Commonwealth v. Pettit (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-040-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 11‑P‑1177 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. SEAN M. PETTIT. No. 11‑P‑1177. Berkshire. December 13, 2012. ‑ March 6, 2013. Present: Green, Graham, & Sullivan, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Operation, License to operate, Ignition interlock device. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, Revocation of license to operate. Complaint received and sworn to in the Northern Berkshire Division of the District Court Department on January 20, 2010. The case was heard by Paul M. Vrabel, J. Chrisoula I. Roumeliotis for the defendant. John P. Bossé, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GREEN, J. This appeal asks us to determine whether a driver’s license that has been revoked by reason of the licensee’s removal of an ignition interlock device (IID) installed pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 241/2,[1] nonetheless remains in force, so as to support conviction under G. L. c. 90, § 24S,[2] of operation of a motor vehicle not equipped with an IID. We conclude that a driver’s license does not remain in force after revocation and reverse the defendant’s conviction. Background. The defendant was convicted on August 15, 1996, of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. See G. L. c. 90, § 24. On December 9, 1999, he was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense. As a result of his convictions, his driver’s license was revoked on December 16, 1999. In May of 2007, the defendant sought to have his license reinstated. Pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 241/2, restoration of his license (which occurred on May 24, 2007) was conditioned on the installation of a certified IID on his car.[3] However, on November 26, 2007, the defendant’s license was revoked as a result of his removal of the IID. See note 1, supra. Thereafter, on July 28, 2009, the defendant was stopped while driving a vehicle without an IID. Following a jury-waived trial, he was convicted on a charge of operating a motor vehicle without an IID while his license was subject to restriction requiring such a device, pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 24S.[4] On appeal, he contends that his conviction cannot stand, because he did not have a license at the time of his arrest and hence could not have been operating in violation of […]