Drug arrests in Massachusetts could be impacted by the case of Florida v. Harris, which the State of Florida filed a writ of certiorari requesting the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. To read the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Harris, click here.

In the case, the defendant was stopped for a technical motor vehicle infraction. The officer thought that the defendant was nervous and retrieved his narcotics detection dog which alerted the officer to the presence of narcotics in the vehicle.

The Florida Supreme Court held that evidence that a dog had been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the dog's reliability for the purpose of determining probable cause to arrest.

The State of Florida has brought the case before the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to reverse the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court filings are on the Scotus Blog, which contains the petition before the Court.

As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer, I expect that the United States Supreme Court will affirm the Florida Supreme Court decision and find that a certified and trained drug dog standing alone is insufficient to establish probable cause. The Florida Supreme Court held the State must present evidence of the training and certification record of the dog, the significance of the training, field performance records, evidence concerning the training and experience of the handler of the dog as well as any other objective evidence of the dog's reliability. These requirements are not burdensome to the State but serve the important interest of ensuring that the drug dogs are reliable before a court will find probable cause to search.

On Appeal, the State of Florida has argued that this holding is contrary to United States Supreme Court case law, federal law and the decision of other State courts. The United States Supreme Court has not decided whether to grant further review of this decision. This decision if affirmed by the United States Supreme Court would have a significant impact on Massachusetts drug crimes arrests.

According to Massachusetts domestic assault and battery law , assault occurs when a person is in imminent fear of bodily harm, with no actual contact occurring. When the alleged victim claims there was physical contact, it becomes an assault and battery charge against the defendant. Depending on the severity of the injuries, whether or not a weapon was used, and the identity of the victim, there are many different variations of an assault and battery charge.

Recently, The Sun Chronicle reported that an Attleboro man has been charged with domestic aggravated assault and battery against his 33 year old pregnant girlfriend. A state trooper traveling north on route 152 saw a man outside of a pick up truck yelling at a woman with his hand at her throat. When the trooper pulled over to intervene, the man was found allegedly choking his girlfriend. The woman was found crying with red marks on her neck. In Attleboro District Court, the defendant entered a not guilty plea. He was released on probation and has to report weekly to his probation officer while the case is pending. When an individual is released with conditions to comply with, if a defendant violates those conditions, the court may hold the defendant without bail or set a bail to ensure the defendant's appearance in court. In this case, conditions of release were set instead of requiring the defendant to post bail.

Many times the victim of a domestic assault and battery charge may have a motive to fabricate in order to get back at the accused. As previously mentioned, this can often occur when a relationship breaks up, during a divorce, or even custody disputes. It is crucial to have a knowledgeable Attleboro criminal defense attorney since the difference between being charged with a simple domestic assault or an assault with a dangerous weapon is significant. In Massachusetts, the assault and battery charge is a misdemeanor while an assault with a dangerous weapon is a felony offense. In District Court, the maximum penalty for both charges is 2.5 years in the house of correction.

Self-defense is often asserted in assault and battery charges arising out of bar room fights. In these types of cases, a defendant has to establish that the use of force was reasonable and justified and no more than necessary to deal with the threat to the victim or a third party. When given, the jury instruction on self-defense is very favorable to a defendant.

In self-defense cases, a criminal attorney in Massachusetts will want to learn as much about the complaining witness as possible to discover whether the complaining witness has any prior violent acts. Under the case of Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2004). a criminal lawyer in Massachusetts can admit prior violent acts of the victim to prove the identify of the first aggressor in a self-defense case. A defense attorney is permitted to introduce this evidence regardless of whether there client new of the prior violent acts as long as the procedure set forth is followed in the case. The Adjutant Court requires that the defense attorney provide notice of the intent to admit this evidence prior to trial.

If jurors continue to have this difficulty in understanding the distinctions, there could be very serious sentencing consequences for criminal defendants, especially in homicide cases. For example, in Massachusetts a "reckless" homicide sentence could range from a 2 to 6 year non-mandatory prison. A "knowing" homicide could yield a 16 to 48 year mandatory imprisonment. These sentencing ranging jumps would have an enormous legal significance for defendants according to the study in the New York University Law Review . The Model Penal Code typically requires that jurors infer the mental state of a criminal defendant at the time the crime was committed, since punishable guilt requires that bad thoughts accompany bad acts.

Massachusetts jurors must sort the defendants mental state into one of four specific categories- purposeful,knowing,reckless,or negligent. The category the jurors determine defines both the nature of the crime and degree of punishment. Therefore it is crucial that the jurors understand the distinction among the four. The Model Penal Code assumes that ordinary people can do this with a high degree of accuracy when properly instructed. However, this recent study of 1,326 participants yielded results that state otherwise. In many instances, the subjects reversed the MPC hierarchy and punished reckless behaviors more than they punished the knowing ones.

No Attleboro drug arrests have been made yet, but the chief has been investigating, despite a "code of silence," from within the department. The chief thinks drug testing could have prevented cocaine and other narcotics from being stolen and also will ensure it doesn't happen again.

Our Attleboro criminal defense lawyers understand law enforcement officers are sometimes far from perfect. In this case, at least one officer is guilty of an Attleboro theft crime, and one involving drugs, no less.

It calls into question the ethics of the officers working in that department. The fact that some officers are potentially criminals and are being paid to investigate crimes is a big concern. Another issue concerns the credibility of the rest of the evidence in that locker room. How can defendants be sure that evidence intended to try to put them in jail or prison hasn't been tampered with by officers?

The flip side of that coin is that, once accused, officers are even less likely to get the benefit of the doubt and an aggressive defense will be required. A conviction of any charge will almost certainly result in job loss and could end their career.

Drug testing for officers must be implemented through collective bargaining with unions. So the police chief is calling on lawmakers to create bills that would mandate random drug testing for public safety officials.

Attleboro and its police union are currently negotiating how to implement random drug testing. The police chief says officers are asking for pay raises if they are to submit to random drug testing, which is difficult to do.

Experts believe that unsolved police drug theft cases can ruin public trust in a police department, which can prove difficult for officers to overcome. In 2003, $80,000 worth of marijuana was stolen from a police storage facility in Dracut. Two officers were accused of being "intentionally deceptive" and were suspended last year. In 2006, Boston police found that in hundreds of cases drug evidence was stolen. Yet no one was arrested.

Some suggest that drug testing isn't the issue, but rather theft in Attleboro at the police department should be the focus. While video surveillance and a better electronic coding system are positive steps in the right direction, the story shows that police can be just as culpable as the defendants they arrest.

If the drugs that were stolen were used, they are out of the users system by now. Drug testing won't show who stole those drugs. The bottom line is that officers are stealing from their own department and evidence is being compromised. The Herald article also doesn't state which evidence was stolen.

It will be interesting to see from what cases the drugs were stolen and what is happening to those cases.

The Law Offices of Michael DelSignore are conveniently located in Stoughton, Attleboro, New Bedford and Westborough.

More Blog Entries:

Framingham Man Faces Massachusetts Gun, Drug Trafficking Charges: January 15, 2012

The couple was found with heroin and prescription drugs. Drug offenses in Massachusetts were made more difficult to prove by the United States Supreme Courts' decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

The police found two hypodermic needles on the floor of their vehicle and another was found in the pocket of Gaudreau's sweatpants. Paraphernalia with alleged heroin residue and brown liquid was also found. Bassett was in possession of 11 pills consisting of the prescription drugs of Suboxone and Diazapan.

To prove a drug possession charge in Massachusetts according, the Commonwealth must prove the following elements, that the defendant possessed an illegal drug, meaning that the defendant had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it and that it meets the legal definition under Massachusetts drug laws, which requires the Commonwealth to call a chemist or expert to testify as to the identity of a particular drug.

Gaudreau was ordered held in jail without bail for a probation violation hearing. When a defendant is on probation for criminal charges and commits a new offense, a judge can order a defendant held without bail pending the probation violation hearing. Given the seriousness of the new charges, it is not surprising that Gaudreau was held.

Bassett was ordered held in jail on $2,500 cash bail. The child was taken to Sturdy Memorial Hospital for an exam and placed in the custody of the State Department of Children and Families, according to the reporter. In addition to being charged with possession of heroin and unlawful possession of prescription pills, both also face child endangerment charges . The Attleboro couple is due back in court on February 7, 2012.