Articles Posted in Search and Seizure

| by

According to a Middlesex County District Attorney press release Michael Harrington has been indicted by a Middlesex County Grand Jury for Larceny Over $250, Larceny of Firearms and Receiving Stolen Property. Harrington, the Westford, Massachusetts Animal Control Officer was arrested on these charges last week. He became a suspect shortly after Westford School Department Maintenance personnel believed that tools, guns and expensive equipment had been disappearing from the office. In April authorities repositioned surveillance and confirmed that Harrington had taken some equipment valued in excess of $250. Upon questioning Harrington stated that the guns, eleven of which were missing were in his office stored properly. A search of his office disclosed otherwise. On April 9, 2010 police arrested Alberto Ramos of Lowell for Carrying a Firearm. It turns out that this gun was one of the missing guns. Harrington is being held on five thousand dollars cash bail. This case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Press Release:

http://www.middlesexda.com/press-release-archive/animal-control-officer-indicted-for-larceny-of-guns-and-equipment-arraigned-in-ayer-district-court-on-gun-charges/

westford.jpg

Massachusetts Gun Possession Lawyer

Middlesex County Larceny Defense Lawyer

Both the Larceny and Receiving Stolen Property cases are felonies in Massachusetts the way they are being charged. In an of themselves these cases are serious but the suggestion that Harrington was selling or somehow distributing the firearms gives Harrington additional problems. Often times in cases like this one plea bargaining is the best if not only way to avoid a significant amount of jail time. Understandably, the district attorney will want to know where the other ten guns are. Harrington might be able to lessen the sentence he faces by cooperating and providing law enforcement with the information to retrieve these weapons. Regardless, he needs to Hire an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

A Lynn, Massachusetts police officer who was on Essex Street observed a car with five people traveling near him. He detected an odor of marijuana coming from the car. He followed the car and noticed that it did not have an inspection sticker. He pulled it over and questioned the driver, Toniea Coleman. Coleman was told that she was being stopped due to the odor of marijuana. All occupants were asked to get out of the car. Once they did they were searched. One of the passengers, Kerlin Aubourg had a large amount of cash in his possession. The rear passengers, Andre Sanders, Ali McMillan and Tyla Monteiro were taken from the car. Sanders was found to be in possession of marijuana. Monteiro was found in possession of marijuana. There were open containers of alcohol in the car. A loaded firearm was found in the trunk of the car. Seven grams of crack were found in the car as well. Authorities allege that Monteiro admitted that the gun belonged to him. He has been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B, School Zone Violation, Possession of Ammunition and Possession of a Firearm. Monteiro was also found in possession of additional crack cocaine. The others face the same charges. Aubourg is from Malden, the rest are from Lynn.

Read Article:

Lynn, Massachusetts Drug Possession, Distribution, School Zone, Firearm Lawyer

firearm.jpg

Search and Seizure Lawyers In Massachusetts

Since the new marijuana laws went into effect there has been a considerable amount of litigation centering on what now constitutes a lawful stop when police officers smell marijuana. Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. It is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars. Thus, the question now is what right do police officers have to stop a car simply because they smell marijuana. Police must have a reasonable suspicion to stop a car and question its occupants. The officers must have specific and articulable facts that the people committed a crime. Here, it is questionable as to whether or not an officer can truly smell burning marijuana in a traveling vehicle. Supporting that contention is the absence of any evidence showing that marijuana had in fact been smoked. Also in this case there were five people involved. The article does not make clear who the officer suspected of criminal activity. It is unlikely that this stop will survive constitutional scrutiny as to all defendants, particularly if all defendants Hire an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

Quincy drug unit detectives arrested Javier Vargas two days ago after he was observed engaged in a drug deal with another Massachusetts man. The location of the deal was the Crown Colony officer park, an area that has recently seen an increase in Drug Distribution activity. According to reports in the Quincy Patriot Ledger Vargas and another were seen following one another, coming to a stop side by side and engaging in suspicious activity. As the cars separated police contacted the alleged purchaser who had just injected heroin in the parking lot. This individual provided information about Vargas and was not charged with a crime. Police then located Vargas, pulled him over and searched him and his car. They located twenty eight bags of heroin. Vargas who is from West Roxbury was charged with Distribution of Heroin, Trafficking Heroin and a School Zone Violation. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court but will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1773729607/Surveillance-by-Quincy-police-nets-an-alleged-West-Roxbury-heroin-dealer

School Zone.jpg

Quincy and Dedham, Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Usually in cases like this one the person who is caught buying the drugs gets charged with possession, particularly where he or she is seen injecting the drugs. This is done for a couple of reasons. First, the user or purchaser just committed a crime. Second, if charged he will Hire a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer which will eliminate him as a potential witness in the case. As a Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer I would have my investigator contact the purchaser to see if his story matched the facts related in the police report. If not this individual might be a valuable witness either at trial of to attack the validity of the Search and Seizure of Vargas.

Continue Reading

| by

Linda Ricciardelli is forty three years old. She is a bus driver. She has been charged with Trafficking Heroin and Trafficking Oxycontin. She is also facing Gun Charges in the Lynn District Court stemming from the same investigation. According to the Salem News an investigation started after Ricciardelli’s neighbors made unspecified complaints to police. A series of controlled buys of drugs from Ricciardelli was conducted. Yesterday she was arrested after selling one hundred fifty eighty milligram Oxycontins to an undercover person. Ricciardelli’s home was subsequently searched. The search revealed a substantial amount of cash, heroin and Percocets. Previous undercover buys from Ricciardelli in Lynn resulted in the seizure of Firearms. Bail has been set at five thousand dollars cash. As of now Ricciardelli has been charged with Trafficking, Possession With Intent and Possession of Controlled Substances.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1036628224/Woman-charged-in-sales-of-guns-opiates

Oxycontin.jpg

Peabody Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer, Heroin, Oxycontin

Massachusetts Courts have stated that information establishing that a person is guilty of a crime does not necessarily constitute probable cause to search the person’s home. Similarly, probable cause to expect that drugs will be present in a home is not established by the fact that the defendant lives there. Even if the defendant drives from his home to the location of a drug transaction, and returns to his home on the transaction’s conclusion, that, with nothing more does not provide probable cause to issue a search warrant. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer with Experience Defending Drug Cases I would be interested in learning more about this investigation. If Ricciardelli is able to prevail on a Motion to Suppress man of the charges against her will be dismissed.

Continue Reading

| by

As referenced in many of my blog posts more and more Investigatory Stops in Massachusetts are originating with 911 cell phone calls. These typically involve someone witnessing a crime and making an “anonymous” call. I use quotes in that the police can usually determine from caller identifications the source of the call. Now however the Bristol County District Attorney, Samuel Sutter is trying to implement a program that will permit people to send anonymous tips through text messages. I suppose anonymity under this new program will be more realistic. Police dispatchers can ask 911 callers for their name and they can often determine whether the caller was male, female, young, old or had some sort of accent. The same determination cannot be made by viewing a typical text message. However, the article suggests that the system Sutter’s office would use receives the text messages after they have been assigned two aliases so that anonymity is protected. The police would then respond to the tipster through the alias.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x53546646/Bristol-County-District-Attorney-Samuel-Sutter-looks-into-text-a-tip-service

tips.jpg

Informants in Massachusetts

There are strict requirements of reliability in Massachusetts that govern the use of Informants in Massachusetts. These requirements become relaxed when the name of the informant is provided. Thus, in cases of identified 911 callers the prosecution has a reduced burden in justifying otherwise constitutional intrusions. In the absence of disclosing the identity of the informant the district attorney must show that the informant was reliable and had a basis of knowledge for the information provided. Independent police corroboration can make up for any deficiencies in these two criteria. However, as the United States Supreme Court has stated, “If the [tip] is truly anonymous, the informant has not placed his credibility at risk and can lie with impunity. The reviewing court cannot judge the credibility of the informant and the risk of fabrication becomes unacceptable”. My opinion as a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney is that if this new program is created in Bristol County there may be some problems sustaining certain prosecutions. This will certainly make for some interesting criminal litigation.

Continue Reading

| by

In Commonwealth v. Dwayne Williams, decided earlier today, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the decision of a district court judge suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence. The facts in Williams are as follows:

A Boston Police Officer responded to a call stating that a man (the defendant) had been stabbed and was being treated at the Boston Medical Center. The detective went to the hospital and tried to speak with him. The defendant refused to answer any questions about the stabbing. He had blood on his clothing. The clothing was placed in a plastic bag by hospital personnel. Over the defendant’s objection the officer took the clothes to the crime lab for testing. Inside one of the defendants boots the officer located some crack cocaine. The judge hearing the motion to suppress the seizure of the drugs agreed that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated and the evidence was suppressed.

The district attorney appealed the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Court agreed with the lower court judge and found that in this case the police presumptively violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by taking his clothes over his objection. The Court held that the defendant retained a possessory interest in his clothing. He never forfeited that right. There was no exception to the requirement that the police obtain a warrant prior to seizing and searching the clothes. Thus, suppression of the evidence was found proper.

4th Amendment.jpg

Massachusetts Search and Seizure Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney defending Drug Cases I handle a large number of drug cases each year. One of the best tools to combat allegations of Drug Possession or Drug Distribution is the motion to suppress. Massachusetts laws and its constitution through Article 14 provide greater protections against police intrusions than does the United States Constitution. A successful motion to suppress usually results in the district attorney not being able to prosecute the case. A dismissal of the charges will often be the end result. This is why it is critical that you choose the right lawyer to defend you against drug charges.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that nearly seven years ago a significant amount of drug evidenced was stolen from the Dracut Police evidence storage facility. In total about eighty thousand dollars or marijuana was taken from the locked trailer. The officer took the test on December 15, 2009. The results were deemed “inconclusive with suspected countermeasures taken”. The suggestion is that the officer tried to cheat the test. Consequently, on March 3, 2010 another polygraph test was given. This time, it was concluded that the officer failed. Law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts were unable to crack the case. The state statute of limitations has expired and criminal charges cannot be filed against the officer in Massachusetts. However, federal laws provide another avenue for prosecution that permits more time to file charges. An unnamed federal agency is currently investigating this case.

Read Article:

The Law Pertaining to Lie Detector Tests in Massachusetts

lie detector.jpg

Lie Dectector (Polygraph) Tests in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts polygraph evidence is inadmissible for any purpose in a criminal trial. This has been the law for over twenty years since the Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Mendes, 406 Mass. 201 (1989). About seven years later the Supreme Judicial Court retreated from its stance on this position and suggested that polygraph evidence might be admissible in a criminal case provided that its reliability is established by proof that a qualified tester who conducted the test had in similar circumstances demonstrated, in a statistically valid number of independently verified and controlled tests, the high level of accuracy of the conclusions that the tester reached in those tests. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 422 Mass. 385 (1996). This ruling notwithstanding lie detector tests are still not used in criminal cases in this state. The prospect of using one of these tests in an appropriate case is something that I would welcome.

Continue Reading

| by

At 4:00 a.m. yesterday morning police responded to 27 Washington Street in Lawrence, Massachusetts for a call regarding commotion at that address. A patrolman knocked on the door waiting for someone to answer. While doing so he saw the defendant, Sandy Santos placing “something” underneath a seat cushion. The patrolman was then permitted to enter the home. When he did he looked under the cushion and saw a loaded .38 caliber handgun. Santos was arrested and charged with Carrying a Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition and Possession of a Loaded Firearm. The report states that the gun is being tested for fingerprints and DNA. The case is being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_068001139.html

handgun.jpg

Massachusetts Gun Case Defense Lawyer

The charge of Carrying a Firearm carries with it a mandatory minimum eighteen month house of correction sentence. However, the statute prohibiting that activity, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10(a) exempts such conduct where the activity occurs at home or at work. Here, the article states that Santos was at home at the time of the incident. I am also curious as to why the gun would be tested for fingerprints. The article states that the officer saw Santos place the gun underneath the seat cushion. Why then would it be necessary to have it printed or tested for DNA evidence. It is also suspect that Santos would offer entry to the officer. There was no search warrant. There was no probable cause to arrest. The officer had no legal right to enter the property. Why then would Santos open the door and let him in? This case is full of issues that bode well for the defense.

Continue Reading

| by

Carlos Vergara of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Ana Maria Feliciano of Brockton were arrested after undercover police officers purchased drugs from the pair in the South Shore Plaza parking garage. According to reports this was not the first transaction involving the two in recent times. It is alleged that Vergara and Feliciano sold drugs in the Stoughton area and will be facing charges there as well. As to this incident, officers arranged to meet the two at the mall. An officer entered their car where he bought four bags of heroin and four bags of cocaine. Surveillance officers immediately descended and made the arrest. Both now face charges of Conspiracy, Distribution of Cocaine, Distribution of Heroin and a School Zone Violation. The article does not say how officers initially learned of the drug dealings of the two. Charges are pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x699611902/Couple-charged-with-selling-drugs-in-South-Shore-Plaza-garage

Heroin 2.jpg

Hand to Hand Sales of Drugs in Massachusetts

Drug sales to undercover police officers are rarely a cut and dry completely indefensible matter. Usually the officers get to the suspects through informants who provide information about the person’s drug activities. Many times the information is inaccurate. Informants often get paid for their services. They might get cash. They might get some consideration for a pending case of their own. Their pending case might even get dismissed. Police who use informants are obligated to prove that the informant was reliable, the the information he provided was truthful and at times must be sufficiently corroborated. If these standards cannot be met then the undercover “controlled” purchase might be suppressed. I have no doubt that Search and Seizure issues will come into play in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Metrowest Daily News Melissa Barbor and Larry Fitzpatrick, both of Framingham, Massachusetts have been charged with Massachusetts Drug Crimes. It was reported that shortly before 7:00 a.m. police arrived with a search warrant at their Alexander Street home. There is no indication about where the police located the drugs nor did the article reference the quantity of the substance seized. The two will be arraigned in the Framingham District Court. It is likely that the prosecution will remain in that court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x49438535/Two-arrested-on-drug-charges-in-Framingham

cocaine packages.jpg

Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyers, Possession With Intent, Cocaine, Framingham

From this article I can assume a couple of things. One, the quantity of cocaine is less than fourteen grams. Had the police located and seized fourteen or more grams the charge would have been Trafficking rather than Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine. Two, the apartment lies within one thousand feet of a school zone. There are often successful defenses to cases such as this. If the search warrant was not properly issued the defendants can mount a constitutional challenge to the search. If a judge agrees that their rights were violated the remedy is usually suppression of the illegally seized substances. The result will be a dismissal of the case. Sufficiency of the evidence is also a defense in many cases like this one. The district attorney must prove that both defendants not only knew that the drugs were in the home but that both shared the intent to distribute the substances. Absent corroborating statements from the defendants this can be a difficult burden to sustain as to both defendants.

Continue Reading