Articles Posted in Search and Seizure

| by

Two nights ago Guarionex Pratts of North Andover, Massachusetts was arrested at his apartment by North Andover Police and DEA agents. Apparently a call to the DEA Tipline alerted authorities to the existence of Drug Dealing Activities at the apartment. The tip stemmed from neighbors concerns about an odor suggestive of drug activities in the building. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune is reporting that Pratts consented to a search of his apartment. During the Search officers found hundreds of Oxycodone pills, a significant sum of cash and over two pounds of Heroin. Packaging products or Drug Paraphernalia was also found and seized during the search. The smell that alarmed the neighbors was determined to come from cutting agents used to dilute the drugs being that were being packaged for street level sales. The heroin was valued at around one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Pratts has been charged with Trafficking Heroin and Trafficking Oxycodone. There is a mandatory minimum fifteen year sentence for a conviction of the Heroin Trafficking Offense. Pratts, who is thirty two years old, is believed to be supplying Drug Dealers in Lawrence, Massachusetts. If the Massachusetts state courts retain jurisdiction of the case it will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1517687098/Accused-heroin-dealer-arrested-at-Royal-Crest-apartments

As a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney who has handled hundreds of drug cases in Essex County something immediately hits me when I read this article. Did Pratts really consent to the search of his apartment? The sheer quantity of drugs found suggests that whoever was responsible for these substances was not a novice. He or she had extensive experience in the Massachusetts drug underworld. Anyone with this level of familiarity with the drug trade would not simply consent to the search of his apartment. They would say no to the request to search. Massachusetts laws require a valid search warrant to justify a search of someone’s property. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. Consent is one of those exceptions. Large scale drugs dealers however never consent. This leads me to conclude that there was no consent or the consent was coerced. In either case a Motion to Suppress the search will likely be filed to try to get the searched declared unconstitutional. If there truly was consent to the search this fact will have some significance for Pratts as well. It will be argued that no one is likely to consent to a search under these circumstances unless he or she had absolutely no involvement with the underlying Drug Distribution Activities. Pratts legal road is a long one. This makes his decision to hire the right lawyer to defend him one of the most important of his life. He must start an aggressive defense right away.

Continue Reading

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reported that Theresa Foley of Stoughton, Massachusetts was arrested at her workplace following an investigation in which police allegedly witnessed her sell drugs on six separate days. The investigation began earlier this month when a Dedham Police Detective gained information that Foley was dealing drugs. Police investigating the allegations set up surveillance. They witnessed Foley leave work, travel to nearby parking lots and engage in hand to hand sales. It is further alleged that Foley was observed selling drugs from her home as well. Armed with this information the police followed Foley one last time. Following her established pattern she was seen selling to a man in a pickup truck. The man, a resident of Norwood was stopped by the police. In his possession they found a couple of bags of heroin. The purchaser was charged with Possession of Heroin and Conspiracy. Foley was then arrested. She has been charged with Conspiracy, Distribution of Heroin, a School Zone Violation and Possession of Class A With Intent to Distribute. The case in pending in the Dedham District Court. Foley was also found in possession of Drug Paraphernalia. It is reported that she confessed to these crimes.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x157799408/Police-Stoughton-woman-caught-dealing-drugs-on-lunch-break

Theresa Foley.jpg

Dedham Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

The strength of the district attorney’s case here lies in what Foley possessed when she was arrested, as well as in her confession. While observing the sales might constitute circumstantial evidence that she was involved in drug dealing it would not be enough to sustain a conviction if that was the only evidence in the case. I have blogged on this before. When someone is seen selling drugs and the buyers are caught with the drugs the prosecution cannot usually prove the sale. This is because the buyer has a constitutional right not to testify due to his or her involvement in the criminal activity. Thus, if the buyer is himself not caught with drugs in his possession there is not nexus between the seller and buyer sufficient to sustain the prosecution. Simply put, the district attorney needs the buyer’s cooperation, something that is extremely rare. However, the police observation certainly gives rise to reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the seller. If the seller is found in possession of the drugs the prosecution then becomes more viable.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Levy, SJC 10778. A brief history of the case is as follows: The defendant filed and argued a Motion to Suppress a search in the Brockton District Court. The motion was allowed. The district attorney appealed the decision. The appeal was allowed the ruling of the lower court was reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court permitted further appellate review. It agreed with the lower court and overturned the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s decision.

Read Decision:

Commonwealth v. Levy

The district court judge found that in January of 2007 a surveillance was set up by Brockton Police monitoring the use of payphones near a market. It was believed that those phones were being used to conduct drug transactions. One particular evening around 10:00 p.m. two women and a male pulled up to the payphones in a car. The man got out and made a brief call. The three then left in the car and drove a short distance away. The man got out of the car and paced up and down the street. Minutes later another vehicle containing three occupants approached. The man got into the car for a short, thirty second drive. He then got out of the car and got back into his own vehicle. Believing that a drug transaction had occurred the police stopped the second vehicle. The defendant was seated in the front passenger seat. He was asked to get out of the car. He was searched and in his boot officers found twenty eight packages of crack cocaine.

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Levy and to search his boot. In support of that decision the Court found that no police officer witnessed any sort of exchange indicative of a drug transaction. None of the parties were known drug dealers or users. Reasonable suspicion did exist justifying a stop and questioning. The search however required probable cause which was not present in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report on Boston.com, Andrew Curda of Peabody, Massachusetts has been arrested in connection with Drug Trafficking activity in Massachusetts. It is alleged that Curda sold cocaine to an undercover law enforcement officer on three occasions. Curda is being charged with Trafficking Cocaine, a School Zone Violation and Possession of Oxycodone. Police from Beverly, Ipswich and Everett were involved in the investigation. Apparently the website Tip411 was instrumental in the investigation. The case will initially be prosecuted in the Peabody District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/peabody/2011/05/peabody_man_charged_with_drug.html

tip411.jpg

Drug Crimes Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

So what exactly is tip411. Anyone can use a cell phone to send an anonymous tip to a local police department. The tip itself is one hundred anonymous so there is no way to identify the sender. It is not a substitute for an emergency 911 call. Rather it is a way for concerned citizens to make their community safer without fearing reprisals from the people they report. Information regarding caller identification cannot be subpoenaed either. Obviously, from the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney certain constitutional issues might arise from the follow up of one of these tips. Regardless of the existence of the tip, the police are still constrained by Fourth Amendment guarantees and Article 14 protections. The anonymous tipster lacks the reliability or basis of knowledge needed to sustain Searches and Seizures in certain instances. An legal attack on this information may in some instances result in the dismissal of drug charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Police in Harwich, Massachusetts observed Gianni Trombetta engaged in what they believed to be a Narcotics Sale in a local parking lot. The time and date of this sale was not disclosed in the attached article however there is a suggestion that police were investigating this matter for months. An arrest warrant was secured and at a later time Trombetta was arrested. Police found over eighteen grams of cocaine in his possession at the time of the arrest. This is a quantity that satisfies the threshold for Trafficking Cocaine in Massachusetts. Subsequently officers searched Trombetta’s home. They did so after obtaining a Search Warrant. During the execution of the search warrant officers found more cocaine, approximately ten grams worth. Jilliam Prudeaux who was living at that address with Trombetta was arrested. She has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine.

Read Article:

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2011/04/12/harwich-pair-arrested-on-cocaine-distrib?blog=80

trombettaprudeaux.jpg

Cape Cod Drug Trafficking Defense Law Firm

This article makes me suspicious about the validity of the search warrant. The Massachusetts case of Commonwealth v. Olivares, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 596 (1991) the Massachusetts Appeals Court found there was no probable cause to search a residence where there was no specific information in an affidavit connecting the defendant’s residence to drug sales except observation of the defendant departing from the house and going to his place of business where a controlled buy occurred. If that is the situation here then Prudeaux has a chance to have the search suppressed.

Continue Reading

| by

DEA agents along with Lawrence, Massachusetts police officers raided Richard Cruz’s home yesterday after obtaining a Search Warrant. The home located at 2 Inman Street was searched while Cruz was present. In a bedroom in the apartment officers located about twenty grams of heroin, a loaded Firearm and assorted Drug Paraphernalia. Cruz was found in possession of nearly one thousand dollars cash. Right now Cruz stands charged with Trafficking Heroin in Excess of 14 Grams and Possession of a Firearm. The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court. It is expected that this case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x789956562/Heroin-handgun-seized-in-Lawrence-raid#

cruz.jpg

As with any drug case that involves Search and Seizure issues Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers need to review the Search Warrant to determine whether there exists a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Successful challenges to the issuance of a search warrant typically result in the dismissal of drug cases. Our office looks hard at the warrant, application, return and supporting affidavit on every drug we defend. For over twenty years we have found innumerable defects in these documents. Our attacks on these flaws have secured freedom and justice for our clients on numerous occasions. We believe that there is a defense to every case and we are always prepared to fight for your rights.

Continue Reading

| by

According to reports in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune DEA agents working our of New Bedford had been investigating a Heroin Trafficking ring involving individuals from Lawrence. One of the members was arrested with eighty five grams of heroin. As a result a Search Warrant issued for an apartment on Union Street in Lawrence. An informant told the police that he had purchased at that apartment. This individual reported that he would arrive at the apartment and one the occupants would go out and return shortly with the heroin. During the search an individual questioned by the police indicated that he lived in another apartment down the hall. He apparently consented to a search of that unit. During the search officers found over five kilograms of heroin. The estimated street value of the substance is over three million dollars. In all the police located and arrested six individuals. All were charged with Trafficking Over 200 Grams of Heroin. The case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Bail for each was set at five hundred thousand dollars. The defendants have been identified as Victor Guerrero Santana, Francisco Rivera, Jose Pizarro, Oveido Lopez, Luis Gonzalez and Elvin Ruiz.

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

lopez.jpg

Charging everyone present at the scene of a large drug bust is a common yet flawed law enforcement tactic. The article suggests that some of the defendants were at best “present only”. In the past I have blogged on this issue. Presence alone is not enough to sustain a prosecution for drug offenses. There must be some criminal activity in which the accused is involved and there must be an intent on that person’s part to engage in or assist with the criminal act. When looking at this article it is difficult to ascertain who is responsible for what, if anything. An Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer will attack the arrests and charges and perhaps in some cases obtain a dismissal for one or more of these defendants.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Carr.pdf affirming the trial judge’s suppression of evidence seized unlawfully. The facts of the case are as follows. On Valentine’s Day, 2007 a Boston College police sergeant received a call from a residential director (RD) of a dormitory who had information from students that a dorm resident possibly possessed a weapon. The RD brought the students to the campus police. The students stated that the defendant had been bullying students and bragged about having a knife. An anonymous student reported seeing the butt of a gun in the defendant’s room. The student stated that the gun might have been a toy. Armed with this information campus police went to the defendant’s room. They knocked on the door and identified themselves. About a half minute later the door was opened. There were three men in the room. An individual who denied living in the room was asked to leave. The officer then inquired about the gun. One of the defendants admitted to previously having a fake gun and throwing it away. He was then read his rights and asked where the gun was. He replied that it was under the bed. There, the officers found a replica gun. With further prompting and prodding from the police the other defendant produced a knife. Officers found another knife and a martial arts weapon also. The police then asked the defendants to sign a Miranda waiver form and a consent to search form. Both signed the former. Neither signed the latter. The officers then conducted a search and found drugs and drug related paraphernalia. The trial judge allowed the defendants’ Motion to Suppress. The Appeals Court reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial judge’s rulings holding as follows:

The district attorney never established that the defendants consented to the search. One of the officers testifying agreed to that during cross-examination. He backtracked on re-direct by testifying that the defendants gave verbal consent to search. The judge found this to effect his credibility. The evidence as to consent was equivocal in the judge’s opinion and not sufficient to sustain the search. The trial judge also held that even if the defendants had consented the consent was not made voluntarily. She found that the campus police actions of immediately demanding the defendant’s identities, ordering the person who did not live in the room to leave, blocking the doorway, showing distrust for the defendants and ordering rather than requesting to search undercut the voluntariness requirement of consent.

This case is another example of what can happen when you hire an experienced lawyer. The lawyers in this case did a fantastic job for the defendants. They were able to show the trial judge that the defendants’ constitutional rights were violated.

| by

This past Saturday a Massachusetts State Trooper pulled a car over for speeding shortly after 4:00 in the afternoon. Smelling what appeared to be an abundance of air fresheners the officer became suspicious. The two occupants of the vehicle then gave the officer a story that did not check out. A canine unit was called. The dog alerted officers to the dashboard and the passenger side airbag. Officers then forcibly opened the dashboard. They found cocaine and over thirty three thousand dollars cash. The weight of the cocaine was approximated at one half kilogram, over two hundred grams. The occupants, Joel Alicea of Lawrence, Massachusetts and Alejandro Nunez Perez of Methuen, Massachusetts were arrested and charged with Conspiracy, Trafficking Cocaine, and other Massachusetts Drug Crimes.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1507938287/Too-many-air-fresheners-tip-police-to-drugs

drug bust.jpg

This case presents some interesting Massachusetts Search and Seizure issues. Massachusetts Courts have held that investigative detentions must be no longer than are necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Thus, in this case most Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers will ask what permitted the officers to detain the defendants longer than necessary to issue the speeding ticket. I imagine that it was more than a few minutes from the time the car was pulled over until the canine unit arrived. On several occasions Massachusetts courts have held that detentions of this length were unconstitutional. The next issue that strikes me is what links these defendants to the drugs. Apparently the vehicle belonged to someone else. The drugs and money were concealed. How then are these defendants responsible for Trafficking and Conspiracy.

Continue Reading

| by

Police in Marlborough, Massachusetts were conducting an investigation that led them to an apartment on Main Street. The investigation resulted in the application for and issuance of a Search Warrant at that apartment. Last Thursday night the Search Warrant was executed. Officers found a twenty two caliber handgun, loaded. They also found some Drug Paraphernalia such as scales and packaging agents. The apartment was rented to Evan Higgins who was not home at the time the search warrant was executed. Higgins was not home when the Search Warrant was executed. The police however located him later that night. Higgins was arrested. In his car the police found another handgun and a Class B drug. He has been charged with Carrying a Firearm, Possession of a Firearm, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class B and a School Zone Violation.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1177408402/Police-arrest-Marlborough-man-on-gun-and-drug-charges

Walther .9mm.jpg

Marlborough, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney who handles Drug Cases on a daily basis I would like to know what in fact the police investigation showed prior to their applying for a Search Warrant. On several occasions in the past I have blogged on the requirements for obtaining a Search Warrant in Massachusetts and the attacks that can be made on the constitutionality of the search. I have also blogged on various defenses that can be raised in the event the Search is upheld as constitutional. In this case, I would also like to know who if anyone Higgins lived with, the configuration of the dwelling, the presence or absence of clothing belonging to someone other than Higgins and the neighbors’ observations regarding the tenant of that apartment. Simply finding drugs or guns in someone’s home does not mean that the person targeted by the police was responsible for the contraband.

Continue Reading