Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

| by

Two days ago at about 10:30 in the morning two women were walking past a home in Lowell, Massachusetts when they noticed smoke coming from a roof. Firefighters were called and quickly surmised that the fire was coming from a wood burning stove. While at the scene the firefighters smelled an odor of marijuana. Consequently they called the Lowell Police. A Search Warrant was obtained. During the execution of the search warrant the police found evidence of what they have called a large-scale marijuana. Specifically, the police observed and seized twenty-nine marijuana plants and forty four pounds of packaged marijuana. They also found grow lights, a water filtration system and three thousand five hundred dollars cash, all Drug Paraphernalia indicative of an intent to distribute. The owner of the home, Angel Luna was charged with Distribution of Marijuana, a Class D Substance, a School Zone Violation and Trafficking Marijuana. Bail was set at three thousand dollars cash. Luna’s defense attorney argued that the total weight of the marijuana when accurately calculated will be less than fifty pounds which is under the weight necessary to sustain a Marijuana Trafficking Prosecution in Massachusetts. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

Trafficking Marijuana in Massachusetts is a felony in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32E. The law states that anyone who trafficks in marijuana an amount of at least fifty pounds but less than one hundred pounds must serve at least one year in the house of correction. This is a minimum mandatory sentence. There is a maximum penalty of fifteen years in state prison.

One troubling aspect of this statute states that the substance trafficked does not have to be pure or have any degree of purity. Thus, the plants will be weighed individually and tallied with the packaged substance. The defense attorney’s suggestion in this case is that a portion of this substance was for medicinal purposes and not for distribution. While the argument is perhaps legitimate Massachusetts does not have a medicinal marijuana law. Right now, only sixteen states have this type of law, those being Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The District of Columbia has a similar law as well. Right now six states have medicinal marijuana laws pending before their legislature. Massachusetts is one of them. If the law passes and has a retroactive application then Luna might be able to avail himself of its provisions insofar as the plants are concerned. Of course, all of this assumes that the number of plants residents are permitted to grow falls within the facts of this case. But at least for now, if the total quantity of marijuana in this case exceeds fifty pounds Luna’s defense will have to focus on his intent and show a jury that at least the plants were for his own personal use due to certain medical problems.

Continue Reading

| by

dog.jpgLowell, Massachusetts police were watching a Dublin Street address concerned about suspected activity. Then, this past Sunday, with the aid of drug sniffing dogs police were able to intercept a couple of United Parcel Services packages addressed to this location. It is estimated that the two packages contained at least seventy five pounds of marijuana. The drugs were located in heat sealed packages surrounded by coffee beans, a substance commonly used to mask the odor of the marijuana. Once the controlled substances were identified an undercover police officer, dressed as a United Parcel Services worker delivered the packages. They were received by Sanith Siv. Shortly thereafter, armed with a Search Warrant, Lowell Police officers arrived and searched the home where they found the drugs and Drug Trafficking Paraphernalia. Phaly Chhoeun opened the door. Also present were Mao Keo and Samnag Sath. All defendants have been charged with Trafficking Marijuana, a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy. Keo was charged with Possession of a Firearm in addition to the drug charges that all four are facing.

Read Article:

Lowell Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney

The defendants Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer in this case will likely mount a challenge to the search of the packages. The article is unclear as to whether the packages were opened prior to the undercover delivery or afterwards. Usually, once the drug sniffing dogs alert their handler to the package it is searched. If drugs are found it is then re-packaged and delivered in an undercover manner. That is probably what happened here. Two questions then have to be answered. First, should the reliability of the dogs’ findings be challenged? Second, should the Search Warrant be challenged, particularly if the affiant is relying on the dog’s work.

Not too long ago the Chicago Tribune reported findings only forty four percent of the time that dog sniffing dogs alerted their handler to drugs in cars did drugs or Drug Paraphernalia in fact exits. This can be attributed to the fact that dogs’ noses are so sensitive that they can pick up residue from drugs no longer present at the scene where the dog makes its alert. The dogs might also be getting their cues from their handlers. When the driver of the car searched was of a particular race the accuracy dipped to twenty seven percent, thereby implicating a racial profiling issue. Getting the dog training records and alert history might be a beneficial discovery effort for the defendants in this case. Just how current the dog’s certification is can be an issue that results in the suppression of the drugs and a dismissal of the case. Some courts have held that the use of a dog unjustifiably enlarges the scope of a routine traffic stop. As Supreme Court Justice Souter has said: “The evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times.”

Continue Reading

| by

A Massachusetts drug and major crime task force had been involved in a one month long investigation of Heroin Sales in the greater Brockton and Taunton areas. The investigation resulted in the arrest of Leah Nelson, Abel Parker and Bryan Donachie, all Massachusetts residents residing in Plymouth County. An article in the Brockton Enterprise states that police watched Donachie travel from Wareham to East Bridgewater in Nelson’s car. Implicit in the article is that Donachie was using the car and making the trips as part of a Heroin Distribution effort. The officers obtained a Search Warrant for the car. This past weekend detectives saw the three defendants in the car. They approached and found Nelson in the driver’s seat, Donachie in the front and Parker in the back. As they approached the car the officers saw Parker packaging heroin. All occupants were searched. The police found about ten grams on Donachie. Each defendant was charged with Conspiracy, a School Zone Violation and Possession with the Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A substance. Nelson’s car was searched as well. There, officers located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia, about one thousand dollars worth of heroin and some heroin ingestion materials. Authorities claim that Donachie was purchasing about ten grams of heroin per day, breaking it down and reselling for a substantial profit. The cases are being prosecuted in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Attorney

The School Zone Violation is the biggest problem the defendants in this case, particularly since this case is being prosecuted in Plymouth County. The district attorney in that county does not like to break down school zone cases. The result is that the case will likely be litigated either through a Motion to Suppress, Motion to Dismiss or trial. The prohibition against selling drugs in school zones in Massachusetts is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32J. The law states that anyone who sells drugs or possesses drugs with the intent to distribute the drugs within one thousand feet of a school zone or within one hundred feet of a playground shall be punished by a minimum mandatory two year jail sentence. The defendant’s intent or knowledge relative to the school zone itself is of no relevance.

From the perspective of a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer, it appears that Donachie and perhaps Nelson and Parker have drug problems. The presence of the needles and syringes supports that at least one, if not all of the defendants were using Heroin. Using narcotics is consistent with Possession, not the intent to distribute. The district attorney will argue that the act of packaging suggests otherwise. The evidence as taken from this article suggests that a combination of the two are at work here. At times this factor can motivate prosecutors to consider a reduction of the charges to something less onerous and perhaps something that will not include jail time. Much of this depends on the record of the accused, the extent of his or her drug problem and the quantity of drugs involved. In cases like this one, the defendants need a good lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

Just a couple of days ago a Massachusetts State Trooper stopped a car that he witnessed run a stop sign. His intention was to issue a citation to the driver. When he approached the car the passenger made a furtive movement towards his legs. The officer asked him to get out of the car. The passenger, Jesus Silva-Santiago complied. Then, according to reports Silva-Santiago punched the cop in the face. A chase followed. The trooper caught up with the defendant and the fighting continued. The trooper was able to subdue Silva-Santiago with the help of some Brockton police officers who responded in support. Jesus-Santiago was transported to the police station for booking. There, officers located eighteen bags of heroin tucked in his buttocks cheeks. Jesus-Santiago was charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class A, Heroin, a Second and Subsequent Offense, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Disorderly Conduct. The case is currently in the Brockton District Court however it will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I really enjoy defending cases like this one. Like many Drug Crimes in Massachusetts, the strength of the district attorney’s case lies in the legality of the police officer’s actions. The stop of the motor vehicle will probably survive a challenge however the Exit Order may not. Exit Orders, ordering a driver or passenger out of a car, have become the source of considerable litigation in Massachusetts. The success of Silva-Santiago’s defense will hinge on the validity of the trooper’s actions in forcing the defendant to exit the car.

Federal Courts have embraced the rule that under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution police officers may order both the driver and passenger out of a car. There is not need to show facts warranting the officer to be reasonable apprehensive. However, as is often the case, the Massachusetts Courts and Constitution provide more protection. A 1999 Massachusetts set out the rule for exit orders as follows: “art. 14 requires that a police officer, in a routine traffic stop, must have a reasonable belief that the officer’s safety, or the safety of others, is in danger before ordering a driver out of a motor vehicle.” The test is whether or not a reasonably prudent person in the police officer’s position would be justified in believing that his safety or the safety of others was in danger.

The officer contends that Silva-Santiago “reached down below his legs”. This gave him concern for his safety. So here is the question in this case. Did he have a reasonable belief that his safety or the safety of others was in danger based on what he saw Silva-Santiago do? The analysis for this challenge is done on a case by case basis viewing the totality of the circumstances. I would be interested in seeing the police report for this incident to see what if anything, in addition to the defendant’s movements led the officer to fear for his safety. A successful Motion to Suppress might result in a dismissal of all the Drug Charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Kaitlynn Niles of Lynn, Massachusetts and three friends rented a hotel room at the Red Roof Inn in Framingham, Massachusetts two days ago. At approximately eleven at night Niles went to the front desk and attempted to get change for a counterfeit fifty dollar bill. A wary employee recognized something to be wrong with the bill and called the police. The officers went to the room and noticed marijuana smoke coming from inside. They also saw money in plain view. Two of the occupants, Niles and Joshua Jefferson from Lowell gave false names to the officers. Jefferson was searched. In his possession police found four hundred fifty dollars cash and a scale. Jefferson admitted to making the money from Selling Marijuana. On of the other occupants in the room , Elias Breit admitted to buying from Jefferson. Officers conducted a Search of the room during which they located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia and more counterfeit cash. Jefferson has been charged with Distribution of Cocaine, a Second and Subsequent Offense, Distribution of Marijuana, Second and Subsequent Offense and Conspiracy. Niles was charged with Uttering a False Note.

Read Article:

Framingham Drug Case Defense Lawyer

Uttering a false note in Massachusetts is a felony. The proscription is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 267 Section 5 which states “[w]hoever, with intent to injure or defraud, utters and publishes as true a false, forged or altered record, deed, instrument or other writing mentioned in the four preceding sections, knowing the same to be false, forged or altered, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or in jail for not more than two years.” To prove this offense the district attorney must show four things beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the defendant either used or tried to use the note as being genuine, 2) that the note was counterfeit, 3) that the defendant knew it was counterfeit and 4) that the passing of the note was done with the intent to defraud. In this case the district attorney will want to introduce the additional counterfeit bills the police seized in the hotel room to show that Niles was not making a mistake when trying to change the fifty dollar bill, rather that she knew it was a fake and that she was trying to get real money in exchange for the fake. These cases are often continued without a finding particularly if the defendant does not have a criminal record and the amount passed is small.

As to Jefferson, he has some problems. I will repeat again my admonition that it is never a good idea to talk to the police without first engaging the services of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. If the statements the police attribute to Jefferson are true then he has admitted to committing the felony for which he is being charged. This was stupid and unnecessary. Breit too made a big mistake. The facts of this article suggest that if he had said nothing then the charges against him might not stand and be subject to a dismissal after a Motions Hearing. Let me say it again. You have no obligation to talk to the police. When you do you are likely to get yourself in more trouble. Contact a lawyer before speaking to anyone.

Continue Reading

| by

charlie-sheen-brooke-mueller-twins-4.jpgActress Brooke Mueller was in a bar known as the Belly Up nightclub this past weekend. There, it is alleged that she struck another woman. The police were called to investigate the incident. They spoke to the victim and looked for Mueller. The actress was later located at another nightclub. When confronted by the police Mueller poked an officer in the chest. Mueller was arrested and in her possession police found between four and five grams of cocaine. Mueller admitted to having the drug to share with her friends. Mueller, the ex-wife of actor Charlie Sheen is being arraigned this morning for charges of Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor and Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, a felony.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

If this case were being prosecuted in Massachusetts an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would probably get the charge of Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B reduced to Possession of Class B. The case would also be continued without a finding assuming the defendant had no criminal record or a minimal criminal record. The Assault and Battery charge would also probably continued without a finding on the condition that restitution, if any, be paid to the victim.

This case should also serve as a lesson to my readers. Never speak to the police. I repeat this admonition consistently. I have never had a client “talk his or her way out of” a criminal charge. It never happens. Had Mueller just shut her mouth she would not be facing a felony charge. Rather, she would have been charged only with Possession of Cocaine. Her admission that she intended to “share” the drug with friends makes this case a felony. My office is currently representing several people who have made similar statements to the police relative to Marijuana Possession. They client gets caught with less than an ounce of marijuana. This is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. But when the police ask what they are doing with it they cavalierly say that they are only smoking it with their friends. Now, the non-crime becomes a crime and they get charged with a felony. In essence, this law has given young people a false sense of security about what they can do with marijuana. This past weekend we had a similar experience. We had a client who was arrested for a Massachusetts Sex Crime. The police told him that if he wanted to get bailed out over the weekend he needed to cooperate with them. He called us from the police station and we told him not to talk to the police. He listened to us and was bailed out anyway. Again, the lesson is this: shut your mouth. Do not talk to the police. There is absolutely no upside to this if you are a suspect or defendant in a criminal case.

Continue Reading

| by

This past weekend a thirty seven year old homeless Lawrence, Massachusetts man told police that he had been shot in the elbow. An investigation was quickly launched leading the police to an address on Broadway. Officers arrived, were permitted to enter the address and were presented with BB guns. They claim that at that time they were able to see drugs, heroin and marijuana in plain view on a table. The person present in the home was a woman (Torres) who quickly accused her husband, Tommy Galarza as the person to whom the drugs belonged. Torres and Galarza were both arrested and charged with various Massachusetts Drug Crimes. Officers then applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. During the execution of the Search Warrant the police located thirty five grams of cocaine, twenty five grams of heroin, oxycontin pills, assorted pills, cutting agents, a scale and cash. Both Torres and Galarza have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine and Trafficking Heroin as well as Possession of Class B With the Intent to Distribute. It is likely that a Conspiracy charge will be filed as well. Through these efforts Lawrence Police were also able to meet up with a man by the name of Brian Smith, a neighbor. Smith was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin. These cases will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Essex County Drug Crimes Lawyer, Salem, Lawrence

The case against Galarza seems to be the strongest for the defense. The police went to the home. He was not there. They see drugs in plain view in a common area in the home. There is no admission or confession by Galarza. His wife’s statement cannot be used in court against Galarza and in my experience it is extremely for one spouse to testify against the other. In Massachusetts, when someone is present in a home where drugs are dealt the law makes clear that this presence, in and of itself, is insufficient to sustain a prosecution for drug dealing activities. There must be proof that the defendant had control, knowledge and power along with the ability and the intention to exercise dominion and control over the drugs. This is not present here. We have no idea when the drugs entered the home and whether or not Galarza was even present in the home when the drugs were present. His wife’s self-serving, legally inadmissible statements cannot be used by the district attorney in a prosecution against Galarza. Massachusetts law states that presence and awareness standing alone do not constitute evidence that will warrant a jury to infer the intention and ability to exercise and control over the drugs. That being the case no one can reasonably argue that the facts in this case are sufficient as to Galarza to permit this prosecution to stand.

Continue Reading

| by

growing-marijuana-plant.jpgDeborah Toloczko and her husband Anthony Toloczko were on vacation in Las Vegas last week. Upon their return to Massachusetts they were met at Logan Airport by law enforcement officials. There, the Worcester County couple was arrested. It is alleged that the pair was growing marijuana in their Douglas, Massachusetts home. Last week, officers entered the Toloczko property and conducted a search. During the search officers found about one hundred twenty pot plants, two to three feet tall. They also located Marijuana Cultivation Paraphernalia including grow lamps, timers, climate control devices and an irrigation system. Officers also located Firearms they claim were improperly stored. Bail for the couple was set at two hundred fifty thousand dollars for Ms. Toloczko and five hundred thousand dollars for Mr. Toloczko. It is also alleged that over fifty pounds of marijuana was located, already packaged for sale. Seventy five thousand dollars cash was seized as well. Evidence taken from the scene led officers to apply for and obtain another Search Warrant where one pound of packaged marijuana was also located.

Read Article:

Worcester County Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer one criminal charge comes to mind that is omitted from this article; that being Trafficking Marijuana. The Massachusetts Marijuana Trafficking laws set the threshold for Marijuana Trafficking at fifty pounds. Trafficking fifty pounds up to one hundred pounds carries a mandatory minimum one year sentence and a maximum sentence of fifteen years in state prison. The amount of marijuana packaged just reaches this threshold. However, I imagine that the district attorney is also going to add in the amount of marijuana contained in the plants which will undoubtedly drive the quantity up.

There is always going to be a calculation problem for the prosecution when dealing with marijuana plants and usable marijuana that can come from that plant. Studies have shown that “enormous” marijuana plants can produce ten or even fifteen pounds of consumable substance. Some credible law enforcement agencies maintain that one “mature” plant will yield one pound of usable marijuana. The term “mature” is subject to interpretation. Keep in mind that indoor plants rarely exceed four feet in height whereas plants grown outdoors are often three to four times as tall. Horticultural practices also figure into the average yield of a plant. All of these factors make it difficult for the district attorney to prove the presence of a particular quantity of marijuana for which the accused is accountable. In this case this will likely be one of the issues raised by the defense. All of this makes me wonder why the bail was set so high in this case. It would not surprise me at all to see that the bail either has been lowered or will be lowered after the order of bail is appealed.

Continue Reading

| by

jail.jpgA twenty four year old Medford, Masschusetts man, Brian Falasca was attempting to visit an inmate at M.C.I. Framingham this past weekend. During a search of his person prison guards found a suboxone pill in his shirt pocket. Falasca was interviewed. He denied intending to give the pills to the inmate. He claimed to have forgotten that he had the pills in his pocket. Subsequently, Falasca’s car was searched. In it authorities found forty five additional suboxone pills, some cash and Marijuana. Falasca has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Suboxone, Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substance Laws and Delivering Drugs to a Prisoner. The case is being prosecuted in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1712042048/Man-charged-with-bringing-drugs-to-Framingham-inmate
Framingham Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm
Delivering Drugs to a Prisoner is a felony punishable by up to five years in state prison in Massachusetts. The crime is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 28 which states that “[w]hoever gives or delivers to a prisoner in any correctional institution, or in any jail or house of correction, any drug or article whatever, or has in his possession within the precincts of any prison herein named with intent to give or deliver to any prisoner any such drug or article without the permission of the superintendent or keeper, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.” There is very little case law on this crime. The law is cited in two unpublished criminal cases and one non-criminal case. If the act of distribution or attempted distribution is witnessed by prison guards or others the case is difficult to defend. However, in this case a defense might be more successful.

Falasca’s intent to deliver the drugs to an inmate has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. That might be a difficult task in this case. Suboxone is a drug used to treat opiate dependence. It is a medication that necessitates a prescription. It also has a street value and can be crushed and snorted to provide effect. Many people find it addicting in and of itself. Even if Falasca cannot produce a prescription the issue of his intentions is still material at trial. For instance, if he can show a heroin addiction a jury might well believe that he was trying to fight his urges through this medication. Or, he might have a dependency on this drug. Inadvertently possessing the substance does not indicate an intention to distribute or deliver the substance so proving this aspect of his case might be difficult.

As to the other counts, it is clear that challenging the Search and Seizure of Falasca’s car and its contents will be an issue in this case. A successful motion to suppress will result in the exclusion of the forty five bags of suboxone, the marijuana and the cash as evidence at a trial against this defendant.

Continue Reading

| by

drugs-300x300.jpgJust one week ago an unidentified person driving a car in Lowell, Massachusetts made an observation he thought worthy of police investigation. He noticed that the driving of another car was stopped in traffic and sleeping. This individual was then observed “waking up” and driving in an erratic manner, nearly colliding with a utility pole. The Dracut police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the man. It is alleged that the man was unsteady on his feet and that for his own safety no Field Sobriety Tests were given. It turns out that the driver of the suspect vehicle was an off duty paramedic. He was arrested and charged with OUI Drugs in the Lowell District Court. In the car police found some prescription pills, possibly some Heroin and some Drug Paraphernalia. These substances are being tested.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, OUI Drugs

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I was immediately struck by a particular legal issue this case bears that is becoming more common in Massachusetts. It involves the admissibility of testimony necessary to sustain a prosecution in a case like this one. For an OUI Drug conviction in Massachusetts the prosecution must identify the substance that it believes the defendant was influenced by at the time of operation. It is well established in Massachusetts that unless properly trained no witness can opine that someone was under the influence of a particular kind of drug. Massachusetts police officers, particularly those on patrol are trained to observe and detect the symptoms of alcohol intoxication. But few of these officers are taught about the effects various drugs have on people and the manifestation of symptoms ingestion of these substances will have. Recently, to combat this shortcoming, district attorneys are using drug enforcement detectives to provide an expert opinion at trial on how people will behave when impaired by certain substances. The officer will review the investigation or arresting officer’s findings and draw a conclusion as to what substance was effecting the driver/defendant. Some judges are allowing this testimony notwithstanding objections by the Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer.

Historically, Massachusetts Courts have approved of this strategy. For instance, in murder cases it is often the case that the medical examiner who performed the autopsy is unavailable to testify at trial. The district attorney will substitute this witness with another medical examiner who will review the first examiner’s reports and records as well as the photographs taken during the examination. The substitute will then be allowed to provide an opinion as to the cause of death. This might however be coming to an end. In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011) the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made for the purposes of proving a particular fact, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2710 (2011). Such surrogate testimony violates the confrontation clause unless the analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist. I am hopeful that the Bullcoming decision once tested in Massachusetts will have application to drug recognition experts.

Continue Reading