SJC Upholds Conviction for Driving After License Revocation: What Commonwealth v. Foley Means for Massachusetts Drivers
On July 15, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its decision in Commonwealth v. William C. Foley, SJC-13698, clarifying two major areas of Massachusetts criminal motor vehicle law:
The application of the so-called “no-fix” rule under G.L. c. 90C, § 2, which governs how and when traffic citations must be issued; and
The interpretation of G.L. c. 90, § 23, third paragraph, which imposes enhanced penalties for driving after a license revocation based on serious offenses, such as motor vehicle homicide or OUI.
This decision carries significant implications for defendants charged with driving after suspension or revocation—especially those whose prior revocation periods have technically expired but who never received formal license reinstatement.
As a Boston criminal defense law firm focused on representing clients in serious traffic and motor vehicle offenses, we believe this decision underscores the need for drivers to fully understand the terms of their license status—and for attorneys to mount creative, timely defenses in the face of aggressive prosecutions.
The Background: A Lifetime Revocation and a Tip from the News
William Foley’s criminal history dates back to 2002, when he pleaded guilty to:
Motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(b), and
OUI, second offense, under G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1).
Under the law at the time, a conviction for motor vehicle homicide required a 10-year license revocation, which the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) imposed beginning September 2002. But Foley’s record also triggered a second, far more serious administrative consequence: a lifetime revocation under G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(c)(4), for causing a death while operating under the influence with a prior OUI conviction. This law bars any license reinstatement—ever.
Years passed. Then, in 2021, Foley appeared in a local TV news segment produced by reporter Cheryl Fiandaca. Video showed him driving repeatedly, even confronting her about his efforts to get reinstated. Dedham Police began investigating the allegations after the report aired, confirming Foley’s identity, reviewing Registry data, and eventually interviewing him. He admitted he had not been reinstated—and a citation was mailed on January 3, 2022.
The charge? Operating a motor vehicle after a revocation for motor vehicle homicide, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 23, third paragraph—a charge carrying a minimum sentence of 60 days.
Issue #1: The “No-Fix” Statute (G.L. c. 90C, § 2)
Foley’s first defense argument was procedural: he claimed the citation should have been dismissed because it wasn’t issued at the time and place of the violation.
This is where the so-called “no-fix” rule comes into play. Under G.L. c. 90C, § 2, if a police officer fails to issue a citation at the scene of a motor vehicle violation, the case must be dismissed—unless one of three statutory exceptions applies. The most commonly litigated is:
"Where additional time was reasonably necessary to determine the nature of the violation or the identity of the violator." (G.L. c. 90C, § 2, fifth par.)
Here, Foley argued that police had plenty of time. The anonymous tips started in October 2021, the news aired in November 2021, and the citation wasn't issued until January 3, 2022. He argued that this delay violated the no-fix statute and warranted dismissal of the charge.
SJC’s Holding: Delay Was Reasonable
The SJC rejected this claim. The Court emphasized that no officer witnessed the violation, and that the police acted reasonably in taking time to investigate before issuing the citation.
Detective Doyle didn’t receive the assignment to investigate until mid-December. He reviewed the footage, interviewed the reporter and the defendant, and then mailed the citation on the next business day after New Year’s. The Court found this delay to be “reasonably necessary,” especially in light of the need to verify the date, location, and validity of the allegations shown in the news footage.
Moreover, the Court made a significant doctrinal clarification: the no-fix statute only governs the conduct of officers assigned to traffic enforcement duty. The earlier inaction by police administrators—even if it delayed the assignment of an officer—did not violate the statute.
Key Takeaway for Defendants:
If police didn’t witness the violation, and the investigation requires time (especially based on video or third-party reports), courts are likely to find “reasonable necessity” for delay—and will not dismiss your case on no-fix grounds.
Issue #2: What Counts as “Restoration” of a Driver’s License?
Foley’s second—and more substantive—defense was that he had already served his 10-year revocation for motor vehicle homicide. That revocation began in 2002 and expired in 2012. By 2021, he argued, he was no longer revoked under G.L. c. 90, § 24G, and therefore § 23’s harsh penalties didn’t apply.
The defense hinged on a single phrase in G.L. c. 90, § 23, third paragraph:
“...and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license to operate.”
Foley claimed the expiration of the 10-year revocation period was itself a "restoration."
SJC’s Rebuttal: Expiration ≠ Restoration
Not so, said the SJC. In a textual, plain-language interpretation of the statute, the Court ruled that:
The law penalizes operating a motor vehicle “after” a revocation and “before” a restoration.
The passage of time—i.e., the expiration of the 10-year revocation—does not automatically restore a driver’s license.
Restoration requires affirmative action by the RMV, and Foley had never received such a restoration.
The Court emphasized that Foley remained under a lifetime revocation under G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(c)(4). Regardless of whether the 10-year revocation had technically expired, the license was never restored, and no new license was ever issued.
Therefore, Foley was squarely within the penalty range of G.L. c. 90, § 23, third par., which mandates a minimum 60-day sentence and allows up to 2.5 years in the house of correction.
He was sentenced to 18 months.
Why This Case Matters to Drivers and Defense Attorneys
The Foley decision clarifies—and narrows—two common defenses in operating-after-revocation cases.
1. No-Fix Dismissal Will Rarely Apply Without On-Scene Police
Defense attorneys often use the no-fix statute as a tool to seek dismissal when citations aren’t timely issued. This case makes clear that reasonable investigation time will excuse delays, especially in non-routine cases involving:
Tips from the public
Investigative journalism
Registry or court record review
If no officer witnessed the violation, and the citation is issued promptly once the case is assigned to a traffic officer, dismissal is unlikely.
2. License “Expiration” Is Not the Same as “Restoration”
Drivers whose revocation periods have lapsed must understand that your license is not automatically restored. Restoration requires an affirmative reinstatement by the RMV, often following:
Completion of suspension period
Payment of reinstatement fees
Proof of insurance or alcohol treatment programs
Re-application for a learner’s permit or road test
If you drive before that process is complete, you may be criminally charged under G.L. c. 90, § 23, third par., with a mandatory jail sentence.
Defending an Operating After Revocation Charge in Massachusetts
As Boston criminal defense attorneys, we defend clients facing charges under G.L. c. 90, § 23—often without realizing the serious consequences involved. Here’s what we do when taking on these cases:
1. Review the RMV History in Detail
We analyze every license action, suspension, and revocation. Often, the RMV records are incomplete or confusing, and they may support alternate interpretations of the license status.
2. Investigate Whether the No-Fix Statute Applies
Even after Foley, dismissal may still be possible under G.L. c. 90C, § 2 if:
Police delayed issuing a citation after they had probable cause, or
An officer witnessed the event but waited weeks to act.
We review timelines, body-worn camera footage, and department protocols for enforcement.
3. Determine Whether Restoration Actually Occurred
Many defendants mistakenly believe that once a suspension or revocation expires, they can lawfully drive. That’s not true. We contact the Registry, gather reinstatement records, and challenge whether the Commonwealth has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the right to operate had not been restored.
4. Challenge Intent and Knowledge
If a defendant reasonably believed they were lawfully allowed to drive—especially based on ambiguous or conflicting RMV paperwork—we may argue lack of criminal intent.
Conclusion: Restoration Means More Than Time Served
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Foley reminds Massachusetts drivers and lawyers alike that the law governing license suspensions and revocations is strict and unforgiving. Even after a long-ago conviction and the lapse of a statutory revocation period, you are not clear to drive until the RMV restores your right to operate.
If you or a loved one has been charged with driving on a suspended or revoked license in Boston or anywhere in Massachusetts, contact our office today. Our attorneys know how to dissect RMV records, challenge improper citations, and push back against automatic assumptions about guilt.
Call Us Today for a Free Consultation
At [Your Firm Name], we defend the people behind the paperwork. Whether you're facing charges under G.L. c. 90 § 23, challenging an RMV suspension, or accused of a probation violation, our experienced criminal defense team is ready to fight for your rights.