Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

Lawrence, Massachusetts police along with North Shore Gang Task Force officers had been conducting an investigation into a local Cocaine Distribution Operation. A confidential informant conducted controlled Cocaine Buys from Jose Ramos, a forty six year old Lawrence man. Also present and allegedly involved in at least two of the deals was Jose Robles, also from Lawrence. Three total sales were reported in all, two taking place last month and one this past Sunday. During the last deal Robles drove Ramos to a designated location to consummate the deal. Realizing that the police were watching Ramos threw the money into an alley. Both men were arrested. Ramos then waived his Miranda Rights and spoke to the police. He admitted to being a middle man in a local drug trade. He would receive orders and contact Robles who would bring him the drugs. Both men have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine, Distribution of Cocaine and a School Zone Violation. The case is now pending in the Lawrence District Court but may be presented to a grand jury and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court .

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Laywer

Miranda Rights have been in force since 1966 following the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966). That case conferred on a criminal suspect the right to be warned of certain constitutional rights prior to a custodial interrogation. Statements taken in violation of the Miranda Rights are inadmissible at trial as is the evidence located as a result of the violation. Miranda warnings require the following advisement: that prior to an interrogation the person has the right to remain silent, that anything he says will be use against him in court, that he has the right to consult with and attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning and that if he is indigent an attorney will be provided to him at no cost.

These rights were conveyed to Ramos. But what did he do? He waived those rights and decided to talk to the cops. And how did that work out for him? Not well. Here is why. Ramos is now charged with the same crimes as is Robles. What is worse for him however is that he admitted to having committed the crimes of Trafficking Cocaine, a School Zone Violation and Distribution of Cocaine. He would not necessarily have been found guilty of these crimes absent his admission. What else happened to Ramos? He got his name in the paper, not only for having committed these crimes, not only for having admitted to having committed these crimes but also for implicating his buddy Robles in these crimes. Guess what folks? This is why we have constitutional rights. To avoid putting yourself in a worse position than you were already in and to ensure an ability to defend yourself against accusations that might not be accurate. Ramos did not help himself by cooperating without the police. As I have stated in several previous blog posts, no one ever talks himself out of criminal charges. Talking to the cops only gets you in more trouble. Anyone in this situation should avail himself of his constitutional rights and Hire a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer. Certainly Ramos should have.

Continue Reading

Ken Morgan of Middleboro, Massachusetts was arrested and charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D substance. He was charged with Cultivation of Marijuana as well. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise police executed a search warrant at Morgan’s Cherry Street residence. Inside they found seventy five small plants growing. Outside on the property police located several six foot tall plants. The police also located irrigation, lighting and fertilization systems used to grow the plants. Charges are pending in the Wareham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x227168708/Pot-farm-busted-in-Middleboro

Massachusetts Marijuana Cultivation Defense Lawyer

Cultivation of marijuana is not the most popular of the drug crimes in Massachusetts in terms of prosecutions. The reasons are simple. The climate in this part of the country is not as conducive to growing the drug. Nor for that matter is there adequacy privacy to do so without risking detection. Growing marijuana, particularly for distribution purposes requires among other things light, air and a moderate temperature. Rich soil and a nearby water source are necessary was well. This combination of factors is not easy to come by in eastern Massachusetts.

Growing marijuana indoors presents problems for the growers that often leads to arrest and prosecution. Thermal Infrared Imaging devices can detect difference in temperature that might alert law enforcement officials to illicit cultivation activities particularly where they are targeting a particular suspect. However, about ten years ago in the case of Kyllo v. United States, the United State Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device in certain situations constituted a search. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution such a search requires law enforcement to obtain a Search Warrant. Another factor that might trigger an investigation into marijuana cultivation activities are unusually high utility bills. Unusually large purchases of fertilizer might prompt an investigation into Marijuana Cultivation activities. Suspicious neighbors alerted to excessive traffic at a home also factors into police efforts.

So what is Morgan looking at? A lot depends on just how defensible this case is. If there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant suppression might be viable. As I have mentioned in the past, suppression often if not usually leads to a dismissal of the charges. If Morgan does not have a criminal record certainly probation and perhaps a reduction of the charges to a misdemeanor is possible. A continuance without a finding would not be outside of the realm of possibility either. Keep in mind that rarely do first time offenders get criminal records for first time marijuana charges, especially where the quantity is less than the trafficking threshold.

Continue Reading

The Hingham, Massachusetts Patch reports that two Dorchester, Massachusetts men have been charged with Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Act and Distribution of Heroin. According to the report, last week Braintree, Massachusetts Police were conducting surveillance of a well known drug area. They observed a Hingham, Massachusetts woman drive up and meet with the men. She approached their car. After a brief interchange they parted ways. The woman was stopped and was found to be in Possession of Heroin. Apparently, information provided to the police by the woman was in their minds sufficient to stop the two defendants. Their car was searched and inside a cigarette package officers found heroin. The defendants, Noel Vasquez and Orlando Negron are facing Drug Charges in the Quincy District Court. In addition to the drug charges Negron was charged with giving a False Name to a Police Officer and Operating with a Suspended License. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court. Over one thousand dollars was seized at the time of the arrest from the men.

Read Article:

http://hingham.patch.com/articles/hingham-woman-involved-in-heroin-deal

Quincy, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer here is what strikes me as most interesting about this case. In better than ninety five percent of the cases I have defended with facts similar to this the buyer (here the unnamed woman) gets charged with Possession of Drugs and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws for his or her involvement in the crime. Most of my colleagues welcome this approach for one very simple reason. It makes it very difficult for the district attorney to show that the purported drug dealers were actually selling the substance. Here is why. The buyer will get charged with Possession of Drugs. These charges are often resolved in a way where the buyer will not have a criminal record; i.e. a continuance without a finding or pre-trial probation. The buyer will hire a lawyer. The buyer will,through counsel invoke his or her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to offer cooperation against the sellers. It is then extremely difficult to show who if anyone sold the drugs to this person. The case against the sellers might be dismissed. Or perhaps, recognizing the difficulty in prosecuting the case the district attorney will offer a deal for the sellers that is difficult to refuse. In this case it is quite likely that the police decided not to charge the woman with the expectation that she will testify against the two men. If she changes her mind I would expect charges against her to issue. Regardless, this woman should be represented by an attorney. The police do not have the authority to cut deals for suspects in criminal cases. That is done through the district attorney’s office and should be scrutinized by a criminal defense lawyer.

Continue Reading

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune recently reported that twenty-seven year old Luis Nunez of Lawrence Massachusetts has been charged with possession of maijuana with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in a school zone, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and resisting arrest. According to the Tribune, police responded to the area of Bennington Street and saw a parked car and heard loud music coming from inside. Apparently, a man was seen dancing in the Bennington Street area.

The paper indicated that when the police checked Nunez’s pockets they found a substance that they believe is cocaine. When the defendant was being booked at the police station the authorities claim that he was in possession of three small bags of what they think is marijuana. The defendant was charged with the above described drug related crimes and resisting arrest.

Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, it appears that the defense should examine the circumstances that led up to the police “finding” the alleged controlled substance in the defendant’s pocket. The Fourth Amendment to The United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, individuals in this country enjoy a reasonable expectation or privacy relative to their person, home and other protected areas such as in their office and car. Here, Nunez had an expectation of privacy on his “person” unless the government can demonstrate that the authorities had probable cause that Nunez was committing, had committed or was about to commit a crime. Another exception could arguably be that there were “exigent” circumstances that eliminate the need for the police to get a warrant before searching Nunez. These circumstances generally include a situation in which the officers are in fear for their safety or for the safety of others. Based on the available information from this article, it does not appear that there was any indication that Nunez was armed or dangerous thus, this is likely not an exception that would apply to the facts in this case.

An experienced Massachusetts Criminal defense lawyer would likely file a motion to suppress in this case. The defendant could move to suppress the stop and search of the defendant at the Bennington Street area and the search of him during the booking process. The defendant may claim that the fact that the police were called to Bennington Street did not justify them searching Nunez’s pockets. In fact, depending on the circumstances, once the police arrived and saw the defendant, they could have just told him to turn down the music and be on this way. Even though there was apparently music coming from the car, the defendant was not charged with any criminal or civil violations relative to the operation of the vehicle. Thus, a viable argument could be made that the police had no right to search Nunez at the scene. If the search at the scene it held to be unconstitutional then the marijuana confiscated from the search of Nunez at the police station would also likely be suppress as “fruits of the poisonous” tree.

Continue Reading

In July police started surveilling a home in Rockland, Massachusetts after receiving a report from a confidential informant that a woman and her daughter were selling Cocaine, Oxycodone and Crack Cocaine from the residence. The surveillance lasted over two months during which controlled buys were conducted and several hand to hand transactions were observed. As a result of these observations, police obtained a Search Warrant. They waited until this past Friday to execute the Search Warrant. Just prior to the search officers were told that a minivan would arrive at the home to deliver drugs to the occupants for distribution. The home occupants, Deborah Crowley and Amanda Crowley, her daughter were present during the search as was the driver of the delivery truck, Ana Olivera. Also present during the raid were Ian Curran and Vanda Oliveira. Everyone was arrested. Curran, Vanda Oliveira, Ana Olivera and Amanda Crowley were charged with Distribution of Cocaine, a Class B Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws. Deborah Crowley was charged with Conspiracy, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Possession of Class A Heroin, Class B Cocaine and Class C Vicodin drugs. Ana Olivera expressed concerns about her supplier harming her or her family. The cases are pending in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/breaking/x865769705/Cops-Raid-disrupted-drug-supply-line-to-Rockland

Usually in cases like this one the culpability of the defendants varies significantly. Some of the defendants are being accused of small level street sales. Others perhaps being charged simply for their presence at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Others for having a larger role in illicit drug trade such as supplying the street level drug dealers. Where the culpability of each is different so too is the approach to their defense. Was someone simply present only for the transaction? Was someone coerced into this activity? Was someone simply a drug user who was present at the time of delivery to obtain some drugs? The resolutions of these cases will differ dramatically. Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyers love cases like this one. It is easy and common to deflect responsibility to someone other than their client particularly if the cases are severed.

For many additional reasons these cases can be difficult to prosecute. Jurors are suspect of evidence supplied by informants. Informants are typically rewarded for their services. Usually they are given leniency for pending cases. Their motive to assist with a successful drug investigation often results in them being overly aggressive in soliciting “drug dealers”. They often have tendencies to exaggerate their ability to access major drug dealers and instead introduce law enforcement to small time street level dealers. Jurors are also suspect of cases where there are purported sales of drugs but the arrests are delayed until a later date. The typical juror wonders why the defendant was not arrested at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Unless the defendants were recorded in the act there is no evidence other than the word of the informant or person who conducted the controlled buy. Determining the surveillance locations is critical to establishing a defense. We have won several cases by showing the jury that the officers could not see what they claimed they could have scene from that particular surveillance location. There appears to be so much to this case that the challenge will more likely lie with prosecuting than defending.

Continue Reading

Just last week while Robert Smith was driving his Cadillac in Framingham, Massachusetts he had the misfortune of driving in front of a police car. The officer observed some civil motor vehicle infractions and also smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana coming from the car. The officer stopped the car and continued to smell the marijuana. Smith acted nervously and supposedly tried to hide and object in the console. Officers searched and found a some partially smoked marijuana cigarettes there. They also found packages of wrappers and some cash. Smith has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance. The case in pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1510866557/Pot-smell-led-to-Framingham-arrest-cops-say

Framingham Drug Defense Lawyer

Cases like this one have become fertile grounds for Motions to Suppress the search. Just a few months ago the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Benjamin Cruz. I blogged on that case the day after it was decided. I remember thinking at that time that this decision would trigger a tremendous amount of litigation, particularly in the district courts where the large majority of marijuana cases are prosecuted. I was right. Almost immediately one of my clients benefited from this decision in the Lowell District Court. We won a motion to suppress and his case was ultimately dismissed.

Sow how will Cruz apply to this case? Well in Cruz, unlike this case, the defendant was a passenger. Similar to this case however, the officers in Cruz approached the passenger side of the car. The driver in Cruz was nervous. Sobriety was not an issue. He was not given field sobriety tests and there was no suggestion that he was operating while impaired. This applies for Smith’s case as well. There is no question that the initial stop was lawful. I imagine that Smith was ordered to exit the car. Thus, a court will have to examine whether the exit order was justified for 1) officer safety purposes or 2) based on reasonable suspicion to believe that Smith was engaged in criminal activity. The Metrowest Daily News article sheds a little light on this: the officer thought Smith was acting nervously and thought he was trying to conceal something in his center console. Massachusetts courts have held that a defendant’s nervous demeanor cannot be the grounding factor on which to base suspicion of criminal activity. See Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 449 Mass. 367, 372 (2007). Cruz supported this holding that “[i]t is common, and not necessarily indicative of criminality, to appear nervous during even a mundane encounter with police, even though, as a passenger, the consequence of receiving a citation is not personal”. The odor of the marijuana might be an integral factor in a judge’s analysis of this case however. Cruz suggested that a strong odor of marijuana might give cause to believe that more than one ounce of marijuana is in a vehicle. If that is the case here then the officer must distinguish between the odor of burnt marijuana and marijuana that had not been yet been smoked. I would argue that a strong odor of burnt marijuana means nothing in terms of the potential quantity in the car. If the officer testifies that he smelled a strong odor of unburnt marijuana in the car his credibility will likely come into question. There is no indication that a large quantity even existed in the car and smelling it in this form while driving behind a car is incredible.

Continue Reading

This past Monday postal workers at the Shrewsbury office were drawn to a thirty pound package that seemed somewhat suspicious. A drug sniffing dog was the brought on the scene. The dog alerted officials that package contained drugs. That triggered an investigation involving Framingham and Natick Police. The addresses, James Auerbach of Natick arrived to pick the package up from the post office in Shrewsbury. He was followed by the police to the apartment he shares with Thomas Barnes, the co-defendant. According to a report in the Metrowest Daily News Auerbach admitted knowing that the package contained drugs. He also admitted to paying for the drugs. Consequently, the police obtained a search warrant. In the apartment they found more marijuana, over twenty pounds in all. The street value of the drugs is estimated in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Upon entering the apartment the police observed a .38 caliber firearm. Both defendants have been charged with Conspiracy and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance. Auerbach has also been charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Unlawful Possession of Ammunition. The case is pending in the Framingham District Court. However, Auerbach’s prior criminal record suggests that this case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1852604279/Natick-pair-arrested-after-getting-15-pounds-of-pot-in-the-mail

The good thing for Barnes is that there is no mandatory minimum jail or prison sentence associated with any of the crimes with which he has been charged. In cases like this, provided the defendant has no prior record there is always a chance that jail time can be avoided. Auerbach on the other hand may not be as lucky. The article states that he has been convicted on two prior occasions of either two serious drug offenses or one serious drug offense and one violent crime. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G, he is facing a minimum mandatory fifteen years in state prison. As I have mentioned in several prior blog posts there are defenses to accusations such as this one. What first comes to mind is suppressing Auerbach’s statements or admissions that the drugs were his. Suppressing the search is an obvious approach as well. Moving to dismiss the firearm charge may be viable. What evidence do the police have that suggests Auerbach is the owner of the gun as opposed to Barnes. Remember, Auerbach was out of the home picking up the package. There is no indication that Barnes was with him at that time. Did he admit that the gun was his? Was the gun printed? The answer to both of these questions is probably not. Here is another thought. Auerbach might want to try to vacate his prior convictions so that the minimum mandatory portion of the gun violation loses effect.

Hiring an attorney is an important decision no matter what type of charge you are facing. This case is a perfect example of that. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers realize that there can be future consequences for criminal convictions. Auerbach’s case is the perfect example of this. His prior convictions may very well effect how this case is defended.

Continue Reading

This past May Peabody Police Detectives were conducting surveillance in the parking lot of the North Shore Mall near the Barnes and Nobles Bookstore. A gray Honda in which David Ledbury of Malden, Massachusetts was a passenger was stopped for an alleged routine motor vehicle violation. Ledbury was observed making a furtive movement towards the lower part of the vehicle as the police approached. A search revealed 31 opana pills and over one thousand dollars cash. Ledbury was charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B Substance. He will be prosecuted in the Salem Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://itemlive.com/articles/2011/08/06/news/news06.txt

Opana is a relatively new drug to the streets. It is a pain reliever. It is also a prescription drug very similar to morphine yet significantly more potent. Opana is basically twice as strong as OxyContin. It is extremely habit forming. It can be fatal when taken with alcohol. Opana also has some side effects such as hives, swelling of the tongue, throat, face or lips. It can slow your heartbeat and cause dizziness or confusion.

So what is Mr. Ledbury going to do to defend his case. Even though the article provides very little detail I can almost guarantee you that his Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will file a motion to suppress the stop of the car and particularly the search of Ledbury and the vehicle. Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and cases embracing the provision hold that the police may not order a passenger or driver out of a vehicle following a routine traffic stop unless there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the officer or others prior to ordering the occupants out of the vehicle. There is an objective test that requires viewing the facts and circumstances of the stop to determine whether the police have a reasonable apprehension of danger warranting the exit order. Put another way, a court will look to see whether a reasonably prudent person in the position of the police officer would be warranted in believing that his safety or the safety of others was in danger. To sustain an exit order the prosecution must show facts that objectively create a heightened awareness of danger. A hunch or mere suspicion that Ledbury was involved in illicit activity does not permit the police to order him to get out of the car and conduct a search of Ledbury and the vehicle.

Motions to suppress illegal searches and seizures derive much of their factual support from police reports or police generated materials. However, in cases like this one there will usually be some sort of surveillance security video that Ledbury can secure to determine whether the police report is accurate or exaggerated.

Continue Reading