Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

Aaron Glenn Teixeira of Lynn, Massachusetts was arrested Monday pursuant to an arrest warrant. During his apprehension officers found two small bags of crack cocaine and one small bag of marijuana. The arrest took place within one hundred feet of a park or playground. Teixeira has been charged with a School Zone Violation and Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B Substance. The police were looking for the defendant as a result of an early report of an assault on one of his customers, a female crack cocaine user. The woman claimed that Teixeira came looking for money that she supposedly owed him for crack cocaine. When she refused to pay he assaulted her. She claims that the defendant kicked her in the chest and intimidated her when she attempted to contact the police. Apparently the assault was witnessed by another woman who was also one of Teixeira’s customers. Bail was set in the amount of one thousand dollars. The case is being prosecuted in the Lynn District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer, Cocaine Cases, School Zone Cases

The article goes on to say that the officers who arrested Teixeira saw two calls made to the defendant’s cell phone that involved the purchase of drugs. Absent this information I could confidently say that the felony charges, Possession With Intent would fail and this case would be resolved as a Possession case only. The added material suggests that Teixeira was selling drugs or at a minimum that he intended to sell the drugs. I am inclined to doubt the validity of that information. Here is why. How could the police officers observe “two calls made to Teixeira’s cell phone involving people trying to purchase drugs”? What did they see? Did they see Teixeira on the phone twice? If they did, what could they have heard the person on the other line saying? The answer is simple. Nothing. Any reasonable person would have difficulty believing testimony along these lines. It makes no sense. Rather, it appears that the officer who “heard” that discourse wants to make this case a felony when in fact it is only a misdemeanor at best. That being the case I would expect Teixeira’s Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to look towards resolving this case as a possession case only. This suggestion is supported by Massachusetts case law. In Commonwealth v. Tripp, a 1982 case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that possession of eight bags of heroin by itself was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intended to distribute the drugs. Here, the quantity of substances, two small bags of crack cocaine, is far smaller than that amount of drugs found in Tripp. This quantity of crack cocaine is more consistent with personal use.

Continue Reading

At about 1:15 in the morning a Massachusetts police officer conducted a stop in Norwell. The basis for the stop was that the car had a revoked registration. The passenger had a hollowed out pen under his feet that the officer observed when he approached the car. The pen was covered in tin foil and had a burnt tip. Based on this observation the officer conducted a search of the passenger. In his possession was found over one hundred Oxycodone pills over two thousand dollars cash. Underneath his seat was a pellet gun. The defendant, Christopher Andrade was arrested. He has been charged with some Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes, Trafficking a Class B Substance, Possession of Class B and Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class B. Right now the case is being prosecuted in the Hingham District Court but it will probably be indicted and handled in the Plymouth County Superior Court in Brockton.

Read Article:

Hingham Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Plymouth County Oxycodone Trafficking Attorney

It is interesting that this article is silent as to the driver and whether or not any charges will be filed against that person. Usually when the police in Massachusetts make an arrest for a drug offense, particularly one that has occurred in a car, all occupants get charged with something. The person in possession of the drugs will be charged with the most serious crime that the prosecution believes it can prove against that person. In this case, Andrade has been charged with Trafficking Class B given the amount of Oxycodone in his possession. Typically the driver however would be charged with Conspiracy simply as a result of his presence at the crime scene and his association with the primary defendant. As mentioned in several previous blog posts, merely being present at the scene of a crime does not give rise to criminal culpability. However, that does not always stop the prosecution from going after that person. An experienced criminal lawyer might succeed in getting the case against him or her dismissed on what is called a “McCarthy Motion”. These motions attack the indictment process by claiming that the grand jury was not presented with evidence legally sufficient to sustain the indictment. These motions are fact specific. Our office has won many drug cases through this process. It is something that every Diligent Massachusetts Defense Criminal Lawyer will look into when defending superior court cases.

Here is what appears somewhat troubling about the charges in this case. Andrade appears to be a user. The Drug Possession Paraphernalia was under his feet indicative of him having used drugs shortly before the car was stopped. The driver was likely either using drugs with him or selling him the drugs he was using. It is not uncommon for people to try to conceal drugs when the police are approaching. This is done by putting drugs in glove compartments, consoles, under seats, swallowing the drugs, tossing the drugs or placing them in pockets or other articles of clothing. These actions do not demonstrate an intent to distribute which is a critical element of the crime of Drug Trafficking in Massachusetts. It would not surprise me to learn that these drugs belonged to the driver and that Andrade put them in his clothing while trying to hide them prior to being approached by the police officer.

Continue Reading

According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribuen, Carlos Domitriz of Lawrence, Massachusetts was stopped for driving through a stop sign near Lowell and Morton Streets. The officer making the stop was familiar with Domitriz, having arrested him on occasions in the past. This officer saw Domitriz prior to driving through the stop sign and decided to follow him. Once he saw the Motor Vehicle violation the office effectuated the stop. The report states that the officer was on routine patrol at the time.

Once the stop occurred the officer saw Domitriz “moving his hands from in between and under his seats to his mouth”. The officer believed this was an effort on Domitriz’ part to destroy drug evidence. In response, the officer opened the driver’s side door and tried to pull Domitriz out of the car. Supposedly the defendant offered resistance and even though the officer succeeded in subduing him Domitriz continued to resist. Two other officers approached. One of them used a Taser on the suspect. Domitriz was searched. On his possession officers found small bags of cocaine and heroin. A BB gun and cash were also seized as a result of the search. Domitriz was charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin and Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine as well as resisting arrest. The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Dealer in Massachusetts

Tasers are weapons that use an electrical charge to disrupt voluntary muscle control. They are being used by law enforcement officers more frequently as a tool to subdue unruly suspects. These weapons have been used by the police for just over a decade and their popularity is increasing. Some say that these weapons save lives in that tasing is an alternative to firearms that were often used for the same purpose as Tasers. Tasers have however caused death or serious injuries. Some authorities have taken the position that these weapons have been abused by police officers. One sources claims that Tasers have killed at least five hundred people in this country. Over ninety percent of Taser casualties have involved people who are unarmed.

Here is what I see as a problem with the use of a Taser in this case. The arresting officer was able to get Domitriz from his car safely. The two responding officers could arguably have assisted this officer without the use of a weapon. As a matter of fact, there is no indication from this article that this type of force was at all necessary. Domitriz’s Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney will also be questioning the integrity of the stop in this case. Domitriz and the officer passed on another. The officer was on routine patrol, thus most likely in a marked cruiser. The officer turned around after seeing Domitriz. He followed Domitriz. Then, Domitriz ran a stop sign? Unlikely for someone who is carrying drugs and knows that he is being followed by the police will act in this manner. It makes no sense and casts doubt on the constitutionality of the stop. More and more Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers are going out to the locations of these “routine stops” these days trying to find security videotapes or surveillance cameras that focus on the areas near the alleged activity and finding that many officers “observations” are not as accurate as they have reported. Whether or not that is the case for Domitriz only time and good defense investigation work will tell.

Continue Reading

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rendered its decision in Commonwealth v Keefner, SJC – 11019. The Court held that the Decriminalization of Marijuana in Massachusetts for quantities of one ounce or less does not extinguish the crime of Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana where the quantity is one ounce or less. The Court in Keefner found the following facts:

In May of 2010 police received a call from a woman who complained that Keefner and her daughter were smoking marijuana in front of her home. The officer who arrived knew the defendant and had arrested him for Possession of Marijuana and Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine in the past. The caller pointed the defendant out to the officer. The defendant was searched and found in his possession were three individually wrapped bags of pot, collectively weighing far less than one ounce. There was also less than one hundred dollars cash and a cell phone. The Court held that the quantity of marijuana in this case (less than one ounce) was not controlling as to the felony of Possession With Intent to Distribute and that in circumstances like these the district attorney can proceed with these charges, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant possessed less than one ounce of marijuana.

Since the Decriminalization of Marijuana in Massachusetts I have been telling my clients that distributing marijuana or possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it would still be a crime regardless of weight. Shortly after the passage of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32L the wording in many police began to change. Previously officers would write something to the effect that the defendant had marijuana on his possession or that he was smoking marijuana. The defendant would be arrested and charged with simple possession. After G.L. 94C Sec. 32L passed the reports would reveal that the defendant was observed passing a lit marijuana cigarette to another. This was law enforcement’s way of trying to hold the marijuana smoker criminally responsible for a crime. I was amazed at just how much their observations had evolved after the passage of this law. The bottom line is this: the decriminalization of less than one ounce of marijuana has not made its use legal. Don’t be fooled into thinking it is okay to carry around marijuana, smoke it with friends and share it with friends. There are still many circumstances in which even less than one ounce of this drug on your possession can subject you to criminal prosecution. If you get caught with marijuana you risk being charged with a criminal offense. If you get caught with drugs you need to call a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer right away. Don’t talk. Just call a lawyer and get good competent legal advice. What might seem like benign or even legal activity to you might in fact be felonious.

Continue Reading

According to an article in the Brockton Enterprise, Senator John Keenan from Quincy has authored legislation that would ban “bath salts” in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Senate agreed upon the bill yesterday. If enacted, the law would make it illegal for stores to sell what is now an over-the-counter substance sold for purportedly lawful purposes. Bath salts contain methylenedixoypyrovalerone, a stimulant that has an effect on the central nervous system. At this time this substance is not illegal to sell or buy, at least in Massachusetts and it is available in convenience stores and smoke shops. It can also be ordered online. The federal government is in the process of making this product illegal nationally.

So what exactly does this drug do to you? According to Web MD bath salts cause “agitation, paranoia, hallucinations, chest pain and suicidalilty”. The drug is a stimulant, much like methamphetamine or cocaine. There is one significant difference. Bath salts produce the side effect of hallucinations. This drug is also associated with hypertension, increased heart rate, aggressive behavior and at times extreme violence. There is a split of authority as to whether this substance is addictive. Authorities have warned that abusing bath salts can result in permanent brain damage. It is universally agreed that taking this substance is dangerous, toxic and potentially lethal. There is no medicinal value associated with bath salts. This is a very dangerous drug. Using it is not only dangerous to the user but it can lead to the commission of crimes.

Right now in Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers are waiting for this law to pass and to determine the effects possessing and distributing bath salts will have on the accused. Will there be a minimum mandatory sentence associated with its use or sale? How will the state law compare to the inevitable federal law that will ultimately pass? How will Massachusetts bath salt laws be viewed relative to similar laws already having passed in other states? Perhaps most interesting is just how will use of this drug effect defenses in Massachusetts Criminal Cases? Right now there is a case being tried in Pennsylvania wherein a woman was charged with Theft Crimes she claims were the result of bath salt intoxication. The woman and her boyfriend are alleged to have stolen electronic equipment and jewelry at a home they broke into. The couple was charged with Receiving Stolen Property and Larceny. In Massachusetts a Criminal Lawyer might defend on the theory that the drug intoxication prevented the defendant from forming the requisite criminal intent needed to sustain a conviction. It is important that once this law passes anyone in Massachusetts who gets charged with a “bath salt” relate crime immediately contact a lawyer who is experience in defending drug cases of all types in Massachusetts. The law, as with any law, might be subject to a constitutional challenge, particularly where the substance is one that is not currently criminalized in this state.

Read Article:

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Crime Activity in Massachusetts

Continue Reading

Last week Herman Rodriguez of Methuen, Massachusetts was driving his car ninety-two miles per hour on Route 495. The posted speed limit is sixty-five miles per hour. A state police office pulled Rodriguez over and was taken to the local state police barracks. Rodriguez identified himself as Kelvin Caraballo-Ostolaza and had a New York driver’s license in that name. During the booking process a fingerprint scan alerted the police to Rodriguez’s true identity. The United States Marshall’s Office confirmed that Rodriguez was wanted on a Probation Violation. He was on probation for a Federal Drug Trafficking conviction. Rodriguez had been in default for six years. It was also determined that Rodriguez has an outstanding matter where he has been charged with Possession of Burglarious Tools and Malicious Destruction to Property over $250, a felony. Based on the Motor Vehicle incident last week charges of False Name to a Police Officer have been filed in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Probation Violation Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Federal Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

We frequently represent people accused of violating their probation. When this happens, the defendant is served with a surrender notice. He must appear in court and a Surrender Hearing is scheduled. These hearings are much less formal than trials however the consequences associated with Probation Violations can be significant. The accused is looking at an extension of probation and in some cases a jail or prison sentence up the maximum permitted by the statute for the offense for which the defendant is on probation. This makes it imperative that the defendant facing a Probation Violation Hearing in Massachusetts hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. In Massachusetts the law states that probation may be revoked after a Surrender Hearing if the prosecution establishes to a reasonable degree of certainty that the defendant has violated one or more of the terms of his or her probation. The violation must occur during the probationary period and not after. So, for instance, if someone is charged with violating probation and the hearing occurs after the probation was to terminate, then only the court can consider only the acts of the defendant prior to that termination date. Keep in mind that not every probation violation requires probation revocation. Sometimes the violations alleged or minor or unintentional. These can often be addressed without a formal hearing. At Probation Surrender Hearings judge determine first, whether the conditions of probation have been violated and second, whether in fact probation should be revoked. The first determination is fact based. The second is discretionary. Way too many judges in Massachusetts are inclined to revoke probation after a violation is found making it extremely important that you hire a lawyer who is prepared to fight for you and has a good understanding of the history of your case. A strong presentation against probation revocation can be the difference between you remaining free or being committed to serve your sentence in jail.

Continue Reading

A twenty-nine year old Marblehead, Massachusetts woman in facing charges of Larceny of Prescription Medication in the Salem District Court. The Salem News reported yesterday that the woman worked at Brightview, an assisted living complex in Danvers, Massachusetts. It is alleged that the defendant was swapping oxycodone and Vicodin with acetaminophen. A relative of one of the residents of the facility became suspicious and brought her concerns to the attention of the administrators of the home. An investigation resulted in the nurse being questioned. She confessed and was charged with six counts of Larceny and Possession of a Class B drug. The defendant apparently became addicted to pain medications after having orthopedic surgery.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer, Danvers, Salem, Marblehead

There is a pretty interesting aspect to this case that is not often discussed or applied in Massachusetts Courts. The defendant’s lawyer attempted to delay his client’s arraignment in this case and put her in a drug treatment program. He wanted her to enter a five year sanctioned treatment program for which she already been qualified. This was a great effort on his part. Basically, get your client evaluated and treated. Then go to the district attorney’s office and try to resolve matters prior to arraignment. If successful, the defendant’s CORI remains entry free and future employment is not negatively impacted. The prosecution should be satisfied if it is determined by the evaluating and treating professionals that the defendant has addressed her problem and will likely not re-offend. Yet here, the district attorney opposed this effort and demanded the defendant be arraigned. The judge agreed with the prosecutor.

On its website, the Essex County District Attorney lists its own drug diversion program as an alternative to conventional prosecutions for people in this defendant’s position. The link to the program is http://www.mass.gov/essexda/prevention-and-intervention/school-safety/essex-county-drug-diversion-program.html. The program sets out specific parameters. It is for non-violent drug offenders. It is mostly for people ages seventeen to twenty-six charged with drug or drug related crimes. The purpose of the program is to reduce drug abuse. The program is run through the various district courts in Essex County. The program provides “comprehensive substance abuse treatment services in lieu of being prosecuted through the traditional court process”.

So why then would the prosecutors object to the defendant’s request to continue the arraignment until the program was completed. The statute of limitations will not expire meaning that if the defendant fails to comply with the program’s demands the district attorney can still prosecute her for these crimes. Her progress can be monitored by the probation department of the Salem District Court prior to arraignment thereby preventing the case from falling through the cracks. It seems to me then that the defense attorney’s request was reasonable and consonant with the interests of justice. The position of the prosecution under these circumstances lacks substance. If their office policy endorses what the defense lawyer is seeking to impose then why voice an objection. Drug addiction is an illness that can be successfully treated. If this woman can benefit from such treatment then it seems reasonable that she be in the best position to go back to work. A clean CORI would make this much more likely than would having a drug entry.

Continue Reading