Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

"Drug Dog Case May Reach United States Supreme Court"

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.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the search of a residence in a recent Brockton Drug Distribution case. In Commonwealth v. Monteiro, decided on August 22, 2011, the police conducted five controlled drug buys. A Controlled drug buy in Massachusetts is when the police have an informant purchase drugs in attempt to establish probable cause to search a vehicle or residence for drugs, such as cocaine, heroin or other illegal narcotics. Click here to read the decision in Monteiro.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that evidence of drug distribution from a vehicle, did not necessary provide a nexus to establish probable cause to search a residence. The Appeals Court distinguished Pina on the grounds that the Brockton police conducted five controlled buys and made observations of the defendant coming from and returning to his house after each drug transaction with the confidential informant. The Court held that there was probable cause to infer that the defendant was using his house as a distribution center for narcotics.

In Massachusetts drug arrests, it is common for police officers to attempt to obtain a search warrant for a residence of someone believed to be involved in drug distribution or trafficking. The Monteiro case is unique in that the level of police observations was much greater than in most cases where the police will rely on one controlled buy. Accordingly, in many Brockton drug crimes, with a less detailed investigation, a motion to suppress may be successful as the evidence in support of probable cause in Monteiro was fairly substantial.

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" »

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals issued an important decision upholding the requirement that a search warrant for a residence be based on probable cause to believe that the house is being used for criminal activity.

Often, Massachusetts drug crimes, like possession with the intent to distribute or trafficking in narcotics will come down to whether the police properly obtained the evidence in a case and a motion to suppress will be critical to the outcome of the trial. A search warrant under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights can only be issued if it is based on probable cause. When an officer prepares a search warrant, an affidavit is submitted in support of the warrant; this affidavit must detail for the magistrate that the items sought are related to criminal activity and are reasonably expected to be in the place subject of the search. In Massachusetts drug crimes, the Court has stressed that probable cause to believe that drugs will be found in a home is not established by the fact that the defendant lives there. This principle can be found in the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (2009).

In the case of Commonwealth v. Dillon, decided April 15, 2011, the Massachusetts Appeals Court found that the affidavit did not establish a sufficient nexus between the drug activity and the home of the defendant to justify a search. Significantly, the affidavit did contain evidence that customers came to the residence to purchase drugs and that the defendant delivered oxycodone from the residence. Further, the Appeals Court noted that the confidential informants did not provide any information relating to drug sales from the residence of the defendant. Further, the court noted that the police did not conduct surveillance or a controlled buy from the residence. Finally, the court noted that there was no inference that the defendant would leave the residence engage in a drug transaction and return to the residence to establish a pattern of repeated activities, giving rise to a reasonable inference that the residence was a base for drug sales. As a result, the Appeals Court held that the trial judge should have allowed the Massachusetts criminal attorneys motion to suppress finding that the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 were violated by the search in this case.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Drug Crime Lawyer comments on recent drug case from the Massachusetts Appeals 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" »

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the scope of the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution in the recent case of Commonwealth v. Eddington, decided March 10, 2011. The case is of interest to me as a Massachusetts criminal lawyer because of the concurring opinion of Justice Gants.

In the Eddington case, the defendant was charged with driving with a suspended license. He had a passenger in the vehicle who also did not own the vehicle as the owner was not present at the time of the arrest.

The officers did not contact the owner to have her pick up the vehicle, but decided to impound the vehicle and performed an inventory search. Following the search, a loaded revolver was found under the passenger's seat.

In determining whether the search was Constitution, the court held that impounding a vehicle for noninvestigatory purposes is generally justified if supported by public safety concerns or by a danger of theft or vandalism to a vehicle if left unattended. The court also noted other circumstances where impounding a vehicle is necessary such as when it is left on private property with the driver arrested or when the vehicle is stopped without valid registration plates. Further, the SJC stressed the three separate interests are protected by inventory searches: the protection of the vehicle and its contents, the protection of the police and tow company from false charges and the protection of the public from dangerous items that might be in the vehicle.

The Massachusetts criminal attorney in Eddington argued that under the SJC case of Commonwealth v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609, 612 (2003), that the police should have left the vehicle were it was because it was lawfully parked and there was no evidence that the car presented a safety risk or was at risk of vandalism. The Court distinguished Brinson byt the fact that in that case the owner was present and selected the location where the vehicle would be parked. Further, the court held that the police were not required to contact the owner and acted reasonably in impounding the vehicle and conducting an inventory search.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Gants relied on several out of state cases to suggest that the police should be required to consider practical alternatives prior to impounding a vehicle. While agreeing with the opinion of the court, Justice Gant suggested he would take a narrower view of the inventory search exception and in the appropriate case may require the police to consider practical alternatives prior to impounding a vehicle.

Continue reading "Supreme Judicial Court addresses inventory searches in Massachusetts gun charge " »

In many Massachusetts drug arrests, the police will claims as a basis for obtaining a search warrant of a residence that a confidential informant provided information that the residence was being used for drug trafficking or distribution.

As a Massachusetts drug crimes lawyer, it is sometimes necessary to file a motion to require the Commonwealth to disclose the identity of the informant in order to prepare a defense to the charges. In some cases, an informant may provide relevant information for the defense while in other cases a court order for disclosure may force the Commonwealth to dismiss the case rather than to disclose the informant's identity.

In Commonwealth v. Shaughessy, 455 Mass. 346 (2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that in order to obtain disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant a defendant has the burden of showing that the informant would provide information that is material to the defense. If this showing is made, then the privilege can be overcome. The purpose of the privilege is to assist the police in obtaining information without the informant fearing retribution as a result of cooperating with the police. This privilege has limitations under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. The leading case on the issue of disclosing confidential informants in drug cases is the United States Supreme Court case of Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957).

Recently, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers submitted an amicus brief to the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the case of Elliot v. State on the issue of whether the Maryland court improperly denied the defendant access to the identity of the confidential informant. Click here to read the brief of the National Criminal Defense Lawyers.

In Elliot, the defendant argued that there was no need for the privilege as the identity of the informant was already known and secondly that disclosure of the informant was necessary as a matter of fairness as the informant would potentially be a material witness for the defendant. In defending the charge of possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, the defendant in Elliot claimed that the informant entrapped the defendant and asserted as his defense that he had no knowledge that there were drugs in his car. Clearly, cross examination of the informant may provide strong evidence for the defendant in providing a motive for the informant to frame the defendant in attempt to gain favor with the police; further, disclosure of the informants identity would allow the criminal defense attorneys to gain other valuable discovery, such as the criminal record of the informant to uncover a motive to lie on the part of the informant.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, I believe that the Maryland Court of Appeals should reverse the lower court's decision and its decision may provide valuable precedent in defending Massachusetts drug crimes. To read the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals in Elliot v. State click here.

Continue reading "Massachusetts drug crimes lawyer comments on case before Maryland Court of Appeals regarding disclosure of confidential informant " »

An officer's suspicion about air fresheners inside a Jeep Cherokee led to the arrest of a 28-year-old man on drug charges in Worcester, according to the Telegram.

A Worcester criminal defense lawyer may challenge probable cause for the traffic stop and/or the search in this case. Criminal charges can be reduced or dismissed when illegal search and seizure results in the seizure of evidence in connection with an alleged crime.

In this case, a trooper suspicious about the air fresheners called a state police dog to the scene. Ultimately, the stop resulted in the seizure of half-kilo of cocaine and $32,810 in cash. Joel M. Alicea, 28, of Lawrence, and Alejandro Nunez Perez, 28, of Methuen, are facing cocaine trafficking charges in Central District Court.
Massachusetts State Police report that a trooper stooped the Jeep for allegedly traveling too fast on eastbound I-290.

The trooper reported an overwhelming odor of air freshener coming from the Jeep and said the men were hesitant about the vehicle's ownership. While questioning the occupants, the trooper noticed 12 different air fresheners in the Jeep. After calling a K-9 unit, police reportedly found cocaine in the airbag area of the vehicle. They also found a bundle of cash containing $32,810.

Both defendants were arraigned in Central District Court on charges of cocaine trafficking, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to violate drug laws.

Continue reading "Massachusetts search and seizure leads to drug charges in Worcester after state police find cocaine, $32,000" »

A trio of defendants is facing theft charges in Taunton after allegedly trying to sell stolen goods to a store in Silver City, the Taunton Gazette reported.

The three defendants, two from Carver and one from Plymouth, tried to sell gold bracelets stolen from a Plymouth home to a jewelry store at Galleria mall, according to police. The jewelry store manager called police. He then got the three to allow him to hold the bracelets after telling them to come back in an hour.

The manager estimates the bracelets are worth about $700.

Police identified the three men as Thomas Carr, 20, of 94 Tremont St., Carver, Christopher Hobin, 20, of 4 Sushala Way, Plymouth, and Devin Silva, 18, of 198A Plymouth St., Carver.

When questioned, Carr allegedly said the bracelets had been given to him by his mom to sell. Police say the mom denied giving the bracelets to her son. Authorities also said two of the three had been arrested on gun charges in the past. A subsequent search of the defendants located a starter pistol. A search of their 2005 Toyota Camry found bags of jewelry and a laptop computer.

A receipt in the car led police to the owner of a home who claimed the laptop and other items had been stolen.

In such cases, a Taunton criminal defense lawyer could challenge the probable cause for the search. If a search is found to be improper, evidence collected as a result can be excluded from trial. A reduction or dismissal of the charges can result.

Continue reading "Trio faces theft charges in Taunton after allegedly trying to sell stolen goods to Silver City jeweler " »

Illegal search and seizure in Massachusetts will prevent drugs and a gun from being used against a Fall River man facing federal criminal charges in U.S. District Court, the Herald News reported.

Chief Judge Mark Wolf ruled in favor of the defense in excluding part of the evidence Fall River vice detectives uncovered during a search of the Blackstreet Home of defendant Aryam Gonzalez during a raid on Feb. 13, 2009. A second motion is pending before the court that asks the judge to prevent prosecutors from introducing at trial a second gun allegedly found in the home.

This case illustrates the dramatic impact an experienced Fall River defense lawyer can have on a case when successfully arguing that law enforcement inappropriately searched a defendant's car, home or person. Evidence found as the result of a search is frequently the primary reason for bringing charges. A reduction or dismissal of the charges often results when such evidence is then excluded from court.

During a suppression hearing in May, evidence was presented that vice detectives were executing a search warrant on the defendant's home when he walked out and began to run away. He was tackled, placed in a choke hold and punched during arrest after officers claim he attempted to conceal drugs in his mouth. During the arrest, he allegedly told police where to find drugs and a gun in a shoebox in his room.

The judge ruled Gonzalez did not knowingly waive his right to remain silent while make a statement during such a physical arrest. Therefore, prosecutors will not be able to use that evidence in court. A second gun was found beneath the defendant's mattress.

Gonzalez has remained in custody while awaiting trial. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted. However, unless successfully appealed, the judge's ruling will likely result in a reduction or dismissal of a substantial part of the case against him.

Continue reading "Illegal search leads to dismissal of evidence in Fall River drug case " »

A Boston man wanted on Massachusetts cocaine trafficking charges, is facing a variety of charges after being arrested in Attleboro, the Sun-Chronicle reported.

Santiago H. Gonzalez, 40, of Dorchester section of Boston, was arrested after a neighbor reported a suspicious man sitting in a car with the motor running. An Attleboro criminal defense attorney experienced in handling drug charges may challenge the probable cause for search and arrest in this case. Gonzalez was ordered held on $50,000 cash bail after pleading not guilty in Attleboro District Court to charges of possession of cocaine, disturbing the peace and providing a false name to police.

Gonzalez told police he waiting to pick up a friend of his girlfriend's, whom he thought lived at the address. Police say he gave them a driver's license with a different name. A woman at the residence told police he was there to look at her apartment because he was considering subletting it.

During a search, police seized $644 and a small amount of cocaine wrapped in a $1 bill.

An FBI fingerprint search at the police station identified Gonzalez and listed several warrants for his arrest, including a warrant for trafficking in more than 28 grams of cocaine.

Bail was set at $25,000 but reduced to $10,000, which he posted. He is due back in court on May 5.

Continue reading "Boston man arrested on warrants for cocaine trafficking after neighbor reports suspicious vehicle" »

Two men were arrested Friday on drug trafficking charges in Attleboro after a five-month investigation, which seized $12,000 in cash and nearly a kilo of cocaine valued at $25,000, the Sun Chronicle reported.

An Attleboro criminal defense attorney experienced in handling Massachusetts drug charges should be called to represent anyone facing charges of drug trafficking in Massachusetts. Often, the amount of drugs confiscated will prompt law enforcement to allege drug trafficking without sufficient evidence. Additionally, search warrants and other tactics used by undercover law enforcement can be challenged in court by an aggressive and experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney.

In this case, a 34-year-old Bellingham defendant and a 24-year-old Attleboro defendant pleaded not guilty in Attleboro District Court.

Each man is charged with trafficking in more than 100 grams of cocaine, conspiracy to violate drug laws and violating drug laws in a school zone. The charges are the result of an ongoing investigation by Attleboro, Franklin, Medway and Bellingham police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The judge rejected a prosecutor's request for $5 million cash bail for each suspect and set bail in the amounts of $25,000 and $15,000.

If convicted, each defendant faces at least 5 years in prison. Police said additional charges may be filed in Worcester County because of the amount of cocaine seized in the apartment of one of the defendants.

After several months of investigation, police stopped one of the defendants on North Main Street near Dewey Avenue in Attleboro around 11:45 p.m. Thursday. Police reported finding a bag containing 125 grams, or an eighth of kilogram of cocaine, inside a baseball cap under the passenger's seat of the vehicle.

Upon obtaining a search warrant for the apartment, police reported seizing an additional 150 grams of cocaine as well as an additional 616 grams kept in a locked safe. Police also reported finding $2,100 on one of the defendants and $10,486 in a hidden compartment under the master bedroom whirlpool tub.

A defense attorney for one man disputed most of the evidence and said he did not believe there was a strong case against his client. The attorney for the other defendant, who is a former airport security officer, said his client was innocent and the money found was not connected to illegal drug activity.

Continue reading "Two men face Massachusetts drug distribution charges in Attleboro District Court" »

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.

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" »

A traffic stop in North Attleboro resulted in drug charges being brought in the Attleboro District Court against two individuals, Joseph H. Auclair, 26, of Woonsocket, R.I., and Kevin P. Doherty, 47, of 44 Elm St. in North Attleboro, according to the Attleboro Sun Chronicile news report.

From the article it is unclear as to why the vehicle was stopped, where the narcotics were found or what the basis was to search the vehicle if any search was conducted. Many Massachusetts drug possession and distribution cases arise from traffic stops. These cases generally raise numerous and complex legal issues that require an individual to hire an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer to review the police report and to determine if there are constitutional defenses to the case based on an illegal search and seizure.

Continue reading "Attleboro, Massachusetts drug charges result from traffic stop" »