Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A Brockton couple was recently arrested in Whitman and now face charges of drug distribution from the back of their minivan, according to the Taunton Daily Gazette.

Charges of drug distribution or drug sales in Stoughton can be serious and can increase in severity based on many factors. Among them are the quantity of drugs allegedly sold, what type of drug, where the drugs are being sold and if there are other factors that may be used by police to enhance the penalties, such as if children are present, guns are used or the deal occurs in close proximity to a school.

Stoughton criminal lawyers understand that the government has been fighting the "War on Drugs" for decades and lawmakers are continuously updating and increasing drug crime penalties. A good portion of the number of people in our state prison system are there because of drug offenses. In some cases, treatment in lieu or jail is an option. In other cases, challenging evidence and preparing a case for trial offer the best options for a successful outcome.

There are defenses to these crimes, just like any other crime. In cases where an informant is used by law enforcement, there may be witness credibility issues that arise. If police don't properly obtain a warrant to search a home or vehicle, evidence may be subjected to a suppression motion. Rules must be followed and if overzealous police officers break them, that could benefit the defendant.

In this case, the newspaper reports, police received a tip that a man was selling oxycodone out of his vehicle after he was convicted last year of a similar offense. Police obtained a search warrant for the Dodge Caravan and stopped him after he pulled into a restaurant's parking lot.

Police allege that the driver, 43-year-old Kevin J. Connor, tried to run off, throwing a bag of oxycodone pills worth $400 onto the ground as he ran. Detectives found more pills, cash and two cell phones in the vehicle.

Last year, he received a suspended jail sentence for dealing oxycodone. Tina Foye, 42, a passenger in the minivan and who lives with Connor, was also arrested. The WEB Major Crimes and Drug Task Force -- with officers from Whitman, West Bridgewater, East Bridgewater and Bridgewater -- made the arrests.

The group has sought out oxycodone arrests, making it a focus of investigations the last 18 months, an officer said. Oxycodone is similar to morphine in its effect.

Connor recently pleaded guilty to a charge of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone after police raided his apartment and found 30 pills, plus marijuana and cash. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, but the sentence was suspended by a judge in Brockton District Court.

The news article doesn't make clear what charges the couple may face, though it implies Connor will face new charges of distribution of oxycodone. Charges for Foye, who was listed as a passenger in the minivan, are unclear.

For the passenger, who may have nothing to do with the drug sales, there may be a strong defense. For the driver, things may be different. But in a case such as this, the search warrant may be the most important factor. Finding out what officers based the affidavit for the search warrant on and how solid the information was will be key to fighting the initial stop and search.

Continue reading "Brockton Couple Accused of Making Drug Distribution out of Minivan" »

A Weymouth lawmaker has proposed bills that would squash Question 2, a three-year-old referendum that made possession of a small amount of marijuana a civil infraction rather than a criminal offense, The Patriot Ledger reports.

Three years ago, 65 percent of Massachusetts voters passed Question 2, a referendum on the 2008 ballot that made someone carrying an ounce of marijuana liable for a $100 fine, but not for arrest. The Patriot Ledger reports there is no record of how many people have been fined under the referendum in the three years since it was passed.

Attleboro drug defense lawyers believe that repealing this law after only three years would not only be irresponsible, but also in direct opposition to what the people want. Voters passed it. Now, the lawmakers they elected are trying to repeal it. It's not a unique tale. In the dozen states where medical marijuana has been legalized, lawmakers continue to quash user rights. And those in Massachusetts who think possession is no big deal, are often in for a big surprise.

There are so many laws regulating drug crimes in Attleboro and throughout the Commonwealth that lawmakers have a run of options on how to charge a defendant. We know there are better use for tax dollars in the criminal justice system than punishing people for possession of marijuana.

If the law ends up getting repealed, there will be many people arrested, which costs taxpayer dollars and law enforcement resources. Now, it simple costs the offender $100. Why go back to the old way?

State Rep. James Murphy has introduced two bills which were heard recently that would re-criminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

"The bills were originally designed and geared toward teenagers and young adults, primarily to make sure these kids don't receive the wrong message, that marijuana use is OK," he said.

Some local law enforcement officers actually support the bills. Quincy's police chief thinks communities should be able to opt out of the decriminalization under Question 2 and make the penalties even tougher. Paul Keenan says officers have seen more people with marijuana, which he attributes to the law.

Authorities have been fighting the "War on Drugs" for decades and they've done so unsuccessfully. Now, lawmakers are doing what they know -- trying to make penalties tougher. It won't work.

For people who have a desire to do drugs, they're going to find them. Many people have been arrested and convicted and still go back. Heightened penalties aren't the way to stop it.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Lawmaker Wants Small Amount of Marijuana to Be Illegal Again" »

Seven people, including a man the Commonwealth believes has a history of drug offenses, were recently arraigned in Framingham District Court on charges they were buying and selling heroin and cocaine, The MetroWest Daily News reports.

Drug charges in Framingham and throughout Massachusetts are serious crimes that can subject defendants to penalties that can range from months in jail to years in prison.

Quickly hiring an experienced and aggressive Framingham Drug Defense Attorney is the best strategy to combat the charges and protect a defendant's rights.

According to the story, prosecutors say detectives followed Luis Hernandez, 41, of Natick and saw him complete what they believed was a drug deal in the parking lot of his apartment with co-defendant Gina Stucchi, 32. In the car with Stucchi were co-defendants Jennifer Mackey, 36, and Maria Woods, 35.

When detectives followed the vehicle, they allegedly found the three people in the car, about to inject themselves with cocaine. One of the defendants told police they had just purchased cocaine from Hernandez.

Police then followed Hernandez, who was riding in an SUV containing his roommate Geraldine Martinez and Alisha Conti, 24. They dropped Conti off at Lowe's in Framingham and after Hernandez sold drugs to an unknown man in Natick, the vehicle returned to Lowe's, where Hernandez met another co-defendant, William Roberts, 47, of Natick.

Police say they witnessed another drug deal and when they approached to make an arrest; they said they saw Hernandez swallow what appeared to be a plastic bag of cocaine.

Martinez allegedly admitted there were drugs in the car and told police Hernandez kept drugs in a safe in their apartment. Conti allegedly told police she got heroin from Hernandez. Police searched the safe and found heroin, cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

• Hernandez was charged with distributing heroin, possessing heroin with the intent to distribute, conspiring to violate the state's drug laws and resisting arrest.
• Martinez was charged with possessing heroin with intent to distribute, possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, distributing cocaine and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Stucchi, of 107 Concord St., Holliston, was charged with distributing cocaine (subsequent offense) and conspiring to violate state drug laws.
• Woods, of 260 Union Ave., Framingham, was charged with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, possessing cocaine, intimidating a witness, providing police with a false name and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Roberts, of 3 Lake St., Natick, was charged with possessing heroin, resisting arrest and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Mackey, of 28 Dana Road, Framingham, was charged with distributing cocaine and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Conti, of 31 McAlee Ave., Framingham, was charged with possessing heroin.

This case will likely come down to police observations, if they were well-documented, as well as the statements of the co-defendants. First off, the defendants would have been better off had they not talked to police. Providing a statement to police is dangerous because it can be used against the defendant in court and it almost always hurts them.

In these cases, it is sometimes possible to refute the charges if a person is simply inside a vehicle at the time of an arrest. But admitting fault to an officer will have a negative effect on the probability of winning a case.

There are times when a statement and other evidence in drug cases can be tossed out. So, consult with an experienced Framingham Criminal Defense Attorney before doing anything else. Reviewing your case and being by your side from the beginning gives the best chance at a positive resolution.

Continue reading "Seven Charged in Drug Buying/Selling Sting in Framingham" »

The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a significant decision when it ruled that police can break down your door without a warrant if they believe you are destroying evidence, USA Today reports.

This is frustrating news for Quincy Criminal Defense Lawyers because it gives police more power to invade your privacy. The most important thing is to know your rights. If police knock on your door without a warrant, you have every right to refuse their entry. If you are arrested on drug charges in Massachusetts, contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer. In cases where police conducted an unlawful search, the charges against you may be reduced or dismissed.

The Supreme Court case was based on the arrest of a Kentucky man on drug possession charges. According to news reports, Lexington police chased a man who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant and then ran away. Police chased him to a nearby apartment building, but didn't see which apartment he entered.

When they smelled marijuana and heard a door slam, they broke down the door of one of the apartments, thinking evidence was being destroyed. While it wasn't the apartment of the man police were chasing, the country's high court ruled police can enter a home without a warrant when they believe evidence is being destroyed or there is some other emergency underway.

The case challenged the Fourth Amendment, which prevents police from entering your home without a warrant. And based on the 8-1 ruling, the rights of the individual to be free from unlawful search and seizure took a hit.

Drug crimes in Quincy, Massachusetts can be very serious, especially if you have prior convictions. But evidence can be challenged and an aggressive defense can keep clients out of prison. Massachusetts criminal attorneys will challenge the warrant police have for your home, car or business and if they don't have a warrant, we'll challenge that, too.

This court decision it doesn't mean law enforcement can just barge into your house unannounced for no reason. They have to have a reason and we will make them explain that reason in Massachusetts Superior Courts.

If you're charged with possession of illegal narcotics, distribution of narcotics, conspiracy to distribute drugs or participating in a joint venture involving drugs, contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue reading "Ruling Highlights Unlawful Search and Seizure in Massachusetts" »

High-profile Quincy developer William S. O'Connell recently pleaded not guilty to charges that he raped a child, paid for sex and trafficked cocaine, according to The Patriot Ledger.

Such charges require a dedicated and experienced Stoughton criminal defense attorney who has experience fighting sex crimes and drug crimes.

In sex cases, in particular, authorities often rely on the word of an alleged victim if DNA and other evidence isn't found, making it important for suspects not to try to talk their way out of an arrest. Before you speak to police, call a Massachusetts attorney. A well-trained attorney can work to suppress harmful evidence that may be used against you at trial.

In O'Connell's case, he is charged with having sex with a child between the age of 14 and 16. In a raid of his Marina Bay condominium, authorities say they seized 19 grams of cocaine. Authorities alleged O'Connell had several involvements with the child, beginning in the spring and summer of 2009 until March 2011.

He is due back in Quincy District Court on July 14 for a probable cause hearing. But the newspaper reports O'Connell may be indicted prior to the hearing, which would move the case to Superior Court in Dedham.

If convicted, O'Connell, 71, faces a 10-year minimum prison sentence on the rape charge and at least three years in prison if convicted of the trafficking charge, according to the newspaper. He was released on $150,000 bond.

Further, O'Connell was required to surrender his passport, stay in the state and have no contact with the alleged victim. He also can't have contact with any child younger than 16 and must submit to random drug testing.

Continue reading "Quincy Developer Pleads Not Guilty to Rape, Drug Charges in Quincy District Court" »

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed an important legal issues that arose once the Massachusetts legislature decriminalized simple possession of under one ounce of marijuana. Does the smell of burnt marijuana justify an order that a motorist exit a motor vehicle. In the case of Commonwealth v. Cruz, decided April 19, 2011, the SJC held that the smell of burnt marijuana alone does not justify an exit order.

The Cruz case involved the following facts. The defendant was a passenger in a car parked in front of a fire hydrant. The windows were rolled down in the car and the officers could see the driver light a cigar known to mask the smell of marijuana. The officers recognized the defendant and testified at the motion to suppress hearing that they saw the defendant smoking marijuana earlier in the day. Significantly, the defendant was not known to the officers as a dangerous person and even was counseled by one of the officers to "do more than hang out." The driver was unknown to the officers. The officers further testified at the motion hearing that the defendant was smoking a cigar, that they could smell an odor of burnt marijuana and that the driver appeared nervous. The defendant and the driver were ordered out of the car.

In finding the exit order improper under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the court stressed that by decriminalizing possession of under an ounce of marijuana the voters changed the status of the offense, meaning that the voters intended possession of marijuana under an ounce to be treated different from other serious drug crimes. Accordingly, the SJC concluded that the changed status of the offense implicates police conduct and requires some additional facts other than the smell of burnt marijuana to justify an exit order.

Under Massachusetts law, police must have a basis to support an exit order under Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights. An exit order is permissible in Massachusetts in one of three circumstances:

1. The police have a reasonable belief that their safety is in danger;
2. The officer has reasonable suspicion that the defendant is committing a criminal offense, other than a traffic violation.
3. The officer can order a defendant from the car if there is a legal basis for a warrantless search of the vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Massachusetts provides greater protections to citizens under Article 14 than under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as under the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the police do not need any basis to order a motorist from the vehicle.

In Cruz, the Commonwealth argued that the exit order was justified based on the officer's belief that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. The SJC held that there were no facts that would support the conclusion that a criminal amount of narcotics were in the vehicle. Further, the court rejected the reasoning of other State courts finding probable cause to believe a vehicle has any quantity of marijuana is sufficient to justify a warrantless search based on the likely presence of other contraband. In rejecting these other State court decisions, the SJC stressed that the standard to determine the validity of a warrantless search is the same used by a magistrate issuing a warrant. Applying this reasoning, the SJC concluded that under the facts of the case a magistrate could not issue a search warrant.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holds that smell of burnt marijuana is insufficient to justify an exit order" »

Massachusetts defense lawyers for two men facing drug charges in Framingham were in court last week for discovery motions, the MetroWest Daily News reported. The defendants are facing charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, conspiracy to violate state drug laws and having drugs near a school.

Those facing criminal charges should hire a defense lawyer in Framingham or Westborough at the earliest possible stage of such cases. The vast majority of an attorney's work is done before a trial -- and only a small percentage of cases ever go to trial. Making sure you have received all the defense information you are entitled to from state authorities and making motions to dismiss or limit the use of evidence are just a few of the legal strategies that could benefit your case. Giving your attorney the maximum amount of time to fight on your behalf is always the best course of action.

Joseph Bushfan, 20, of Framingham, and Devon Talbert, 20, of Boston, were arrested Jan. 5 following an undercover investigation. During a raid on Bushfan's Fountain Street home, SWAT members shot and killed his stepfather, 68-year-old Eurie Stamps Sr. The Middlesex District Attorney has ruled the shooting accidental.

Bushfan pleaded guilty last month to charges in connection with a pair of robberies in Cambridge in 2008. Both defendants are due back in court on May 11.

Continue reading "Discovery issues can be critical to defense of drug charges in Framingham, elsewhere in Massachusetts" »

Three defendants in an Attleboro drug trafficking case could face federal charges, the Sun Chronicle reported. The case is being described as the city's largest heroin bust and involved a Dickens Street used car dealer.

A Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer experienced in defending clients in state and federal court will need to represent the defendants in this case. Federal conspiracy charges or charges involving the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act can come with lengthy prison sentences and forfeiture laws that could result in the seizure of the business. While such laws were once used mainly against organized crime figures, they are now routinely used against defendants facing drug distribution charges in Massachusetts and elsewhere.

A probable cause hearing in Attleboro District Court was continued after an assistant district attorney indicated the case may be taken over by federal prosecutors.

The Auto Sales business was raided Feb. 10 by the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers after a tip from an informant. More than 4 pounds of heroin were seized, with a value of more than $500,000. The men have pleaded not guilty to charges of trafficking in more than 200 grams of heroin and drug conspiracy.

Attorneys for two of the defendants argue their clients were not the target of the probe and were not named in the search warrant affidavit. A search warrant affidavit typically spells out the evidence officers use to obtain a warrant. The warrant itself must be written in such a way as to be reasonably restrictive. Defense lawyers will argue whether the affidavit contained enough probable cause to obtain the warrant and whether law enforcement obeyed restrictions or conducted searches beyond what a warrant permitted.

Police conducted the raid as a Dodge Caravan arrived, based on information that a large-scale heroin delivery was being made by a Guatemalan organization.

Continue reading "Heroin charges in Attleboro could lead to felony drug case in Massachusetts" »

Those facing drug charges in Massachusetts have the right to cross-examine the chemist who tested the drugs, according to a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Boston man who was put in jail over a small baggie of cocaine.

A Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer will challenge drug charges on a number of fronts -- certainly contesting lab findings can be one of them. As can challenging the weight in cases where a weight threshold carries a stiffer penalty.

The Herald News reports the court found a defendant has a right to have the chemist present for cross examination in order to challenge the findings. The ruling is causing fits across Massachusetts as prosecutors deal with the reality of too many drug cases and too few chemists.

The result could put defendants who challenge such charges at an advantage when it comes to seeking a reduction or dismissal. The case stems from the 2001 arrest of a Boston resident during a city drug investigation. Police report finding 19 small bags of cocaine; he was convicted in 2004. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2009. The court ruled his rights were violated when prosecutors presented an affidavit from the lab that swore to the presence of cocaine. Because the chemist was not present, the defendant was denied his right to challenge his accuser.

He went to trial a second time and was found innocent. Massachusetts has about 40,000 drug cases a year -- more than 4,000 of those are in Bristol County. There are only about 35 chemists in the entire state.

Only about 10 percent of drug cases go to trial. But authorities report the ruling is causing headaches for prosecutors in those cases that do because a chemist is too often unavailable.

Continue reading "Court rulings favors defendants who challenge drug charges in Massachusetts" »

Two Whitman residents are facing Massachusetts drug charges after a weekend raid on their third-floor apartment, according to the Enterprise News.

Shannon Hunter-Dutczack, 27, and Kevin Connor, 42, were arrested after an investigation that included authorities from West Bridgewater, East Bridgewater, Bridgewater and Whitman.

Police report seizing about 35 Percocet pills and 15 pills believed to be the tranquilizer Klonopin. The two also face charges of possession of marijuana after police report finding several ounces of the drug, along with $2,000 in cash and drug distribution paraphernalia.

A Whitman criminal defense attorney will certainly look at challenging the legality of the search in this case. He may also challenge the assertion that drug distribution paraphernalia was present. Simple drug possession typically carries less serious consequences than a charge that alleges dealing or intent to distribute.

The WEB Manor Crimes and Drug Task Force reports authorities continue to deal with a significant number of cases involving the abuse of distribution of Percocet, which is a prescription painkiller.

Both defendants were charged with possession and possession with intent to distribute a Class B drug (Percocet) and a Class D drug (marijuana), as well as conspiracy to violate drug laws.

The Patriot Ledger reports a third person was arrested at the scene for motor vehicle offenses.

Continue reading "Two face Massachusetts drug charges after apartment raid in Whitman uncovers Percocet, marijuana " »

A Massachusetts drug case was recently decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The case of Commonwealth v. Fernandez, decided October 4, 2010, raised the issue of whether the Commonwealth can admit field testing of narcotics to prove that a substance is an illegal narcotic, like cocaine. The Court described field testing as creating a presumption that a particular substance is what the field test reveals. Despite the fact that field testing is nonconclusive, the court allowed the testimony into evidence finding that the lack of certainty went to the weigh of the testimony rather than the admissibility.

The impact of the Fernandez case for Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers will be difficult to measure without additional guidance from the court. The Court appeared to allow the field testing evidence in because at the drug distribution trial the defense lawyer did not provide notice to the Commonwealth that he was objecting to the field testing evidence until the morning of trial. The SJC relied on the defense attorney's late notice of his objection as a basis to admit the evidence; the court found that the late notice precluded the Commonwealth from being able to call a scientist to testify. Additionally, the court noted that the evidence was not called conclusive so that the jury knew of the limited nature of the probative value of the evidence. The Court stated that the defense lawyer was able to attack the weakness of the field test evidence.

This case is a response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts where the court precluded the use of a drug certificate to prove that a substance was an illegal narcotic. The Melendez-Diaz Court noted that the Commonwealth could rely on other circumstantial evidence to prove the nature of a substance. Field testing is an attempt to prove the nature of a narcotic without the need for having a chemist appear to testify at a Massachusetts drug trial.

In a Massachusetts drug distribution trial with an objection to field testing, the court should exclude the results as many officers will naturally assume that the substance is illegal narcotics to confirm their own suspicion that began the investigation. Additionally, officers who participated in the criminal investigation cannot be expected to make a neutral analysis of the evidence. Further, field testing will be unable to withstand scientific scrutiny as field testing is unlikely to be able to differentiate between real and counterfeit narcotics. When the court readdresses this issue, it is anticipated that the court will preclude field testing of cocaine from being admitted at trial or narrowly limit the use of the evidence.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opens the door to evidence of field testing of drugs at drug distribution trial" »

A 48-year-old city man is facing drug charges in Attleboro after police allege he sold crack cocaine to informants during a police investigation, the Sun Chronicle reported.

Edwin Barber, of 69 Dunham St. in Attleboro, pleaded innocent in Attleboro District Court to a charge of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Massachusetts Law (Chapter94C Section 31) classifies cocaine as a Class B narcotic. Conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Police executed a search warrant on his car and apartment and reportedly seized drug packaging materials and a crack pipe, along with $190 in cash, according to the District Attorney's Office. An Attleboro criminal defense lawyer may challenge the legitimacy of the search along with the allegation that the defendant intended to distribute any drugs.

Barber claims he was visiting the apartment and lives in a nearby halfway house. His attorney acknowledges her client has a drug problem but denies he was dealing drugs. Barber is being held on $10,000 cash bail and is due back in court on Sept. 27.

Continue reading "Man facing Massachusetts drug charges in Attleboro District Court after alleged buy involving undercover informant " »

Massachusetts courts have been permitting police officers to testify that a substance is an illegal narcotic under Massachusetts drug laws based on field testing of the substance and without the need for expert or scientific evidence to prove that a substance is an illegal narcotic, like cocaine or marijuana.

In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the admission of drug certificate of analysis without live testimony in violation of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009) was harmless error based in part on the fact that the officer field tested the narcotics, confirming the nature of the substance.

A case recently decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court, State v. Ward, 694 S.E. 2d 738 (N.C. 2010), may assist Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers in excluding unreliable field testing in Massachusetts drug possession and distribution cases.

In the Ward case, the defendant was charged with possession of illegal drugs without a prescription. The defendant possessed tablets of Oxycodone, Dihydrocodeinone, Hydrocodone, along with other narcotics. The State conducted a chemical analysis of half of the substance seized from the defendant and identified the remaining tablets by visual inspection.

When the State's expert was asked why a visual inspection method was used, the expert testified that it was used because the State has limited resources. The court found that the visual inspection method was simply put a method for cutting corners that the State used when the amount of illegal narcotics was at the misdemeanor level. The court was troubled by the different level of testing performed on narcotics based on whether the charge was a felony or misdemeanor with felony drug charges receiving complete chemical analysis.

The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the remarkable credentials of the expert make it even more compelling to prevent the expert testifying based on an unreliable methodology as the jury could be unduly influenced by his credentials and accordingly accept his testimony. Essentially, the expert admitted that his testimony that a pill was a particular illegal drug was based on comparing the picture to that in a medical book.

Continue reading "North Carolina Supreme Court finds expert's visual inspection method for identifying illegal narcotics unreliable and its application to field testing in Massachusetts drug cases" »

More that 30 people are facing Massachusetts drug charges in Taunton and the surrounding areas after a three-day sweep at week's end, the Taunton Gazette reported.

The raids began on Wednesday and the Bristol County District Attorney's Office expected the arrests to continue through Friday as authorities targeted alleged heroine and crack cocaine dealers and customers. Dubbed Operation Diesel, more than 30 arrest warrants were being executed, according to the Massachusetts State Police.

A Taunton criminal defense lawyer should always be consulted in cases where a defendant is charged as part of such large-scale drug raids. Police and prosecutors love to make big announcements. But frequently such cases are not very strong and prosecutors are forced to quietly reduce or dismiss charges long after the television cameras have been turned off. Defendants should not make any statements until speaking to a Massachusetts defense lawyer experienced in handling drug charges. Evidence can be challenged. The results of search warrants can sometimes be kept out of court. But a defendant's statements can be the most damaging evidence in cases where a suspect fails to remain silent and wait for the assistance of an experienced attorney.

Defendants were being arraigned in Taunton District Court and Fall River Superior Court. At least 18 people were arrested on warrants on Wednesday. Defendants ranged in age from 17 to 50.

Most of the arrested were for charges alleged in arrest warrants, but authorities report making at least one undercover drug buy. State troopers and Taunton police said they initiated a buy on the grounds of the Riverside Apartments on Paul Bunker Drive. Authorities say an undercover officer was led to nearby Harrison Street, where occupants of a Chrysler van allegedly sold him crack cocaine.

Four people were arrested after the van was followed to a nearby convenience store.

Continue reading "Dozens arrested on Massachusetts drug charges in Taunton and Fall River" »

Massachusetts drug charges were brought out of the Stoughton district court as a result of a citizen tip. Ceclia Reilly according to the Brockton Enterprise was arraigned on the charge of possession of a Class A drug subsequent offense.

Reilly was stopped by police based on a tip that she was injecting herself in a parking lot in Brockton. If the tip is the sole basis for the stop, a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer would want to challenge the stop as being in violation of the 4th Amendment. This would occur at a motion to suppress hearing where the police will have to establish that the tip was sufficiently detailed and reliable to provide reasonable suspicion to make a motor vehicle stop.

Continue reading "Massachusetts drug charges brought in Stoughton district court as a result of a citizen tip" »