Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

As part of a three month investigation, police in Brewster, Massachusetts received information that certain individuals might be transporting Heroin on Cape Cod. The investigation resulted in a stop of a car being driven by a twenty four Cape Cod woman. The woman was accompanied by two men, John Hurst and Adam Larsen. After the car was stopped officers located about four hundred fifty bags of Heroin. The total weight approximated ten grams, slightly less than necessary to charge Trafficking Heroin. All three were charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. The woman, who had her child in the car has also been charged with Child Endangerment.

Read Article:

Cape Cod Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

Drug Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts

Two questions come to mind when reading this article. The first centers on the officer’s probable cause to stop the vehicle. What information did they have and was that information enough to justify the stop. Any time a motor vehicle is stopped it, or its occupants are searched certain constitutional principles are implicated, all centering on the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The answer to this question affects all of the defendants as each will no doubt file a Motion to Suppress the stop and fight the intrusion. The second question focuses on the location where the drugs were found. If they were found in someone’s physical possession it is likely that not all of the occupants controlled the drugs. If they were in a common are in the car then it would be interesting to learn what evidence the district attorney has to charge each of the accused with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin.

Massachusetts case law states that it is not enough that the accused is in the same car as the drugs found. It is also not enough that the defendant has knowledge that a substance is in the car. Possession implies control and power over the substance. Being a passenger in a car where drugs are present does not imply involvement in the commission of the drug offense. There must be more. The district attorney’s ability to prove this case against any of these defendants depends on where the drugs were located, what the defendants said at the time they were approached by the police, the information the police had prior to stopping the vehicle and the actions or movements of the parties during the incident. The Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers who represents these people will use this information as a starting point for establishing a defense to these charges.

Continue Reading

According to The Bristol County District Attorney, a multi-county investigation called “Operation Diesel Spill” came to a climax this past week with the arrest of thirty-eight year old Alexander Torres, Senior. The Brockton Enterprise reported that the arrest of Torres will put a “huge dent” in the distribution of heroin. According to the Enterprise, nine law enforcement agencies have been working in an extensive investigation that included the use of court-ordered wiretaps that cumulated with the seizure of 2.3 pounds of heroin that is estimated to have a street value of over $300,000.00. This coordinated investigation began last summer and resulted in drug raids in Attleboro, Taunton, Brockton and Central Falls Rhode Island. In addition to the arrest of Torres, it is expected that twenty-three people will be arrested or summonsed to court on related drug and firearms offenses.

If an individual is facing drug and or gun related charges as the result of an investigation and execution of a search warrant, there are many approaches that an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer can take to successfully defend the accused. Initially, it is imperative to conduct a pre-trial investigation early on to determine whether there are any favorable witnesses. In any case in which a search warrant has been applied for and executed to search a person, home of vehicle it is imperative to thoroughly review the application for the warrant and the return of the search warrant.

A valuable tool in a Boston area criminal defense attorney’s arsenal is the ability to file a motion to suppress evidence and a motion to suppress statements in appropriate circumstances. The Massachusetts Declaration Of Rights and Article XIV of the United States Constitution provides that a private citizen enjoys an expectation of privacy in his or her home, car and person. In order to search an individual’s home the authorities must present reasons or “probable cause” in the form of an application for a search warrant to a clerk-magistrate. The application must proved reliable information that the contraband sought can be found at the specific location or on the specific person. Often, the affiant provides information from an “informant” [either reliable who has supplied information in the past or a concerned citizen] or an “unreliable” or first time “informant.” The affiant must establish the reliability and veracity of this information within the four corners of the affidavit. The reliability and veracity of the information is one of the areas in which an experienced drug defense lawyer attacks in the form of a motion to suppress evidence.

Yesterday morning members of the Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department served a Search Warrant at 39 Whipple Street, the third floor apartment. At around 7:00 in the morning the officers raided the home. During the search they found Oxycodone pills, Cocaine and assorted Drug Paraphernalia including scales and packaging materials. A small amount of cash, under one hundred dollars was seized as well. Present at the time of the execution of the Search Warrant were Abigail Rivera, Esteban Lugo and Joshua Rivera, all alleged residents of the home. All three have been charged with Possession of a Class B narcotic and Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B substance. Another individual who was in the apartment, Jamie Rodriguez was arrested due to an outstanding warrant.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Lawyer, Class B Substances

Lowell, Massachusetts Lawyer Defending Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B Narcotics

Every time I read an article like this one I immediately wonder how the prosecution expects to establish culpability for each member of the home. As I have mentioned before, Massachusetts case law emphatically states that “mere presence” at or near the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish liability for the commission of the crime. If that is all the evidence the district attorney has against the accused then the case will be dismissed as to that defendant. There must be more than simply being present when a crime has been committed. There must be some evidence that the accused was committing the crime. Even if he or she was not actively doing the illegal act the district attorney can proceed under a joint venture theory. This however requires them to show that the accused knowing participated in the commission of the crime, either by himself or with others and that he or she intended to commit the offense. In a case like this one the drugs are not usually in every room in the home. They are not usually in the possession of each individual home at the time the Search Warrant was executed. So why then were three people charged in this case? The answer is easy. All three were residents of the apartment. When the police cannot identify the actual culprits for certain they charge everyone present. As a matter of self-preservation one of the accused may point the finger at the others and solidify the prosecutor’s case. Other times, out of fear of going to trial some of the accused may plead guilty to something that does not require jail time or extensive probation. However, if the defendants are properly represented they often find some very viable defenses to the charges that result in suppression of the items seized or dismissal of the charges. This is another reason why getting the right Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to defend you is extremely important.

Continue Reading

The Somerville Patch reports that police officers who witnessed at least three drug deals in two days have arrested a Malden, Massachusetts woman, charging her with Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Here is a look at what transpired. Last Friday around 3:30 p.m. the woman was seen meeting up with another woman. The two walked towards a man at which point a drug transaction occurred. The buyer, a sixty one year old Brockton, Massachusetts man was charged with Possession of Heroin and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. The next day, the same woman was again seen engaged in a drug sale. The police followed her and saw her involved in yet a third drug deal. As with the first deal, the alleged buyer, a thirty seven year old Winthrop man was arrested and charged with Conspiracy and Drug Possession. The case is being prosecuted in the Somerville District Court.

Read Article:

Somerville, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Lawyer, Heroin, Conspiracy

Any time I read a story like this one I immediately become somewhat suspicious and wonder about the exact location police officers were in when they made their “observations”. When I defend Drug Cases in Massachusetts like this one, one of the first things I do is visit the crime scene. Using the police report and other discovery materials I try to ascertain the surveillance location. When it is not clear from the report or more importantly, when it is clear that there was no legitimate surveillance point, I file a motion for the disclosure of the surveillance location. This is often met with opposition.

Discovery of information in criminal cases is often discretionary. The district attorney often argues that they are not obligated to disclose surveillance locations in that doing so might compromise ongoing investigations or that disclosure is not relevant to the case at all. The best Massachusetts case supporting the defendant’s right to have this information is Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 421 Mass. 272, 274-276 (1995). In Hernandez, the Supreme Judicial Court held that disclosure was necessary where the surveillance location was helpful and relevant to the defense in terms of attacking the officers’ represented observations. In many cases true cross-examination requires a disclosure of a surveillance location. There can be a need to show how certain obstacles might have impeded an officer’s views and to show that he never saw what he reported to have seen. It is important to note that there is no obligation for the defense to show what it believes the evidence might show in order to justify the request for disclosure. All that is required is that the defendant make a preliminary showing that disclosure would provide material evidence needed by the defendant for a fair presentation of his case to the jury. Once the surveillance location has been disclosed, photographing the area might be helpful when arguing for suppression before a judge or an acquittal by a jury.

Continue Reading

People living in an area of Tower Hill in Lawrence, Massachusetts were becoming concerned about what they believed to be drug deals occurring in cars in their neighborhood. In response they called the police. Two nights ago, following up on the complaints, an unmarked cruiser was patrolling the area. They observed a Toyota Camry parked in the troubled area. The Camry left the area. The cops followed it. The car then stopped a short distance away, in the middle of the street near another car. Officers saw what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction and they pulled the Camry over. Inside were Meghan Sardella, the driver of North Andover and Christopher Venezia, the passenger of North Reading. Sardella was found to be in Possession of Heroin for which she has been charged. Venezia has been charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept. The cases will be prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Heroin Possession Defense Lawyer

The crime of Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 35 controls this crime. The statute reads that “[a]ny person who is knowingly present at a place where heroin is kept or deposited in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any person who is in the company of a person, knowing that said person is in possession of heroin in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both.” First time offenders can get their convictions sealed after they fully satisfy their conditions of probation.

From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer this law is extremely troubling. It cuts against well established Massachusetts case law that makes someone’s presence at the scene of a crime without more insufficient to convict that person of the crime. In a well constructed opinion in 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed its position in this regard and expanded on it in detail. See Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009). In Zanetti the Court stated that presence alone does not establish a defendant’s knowing participation in the crime even if he knew about the crime and took no steps to prevent it. There must be a showing that the defendant participated in the crime or that he had a shared intent to commit the crime. Simply being present is not enough. Very few cases in Massachusetts even discuss the statute in question here and no case defines it. The constitutionality of that statute is in my opinion and should be challenged.

Commonwealth vs Zanetti.pdf

Continue Reading

The Brockton Enterprise reports that police in Rockland, Massachusetts acted after receiving nearly twenty civilian complaints of suspected Massachusetts Drug Dealing starting this past April. People specifically reported extensive automobile and foot traffic at a specific location. In response, officers set up surveillance of a home on Liberty Street to verify the complaints. While doing so they observed what they believed was a drug transaction between two people, defendants Richard Stanton and Selena Keaney. Stanton was driving a car and found to be in possession of Heroin. Keaney was found in possession about four grams of Heroin. Keaney has been charged with five criminal matters including Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Stanton is facing charges of Possession of Heroin. The cases will be prosecuted in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Lawyer, Heroin

The first thing that comes to mind for an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer when reading this article is moving to Suppress the Search. In past blog posts I have often repeated that police officers are not permitted to stop and conduct a threshold inquiry absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. The word “reasonable” requires the suspicion to be based on “specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom”. In order to give that phrase meaning judges look at these matters on a case by case basis. One Massachusetts Appeals Court case held that an experienced officer’s actions after making an observation of what he believed to be a drug deal in a “high drug crime area” was in fact an illegal search where even though the officer saw an exchange and purported counting of money. The same court has held otherwise on cases involving similar facts. Knowing the law in cases like this one and being able to persuade the judge hearing the motion that this case replicates one in which suppression was granted is the job of the criminal defense lawyer thereby making your choice of lawyer an extremely critical decision.

It is often difficult to determine how the Motion to Suppress will be turn out before the hearing. Police officers’ testimony often exaggerates the narrative in their reports in an attempt to “fill in the blanks” that they either know or have learned necessary to sustain their Search and Seizure. This is yet another reason to make sure that you choice of lawyer is someone who has the experience to address this situation in court. This is also why Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers often reserve filing a memorandum of law in support of the motion to suppress until all evidence has been adduced at the hearing on the motion.

Continue Reading

Zachary Brewster, a twenty six year old New Hampshire resident was driving his car the wrong way down a one way street Tuesday night in Lawrence, Massachusetts. After learning that the operator did not have a license in his possession, the officer who stopped him asked him to get out of the car. As soon as Brewster complied with the exit order the police saw Drug Paraphernalia in the front of the car. Specifically, the police observed needles and syringes. The police also had the two passengers, Bradford Sargent and Jennifer Trowbridge get out of the car as well. A backpack located in the backseat of the car was searched. There police found cocaine and a bag of mushrooms. During the booking process Trowbridge was found in possession of heroin and cocaine. These substance were concealed in her bra. She was also holding additional syringes and needles. All three have been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Possession of Class C (mushrooms) as well as Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws. The cases are pending in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

Defending Drug Cases in Essex County Massachusetts

This article got me thinking about the number of drug cases my office gets that start with a stop of a motor vehicle. I would estimate that at least of our drug cases fall within this category. There are several reasons for this. The police can usually justify their activity or “probable cause” when they pull a car over. Whether true or not, they can cite a high rate of speed, erratic driving, driving the wrong way down a one way street, expired inspection sticker, expired registration and more. Many of these reasons are subjective and difficult to challenge through Motions to Suppress. Conversely, Massachusetts Drug Cases involving search warrants require the approval of a judge or magistrate and concrete facts that can easily be challenged if exaggerated or false. Hand to hand drug sales typically involve lengthy investigations that expose the identities of informants or compromise the undercover status of the officers involved. These types of investigations require the services of additional officers who conduct surveillance making the police work more costly. There is the additional risk that the more officers involved in the operation the easier it is for an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to call into question the integrity of the operation. The more officers involved the more likely their testimonies will vary thereby weakening the strength of the district attorney’s case.

The biggest problem for these defendants is that the driver did not have a license in his possession. This essentially permits the police to do more than simply cite the driver for operating the wrong way down a one-way street. It gave them the legal authority to order the driver to exit the car. That led to the disclosure of the drug paraphernalia and probable cause to arrest for a violation of the Massachusetts Drug Laws.

Continue Reading