Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

| by

According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune Molly Bowser and her father Joseph Bowser were arrested in Methuen, Massachusetts and charged With Trafficking a Class B Substance and Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B. The Bowsers were observed by a Methuen Police Officer in their car and speaking with some people. It is alleged that during this interaction a drug transaction occurred. Officers searched the Bowsers and their car. They located a plastic bag containing about forty grams of cocaine as well as fifty OxyContin pills. The pills were found in Ms. Bowser’s purse. The case is currently pending in the Lawrence District Court. If the district attorney elects to indict this matter the prosecution will take place in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Methuen, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm

Lawrence Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer, Class B

Once again we are presented an all too common scenario. Police observe people in a car and gathered around a car. They believe they just witnessed a drug transaction. This is followed by a stop, frisk, Search and Seizure of drugs. Suspects are arrested and charges are filed. Initially the accused feels helpless and doomed. They were found in possession of drugs, a quantity of which satisfies the trafficking threshold. They fear the worst. Jail time for a minimum mandatory time period. This sentiment, while understandable is oftentimes premature. As any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you, no case is hopeless.

Don’t think for one second that judges in Massachusetts simply adopt the police officer’s representations and permit the case to stand. Take a look at the case of Commonwealth v. Levy, 459 Mass. 2010 (2011) for example. There, a trial judge allowed a Motion to Suppress the seizure of drugs the quantity of which was sufficient to charge a felony as well as a School Zone Violation. In Levy an experienced police officer was staking out a set of payphones known to be used in connection with drug transactions. A car pulled up to the location and one of the phone was used to make a call. The officer then followed the car to a location near the phones. The driver got out and paced around. A few minutes later another car pulled up. The driver of the second car got into the driver of the first cars’ vehicle and drove a short distance away. Believing he had just witnessed a drug transaction the officer stopped the second car and made an arrest. The search was ruled unconstitutional, the drugs were suppressed and the case was dismissed. I would be interested in knowing a few things about this case. What does the police report actually say? Can the officers identify anyone present at the time of the activity? What do local security videotapes show that either confirm or contradict the observations of the officer?

Continue Reading

| by

Boston police were in the South End investigating a case the other day. While doing so they saw someone get out of his car and start shooting. This occurred on Shawmut Avenue just around 9:30 two days ago. Officers chased the man and saw him get rid of his gun. They caught up to him just a few blocks away. The suspect was identified as Kevin Washington from Brockton, Massachusetts. Washington has been charged with Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder and Carrying a Firearm. The case in pending in the Dorchester District Court but will likely be prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

Officers also made another arrest related to this case. They saw Graciano Aponte of Boston put Washington’s discarded gun in his pocket. Aponte then tried to conceal the Firearm a few blocks away. Aponte is being charged with a Firearms Offense. He is also facing a charge as a Level 3 Armed Career Criminal. His case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court as well.

Read Article:

Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Assault Defense Law Firm

Lawyer Defending Gun Cases in Boston

The Armed Career Criminal Act in Massachusetts provides for a very severe punishment. Prosecutions under this statute are becoming more prevalent. The law itself, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G(a) states that anyone who gets convicted of carrying a firearm and has been convicted of a Violent Crime or a Serious Drug Crime shall be punished by a state prison sentence. The sentence is a minimum mandatory three year prison sentence and up to fifteen years in jail. The prior offenses must be convictions, not cases that were “Guilty Filed” or “Continued Without a Finding”. The term “Serious Drug Offense” is defined as any Federal Drug Crime where the permitted sentence is a maximum of ten years in jail or for any Massachusetts Drug Crime where a maximum prison sentence of ten years is allowed.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer here is what I find factually interesting about this case. If the police saw Aponte picking up the gun why didn’t they stop him right away and seize the weapon? Why let him carry the gun to another location where he supposedly tried to conceal it? Also, how were they able to make these observations while at the same time chasing and apprehending Washington? It really does not make much sense. The shooting occurred at 620 Shawmut Avenue. Aponte was seen hiding the gun at the intersection of Washington Street and Melnea Cass, about one thousand feet away. This is a significant distance to permit someone Carrying a Firearm to travel without making a stop.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed a first degree murder conviction in the case of Commonwealth v. Santos. Santos had been convicted on a felony murder theory. The Court found the following facts:

On July 26, 2005 shortly after 5:30 in the evening the victim was robbed and shot in the chest on a busy downtown Lowell street. Despite the presence of many witnesses no one was able to identify those involved in the crime other than to state that they were young Hispanic males. Santos’ flight from the scene was aided by and individual who eventually testified for the prosecution. That witness, Jesus Antonio Marquez told the jury that he was the getaway driver and the Santos and co-defendant Jose Luis Claudio Benitez knew the victim to be a heroin dealer from whom they had purchased heroin on multiple occasions. On the day of the crime Benitez arranged with the victim to buy a small amount of heroin. Benitez later changed the plan suggesting that he, Santos and Marquez rob the victim. Marquez drove. Benitez handed a gun to Santos. There was an expressed intention not to shoot the victim. Near the crime scene Santos and Benitez exited the car. Marquez heard a shot fired. The two defendants got back into Marquez’ car several minutes later. Benitez asked Santos why he shot the victim. The three went to Benitez’s sister’s home. Benitez told his sister that he told Santos not to shoot the victim and that “the other guy shot someone” notwithstanding his protestations. One of the victim’s drug customers testified to purchasing heroin from the victim shortly before the shooting and that he also saw Santos in the area. He identified Santos from prison photographs. Santos was arrested. He asked the police what for. After receiving a response he asked “is that it?”. Santos denied knowledge of the crime and admitted that he had been incarcerated for drugs. Marquez told the police about the robbery, the crime and the escape. Benitez and Santos were tried together.

On appeal Santos argued that the statement he made while in police custody was taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. At one point during the interrogation Santos told the police “I’m not going on with this conversation” and “I want a lawyer…”. The officers left the room. They returned, failed to honor the request for counsel and continued their questioning. The Court found this to be violative of Miranda and held that Santos’ statement should have been suppressed. The invocation of the right to counsel must be honored. The admission of the statement further introduced, improperly, multiple references to Santos’ prior bad acts. Finally, the statement contained police accusations that Santos was lying as well as references to unnamed witnesses who knew that the defendant shot the victim. All of this required a reversal of the conviction.

Santos’ appeal also challenged the admissibility of Benitez’ statements to his sister that he “told [Santos] not to do it” and that “[Santos] shot the kid”. The Court held that such statements should not have been admitted as evidence. The statements were self serving and designed to distance Benitez’ involvement from Santos’. Furthermore, the statements were not part of the joint venture and should have been excluded. Benitez’s post arrest statements implicating Santos in the crime was also error. The statements were made after the joint venture had ended and after a joint venturer had been apprehended thus making the statements inadmissible. Admission thereof required reversal.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Monday night Framingham, Massachusetts police were on patrol on Waverly Street when they noticed a Honda with “extremely dark” tinted windows. This observation prompted the officers to pull the car over and contact its occupants, Christian Joel Mercado Vega, Fe Sanchez and Wilfredo Ortiz. All of the defendants currently live in Framingham. Officers report that Ortiz appeared nervous and that Vega did not give his correct name or birth date. Vega was then ordered out of the car. Officers saw cocaine where he had been sitting. This motivated the officers to seize a duffel bag. Inside the duffel bag was over one pound of cocaine; specifically five hundred sixty four grams. During the search of the car a digital scale was located. All defendants have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 200 Grams, a Class B Substance. The case is pending in the Framingham District Court. It will ultimately be prosecuted in the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Framingham, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Middlesex County Drug Defense Lawyer

There is a statute in Massachusetts that limits the degree to which window tinting is acceptable. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 9D makes unlawful nontransparent or sunscreen materials affixed to windows in certain parts of cars. There is a thirty five percent visibility threshold applicable to this material. The Massachusetts Appeals Court has held that there is no need to measure the tint with a meter. Rather, the test is whether “is whether the officer reasonably suspected, based on his visual observations, that the tinting of the windows exceeded the permissible limits of Section 9D.” While this might appear to be a problem to constitutional challenges to searches there are ways to get a judge’s attention to this issue. Videotaping a replicated crime scene can be helpful. When vehicles with tinted windows travel in well lit areas the interior of the vehicle becomes blatantly visible. Imparting this fact to a judge at a Suppression Hearing calls into question the officer’s credibility and might result in a suppression of illegally seized evidence. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will investigate the circumstances of the stop to see if this will be an effective strategy at an evidentiary hearing.

Something else comes to mind when reading this article; that being the validity of the Exit Order. In Massachusetts police cannot order a passenger from a car (Vega) absent a reasonable apprehension of danger to the officer or others. There is no indication that such exigency existed in this case. Keep in mind, if Vega is not ordered out of the car then no one sees any cocaine. Ortiz would have been cited for the civil motor vehicle violation and sent on his way.

Continue Reading

| by

Just hours ago the Wareham Week reported that Jonathan Rose, a twenty year old Bourne, Massachusetts resident was arrested and charged with Trafficking Heroin and Conspiracy. According to the report, shortly after ten o’clock at night officers patrolling Route 195 saw the car being operated by Rose committing numerous Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Violations. Officers said that the car was going ninety in a sixty five, following another vehicle too closely and Operating Recklessly. In the passenger seat was Keith Boucher, a thirty six year old Wareham, Massachusetts resident. Boucher was also charged with Trafficking Heroin and Conspiracy. The case is pending in the Wareham District Court. It will be indicted and ultimately prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court in Brockton.

Read Article:

Wareham, Massachusetts Heroin Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Plymouth County Drug Defense Lawyer

Did you ever read one of these articles and think to yourself “why would anybody carrying a large quantity of drugs drive like such an idiot?” While that is perhaps the most natural reaction of the lay person a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will read this article much differently. I always believe that the stop and search of the car was based on profiling or a “tip” that would not survive a constitutional challenge and that the reported Motor Vehicle Crimes are pretenses used to justify the illicit stop. While showing a judge that the officers are not being truthful is not always easy to prove the challenge of doing so has been facilitated in recent years through security video cameras and traffic cameras. Depending on the location of the stop you might be able to show that the alleged traffic violations never occurred. If successful the Search and Seizure of the Drugs will be suppressed and that case likely dismissed. Accessing these cameras and their contents at the earliest possible moment is often critical as rarely does this equipment store the data for a extended period of time.

The article leaves some other things to think about. What right did the police have to search the car and its occupants after the stop? Where did they find the drugs? What evidence suggests that the passenger, Boucher was Trafficking Heroin or conspiring to violate the controlled substances laws? Did the police have information that they failed to disclose in their reports that might impact their credibility and the validity of the stop and search? I have no doubt that an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer will gets answers to these questions and provide these defendants with an excellent defense.

Continue Reading

| by

The Norwood, Massachusetts police have a Facebook page. It is young, having been launched in late June of this year. Yet already some of its major stories including arrests for Massachusetts Criminal Charges are being posted to the page and hitting other media outlets in the area. Its Friday post references a fairly large local drug bust wherein five Norwood, Massachusetts residents were arrested. All now face Massachusetts Drug Charges ranging from Possession of Heroin, a Class A Substance to Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A Substance to Intimidation of a Witness.

Early Friday, a Norwood officer applied for and obtained a Search Warrant targeting a Washington Street home. During the execution of the Search Warrant officers found Drug Paraphernalia and some Heroin. The registered tenant of the apartment was Andrew Costello, a twenty five year old male who has been charged with Possession of Heroin. Shortly thereafter officers found and arrested Matthew Bretti at a nearby location. Bretti had some outstanding warrants and has been charged with Larceny, Intimidation of a Witness and Possession With Intent to Distribute Class A. Another associate of Costello and Bretti, Zachary Foley was observed engaging in a drug transaction involving Lindsey Maguire and Daniel Watson. Foley was charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin. Maguire and Watson have been charged with Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. The cases are now pending in the Dedham District Court.

Read Article:

Norwood, Massachusetts Drugs Crimes Defense Lawyer

Lawyers who defend Drug Cases in Dedham District Court

What I find truly amazing these days is just how quickly new stories get published, especially those involving criminal accusations. This story was published to a Facebook page on Friday. It was quickly picked up by the Patch and I imagine Wicked Local and others will report the news shortly if they have not already done so. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I would like to see some of these outlets, particularly those associated with law enforcement publish resolutions of those cases that are favorable to the accused so that they can restore their names. In particular, it would be great to see acquittals and dismissals posted. It would be encouraging to see these outlets report when mistakes by law enforcement were made or when “victims” recant. To the accused, a favorable case disposition, especially dismissals and acquittals should be made as public as the initial arrest. This might help them not only restore their reputations but show perspective employers that the negative publicity that is revealed with a Google search can be qualified or perhaps renounced. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I pride myself on the results my office regularly gets for our clients. Hopefully, one of these days prosecutors and the police will publicly acknowledge when they have made mistakes, particularly in those situations where the arrest and initiation of criminal charges was made public.

Continue Reading

| by

Massachusetts State Police conducted an investigation into drug activities at 193 Campbell Avenue in Revere during the month of July. They had information that Luz Ramirez and Alexander Uran, occupants of that address had been selling drugs. A Search Warrant was granted permitting police to search the home. Yesterday afternoon police watched as Uran conducted a drug transaction in his neighborhood. Apparently officers had seen Uran engage in this activity on multiple occasions during their investigation. Officers confronted Uran and advised him that they had a warrant to search his home. During the search officers located in excess of 14 Grams of Oxycontin a large quantity of cash and some Drug Distribution Paraphernalia. Uran was immediately arrested. During the execution of the Search Warrant Ramirez entered the dwelling. She too was arrested. The cases are currently pending in the Chelsea District Court. It is expected that they will be indicted and the prosecution will take place in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston. Charges of Trafficking Cocaine, Trafficking Oxycontin and Conspiracy are mentioned as being prosecuted in the article.

Read Article:

Revere, Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Chelsea, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Lawyer

From reading this article it appears that the success of the district attorney’s case will lie on several factors. The validity of the Search Warrant is always scrutinized by the Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. Did the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause to enable the magistrate or judge to constitutionally issue a Search Warrant? Here is something else to look at. What did the police see and perhaps more importantly document during the course of their month long investigation? What was the individual involvement of the parties? What did Uran do? What did Ramirez do? Were the observations of the officers memorialized in any way; i.e. were they photographed or videotaped. Keep in mind, as I have mentioned in prior blog posts, simply being present when a search warrant is executed or living in a home out of which drugs are sold does not amount to proof that everyone living in the structure was actively involved in the crime. There must be more. The prosecution must show an intent and actual participation in some form before its case can be submitted to a jury. The article suggests that Ramirez did not more then live with Uran and that the two had some sort of relationship. This does not give rise to provable Drug Trafficking Charges in Massachusetts. I would be very interested in reading the police reports in this case to see what observations the officers made during their investigation that suggest in any way Ramirez’s criminal responsibility for these crimes.

Continue Reading

| by

heroin.jpgTwo days ago Lawrence, Massachusetts police in an unmarked cruiser saw an Infinity driving through Prospect Hill. Inside they saw a man and a woman. A second car containing four people met up with the Infinity, pulling alongside of it in a manner where the drivers of each vehicle could physically touch one another. This happened around two o’clock in the afternoon. Officers reported that they could see the drivers of both vehicles make an exchange, hand to hand, that they believed to be a drug transaction. Once the cars separated surveillance teams stopped both cars. The occupants of the Infinity admitted to purchasing drugs. The female occupant, Michelle Lamothe confessed to secreting the drugs in her bra. She then produced the substance and surrendered it to the police. It is Heroin. Lamothe has been charged with Possession of Heroin. The driver, Gerry Anthony (a pseudonym) was also charged with Possession of Heroin. A search of the other car, the alleged seller’s car revealed seven individually packaged bags of heroin and some cash. Arrested in that car were Manuel Berroa. He was charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A Substance, a School Zone Violation and Distribution of Heroin. The other three occupants of the car were charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept. The cases will be prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

 

Lawrence, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm

The facts of this article suggest that the defendant was improperly charged. Lamothe had the heroin in her possession. There is no indication that the two intended to share the drugs. Conversely, the article suggests that the quantity in Lamothe’s possession was consistent with personal use. In this case one would think it was for her personal use otherwise it would be in Anthony’s clothing or hands. Whereas there is no Conspiracy charge the charges against Anthony might either be dismissed or resolved in a way where he will not have a criminal record provided he does not already have one. The case against Berroa is a bit more difficult for the prosecution to prove. Absent testimony from Anthony or Lamothe proving that Berroa distributed the drugs to Anthony would require speculation on the part of the jury. An instruction always given to jurors prohibits them from speculating. The district attorney has to prove his or case beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept is one that I have always had a problem with. Massachusetts case law makes clear that “presence only” at the scene of a crime is not enough to sustain a conviction for the underlying crime. However, the law making it a crime to knowingly be present where heroin is kept cuts against this. A challenge to the constitutionality of that law is always a good idea.

Continue Reading

| by

Dossantos.jpgJust before 4:30 a.m. Monday, Brockton, Massachusetts police received a phone call from a man stating that he had been held captive at gunpoint. The “victim” stated that he went to the home of Emanuel Dossantos. Once he attempted to leave the home Dossantos held him at gunpoint. He was able to escape and call the police. He did not need or seek any medical attention. While the responding officer was interviewing the victim Dossantos came out of a nearby apartment. He was arrested. The police then applied for an obtained a Search Warrant. Later that day a search of Dossantos apartment was conducted. Inside the police found two guns and some cocaine. Dossantos was charged with Armed Robbery, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of Ammunition and Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court. That nature of the charges permits the district attorney to prosecute this case in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Drug Defense Lawyer

Criminal Defense Law Firm in Brockton, Massachusetts

Any Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer reading this article will tell you the same thing. There is something incredible about the victim’s allegations. It is highly unlikely that the events as described by the victim unraveled as suggested or even at all. This looks very much like a drug deal gone bad or someone making allegations against a competitor or enemy. Now how do we know that? Consider the following questions. What was the victim doing out at the defendant’s home at 4:30 in the morning? Why didn’t anyone see any injuries on the victim? How was the victim able to escape from Dossantos while being held captive at gunpoint? Does the victim have a record for violence? Does the victim have a record for drugs? Are there any phone records showing the victim making calls at or near the time of the alleged illegal activities?

Here is something else to consider. If Dossantos had roommates the district attorney might have difficulty establishing Dossantos’ possession of the drugs and guns as opposed to someone else’s possession. I would imagine that for many reasons the victim in this case will not testify. He likely has a Fifth Amendment privilege that will enable him to avoid having to testify. That leaves only the Possession With Intent case against the defendant and absent some corroborative links between Dossantos and the substance a Motion to Dismiss or a dismissal on a request for a required finding of not guilty might work here. The case against Dossantos might not be nearly as bad as one might think at first glance.

Continue Reading

| by

People in the Tower Hill section of Lawrence, Massachusetts complained to police about Drug Dealing in their neighborhood. As a result of the complaint the officers conducted surveillance activities. The result was the arrest of two New Hampshire women and a Lawrence man. Regina Hardy and Kylee Locke have been charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin was Kept and Possession of Heroin respectively. Locke has also been charged with Possession of a False Prescription. David Troncoso has been charged with Distribution of Heroin, a School Zone Violation and Possession of Class E Drugs.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Heroin Possession Defense Lawyer

Lawrence Massachusetts Heroin Distribution Defense Attorney

Almost weekly local newspapers report stories similar to this one. Neighbors complain about alleged illegal activity that they suspect involves drug dealing. The police respond by starting an investigation that almost always includes surveillance activities. They sit and wait. Then they see what they believe to be a drug deal and arrests are made. The operation is easily accomplished. The buyers are stopped. They are always addicts, desperate and afraid. They will immediately point the finger at the dealer who is then stopped by the police. Either drugs or money or both are found in his possession. He is then charged with Distribution of Controlled Substances. Chances are pretty good in Massachusetts that anyone involved in Drug Dealing within city limits will have to defend a School Zone Charge. The challenge to the Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defending the dealer varies from case to case. Rarely will the buyers testify against the dealers. They don’t have to. Drug Possession Cases in Massachusetts are routinely resolved favorably to the user unless the accused has an involved criminal history, particularly one that is replete with Drug Possession convictions. Even when they are not charged criminally they will likely not testify due to their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So the prosecution then has to rely on the observations of the police officers involved in the operation and the materials they find in the possession of the Drug Dealers. Street level dealers carry small quantities of drugs. They do this to avoid being charged with more serious crimes such as Drug Trafficking. Many times, when they are stopped after an alleged drug deal they have no drugs in their possession or quantities consistent with personal use. The district attorney will try to say that the manner of packaging might suggest an intent to distribute rather than possession. Many times these “dealers” are caught with a small number of bags of drugs such as cocaine or heroin, an amount that might be consumed by an addict in less than a day. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer can make the case that this opinion (the intent to distribute) is equally consistent with personal use. If successful this can result in the dismissal of the felony charges. Again, it is important to make sure that your lawyer understands the laws in Massachusetts and that he or she has the experience necessary to get you the best result possible.

Continue Reading