Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Rafael Esquilin, 30, was arrested on charges of possession of a Class B drug with intent to distribute, after police found several bags each containing about six grams of cocaine on his person reports the Dedham Transcript.

Dedham police had been conducting surveillance of an admitted drug user prior to Esquilin's arrest. When the resident of the home and Esquilin were spotted in the driveway making what looked to the police to be some sort of exchange while seated in Esquilin's car, the police investigated further only to find that Esquilin had failed to have his vehicle inspected.

The lack of a proper vehicle inspection sticker is what gave the police reason to stop Esquilin; police cannot, without more, act solely on a hunch that a drug transaction has taken place. In these types of cases, where police allege that they observed a drug transaction, an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney will often file a motion to suppress, arguing that there was not probable cause or reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant.

Esquilin pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Dedham District Court on the drug charge as well as charges of driving with a revoked license and driving with no inspection sticker.

Attorney Michael DelSignore is a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, defending individuals charged with criminal offenses throughout the Commonwealth. Call (508) 455-4755 now for a free consultation or send an email.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court found an inventory search in a drug case to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution. In Commonwealth v. Vanya V, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 379 (2009), decided October 9, 2009, the court ruled that the police improperly searched a locked bag as no exception to the warrant requirement justified the search and the search was not conducted pursuant to an inventory policy to constitute an inventory search. In Vanya V, the officer found a locked bank bag inside a backpack. The officer attempted to gain consent to search the bank bag but it was denied and instead the officer opened the bag by using a knife to tear the stitches of the bag. Drugs and money were found inside the bag.

To conduct a search the police must have a warrant unless an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 apply. One exception is the inventory search exception. The rationale behind the inventory search exception is to protect the property of the person arrested, protect the police from false claims of theft and to protect the public. A valid inventory search must be conducted pursuant to a written policy by the police department.

In the case of Vanya V, the inventory search policy failed to have any policy or procedure that would authorize a police officer to open closed containers in every case. Accordingly, because the inventory policy of the police department did not provide detailed procedures as to how the police were to conduct the inventory search with regard to locked containers as opposed to closed containers, the court suppressed the evidence of narcotics found in the containers and used to support the Massachusetts drug charges against the defendant.

Massachusetts drug and gun charges often involve hearing to suppress evidence based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, a motion to suppress is a critical part of the defense of drug and gun cases and can result in charges being dismissed.

Acting on anonymous tips about frequent comings and goings at a Hough's Neck house supplied by neighbors, Quincy police made three arrests of suspected drug dealers. All three are believed to operate independently of one another. After two months of surveillance, drug unit detectives collected enough information to apply for warrants and searched the men's homes. The charges following from the searches conducted under these warrants include possession of illegal drugs with intent to distribute. The Quincy Patriot Ledger's report does not specify the basis for the warrants other than that "people in Hough's Neck reported frequent comings and goings" at the homes of two of the men. This leaves me wondering, as a Quincy narcotics crimes defense lawyer, what the police and the neighbors actually saw, and what they assumed, about the men's activities.

With the warrants they obtained, police first searched the apartment of Marco Rose, 26, and arrested him on charges of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, as well as marijuana possession. After pleading innocent at his arraignment in Quincy District Court, he was released without bail and is to appear in court again on April 23. Police also searched the apartment of John DeFranco, 25, found heroin and arrested him on charges of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Like Rose, he pleaded innocent, was released without bail and is due back in court on April 23. Then, police searched the home of John Wittekind, 55, and arrested him on charges of trafficking in heroin, Percocet, oxycodone and Viagra. The news report does not give any information about his arraignment.

The news report also does not provide information about how or where the drugs were found in the men's homes, but as a Massachusetts drug crimes criminal defense attorney, I have seen enough drug offense cases to know that people charged with these crimes can still be found not guilty of them in court. I would ask a lot of questions about the warrants: Was there really probable cause for the police to believe that they would find drugs or drug paraphernalia in the men's homes? Could they imagine no other reason that there might be a lot of people coming and going, besides drug dealing? And the police relied on anonymous tips from neighbors to zero in on the men in the first place. Informants have to be considered reliable and trustworthy in order for the information they supply to serve as the basis for a warrant. Tips from anonymous neighbors are far from reliable; neighbors may have personal grudges that have nothing to do with drugs, or may not be neighbors at all. Additionally, I would ask a lot of questions about how police decided that the men had intent to distribute. Many times, law enforcement assumes the intent based solely on the amount of drug found, regardless of whether there is any evidence of sales.

If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot answer these questions satisfactorily, an experienced Massachusetts drug crimes defense attorney may be able to undermine the case against the defendant. If the warrants were obtained without sufficient probable cause, all evidence found in the searches could be suppressed. Ths is important, because anyone in a situation like the one Rose, DeFranco, and Wittekind find themselves in is facing years in prison, possibly decades. Defendants in this situation need a Quincy drug crimes attorney who knows what questions to ask and how to respond to the answers.

Continue reading "Quincy Police Arrest Three on Massachusetts Drug Charges" »

A Hudson auto shop owner faces drug- and weapon-related charges based on searches of his business and home, according to a recent report in the MetroWest Daily News. Richard Hatch, Jr., 38, of Sudbury, was arrested along with Carl Lagrassa, 40, of Marlborough, after a police search of Hatch's business, Advanced Automotive Experts. The search, for which police had a warrant, yielded a semiautomatic handgun and a rifle, for which Hatch did not have a permit. Police also found and confiscated 150-200 prescription pills for drugs such as Ambien, a sedative sleep aid, and two opiates used to treat opiate addiction, methadone and Suboxone. Officers also seized a cell phone, a computer, and about $175 in cash from the auto shop.

It was not clear why police originally searched the shop. However, after the shop's search, Sudbury police searched Hatch's home and Marlborough police searched Lagrassa's apartment. The search of Hatch's home yielded eight rifles, a black-powder rifle, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and more prescription pills. The search of Lagrassa's apartment also yielded more prescription pills, including the painkiller Suboxone (buprenorphine), and weapons, including a .44 caliber Smith & Wesson, other handguns, and a loaded 12-gauge shotgun. The weapons and ammunition were stored in a wooden gun case. According to court records, Lagrassa had a permit for large-capacity firearms, but police suspended it because he was selling prescription drugs. Police also observed a man enter and exit Lagrassa's apartment before the search; upon pulling over his car after he left, they found two bottles of Suboxone with Lagrassa's name on them in the car.

Hatch has been charged with possession of a Class B substance with the intent to distribute, possession of a Class C substance with the intent to distribute, possession of a Class E substance with the intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a firearm and improper storage of a firearm, all based on the search of his auto shop. Charges resulting from the search of Hatch's home have not been filed. Lagrassa was charged with possession of a Class C substance and improper storage of a firearm. Both Hatch and Lagrassa were arraigned in Marlborough District Court, were released on $500 and $300 cash bail respectively, and will return in April for pretrial hearings.

As a Marlborough, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer with expertise in drug and weapon offenses, it is clear to me that anyone charged with such offenses should contact an experienced lawyer immediately. Possession of a firearm without a Firearm Identification Card carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence. Drug possession with intent to distribute is a felony and can result in substantial jail time, oppressive probationary conditions and loss of driving privileges. However, prosecutors may simply assume that there was intent to sell based on the amount of the drug found. A Westborough, Massachusetts drug crimes defense lawyer can help anyone faced with such charges by forcing prosecutors to prove that there was such an intent -- and intent is difficult to prove. An experienced attorney can also review the search warrant to determine whether it was obtained and executed properly.

Continue reading "Police Search Results in Weapon and Drug Charges for Sudbury and Marlborough Men" »

A Massachusetts assault and battery charge was brought against Glen Schuele in the Attleboro District Court, according to the Attleboro Sun Chronicle.

The defendant is charged with domestic assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and intimidation of a witness. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A, an assault and battery charge with a dangerous weapon is a felony offense in Massachusetts.

According to the alleged victim's statement in court, there was no knife involved in the incident. Given that the victim appears to deny a knife being involved, the defendant may be able to have this charge dismissed through negotiations with the prosecutor or a motion before the court.

Massachusetts assault and battery charges require careful investigation, often require the need to interview witnesses in order to formulate a defense to the charges.

Continue reading "Man faces Massachusetts assault and battery charge out of the Attleboro District Court" »

A New Bedford district court judge allowed Massachusetts larceny charges to go forward in a case of an apparent damsel in distress who is accused of tricking people into giving her money by pretending to be in distress, according to the Southcoast Today news paper.

The defendant, Wendy Price-Baldassari's Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the charges arguing that there was no probable cause for the magistrate to allow the charges to be brought to court. A motion to dismiss is a motion that can be raised prior to trial and seeks to have the charges dismissed based on a lack of probable cause. A motion to dismiss can encompass the entire criminal complaint or may target one or more charges in attempt to have them dismissed. When a judge reviews a motion to dismiss, the judge construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth to determine whether the magistrate properly found probable cause to issue the complaint. Probable cause is a low standard of proof that is much less than the standard of proof at a criminal trial, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge in Price-Baldassari's case denied the criminal defense lawyer's motion to dismiss, meaning that the case will proceed through the discovery and pretrial phase, and may require a trial for resolution.

Continue reading "Judge allows New Bedford, Massachusetts larceny charges to proceed in "damsel" case " »

The Obama Administration is taking heat from Republican senators and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for remarks the President made during the State of the Union, which were critical of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance reform.

The independence of the court is little debated and often taken for granted. But an independent court is vital to democracy and has a far-reaching impact, from national debate over abortion and gun control to future cases the court might hear regarding Massachusetts criminal defense.

The judicial branch must operate independently of the executive branch (White House) and the legislative branch (Congress), which is the primary reason why Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the bench for life.

FOX News is reporting that two senators (with no apparent acknowledgment of the irony of the legislative branch now becoming involved with court affairs) have called on Obama to stop criticizing the court. Chief Justice John Roberts took umbrage at the President's criticism during his State of the Union address.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he agreed with Roberts, who also said it was "very troubling" that the annual speech has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

"But the president was wrong on the law, he was wrong on the facts and I thought it was unseemly for him to criticize the Supreme Court while they're sitting there ... they're a separate branch of government. They're not there to be lectured to by the president of the United States."

During the speech, at which six of the justices were in attendance, Obama criticized a 5-4 January decision that found government limits on corporate funded, independent political broadcasts during elections constitute a violation of free speech rights.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, also chimed in to voice his criticism.

"I was disappointed and dismayed to hear the president of the United States mischaracterize the decision of the Supreme Court and scold the members of the court in his State of the Union address for something they didn't do," Sessions said.

Chief Justice Roberts, speaking on Tuesday at the University of Alabama, questioned whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stood by the President's comments, saying the flood of corporate money is drowning out the voice of average Americans.

"The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government," Gibbs said. "That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

The Washinton Post said the issue may be resonating with voters after 1,500 comments were posted on its website.

The Wall Street Journal said the incident may be the most overt criticism of the court by a sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt engaged in an epic battle with the court over New Deal initiatives.

Continue reading "President Obama criticizes United States Supreme Court prompting response from Chief Justice" »

John Rooney of Randoph was arraigned in Stoughton District Court last Monday on the murder of Georgios Kontsas, 78, according to the Boston Herald. In addition to the pending murder charge, Rooney is also accused of stabbing Kontsas' wife, Dorothea.
Prosecutors say that it was Dorothea's description of the man who killed her husband, and of the man's SUV that led police to Rooney. Ronney's Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer waived argument on bail and set the matter down for a probable cause hearing as the case will be indicted and brought to the superior court.

At around 10 a.m. on Saturday, February 27th, a thin, dirty-blond haired man knocked on the door of the Kontsas' home. Dorothea told police that she recalled seeing a small green SUV outside of her home around the same time. When Dorothea opened the door, the man handed her an envelope addressed to her son and immediately stepped into the couple's foyer while saying "Give me the money, give me the money."

The man then stabbed Georgios and his wife using a knife with a 12-inch serrated blade. Assistant District Attorney Brian Wilson said that Georgios died on the scene while his wife, who had sustained several stab wounds including one to the neck, escaped to a neighbor's house where the police were called.

Based on the description given by Dorothea, police went to Rooney's home where they found a small, green SUV with blood stains inside. Other evidence recovered included two folded envelopes contained inside the envelope the man handed to Dorothea, one of which contained a fingerprint belonging to Rooney.
In addition to the charge of murder, Rooney is also charged with assault on a person over the age of 60 with the intent to murder, home invasion, armed assault in a dwelling as well as assault and battery on a person over 60.

Continue reading "Stoughton, Massachusetts police bring murder charges in stabbing case" »

A 35-year-old Dorchester man is facing Massachusetts drug charges and serious driving violations in Framingham District Court after being arrested by Framingham police on Sunday night.

This case involves a Massachusetts search warrant and charges the defendant as a repeat drug offender. A Massachusetts defense lawyer experienced in search and seizure laws and drug violations should be called to represent the defendant in Framingham District Court.

The Metro Daily News reported the defendant managed to evade several pursuing police cars in Natick but was later captured by Framingham police after his car ran out of gas.

He was arrested about 8:45 p.m. on Pamela Road in Framingham, more than two hours after Natick police first attempted to pull him over on Route 9, according to authorities. Police reported they had a search warrant for the defendant's Chrysler as part of a drug investigation.

An officer spotted his car and attempted to make a traffic stop, but police report that the defendant drove through seven red lights and around several police cars -- at one point, traveling the wrong way on Route 9 near Natick Collection. Police lost the car on Concord Street in Framingham after a four-mile chase.

Framingham police reported finding the car and the defendant in the Temple Beth Shalom parking lot on Pamela Road, where it had run out of gas.

The defendant was charged with distributing cocaine, a subsequent offense, driving with a license that was revoked for being a habitual offender, failing to stop for police and driving to endanger.

The case is under investigation and it is not known whether drugs were found in the car. The defendant was released after posting $1,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in Framingham District Court.

Continue reading "Dorchester man faces Massachusetts drug charges in Framingham District Court" »

As a Massachusetts drug possession lawyer, I was troubled to read a March 5 report in the Providence Journal that detailed the arrest of three Providence police officers in a drug sting. After conducting a four-month undercover investigation relying on an informant, wiretaps, vehicle tracking devices, and photographs, the state police and FBI determined that the three officers were involved with a drug ring. Along with the officers, three other people were arrested and more may be sought as "persons of interest." One officer was released on personal recognizance prior to arraignment, while the other five people arrested spent the night in jail.

Providence narcotics detective Joseph Colanduono, 44, helped to sell cocaine. In addition to his duties for the city, Colanduono was assigned to work with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. Gonsalves, a former driver for Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline., used cocaine himself and solicited others to commit crimes. Gonsalves and Colanduono had both received honors for their police work in the past. Cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, $9000 in cash, and a loaded gun were seized in police searches connected with the officers' arrest.

Cicilline said that the officers' arrest will have "very serious consequences. Good law enforcement relies on the public's trust and confidence in the Police Department and, any time a police officer engages in this kind of behavior, that trust and confidence is undermined." Cicilline wants tests and has within the Police Department.

As a Massachusetts drug possession attorney, I am all too aware of the serious penalties for anyone convicted in Massachusetts (and Rhode Island) of the offenses that these officers are charged with. Anyone charged with drug possession or distribution needs zealous representation by an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney like Attorney Michael DelSignore. Attorney DelSignore may be able to successfully defend those charged with drug offenses by getting improperly collected evidence and unconstitutional testimony excluded.

Continue reading "Providence Police Officers Arrested in Drug Sting" »

A 23-year-old North Smithfield woman has pleaded not guilty to Massachusetts assault charges for allegedly throwing a cup of hot coffee on a marking enforcement officer.

Eyewitness News 12 reported the woman is facing an assault and battery with a dangerous weapon charge in Brookline District Court.

A Massachusetts defense lawyer experienced in handling charges involving an assault on a law enforcement officer should be called to represent anyone accused of a physical altercation with a police officer or security guard.

Police report that the 23-year-old North Smithfield, R.I., woman tossed her hot coffee on the 64-year-old Brookline parking enforcement officer as the officer was writing out a $25 ticket for an expired meter on Tuesday.

The security guard was not hurt. Certainly, whether law enforcement should consider a beverage as a "dangerous weapon" in an assault will be an issue for a Massachusetts defense attorney to contest.

A friend of the defendant's said the security guard instigated the argument; the defendant was released on her own recognizance and ordered to return to court in April.

Continue reading "Woman faces Massachusetts assault and battery charges for tossing hot coffee on parking officer" »

A Raynham, Massachusetts man has been charged with a Massachusetts criminal assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after confronting his noisy neighbors with a knife. The Taunton Gazette reported that Manuel Aviles, 55, was arraigned in Taunton District Court last Friday and subsequently released on personal recognizance.
According to authorities, Aviles had "had enough" of the noisy family next door. Last Thursday night, instead of phoning the police, Aviles grabbed a 7-inch butcher knife and confronted his 48-year-old neighbor in the laundry room of their apartment building.
The confrontation ended when the intended victim's wife tackled Aviles. The woman later told police officers that she had "man handled" Aviles and that she could have hurt him if she wanted to.
No one was injured in the scuffle; in fact, Aviles was allowed to return to his apartment with his knife. During their investigation, police reported that Aviles appeared to be intoxicated and that he did not explain why he had failed to call 911.
A Taunton, Massachusetts criminal defense attorney would want to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident and interview witnesses through the use of a private investigator to prepare a defense to the Massachusetts assault charges.

Continue reading "Raynham, Massachusetts man charged with assault and battery after confronting noisy neighbors " »

Jason Burns faces an arraignment in Attleboro District Court on Massachusetts criminal charges of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony, larceny over $ 250.00, resisting arrest and intimidation of a witness. Burns is charged with three felony offenses and one misdemeanor offense, resisting arrest. According to news accounts, Burns was caught by the homeowners breaking into the house. In light of the apparent strength of the Commonwealth's case, Burns will likely face a high bail and his Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer will likely try to obtain a plea agreement in the case.