sobriety test, client was arrested and charged with 2nd Offense OUI., 2013
- PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. F.R.: Not Guilty. Client stopped after Trooper observed marked lanes violations. After admissions to drinking and failed field sobriety tests, client was arrested for OUI. At the barracks, client produced breath test readings of .089 and .092., 2013
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. J.H.: Not Guilty. Client stopped for speeding and admitted to drinking. Police officer located an open beer can at client's feet and another empty beer can in the back seat. After trial, client found Not Guilty., 2013
- MALDEN DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. L.M.: NOT GUILTY3rd Offense OUI---Malden Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-car accident. Upon arrival, the arresting officer observed a Toyota Scion with its front end pushed up against a tree. There was extensive damage to the vehicle's rear. In fact, the driver's side rear tire was snapped off the axle. Down the street the officer observed a Mazda 3 parked in the middle of the road. The Mazda had significant damage to its front. It was clear that the Mazda had collided with the Scion. Both vehicles were unoccupied. The officer, a Captain on the police force, testified that he observed the client walking in the street towards the scene. He stated that the client was walking with a stutter step, that she had bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol coming from her person. When asked how much she had to drink, the client stated "enough to get me drunk." When asked where her car was, the client pointed to the Mazda 3. The client refused field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest. At the station, when the client was asked how she was doing, she stated "I'm great, I'm drunk." During the booking procedure, the police located a set of keys in the client's possession. At trial, Attorney Higgins was able to establish that the Commonwealth had not satisfied their burden of proof with respect to the element of "operation" ---a necessary element to convict on an OUI charge. Attorney Higgins, through cross examination, established that the evidence never placed the client in the car, that there was no first-hand observation of the accident, and that there was no evidence that the keys located on the client's person belonged to either of the cars involved in the accident. Further, while the client admitted that the Mazda 3 was her car, there was no evidence that the client admitted that she was the one driving the car. Following a jury-waived trial, the judge found the client Not Guilty, sparing her a felony conviction and a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days., 2015
- FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. B.S.: Dismissed. Client stopped and arrested for OUI after spouse called police to report that she was intoxicated. Following an allowed motion to suppress the stop, the case was dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth., 2013
- MALDEN DISTRICT COURT - COMMONWEALTH v. V.S.: Not Guilty. .08 Breath Test - Not Guilty. Client stopped for driving at night without headlights on. After admitting to drinking and failed field sobriety test, client was arrested for OUI. During a search of client's car, Trooper found a half empty bottle of rum., 2013
Representative Clients
- Posted by Justin | January 5, 2024 | Hired Attorney Highly recommend Joe was highly recommended and did not disappoint. He is prompt, diligent, extremely knowledgeable and his experience in law was impressive and well beyond expectation. I would highly recommend his services to anyone, with full confidence, 2024
- Posted by David | February 4, 2024 | Hired Attorney Amazing Lawyer From my first conversation with Joe, I knew he was the lawyer for me. I explained my situation and he did not judge me at all. He reassured my wife and I, that he would do everything he could to help us with our case, and he most certainly did!!!!!, 2024
- Posted by Erik | February 2, 2024 | Hired Attorney Excellent Lawyer Joe was a fantastic attorney to work with. He is very knowledgeable and has a great attention to detail. He is very communicative and easy to work with. Highly recommend, 2024
- Posted by Nick | January 15, 2024 | Hired Attorney Highly Recommend Attorney Higgins is reliable, detail oriented, a good communicator, and genuinely cares about each client and case he is working on. I am very grateful to have worked with Joe, 2024
- Posted by Dylan | January 9, 2024 | Hired Attorney Highly Recommend Attorney Higgins is nothing short of excellent. From his knowledge and articulation of the law to his relationship with his clients, he is truly great. He answered every phone call and text message very quickly for a whole year and always informed me about everything happening with my case. When it was all set and done, all my charges were dropped, and it was all because of Attorney Higgins. I cannot recommend his service and expertise enough, 2024
- Posted by Terry | January 7, 2024 | Hired Attorney Highly Recommended Attorney Joe Higgins represented me for an OUI charge and I would highly recommend him for his expertise and effectiveness in this area. I didn’t think I would be able to do anything but accept a plea bargain, but Joe saw issues and advised fighting the charges. He was right. Joe won motions to suppress statements I made as well as the breathalyzer test. This led the prosecutors to dismiss the case. What a relief. From the initial consultation to the final court appearance, Joe was remarkably communicative, calmly confident and very professional. I am so thankful I contacted Joe after my charges and recommend him without hesitation, 2024
- Posted by Bryce | September 14, 2023 | Hired Attorney best choice Overall had a great experience and very easier than expected. Mr. Higgins did an outstanding job representing me and had a great way of "dumbing things down" so that I could have a better grasp of the process. He handled everything and kept me updated the only thing I had to do was show up for the final court date. That was the first time that I met him as I am out of state and only spoke over the phone. I would recommend him to anyone as he is a great asset to have in your corner. I received not guilty, 2023
- Posted by Sam | July 10, 2023 | Hired Attorney Clear communications, helpful and great in the courtroom On the surface, I had a positive outcome in court which is great. He was very clear in his communications, navigated the cross examination with ease, and kept bringing up more and more positive point for my case. He was excellent., 2023
- Posted by Timothy | August 1, 2023 | Hired Attorney DUI Joseph and his associates were fast acting, diligent, considerate and over all extremely professional. He is a great lawyer and I wouldn't want anyone else to represent me., 2023
- Posted by Stacy | April 1, 2023 | Hired Attorney Don’t go it alone - Call Atty. Joe Higgins Nobody wants to find themselves facing an OUI charge. It’s terrifying and mortifying. Atty. Joe Higgins returned my initial call on a Saturday morning from the golf course to see how he could help. He was was highly responsive throughout the whole ordeal and communicated the complexities of the law clearly and respectfully. I am pleased with the outcome and I know I could not have achieved it without his help. I highly recommend Joe Higgins., 2023
- Posted by Sal-G | March 27, 2023 | Hired Attorney Second OUI I was very lucky to have chosen Attorney Higgins to represent me when I was charged with a 2nd OUI which was a devastating event for me. He was extremely professional during the entire process and very helpful. His true brilliance was reflected in how he conducted himself in the trial, he was spectacular. His knowledge of his subject, his intelligent cross examination of the police officer and ability to point out to the inadequacies of the evidence presented against me was what led me to get a verdict of not guilty. He truly is the best at what he does. I highly recommend him for anyone who has been charge with an OUI. He has made a big difference in my life., 2023
- Posted by Bill | February 4, 2023 | Hired Attorney Expert advice and representation Atty. Higgins was very knowledgeable in my complex case and was able to take the time to explain in simple terms what the options were. Although difficult, he was able to successfully resolve the matter in an expedient time frame. Anyone who is skillful in their own profession can recognize the same in others practicing theirs., 2023
- Best In The Business 5.0 stars Posted by Robert January 23, 2023 Joseph "Joe" Higgins is nothing short of a Super Lawyer, a distinction bestowed upon him by The Boston Globe. Unlike other defense attorneys, Joe has made defending citizens who face civil or criminal vehicular violations the focus of his life's work; all to the benefit of his clients. Other attorneys who practice a smorgasbord of legal issues often recommend Joe when the case involves vehicular or other RMV matters. Joe knows the ins-and-outs of the Massachusetts general laws pertaining to vehicular violations and their associated legal procedures. Equally important, he knows how and when to use data, evidence and legal arguments to provide leverage and advantage for his clients. Joe is a straight-shooter and has gained the respect and admiration of hearing officers, clerk magistrates, prosecutors and judges across Massachusetts. Joe is caring, candid, honest and unflappable. He does not make promises that he knows or believes are unattainable, but he works tirelessly and cooperatively with his clients to achieve the greatest possible outcome. Just as importantly, and even as busy as Joe is (i.e., he is in one court or another virtually every day), he is extraordinarily responsive to his clients. If he's unable to answer a call. or fully address an email or a text immediately, he'll send an email or text indicating when he can, and it's always within a reasonable period of time I feel extremely fortunate to have found Joe, that he was willing to represent me, and that together we achieved what other attorneys (and even Joe himself initially) thought to be an unachievable or very unlikely, but true and factual outcome. He's simply the best there is., 2023
- Great attorney 5.0 stars Posted by Phil M. January 26, 2023 I worked with Joe during the midst of the pandemic when I got an OUI. Joe represented me during this process. I highly recommend him as he has a great track record of getting favorable outcomes., 2023
- Posted by Chris | April 24, 2023 | Hired Attorney A difficult DUI case that was dismissed today! "I had the pleasure of working with Attorney Joe Higgins on a complex legal matter and I couldn't be more impressed with his professionalism and expertise. From the very beginning, Joe was attentive, knowledgeable, and compassionate. Throughout the entire process, Joe went above and beyond to ensure that my rights were protected and that I received the best possible outcome. His dedication and hard work were truly remarkable. Thanks to Joe's exceptional legal skills, I was able to achieve a favorable outcome in my case. I would highly recommend Attorney Joe Higgins to anyone in need of a skilled and dedicated lawyer. Thank you, Joe, for everything you did for me!", 2023
- The best 5.0 stars Posted by Bryan January 26, 2023 I had the pleasure to work with Joe and he did an amazing job. I highly recommend joe to anyone who needs representation., 2023
- Posted by Scott | February 17, 2023 | Hired Attorney The Best There Is Hiring Joe was the best decision I have ever made. I unfortunately was facing a 3rd offense and was looking at mandatory jail time. My case dragged on for almost 2 years and throughout the entire process Joe was always responsive with any questions I had and each time we had to go to court Joe was prepared and made me feel assured. When the trial day finally came, I went with Joe’s advice, and we went with a Jury Waived trial. Through cross examination of the officer Joe was able to poke holes in the officer’s police report and prove to the judge the number of things I did right in the field sobriety test. Joe was able to quickly prove that the case did not rise to the burden of proof the State needed. We were able to obtain a Not Guilty Verdict on all counts and won the motion with the judge to reinstate my license. If you are ever in an unfortune situation like this, do not look any further, Joe is the person to hire., 2023
- Posted by Derek | April 1, 2023 | Hired Attorney Highly recommend I highly recommend Attorney Joe Higgins, I was not happy with my original attorney, I was looking on the internet for a new attorney Joe's name popped up first,I gave him a call told him my situation and Joe got right to business,He handled my case and helped me out alot, I was happy with the end results., 2023
- The Best Attorney for DUI 5.0 stars Posted by Albert May 8, 2022 My journey with Attorney Higgins lasted almost four years. It was a well deserved journey for it ended with a Not Guilty verdict. I was charged with a second DUI with the first being over 10 years ago. Attorney Higgins is simply the best. Very professional, time conscious, communicates effectively and clearly. He does not tell you everything will be fine. What he will tell you after thoroughly examining your case is, we have a chance to win and that is all you need. For with legal matters, it can go either way. But one thing you will realize when you hire him is, he will put his very best food forward. You will instantly know he is on your side for the journey, should you choose him. I had the opportunity of watching him in the court room with the confidence he carries, the preparedness and the depth of knowledge about DUI cases in the way he was challenging the police report. He is a master. Please, look no further if you have a DUI case. He is simply the best., 2022
- A Great, Thorough and Honest Attorney 5.0 stars Posted by Rachael June 30, 2022 I felt like I was looking down the barrel of a gun when I got my court magistrate hearing. The police report read like a narrative and I was charged with a 2nd oui and leaving the scene. My first was over ten years ago. Joe was forthright with me and said a plea was best, and the deal I got was more than I could of hoped for. He is a calming presence, straightforward, and understands the court systems he works within,. My life may be a lot different right now if I did not choose to hire this attorney,, 2022
- Extremely competent DUI attorney. 5.0 stars Posted by James August 24, 2022 Attorney Higgins represented me with a DUI case in the Boston Municipal Court. At trial, Attorney Higgins presented himself as highly skilled attorney who proved excellent council during the trial. Attorney Higgins was victorious in a " NOT GUILTY" finding. I would without reservation recommend Attorney Higgins. J Mc BOSTON, 2022
- RMV Hearing 5.0 stars Posted by Theresa December 29, 2022 After a not guilty verdict on an OUI charge, my son needed representation for his hearing for license reinstatement at the RMV. Joe came highly recommended by our criminal attorney and he did not disappoint! The Registry of Motor Vehicles is a whole other level of nonsense and you absolutely need an attorney to deal with it. Joe is the best!, 2022
Educational Background
- Connecticut College, B.A. Government and Economics, 2006
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- Faculty member in MCLE addressing legal issues in Massachusetts Motor Vehicle stops, Faculty, Seminar on Massachusetts Auto Stops, Massachusetts Continued Legal Education, 2016
- Presentation for other attorneys on how to handle OUI cases in Massachusetts., Faculty, Faculty, Massachusetts Continued Legal Education, DUI/OUI/DWI Defense, 2025
- Seminar on Massachusetts Auto Stops, Faculty, Massachusetts Auto Stops, Massachusetts Continued Legal Education, 2015
- Seminar on Massachusetts Auto Stops, Faculty, Massachusetts Auto Stops, Massachusetts Continued Legal Education, 2014
- Defending OUI Drug Cases - Challenging "Junk Science" and the Myth of the "DRE", Speaker, Defending OUI Drug Cases - Challenging "Junk Science" and the Myth of the "DRE", 2013
Honors
- Clients’ Choice DUI—Avvo, 2015
- Rising Star—Super Lawyers Magazine, 2014-2020
- Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service. This attorney has received at least 10 client reviews, and has an average review score of 4.5 or higher, Client Champion - Platinum, Martindale - Hubbell, 2024
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients' Choice Award, Avvo, 2024
- Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service. This attorney has received at least 10 client reviews, and has an average review score of 4.5 or higher, Client Champion - Platinum, Martindale - Hubbell, 2023
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients Choice Award, Avvo, 2023
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients Choice Award, Avvo, 2022
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients' Choice Award, Avvo, 2021
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients' Choice Award, Avvo, 2020
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients' Choice Award, Avvo, 2019
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients' Choice Award, Avvo, 2018
- You're awarded the Clients' Choice badge if you receive five or more 4+ star reviews in a calendar year, Clients' Choice Award in DUI Defense, Avvo, 2017
- Top Rated DUI Attorney, Superb DUI Attorney, Avvo, 2017
- Clients' Choice Award in DUI/DWI Defense, Avvo, 2016
- Top Rated DUI Attorney, Superb DUI Attorney, Avvo, 2016
- Top Rated DUI Attorney, Superb DUI Attorney, Avvo, 2015
- Top Rated DUI Attorney, Superb DUI Attorney, Avvo, 2014
- Top 40 Under 40, National Trial Lawyers, 2014
- Clients' Choice Award in DUI/DWI Defense, Clients' Choice Award, Avvo, 2014
Office location for Joseph J. Higgins, III
300 Ledgewood Pl
Suite 201
Rockland, MA 02370
Phone: 617-676-9676
Selections
10 Years Rising Stars
- Rising Stars: 2014 - 2023
