Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

While on patrol this past weekend Lawrence, Massachusetts police officers observed two cars apparently involved in a collision. When they stopped to investigate the officers came in contact with Jonathan Amador and Luis Aguayo, aka Julio Cesar Vincente Peguero. The police asked the drivers of both vehicles for their licenses. One of the drivers was Amador. Amador started speaking with the driver of the other car. Apparently the two knew each other. Meanwhile the officers observed plastic bags containing Crack Cocaine and Heroin in the vehicle’s front passenger cupholder. Bother Amador and Aguayo were arrested and charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin, Class A, Possession of Heroin and Possession of Cocaine, Class B. The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court where it will likely be prosecuted.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x413853691/Pair-nabbed-with-drugs-in-minivan-cupholder#

Two things come to mind immediately when reading this article. The first is the credibility of the investigation. The report would have you believe that after a minor accident the defendants left an obvious quantity of drugs in the vehicle in plain view. Most people realize that police will respond to accident scenes. In cities like Lawrence their response time will be quicker than in suburbs or rural areas. Amador and Aguayo must have known that the police would arrive shortly and would have concealed the drugs had they feared detection. I would be interested to hear what the occupants of the other vehicle observed relative to the search of the car. Their statements might give cause to file a Motion to Suppress the evidence seized. The second issue that is see is attribution. Whose drugs were these anyway. The report has them in the passenger side of the vehicle thereby suggesting that they did not belong to Amador. However, Aguayo could argue that he was unaware of the presence of the substances in the car in that it belonged to someone else.

Continue Reading

According to the Lowell Sun two men were arrested in Burlington, Massachusetts last week. Both are being charged with Trafficking Heroin Over 28 Grams, Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Law and a School Zone Violation. The defendants, Wilkims Soto-Suazo and Jesus Pantonja are from Norwood, Massachusetts and Hyde Park, Massachusetts respectively. Apparently the Range Rover the defendants were in was under surveillance. Officers pulled it over on the Winn Street ramp by Route 128. A canine unit sniffed out over fifty six grams of heroin. The article is silent as to where in the vehicle the drugs were found and what evidence links each defendant to the substances.

Read Article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_16910612

As I have mentioned many times in the past the validity of the stop is an issue that an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney will investigate. An unlawful stop often results in the suppression of the evidence that has been seized as a result of the stop. There had to be a reason that the vehicle was pulled over on the ramp rather than at another location. There also had to be a reason that the police called for a canine unit. If the officers had probable cause to arrest at the time of the stop there would be no need to take this measure. An inventory search of the vehicle could have been conducted at the station. Thus, the question of why these men were pulled over is critical. It would also be necessary to know the length of time these people were detained before the canine unit arrived. These factors affect the constitutional analysis of this case. The next issue to tackle is the location of the drugs in the vehicle as well as ownership of the car. If the car was borrowed and the drugs were in a “hide” the district attorney will have to prove knowledge of the existence of the drugs in the vehicle. At times proof of this sort can be difficult particularly where it was necessary to get a dog to locate the substance.

Continue Reading

According to the Brockton Enterprise police in Raynham, Massachusetts have found some success in an year long investigation. They just arrested Peter Cardin of Raynham and Ainsley Jennifer Long of Bridgewater, Masschusetts. Both have been charged with Trafficking Heroin. On December 1, 2010 officers executed a search warrant at Cardin’s home. During the course of the search they found over fifteen grams of heroin, enough to charge Trafficking. They also located assorted Drug Trafficking Paraphernalia. Cardin has been charged with Conspiracy, Possession of Class E, Possession of Class C and Trafficking Heroin. Long has been charged with Possession of Class E, Trafficking Heroin, Conpiracy and Being Present Where Heroin is Kept.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x88621348/Raynham-police-charge-two-with-heroin-trafficking

Before the prosecution can convict either of these defendants of a crime many gaps in this article have to be filled. Aside from the usual question, i.e. the probable cause to get a search warrant, the district attorney will have to show how it is that each are responsble for these crimes. On several occasions I have written that “mere presence” at the scene of a crime is insufficient to satisfy the prosecutor’s burden. There is an instruction that judges give jurors in cases like this one that says just that. The prosecution must prove more. It must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally exercised dominion and control over the substance with the intent to distribute the product, and/or that he or she aided or abetted in the act. This article is silent as to those details.

Continue Reading

Elizabeth Roger of Ashland, Massachusetts and Elizabeth Powers of Worcester, Massachusetts were arrested in the early morning hours after being pulled over for a minor Motor Vehicle Violation. Specifically it is alleged that Powers ran a stop sign. During the stop officers located just over one ounce of marijuana. The two teenagers have been charged in the Framingham District Court with Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1743711391/Two-women-accused-of-dealing-marijuana-in-Framingham

Just last year Massachusetts changed its drug laws relative to possession of marijuana. The new law, codified by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32L states that anyone who possesses one ounce or less of marijuana shall be guilty of a civil offense only, punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars. If the offender is under the age of eighteen he or she must attend a drug awareness program. Unfortunately for Roger and Powers the quantity of marijuana exceeds one ounce. However, the article is not clear as to whether the substance was weighed while packaged or if the packaging was taken off prior to weighing the substance. This can make a huge difference in the outcome of this case. The weight of the substance cannot include the packaging. I just finished a case where the quantity of the drug (in this case cocaine) was initially weighed at just over fourteen grams, subjecting my client to a mandatory minimum sentence. When the cocaine was re-weighed without the packaging the total weight was less than fourteen grams, thus making the crime one that was not subject to minimum mandatory sentencing. The defendants here, Roger and Powers might be able to move to suppress the search depending on what occurred at the time of the stop and what the arresting officer reported.

Continue Reading

Darrell O’Malley of Wilmington, Massachusetts and Steven Santella of Lowell, Massachusetts have been charged with Drug Crimes violations after police saw O’Malley provide Santella with Heroin in an affluent Westford, Massachusetts neighborhood. According to a report in the Lowell Sun the act occurred at about 10:30 in the morning in the area of Oak Hill Road. Apparently detectives had been watching the two for a period of time. The police believed that drug deals had been occurring. Both men have been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, Class A, Possession of Heroin, Class A, a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy. The case is pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

Westford Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

Westford, Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer

Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws in Massachusetts is proven by showing three things beyond a reasonable doubt. One that the defendant joined with one or more people in an agreement, two, to do something unlawful or something lawful by unlawful means and three, that the defendant joined the conspiracy knowing of the unlawful plan and with an intent to carry it out. Conspiracy in the context of drug cases in Massachusetts is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 40. Whether or not the acts of O’Malley and Santella amount to conspiracy depends on what information the police had pertaining to an agreement. Given the information provided by this article Conspiracy might be difficult to prove in this case.

Continue Reading

Edwin Pagan is from Ashland, Massachusetts. Around 3:30 in the morning yesterday someone reported seeing a man “acting suspiciously” near the Happy Swallow. The police responded and found Pagan lurking in the area. The officers also learned that Pagan had been in a car parked nearby. They went to investigate. They looked into the car and in “plain view” found what they believed to be cocaine in a plastic bag. The officers also found prescription pills in the car. They then learned that the owner of the car was the bartender at the Happy Swallow. The bartender was questioned. He stated that he had given Pagan permission to use the car until 3:00 in the morning, but not after. The bartender denied ownership of the drugs. Pagan was then charged with Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle, Possession of Cocaine, a Class B Drug, and Possession of Class E Substances. The case in pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1485353729/Ashland-man-arrested-on-drug-charges-in-Framingham

Framingham Drug Crime Lawyer

If this article is accurate Pagan has a very defensible case. The bartender’s story makes little sense. Think about it. How many people would say it is okay to use their car until three in the morning but no later, particularly in a situation like this one. Obviuosly Pagan needed to use a car. From this you can assume he also needed a ride home. Pagan lives in Ashland and the bar is in Framingham. Logic suggests that the bartender was his ride. Massachusetts law permits bars to be open until 2:00 a.m. Most close earlier. Towns can regulate the hours of bar operation. If the Happy Swallow is open until 2:00 a.m. you can assume that the bartender will be working later to clean and set up for the next day. Three or three thirty is probably the time he would get off work and drive Pagan home. So when the police question the bartender what does he do? He distances himself from Pagan. He is not going to accept responsibility for the drugs in his car. He blames Pagan and says that Pagan has exceeded his authority to be in his car by thirty minutes. With the help of an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Pagan stands a good chance of winning this case.

Continue Reading

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, police yesterday arrested Ivon Almeida and charged him with Trafficking Heroin in Excess of Twenty Eight Grams and a School Zone Violation. Police claim that Almeida was the passenger a car driven by Steven Mendes that committed certain traffic violations. After the stop police found an open container of alcohol. They then frisked both the driver and Almeida. A plastic bag was supposedly protruding from Almeida’s shoe. Police seized it and found it to contain thirty two grams of heroin. The act took place within one thousand feet of a School Zone. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court. This case will most likely be indicted to the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x96440595/Brockton-traffic-stop-leads-to-heroin-trafficking-arrest

Once again we visit the issue of the legality of the frisk. Assuming the article is accurate no one would challenge the stop itself. The police officers witnessed someone driving a motor vehicle and committing some civil infractions. This permits the officers to stop the vehicle, obtain information from the driver, and in some circumstances the passenger. The officer can then issue a citation, or if the driver or passenger have outstanding warrants an arrest can be effectuated. If not, no frisk is permitted. A police officers can be no more intrusive than necessary to effectuate a safe conclusion to the motor vehicle stop. A pat frisk is for protective purposes. It is to make sure that the person or people lawfully stopped are not carrying weapons. Pat frisks are not for investigative purposes. Here, it appears that the officers suspected without reasonable suspicion that the defendants committed or were about to commit a crime. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a plastic bag protruding from someone’s shoe. There is a likelihood that the police actions were violative of Almeida’s rights and warrant exclusion after hearing a Motion to Suppress.

Continue Reading