Articles Posted in Search and Seizure

| by

Law enforcement officials received information that Halison Hernandez of Lynn, Massachusetts was selling cocaine as part of a large scale operation. Accordingly they started an investigation. During the course of their efforts local police agencies were able to infiltrate the organization with an undercover officer who made several purchases of large quantities of cocaine from Hernandez. The investigation lasted several months. Just two days ago the work of the police culminated in a controlled buy. An undercover office paid Hernandez sixty two thousand dollars for two kilograms of cocaine. Hernandez was arrested as were Joel Gonzalez of Lynn, Massachusetts and Ryan Fulti of Salem, Massachusetts. Gonzalez and Fulti were in a separate car that was used to deliver the drugs for Hernandez. All men have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 200 Grams. The case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court.

Read Article: Massachusetts Men From Essex County Charged With Cocaine Trafficking

Trafficking Cocaine in Massachusetts in an amount that exceeds two hundred grams carries the most severe punishment. Assuming there is no school zone violation the defendants face a minimum mandatory fifteen year state prison sentence. Hand to hand sales to undercover police officers are very difficult to defend. Usually the only defense to one of these cases involves entrapment. As I have mentioned in prior blog posts, entrapment occurs when the idea to commit certain crimes is provided by law enforcement or one of its agents and the target or defendant is not predisposed to commit the crime. There must be a showing of an effort on the part of the police to overcome the will of the defendant and essentially make him commit the crime or leave him with the understanding that he has no choice but to commit the criminal act.

Continue Reading

| by

Following a six month criminal investigation involving several Massachusetts law enforcement agencies two Northborough residents were arrested last week and charged with various drug related crimes. It was reported that either Edward Letourneau or Mary Anne Belanger, residents of Northborough were distributing cocaine from their home. When police made the arrests they found over fifty grams of crack cocaine, other drugs (Class E substances) and ammunition. Letourneau was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, possession of ammunition and conspiracy. Belanger was charged with conspiracy. Criminal charges against both defendants are pending in the Westborough District Court. Final jurisdiction of these charges will likely be in the Worcester Superior Court.

Read Article:

Criminal Charges Filed Against Two Massachusetts Men Caught With Cocaine

Trafficking cocaine carries a minimum mandatory state prison sentence in Massachusetts. The threshold for trafficking cocaine is fourteen grams. When more than twenty eight grams and less than one hundred grams is alleged to be the amount trafficked the minimum mandatory sentence is five years. Conspiracy charges do not carry any mandatory period of incarceration. It appears that the police investigation centered on controlled purchases of cocaine either using undercover police officers and/or confidential informants. The article is silent as to whether the arrest was made pursuant to a warrant, after a controlled buy or during the execution of a search warrant.

Continue Reading

| by

Shortly after 11:10 p.m. yesterday a Massachusetts State Trooper observed a car pass him on Route 495 at a speed estimated around one mile per hour. A chase followed. The officer observed the vehicle exit the highway at Route 110 in Haverhill, Massachusetts. According to the officer the driver’s speeds ranged from fifty five miles per hour to eighty five miles per hour once off of the highway. Haverhill Police officers observed the car for short periods of time but were unable to follow it. The car was finally found abandoned on Central Street in Haverhill. Two men walking near the scene were arrested. One of the men, Aldis Sureo was charged with receiving stolen property. The other man, Aneudis Mendez was charged with disorderly conduct. Charged are pending in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Car Chase Leads To Criminal Charges For Two Massachusetts Men

One thing that comes to mind when reading this article is why did the police stop Sureo and Mendez. Massachusetts law states that in order to lawfully conduct an investigatory stop there can be no more than a brief non-intrusive detention of the person and it must be supported by specific and articulable facts sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion. If officers ask questions with a show of authority an illegal seizure may have occurred. If the officers actions were sufficiently coercive or intimidating a seizure might have occurred. The positioning of officers during the encounter factors into its constitutionality as well. In cases such as this one the defendant’s chance of success often rests on the legality of the stop. A motion to suppress can at times result in a dismissal of the case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a Lawrence Massachusetts man was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm without a license, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, and possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card. The Tribune reports that police were called to the Fern Street neighborhood due to reports of a man firing up to six gunshots “over his head.” During the early morning hours, a neighbor heard commotion and went to his window where he saw a pair of men. One of the individuals was “holding a gun over [the other person’s] head.” After repeatedly firing the gun, witnesses stated that the man walked into an apartment on Fern Street in Lawrence.

The police arrested this defendant and three of his roommates. The paper reports that one of the roommates was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest while the other two were charged as keepers of a disorderly home. Police recovered a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun behind the home. Shell casings were also recovered from the street.

If you have been charged with any crime, you must contact a Massachusetts defense attorney to ensure that all of your rights are protected. In any case where “possession” of the alleged item is an element of the crime and experienced trial attorney can evaluate whether filing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence is a viable option. A successful litigation of a motion to suppress evidence means the suppression of the physical evidence and often times dismissal of the case against a defendant.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it important that you contact a criminal attorney familiar with the elements that the government must prove to secure a conviction. For example, to prove the crime of discharging of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use you can face a penalty ranging from by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. However, there are exceptions to the enforcement of this law that include the lawful defense of life and property; any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined pursuant to statute; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with the statute.

Continue Reading

| by

Four mail carries who delivered mail in Lawrence Massachusetts have been charged with a number of offenses relating to receiving fraudulent prescriptions for Percocet from a long time receptionist at a North Andover doctor’s office. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that the receptionist and mother-in-law of one of the carriers, and another worker in the office, provided the prescriptions in the names of the carriers, which were then taken to local pharmacies to be filled.

The plot was successful until the doctor’s office received a call from a Methuen pharmacy because a patient attempted to fill the prescription in the same week. Suspecting foul play, the Doctor brought in the North Andover police and the investigation led to the arrests four mail carriers, and two employees of the doctor. According to reports, the carriers were using the Percocet for themselves and not dealing them for profit.

The carriers were each charged with receiving stolen property, uttering a false prescription, obtaining drugs by fraud, and conspiracy to violate drug laws. The receptionist. who accordinf to the police, is the mother-in-law of of one of the carriers, was charged with larceny under $250, forgery, uttering a false prescription, obtaining drugs by fraud, and conspiracy to violate drug laws. The other employee was charged with larceny under $250, forgery and conspiracy to violate drug laws. The crew is due back in court on June 19th.

Continue Reading

| by

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4 to 1 decision, ruled that the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office misinterpreted the “dangerousness statute” when proseuctor’s moved for detention against defendants charged with illegal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled against Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter’s interpretation of Massachusetts General Laws § 58A (1), which permits the Commonwealth to move for pretrial detention if a defendant has been charged with “any other felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result.”

In Commonwealth v. Young, following a § 58A hearing on October 26, 2007, a judge in the District Court, citing “firearm w/o license, FID” as predicate offenses, ordered that the defendant be detained pending trial. Young filed a petition for review of the pretrial detention order in the Superior Court. See § 58A (7). The petition was allowed and bail was set at $7,000 cash.

The Commonwealth subsequently sought relief from a single justice pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, contending that possessory firearm offenses come within § 58A (1), which permits the Commonwealth to move for pretrial detention if a defendant has been charged with “any other felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result.” § 58A (1) (residual clause). The single justice reserved and reported the cases to the full court. The Court agreed with the defendant and held that unlicensed possession of a firearm does not manifest a disregard for the safety and well-being of others, and therefore lacks the “menace of dangerousness” inherent in the crimes specifically included in § 58A (1). Justice Spina, writing for the majority, explained that, “[U]nlicensed possession of a firearm does not, by its nature, involve a substantial risk that physical force against another may result.”

If you have been charged with a violent crime or with illegal possession of a firearm in Massachusetts it is crucial that you have an experienced defense trial attorney from the beginning of your case. In order to prove illegal possession of a firearm the government must prove that an individual was in illegal possession of a working firearm. To prove possession the prosecutor must convince the jury that the defendant had actual physical or constructive possession of the alleged firearm. In order to prove constructive possession the government must prove that the defendant had the intent and ability to control the alleged firearm. They must also prove that the alleged weapon was capable of firing. If the firearm was not successfully fired on the first attempt, that is a fertile grounds to develop a successful defense.

Successful litigation of a weapons offense usually includes filing and litigation many non evidentiary and evidentiary pretrial motions. Non evidentiary motions often include a motion to inspect the firearm and for the defendant’s expert to present during any testing [DNA, fingerprinting and test firing]. In this type of offense, as with most offenses when an individual is charged with illegal contraband, an evidentiary motion to suppress physical evidence should be filed.

Continue Reading

| by

On January 26, 2009 Victor Oliveira’s home in Saugus, Massachusetts was raided. The police found 139 OxyContin pills, each 80 milligrams some other drugs and over eight thousand dollars cash. According to reports Oliveira told police that he was selling the OxyContin pills. After initially bringing this case in the Lynn District Court the case was indicted by the Essex County District Attorney’s Office. All charges against Oliveira are pending in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts. Oliveira has been charged with trafficking over twenty eight grams of a Class A substance.

Essex County District Attorney Indicts Massachusetts Men For Drug Trafficking

From the looks of things it seems like the strength of any defense lies in the defendant’s ability to attack the constitutionality of the search warrant. In order to obtain a search warrant the police must establish probable cause for a magistrate or judge to conclude that a particular object or place is being used to conduct criminal activity. The person who requests the search warrant must provide an affidavit that establishes facts that support the need for a search warrant. The affidavit must pass federal and state constitutional scrutiny. Typically the Massachusetts courts make the search warrant requirements more difficult to sustain than do the federal courts. Oliveira will likely file a motion to suppress. If successful there is always a good chance that his case will be dismissed.

Continue Reading

| by

Last Thursday night Haverhill police raided Gerald Boucher’s apartment on North Avenue. When the police entered the home Boucher and two other men were engaged in drug deal activities. The police found sixty two grams of cocaine, an ounce and a half or marijuana and a variety of drug paraphernalia. Boucher has been charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, trafficking cocaine, conspiracy and a school zone violation. The search was made pursuant to a search warrant that was issued out of the Haverhill District Court. The two other men, James Sarno and Alexander Frye were charged possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy and a school zone violation.

Massachusetts Man Charged With Various Drug Crimes

Trafficking cocaine in Massachusetts is a crime under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32E. The law states that anyone who possesses cocaine with the intent to distribute that substance, or does in fact distribute the cocaine is guilty of trafficking if the quantity exceeds fourteen grams. The penalty for trafficking over twenty eight grams is five years in state prison. This is a mandatory minimum sentence. The school zone violation adds another two years, mandatory to the sentence. So if Boucher is convicted he will have to serve seven years in state prison.

The fact that the drugs were found during a search made pursuant to a warrant always implicates Fourth Amendment issues. Typically motions to suppress the search are filed. If these are successful then the drugs are excluded as evidence and, in most instances the case gets dismissed. These cases also raise many interesting defenses. Absent any admissions by the defendants the question that arises is “whose drugs were these?”. There is often the contention that someone is buying the drugs for personal use and another person is selling the substances. Good Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers many times get great results on cases such as this one.

Continue Reading

| by

Easton, Massachusetts police detectives had been watching Stephen King for some time. This past Wednesday night their investigation culminated in his arrest. According to reports law enforcement agencies had information that King had been involved in cocaine trafficking in Bristol County. This information was sufficient for them to obtain search warrants for King’s home at an Easton Mobile Home Park and for a storage locker that he was renting. An execution of those search warrants uncovered approximately thirty thousand dollars worth of cocaine and nine thousand dollars cash. King was later located at a supermarket parking lot in Sharon. He had in his possession individually packaged bundles of cocaine and over two thousand dollars cash. King was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy and a school zone violation.

Cocaine Trafficking Charges In Store For Easton Man

Man Faces Cocaine Trafficking Charges In Bristol County

A couple of things immediately come to mind when reading these articles. 1) What information did the police have that enabled them to obtain search warrants for King’s home and storage locker and 2) what was their probable cause to arrest him in the supermarket parking lot.

Quite often the strength of the district attorney’s case for drug crimes lies with the constitutionality of the search warrant. If a search warrant is defective the search becomes invalid and the items seized during the search or going to be suppressed. Many times this leaves the prosecutor without a case against the defendant. Defense attorneys challenge the issuance of search warrants through motions to suppress. Many drug cases are won by the defense through this procedural mechanism. It would be interesting to see exactly what the police put in their affidavits when the applied for the search warrants in this case. If the warrants should not have issued then the drugs will be excluded from this prosecution. Similarly, King’s arrest may be found unconstitutional and the drugs found on him might be suppressed as well.

Continue Reading

| by

A one month long investigation into cocaine dealing in Malden and Everett resulted in the arrest of three locals. According to reports Jennifer Verderber, 21, of Medford George Graef, 33, and John Mazzeo, 27, both of Everett, have been charged with various drug crimes. It is alleged that Mazzeo and Verderber drove to the other defendant’s home and obtained from him a package containing cocaine. The two were followed and seen engaging a a drug transaction after which they were arrested. Police then went back to Graef’s home where they located and seized sixty grams of cocaine, nearly three thousand dollars cash, drug paraphernalia and scales. Graef was also arrested and charged with drug crimes. Charges are now pending in the Malden District Court.

Read Article: Three Getting Arraigned On Cocaine Charges In Malden District Court

The most serious charge all three might be facing is trafficking cocaine in excess of twenty eight grams, a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32E. The district courts in Massachusetts do not have jurisdiction over trafficking cases so the matter will likely be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn. There is a five year minimum mandatory sentence for anyone convicted of that crime. Based on the article, this case presents some interesting issues involving search and seizure law. Questions that come to mind are 1) did the police utilize and informant in this case, 2) to whom did Verderber and Mazzeo distribute drugs and what is that person’s role in this investigation, if any, 3) what probable cause did the police have to enter Graeff’s house, or how did they in fact gain entry. All three of these defendants might have some very strong defenses to these charges.

Continue Reading