Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury in Massachusetts: What is the Commonwealth required to prove?

December 23, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury in Massachusetts is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a1/2(1). The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently discussed in the case of Commonwealth v. Hector Rico, decided in December of 2020 what the Commonwealth would have to prove to obtain a conviction on this charge. The issue before the Court was whether the defendant had to know there was an accident and also have knowledge that someone suffered injury.

The Appeals Court found that the Commonwealth must establish the defendant’s knowledge on both elements of the offense.

The Leaving the Scene Statute states: Whoever operate a motor vehicle upon any way . . . And without stopping and making his known his name, residence and registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person not result in death she be punished.

Massachusetts SJC finds Panhandling to be Protected Speech under the 1st Amendment

December 15, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts SJC held today that the First Amendment Protects Panhandling as free Speech, striking down a local Fall River Ordinance attempting to preclude panhandling on public streets. In Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Fall River, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that a local law restriction Panhandling, stopping cars and requesting money was a content based restriction on speech and prohibited by the First Amendment. The Fall River ordnance only prohibited Panhandling and did not prohibit solicitation for other purposes, such as school events and Fire Department fund raisers. The SJC stated that it is clear that soliciting contributions is protected by the 1st Amendment.

The Court also staled that it is clear that public ways are traditional public forums. This means that on the streets, people have the right to share and express their ideas. It is why someone can hold a sign on the side of the road in support of the politician they are supporting for office. The SJC also indicated that it was clear that the Fall River local ordinance was a content restriction on speed and had to survive strict security, meaning that the law must survive the most rigorous view to be upheld as constitutional.

The Panhandling law was a content based restriction on speech because it only regulated someone making one type of form of expression, asking for money.

Massachusetts SJC to address whether provider of AirBNB has a duty to prevent harm to occupant

December 11, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts SJC will decide whether putting a home on AirBNB creates a duty to prevent harm that occurs on the property. What duty of care does an AirBNB owner need to provide?

Nowadays, most of us have some sort of “side hustle.” The internet and apps make having a side hustle easier than ever. The law tends to struggle to keep up with this rapidly changing technology. The case of Styller v. Aylwardraises the questions of what duty of care is owed to a renter on AirBNB.

What happened in the Styller case?

First Amendment Issue Regarding Trump’s Twitter Account Pending Before United States Supreme Court

December 10, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Donald Trump is soon leaving office, but there is a case that the United States Supreme Court may hear concerning whether the President has a right to block people on Twitter. Donald Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is a case that concerns the president blocking people on Twitter. If we’ve learned anything these past four years, it’s that Trump loves to use his personal Twitter account. The Obama Administration created the @POTUS account in 2015, and since then, all presidents get access to the @POTUS Twitter account when they take office. Donald Trump has access to this account, but he overwhelmingly uses his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account that he has had since 2009. He has continued to use his unofficial personal account while in office on the daily, sometimes posting over 100 tweets in a single day.

Like any social media user, Trump will block individuals that he does not care to associate with. However, this novel issue begs the question; if a public official who uses a social media account as an extension of his office—by, for example, making official announcements, inviting members of the public to respond, and allowing members of the public to communicate with one another about matters relating to government—violates the First Amendment when he ejects members of the public from that forum based on viewpoint.

Does the Public forum Doctrine precent President Trump from blocking followers?

Massachusetts SJC to decide if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment protecting location data from Charlie Commuter Rail Card

December 9, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The case of Commonwealth v. Josiah Zachery that is current before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court raises the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in data from the Charlie Card, which is used to ride the commuter rails in Boston. This issue is likely to reoccur as all cards now track location, from CVS cards, to cards to reflect tolls paid in the highway. The Massachusetts SJC heard oral argument on November 6, 2020 and a decision should follow within three to four months.

What happened in the Zachery Case?

In February of 2015, Donte Henley and the defendant were allegedly shoveling snow with the ROCA, a non-profit program for high-risk youth that provides job training. Henley told the defendant to shoot another member of the crew, Lamour, who was a member of a rival gang. The defendant still denies the shooting and contends that there is a lack of forensic evidence against him. The shooter was described as a young, black, male wearing all black with a grey sweater. The defendant matched this description, and he was walking on the side of the road carrying a shovel. The officers determined that he matched the description and decided to check him out. He was searched for weapons, none were found, and they placed him inside the police vehicle.

How to handle the Stress of a Criminal Charge pending against you in Massachusetts

November 25, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, I have spoke to and helped countless people facing a criminal charge. One of the more difficult things to deal with is the stress and anxiety during the case. Criminal cases take time so it is important to be in a good mental framework, to move forward with your life, family and career even while the charge is working its way through the Court Process.

For years, we have sent clients the book called the Slight Edge by Jeff Olson. This is a great book and worth reading as well. Recently, I have started sending a different book. Change your Thinking Change your Life by Brian Tracy. This book is incredible and has a very positive message.

Your thoughts Control your realty

Civil Rights Violation out of Worcester, Massachusetts Examined by Federal District Court

November 21, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Civil Rights Violation Case Examined by Massachusetts District Court

Americans value their privacy, and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees Americans that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their property and homes. But what happens when this right is violated? In Johnson v. City of Worcester, Carl Johnson had his privacy violated and sued the police officers responsible.

What happened in Johnson?

Does the Community Care Taker exception allow police to enter the home without a warrant under the 4th Amendment?

November 20, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Community Care taker Exception to the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to make warrantless search when the purpose of the officer to to help the public and not look for evidence of criminal activity. A case pending before the United States Supreme Court, Caniglia v. Strom, asks the question of whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

What is “community caretaking?”

Community care taking has been recognized as an exception to the Fourth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), the United Starts Supreme Court held that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after an accident. The Court acknowledged that, “except in certain carefully defined classes of cases,” police cannot search private property without consent or a warrant. It emphasized, however, that “there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.” Since Cady, there has been a whole host of cases that took this holding and created the doctrine of “community caretaking.” Cady defined community caretaking activities as those “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”

What Warnings are required under Miranda to be addressed in case before the United States Supreme Court

November 18, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Criminal Defendants are required to be given Miranda warnings prior to any custodial interrogations being used against them in court. What happens when these warnings deviate from the requirements that the United States Supreme Court set forth in Miranda v. Arizona. A case pending before the United States Supreme Court, Michigan v. Matthews will address whether there can be deviations from the traditional Miranda warning under the 5th Amendment.

Michigan v. Mathews is a case that is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court and asks the Court to clarify whether Miranda is satisfied when a suspect in custody is advised at the beginning of an interrogation that they have the right to an attorney, but is not explicitly advised that they are entitled to the attorney’s presence before and during interrogation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a general “right to counsel” warning is insufficient, and that Miranda requires language expressly warning the suspect of the right to the presence of counsel before and during interrogation. This decision conflicts with the Sixth Circuit, so there are different standards for Miranda warnings depending on whether the case goes to state or federal court.

Massachusetts SJC finds all involuntary blood draws inadmissible in prosecutions for OUI

November 13, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Charles Bohigian today holding that a blood draw without the consent of the defendant is inadmissible into evidence. This case arose out of the Westborough District Court and was transferred to Worcester District Court for trial.

The defendant was charged with OUI causing Serious Bodily Injury.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated that it is Constitutional to draw blood without consent as long as an officer has a warrant or exigency circumstances make getting a warrant impractical. However, the legislature created a statutory framework for getting Blood in the context of an OUI.