Surpreme Judicial Court Justice, Associate Justice Margot Botsford, has requested that state’s highest court dismiss thousands of the drug convictions that Annie Dookhan had handled evidence for. Based on a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Botsford submitted a five-page report, in which she also describes the need for a more ‘systematic approach’ to the convicted cases tied to Dookhan. Supported by the ACLU, Botsford believes the Dookhan case needs to be taken more seriously, and that the issue of mishandled evidence is more profound than the court believes.

Background Annie Dookhan was arrested and charged in 2012 with a total of 27 charges- including counts of obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence and perjury. In November 2013, the chemist pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3-5 years jail time. Responsible for over 40,000 cases during her 10 year career at the Boston lab, Massachusets govenor Deval Patrick closed the entire lab and ordered prosecutors to reevaluate cases tied to her work.

The ACLU Petition

The highest appellate court of Nebraska recently overruled a trial judge who allowed evidence of drunk driving to be admitted during trial, where that evidence was obtained as a result of an traffic stop based on an anonymous tip. Applying recent federal case law, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the driver’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the officer stopped the driver without first confirming the reliability of the anonymous 911 caller’s tip, or reasonably believing a crime was committed.

State v. Rodriguez

In the matter of State v. Rodriguez, a 911 dispatcher received an anonymous call alleging that the caller was just pushed out of a moving vehicle. The vehicle was identified as a green GMC Envoy heading westbound on Highway 26. An officer was dispatched to the location, where he observed a vehicle matching the description traveling westbound past the location of the caller. The officer followed the vehicle then activated his emergency lights and began to question the driver about the reported disturbance.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently published an important decision on Commonwealth v. William White, Jr. vacating a trial judge’s conviction and ruling that a police officer acted unlawfully when he searched the defendant and opened medical vials found in the defendant’s pockets and vehicle. This decision limits the scope of police authority to search an individual and his vehicle for drugs upon an arrest – even where the individual is arrested on a warrant issued for a prior drug crime.

The defendant in this case was pulled over by two Cambridge police officers when the officers ran his vehicle registration and discovered two outstanding arrest warrants issued against the defendant. The first warrant was for a violation of a protective order, and the second was for a drug offense. After confirming that the driver of the vehicle was the owner who had the warrants issued against him, the cops ordered him to exit the vehicle and arrested him with handcuffs.

One of the officers then pat frisked the defendant, and felt a small prescription pill container in a pant pocket. The defendant told the officer that it was a vial of blood pressure medication, but the officer still removed it from the defendant’s pocket for a closer look. The container was labeled with the defendant’s name on it, and had one pill inside. The officer then discovered another small vial which he officer knew normally would contain the thin strips used with a blood sugar testing kit. But after shaking the container and hearing a sound of pills rather than testing strips, the officer opened that container and saw a different type of pills inside. The officer seized this container for further testing. The officer then entered the defendant’s vehicle to lock he vehicle and remove the keys at the defendant’s request, and while doing so found another prescription pill container, unlabeled, on the front passenger seat, with pills identical to the unknown pills discovered in the defendant’s pocket. This container was also seized for further investigation.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has just ruled that the mere existence of marijuana stored in individual bags on a juvenile does not necessarily establish probable cause for a possession and distribution charge. Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys may use this case to challenge charges of possession with intent to distribute that are over charged and should be charged as mere possessory crimes.

Under state case law, a court may dismiss a complaint if the allegations in the complaint do not establish the identity of the suspect and/or do not show probable cause to charge the suspect. In other words, a complaint must demonstrate reliable information to warrant a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has committed the alleged offense. Although Massachusetts law allows school administrators to invade a student’s privacy and search his belongings without probable cause, the SJC in Commonwealth v. Humberto H. [SJC-11297 (November 26, 2013)] required the State to establish facts in a delinquency complaint supporting probable cause on each essential element of the offense.

The issue in Commonwealth v. Humberto H. was whether there was sufficient information in the complaint to establish probable cause that the juvenile possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute. Unlike mere possession of marijuana – which is only a civil infraction (if not more than an ounce) – possession with intent to distribute is a criminal offense punishable by law. In Humberto H.’s case, a school administrator and a school police officer stopped Humberto when they detected an odor of marijuana as he entered the school late one day. They then searched Humberto and found five small plastic bags of marijuana. Humberto was arrested complaint charged with possession with intent to distribute. Humberto’s attorney moved to dismiss the complaint before the arraignment so that Humberto’s record would remain clean. The trial judge dismissed the complaint, but only after the charges were recorded in the arraignment.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that the School Zone statute amendment applies to pending cases. Last year the legislature reduced the scope of the school zone statute by requiring the drug distribution crime to be within 300 feet of a school zone rather than a thousand feet from the school. The issue that arise for Brockton Criminal Defense Lawyers was whether this new law applied to pending cases brought before the change in the law. The SJC answered that it did in the case of Commonwealth v. Bradley.

In Massachusetts, a defendant charged with a drug possession crime could face severe violations if he or she was arrested within a “school zone,” as defined by G.L. c. 94C § 32J. Until last year, an individual charged with possession of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school could face at least two and a half years imprisonment under this “school zone” law. After an amendment was passed reducing the parameters of a school zone,

In the matter of Commonwealth v. Bradley, the defendant Bradley’s dorm room was searched by police officers pursuant to a warrant on November 8, 2010. During the search, police officers discovered marijuana, and Bradley was charged with possession with intent to distribute. However, because Bradley’s dorm was about 700 feet from a nearby preschool facility, Bradley was also charged with the school zone violation. The criminal complaints were filed on December 30, 2010, but Bradley’s case was not adjudicated as of August 2, 2012.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled in the case of Commonwealth v. Robert Lezynski, decided on August 2, 2013, that the defendant’s conviction of possession of Class B drug with the intent to distribute was not influenced by an improperly admitted toxicology report in violation of the Sixth Amendment. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, the Sixth Amendment demands face to face confrontation and this right must be vigorously safeguarded when the Commonwealth tries to admit testimonial evidence through another witness.

In the matter of Commonwealth v. Lezynski, prosecutors sought to convict Mr. Lezynski of possession and distribution of fentanyl patches at a party. The prosecutors presented eye witnesses who testified to having observed Mr. Lezynski with the patches and giving some to one of the guests, who died shortly thereafter. The victim had smoked marijuana before the party and was heavily intoxicated from drinking that night, causing acute fentanyl and alcohol intoxication. The prosecutors also presented toxicology reports of the victim’s blood, and sought to admit them into evidence through the director of forensic toxicology at one of the labs that analyzed the victim’s blood. Mr. Lezynski’s attorney did not object.

Mr. Lezynski was indicted on manslaughter and possession with intent to distribute a class B controlled substance. The jury convicted Mr. Lezynski of possession and distribution, and Mr. Lezynski subsequently appealed.

A common question that frequently arises for a Boston criminal defense lawyer is: does a defendant have to be present at the scene of the drug transaction to be convicted of drug distribution?

A Massachusetts court of appeals decision recently answered this question in Commonwealth v. Mgaresh. The court held that if a defendant is aware of the transaction and in control of transaction, the defendant does not need to be physically present at the time of distribution.

In 2009, an undercover police officer contacted the defendant and arranged to purchase $200 of cocaine. When the detective arrived at the location, he met a women who was on the phone with the defendant during the transaction.The transaction of 1.95 grams of cocaine was completed and the detective arrested the woman..

A strong Attleboro drug trafficking defense will be required for a man suspected of trafficking both heroin and cocaine.

Attleboro drug trafficking attorneys have read that the suspect told arresting officers he was only selling the drugs in order to scrape together enough money to feed his family. In today’s struggling economy, it’s certainly believable. The family was receiving government assistance at the time of his arrest.

While this was the fact highlighted by the media, the man’s Attleboro criminal defense attorney has said he is likely to be taking a closer look at how officers obtained and carried out their search warrant.