Articles Posted in Search and Seizure

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

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

A 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

The Brockton Enterprise reports that last Friday members of a local drug task force arrested twenty to year old Katelyn Boutiette after what has been called a “months-long” investigation. Authorities believed that Boutiette might have been selling drugs in the greater Bridgewater area for the past year. The investigation resulted in the police obtaining and executing a Search Warrant at Boutiette’s home. During the search police located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia as well as eight grams of class “A”, enough to charge her with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin. Boutiette’s car was seized as evidence as well. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney there are many additional facts I would like to know about this case. What did the year or “months-long” investigation show? Was Boutiette seen distributing drugs? What are her drug habits? Is she a heroin user? Does she live alone or with someone else? Where were the drugs found during the search? Was anybody else present during the search, i.e. a friend or roommate? Was Boutiette present during the search? What information did the police have to get the Search Warrant in the first place? Was the warrant properly issued or is there a reasonable constitutional challenge to the search based on an absence of probable cause to search? The answers to these questions will likely guide the defense of this case.

So what happens to Boutiette? Suppression of the evidence seized during the search might occur if the search is declared unlawful. Or, if Boutiette does not have a criminal record then do not be surprised if the case gets continued without a finding. If Boutiette is able to show that she has a heroin habit then an acquittal of the charges is possible and a conviction for simple Possession of Heroin might be all that she faces. Certainly 8 grams of heroin can be consistent with personal use. The district attorney’s office will disagree with this. They will call a witness (expert), usually an experienced drug detective to say that the quantity, possibly coupled with other factors is consistent with an intent to distribute. There is a flaw in that characterization however. Unless the detective knows the accused and his or her habits any testimony on this issue can be viewed as speculative. Furthermore, the defense attorney can ask the detective how many times he has testified that a particular quantity (eight grams) is consistent with something other than an intent to distribute. I will bet that the answer is never. That, in and of itself speaks to the integrity of that testimony. Make no mistake about it. Heroin habits can easily exceed the eight gram per day threshold. The possession of eight grams can be the product of a lesser habit as well. Using some of the product over a short period of time is not unusual and a reasonable explanation for the possession of this amount of the drug.

Continue Reading

According to an article in the Melrose Patch, eleven people were arrested and charged with various Massachusetts Drug Crimes including Trafficking Cocaine Over 200 Grams. Ten of the individuals are from Massachusetts. The investigation began in March. Official were looking into activities of a Boston North End man who was alleged to have run the drug network. He allegedly dealt out of an accomplice’s apartment in Boston and Revere. In June Search Warrants were obtained resulting in the seizure of over five hundred grams of cocaine and seventy five thousand dollars cash. The article and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office press release identify the following defendants: Gerald Esposito of Boston, Steven Tracia of Revere, Kettia Piris of Revere, Anthony Giannetti of Revere, Adam Saggese of Melrose, Marino Velasquez of Revere, Anthony Vigorito of Boston, Ferdinando Daniele of Revere, Anthony Ascenzo of Boston, Salvatore Lazzari of Winthrop and Paul Mattarese of Maine. Charges range and vary from defendant to defendant and include Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws, Trafficking Over 100 Grams of Cocaine, Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of Cocaine, Trafficking Over 200 Grams of Cocaine, Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone and more. The cases are being prosecuted in the Suffolk Superior Court.

Read Article:

Suffolk County Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

In cases like this rarely do all eleven defendants go to trial. Many of the defendants are charged with crimes that do not contemplate mandatory minimum sentences. Depending on their records they may be able to resolve the case with probation or perhaps a continuance without a finding. All of this depends of course on the extent of their involvement in the operation. The defendants facing Drug Trafficking Charges are in a more difficult predicament. They will either have to get the items seized suppressed, plea bargain their cases down to something less than the crime with which they are charged or go to trial. In cases like this there are almost always varying levels of culpability from defendant to defendant. Each defendant’s defense will be unique and there is always the risk of finger pointing. Sometimes one of the defendants, usually one who possesses substantial information about the operation and a lesser amount of culpability with cooperate with the prosecution against the others. I expect you will see lots of evidentiary motions filed in this case. I also expect that one by one these cases will be resolved leaving one or two left to go to trial. These cases also become a managerial nightmare for judges and court staffs. It is nearly impossible to get eleven criminal defense lawyers together for hearings, motions, status conferences and related court appearances.

Sometimes in larger cases you see a lawyer representing more than one defendant. Rarely is this a good idea. At a minimum I believe it is necessary to consult with your own lawyer. Oftentimes conflicts of interest arise as cases progress making the representation of multiple parties controversial. These conflicts may not be apparent at the time of arraignment or when the initial discovery materials are produced. However, once they become evident you can be at risk if you and someone with a competing defense had the same criminal attorney.

Continue Reading

The Metrowest Daily News reports that Kelly Temple and Shay Lund, two women who lived in a Hudson, Massachusetts apartment have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 28 Grams, Possession of Cocaine, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Conspiracy. As part of an ongoing investigation the police obtained a Search Warrant permitting them to enter and search the women’s Lake Street apartment. During the search officers found scales, cutting agents, packaging materials, crib sheets, cash and over twenty eight grams of cocaine. It is alleged that these materials were inside of a closet in the bedroom the two shared. Temple was present at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Lund was found in a nearby bar. She was carrying bags of cocaine consistent with an intention to sell. She has been charged with a School Zone Violation as well. The cases are pending in the Marlboro District Court. It is likely that these cases will be indicted and prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn. There is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence associated with the trafficking charges.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x227168440/Police-charge-two-women-with-cocaine-trafficking-in-Hudson

As is typically the case in Search Warrant matters, Temple and Lund’s defenses will focus on the integrity of the police investigation. Police need probable cause to obtain and execute a search warrant. Inasmuch as the details in this article are scant it is safe to assume that much of their investigation centered on assistance from an informant. For the warrant to survive constitutional scrutiny the informant must have a basis of knowledge to conclude that the controlled substances would be where he claimed they would be. He must also be deemed reliable. This is often referred to as the Aguilar-Spinelli test. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers frequently mount challenges to these searches by showing a judge that the informant lacked the requisite basis of knowledge or the he or she was not reliable. Successful challenges usually result in suppression of the drugs seized and ultimately a dismissal of the criminal charges.

One of the things that interests me here is the layout of the Lake Street apartment. The article suggests that Lund and Temple shared a room. However it also states that Lund lived in Rhode Island and that the Temple was the tenant in the apartment. Was this a one bedroom apartment? If so, what evidence suggests that the two shared the room. If the challenge to the issuance of the search warrant fails it looks at first blush like these two have competing, conflicting defenses that might result in an acquittal of the trafficking charge as to one or the other.

Continue Reading

Over the course of a month-long drug investigation undercover state police officers purchased heroin on four occasions from Lawrence, Massachusetts resident Jonathan Castro. The buys occurred on two separate days in May and two in June, the latest being this past Tuesday. It is alleged that during the last transaction Castro sold somewhere around twenty grams of heroin to an undercover officer. Castro was in a car being driven by Jose Ventura of Methuen, Massachusetts. Officers made a connection between Castro and an apartment on Dracut Street as well. Castro had the keys to the apartment in his possession at the time of his arrest. Officers went to the apartment and using the key gained entry to the premises. They found Jhon Ramos, also of Lawrence, inside the apartment. Officers claim that Ramon permitted the search and signed a consent form. The apartment contained over twenty eight grams of heroin, a scale, cash and related drug distribution paraphernalia. All three suspects were charged with Trafficking Heroin, Over Twenty Eight Grams and Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws. Castro and Ramos were also charged with a School Zone Violation. All of these defendants will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x177904619/Three-arrested-on-drug-trafficking-charges

Just yesterday I blogged on joint venture in Massachusetts and its applicability to people who are simply present at a crime scene. Today’s post presents a very different view of that legal theory. While the article does not clearly indicate Ventura’s involvement in the crimes it does suggest inferentially that he was present with the purpose of facilitating Castro’s efforts to sell heroin. If that is the situation, and the prosecution can establish facts that support Ventura’s active involvement in the distribution efforts his defense becomes more complicated. Certainly there may be innocent reasons why he was with Castro and perhaps his presence had nothing to do with drug distribution. In that case Ventura’s Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney will defend this case on the theory that there lacks sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. This can be done prior to trial or at trial depending on the facts particular to this case and the attorney’s defense strategy. The defense for Castro will likely be different. In the case of hand to hand sales entrapment is the typical defense. Ramos’ defense might hinge on the voluntariness of his consent and the extent of his involvement with the items found at the apartment, if any. All of these gentlemen have a battle in front of them that requires the skill and commitment of an Experienced Massachusetts Heroin Trafficking Lawyer.

Continue Reading