Interlock Device Not Required

Search Our Site​

Get Help Now

From his Lunenburg office, attorney Matthew Gilman represents clients all over the state of Massachusetts. Fill out the form on this page or call the office today to connect with him and set up a free consultation. Matthew will discuss your case in the office or even in your own home and determine the best way forward for your unique situation.

In this case, our client was told by the Registry of Motor Vehicles that he had never had hardship hours removed from his record following a 1996 OUI. Our client in fact provided our office with a license issued in 2015 that had no restrictions. The Registry argued that their system showed hardship hours were never removed and argued that our client was required to maintain an interlock device for two years. Our client’s last criminal offense was in 1996. Attorney Gilman was able to argue that the Registry’s system was incorrect and that the Registry could not explain why our client had a valid license issued in 2015 with no restrictions. Attorney Gilman called into question the validity of the restrictions and the Board of Appeals issued an order permitting our client to fully reinstate with no interlock device.

Get Help Now

From his Lunenburg office, attorney Matthew Gilman represents clients all over the state of Massachusetts. Fill out the form on this page or call the office today to connect with him and set up a free consultation. Matthew will discuss your case in the office or even in your own home and determine the best way forward for your unique situation.