Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Why Police Cannot Cross State Lines and Take Your Phone

Published on: July 12, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If police officers from Massachusetts cross into another state and seize your property without a warrant or permission from that state, the evidence they take may not hold up in court. That exact issue came up in a recent decision from the Supreme Judicial Court. Officers from Lowell crossed into New Hampshire during a home invasion investigation. While there, they took a man’s phone without a warrant, suspecting he was deleting evidence. Once back in Massachusetts, they obtained a warrant to search the phone.

The court made clear that this action crossed a legal line. Officers from Massachusetts do not have power to seize property in another state unless they follow that state’s rules or get permission. Because the detectives failed to do that here, the search violated constitutional protections. As a result, the court suppressed the evidence from the phone.

How This Affects You If Police Search Your Belongings

Can Prosecutors Use Your Hospital Blood Work Against You in a Massachusetts OUI Case

Published on: July 1, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are charged with a third-offense OUI in Massachusetts, you may believe that refusing a breath test protects you from chemical evidence at trial. However, a recent case confirmed that prosecutors can still introduce blood alcohol content (BAC) calculations based on hospital records. Even without your permission, hospital blood work collected during medical care may lead to a conviction.

In this case, police stopped a driver who showed signs of intoxication. He refused a breath test at the station and was later taken to a hospital for treatment. Medical professionals drew his blood for clinical reasons, not for law enforcement. Police later obtained a warrant for the samples and sent them to a crime lab. A judge suppressed those results, but prosecutors still moved forward using records from the hospital and a scientific conversion to estimate his BAC. The state’s highest court ruled that this converted evidence could be used.

Prosecutors’ Use of Medical Data After Test Refusals

Court Upholds Vehicle Search Based on Community Caretaking Exception

Published on: June 24, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

When police open a backpack without a warrant, most defendants hope suppression will follow. Yet the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s April 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Page reminds us that the community caretaking doctrine—though narrowed by the United States Supreme Court—remains a potent exception to the warrant requirement. Below we walk through the facts, the governing law, and the court’s analysis so you understand how a simple grocery-store stop turned into a lawful seizure of guns, drugs, and cash.

What Sparked the Parking-Lot Search?

On September 24, 2021, Greenfield Deputy Chief William Gordon and Officer Laura Gordon were off duty, dressed in plain clothes, and driving an unmarked cruiser to pick up groceries at the Big Y supermarket. As they pulled into the lot, a police radio call reported a semi-conscious person in a nearby vehicle. The officers rolled over to the car, where bystanders pointed to a man slumped at the wheel—later identified as the defendant, Page. His skin looked pale, his breathing labored, and Officer Gordon suspected an overdose.

Know Your Rights at DUI Checkpoints in Massachusetts — And What Happens If You Refuse a Breathalyzer

Published on: June 11, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you’ve ever driven through a DUI checkpoint, you know how unsettling it can be — even for sober drivers. Flashing lights, uniformed officers, and the uncertainty of what’s expected can cause confusion and anxiety. While DUI checkpoints are designed to deter impaired driving, it’s critical for every Massachusetts driver to understand their rights and obligations during these encounters.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I regularly represent individuals charged with OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and other driving offenses. Many of my clients are good people who simply didn’t know what they were legally required to do — and more importantly, what they were not required to do — during a DUI checkpoint. Here’s what every driver in the Commonwealth should know:

1. DUI Checkpoints Are Legal — But Only If Properly Conducted

Boston Firearm Case Overturned Based on Lack of Evidence

Published on: June 3, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

When a routine police call in Boston’s North End leads to the discovery of a rifle, magazines of ammunition, and a defendant who readily admits he has no license to carry, most would assume that a conviction would stand. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s May 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Ferreira Artur shows how quickly a case can unravel when the Commonwealth’s evidence can’t meet every element of the crime.

The Facts of the Case

Around 4:45 a.m. on November 28, 2021, Boston police officers responded to a radio call in the North End. They found the defendant, Julio C. Ferreira Artur, seated on a sidewalk with a blanket over his shoulders. A blue bicycle and two black trash bags sat within five yards of him, and officers believed he was intoxicated. Shining a flashlight into one bag, an officer spotted what looked like the barrel of a gun. The weapon was secured, and Ferreira Artur was handcuffed and frisked. Inside his jacket pockets officers discovered two magazines containing thirteen rounds of ammunition. Because the defendant spoke only Portuguese, a State Trooper fluent in that language delivered a Miranda warning and conducted a brief interview. According to the Trooper, Ferreira Artur admitted he found the rifle in the trunk of an unlocked white car and that he lacked a license to carry.

How Far Can You Go in Protecting Another Animal or Disciplining Your Own?

Published on: May 9, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are accused of animal cruelty in Massachusetts, the law allows for some narrow exceptions, but proving them can be difficult. Claims of defense of another animal or bona fide discipline must be supported by clear evidence. A recent case decided by the Supreme Judicial Court demonstrates just how limited these defenses can be, particularly when the alleged harm occurs in public and involves the visible use of force.

In this case, the accused was convicted of animal cruelty after witnesses observed him repeatedly striking his dog at a public park. He claimed that he was trying to stop the dog from attacking a groundhog and that the strikes were controlled and necessary. On appeal, the trial court’s decisions to exclude expert testimony and to decline special jury instructions were challenged. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately upheld the conviction, stating that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and that the jury had enough information to evaluate the defense’s claims.

Understanding Bona Fide Discipline and Defense of Another Under Massachusetts Law

Massachusetts law criminalizes cruelty to animals, but it recognizes that not all physical contact with an animal is illegal. Discipline that is reasonable and not excessive may be permitted. Similarly, a person may use force to defend another animal, but only if the response is proportionate and necessary to the situation. These exceptions are narrowly applied and often require strong factual support.

How Appeals Can Help Reduce or Vacate Charges Based on Improper Convictions

Published on: May 9, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are facing multiple criminal charges after a single incident, you may assume that each conviction will lead to separate punishment. In some cases, however, those convictions overlap or cover the same conduct. In Massachusetts, a conviction may be thrown out if it is based on a charge that has already been resolved. A recent decision from the state’s highest court shows how appellate review can correct errors and reduce sentencing exposure.

In a case reviewed by the Supreme Judicial Court, the accused was initially convicted of seven separate charges, including mayhem, multiple counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to maim, and misleading a police officer. The altercation occurred after the accused gave a woman a ride home. A violent confrontation followed, resulting in serious injuries to another man. The jury returned guilty verdicts on several counts, but the SJC found that some of the convictions covered the same conduct and could not stand.

When Are Convictions Considered Duplicative in Massachusetts?

Have You Been Deactivated as a Rideshare Driver in Massachusetts? Here’s How You Can Appeal

Published on: May 1, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you’re a rideshare driver in Massachusetts—working with Uber, Lyft, or another platform—and have been deactivated due to background check issues, you’re not alone. Many hardworking drivers are sidelined every year, often without a clear explanation. Fortunately, you have rights and options to appeal. At the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy, we specialize in helping drivers like you navigate the appeals process with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU).

Understanding the TNC Division and Background Checks

In Massachusetts, the Transportation Network Company (TNC) Division of the DPU regulates rideshare driver eligibility. To legally operate, you must pass a two-part background check—one by the rideshare company and the other by the TNC Division. These checks examine your criminal history, driving record, and other factors to determine whether you’re a suitable candidate for rideshare services.

Withdrawing a Guilty Plea in a Massachusetts OUI Case

Published on: March 31, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Over the past several years, there has been extensive litigation in Massachusetts regarding a specific kind of breathalyzer machine called the Alcotest 9510 device. Challenges to this machine have revealed malfunctions and inconsistencies in the breath test results that the Commonwealth has consistently used in criminal proceedings.

Because of the Alcotest litigation, we now know that many defendants may have been unfairly convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) or operating under the influence (OUI). Breath test results from the Alcotest 9510 produced between June 2011 and April 17, 2019 are now banned from being entered into evidence in criminal cases. How does this reality affect criminal defendants who pled guilty to such a crime during the relevant time period?

Withdrawing Pleas in General

Under Massachusetts law, it is possible to withdraw a guilty plea under certain circumstances. Rules of criminal procedure say specifically that a defendant may successfully petition to withdraw a guilty plea if it appears that “justice may not have been done” at the trial stage. Courts can interpret this language however they see fit.

Can Race Be a Factor in Jury Selection in a Massachusetts Criminal Trial?

Published on: March 31, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Prior to beginning a trial, it is commonplace for the prosecution and defense to go through a process that is called jury selection. During this process, each party is permitted to exercise several “peremptory challenges” to possible jurors. This means that each party may tell the judge that they would like to remove a possible juror from the pool without providing any reason or justification. There is an important provision of Massachusetts and federal law, however, that says that neither party may use a peremptory challenge because of a juror’s race.

How do courts interpret this rule? In one recent case before a Massachusetts court, the defendant was on trial for murder. During jury selection, the prosecution used a peremptory challenge to remove one juror who identified as Hispanic. The defense, however, argued that the prosecution only asked to strike this juror because of his ethnicity. The judge should have recognized, the defense argued on appeal, that the peremptory challenge was based on race and therefore against the law.

When the higher court reviewed the trial judge’s decision to allow the peremptory strike, it noted that the prosecution explained during jury selection that it did not feel the juror could be impartial during trial. The juror specifically stated that he was skeptical because the defendant did not have any members of his race in the jury pool, opining that this was unfair to the defendant. This, said the higher court, was a legitimate reason to remove the juror. Just because the juror brought up race did not mean the prosecution only wanted to strike him because of his race.