Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Understanding Repeat OUI Charges After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Foley Decision

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

If you are facing charges tied to operating a vehicle with a revoked license due to a past OUI or motor vehicle homicide, your case may fall under Massachusetts laws that carry steep penalties. A recent opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth v. Foley, decided on July 15, 2025, explains how prior convictions influence new charges and sentencing enhancements. The ruling confirms how the state applies repeat-offender laws in cases involving serious driving offenses and outlines what prosecutors must prove to support those charges.

If your current charge stems from a prior OUI or similar offense, this case may help you better understand what the government needs to show and how an experienced lawyer can challenge parts of the case.

How the Court Interpreted Repeat Offender Statutes in This Case

GPS Monitoring Before Trial Raises Privacy Questions

Published on: August 19, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

When Massachusetts courts require GPS monitoring as part of pretrial release, many people are unaware that the location data collected may later be used as evidence against them. In a recent ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court, the justices reviewed whether law enforcement could lawfully access and rely on GPS records collected during monitoring to investigate a new incident. This case is important because it shows how conditions imposed before any conviction can still affect your rights well into the future.

If you are accused of a crime in Massachusetts, the conditions tied to your release may seem routine or temporary. However, as this case shows, each requirement can have lasting consequences. You need a criminal defense attorney who understands how to challenge surveillance measures and safeguard your rights from the beginning.

Massachusetts Court Confirms GPS Data from Bail Monitoring Can Be Used

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rejects Sex Trafficking Charges Based on Online Sting Operation

Published on: August 5, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In May 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the limits of the state’s sex trafficking statute. The court rejected the Commonwealth’s attempt to charge men who responded to online ads with trafficking, holding that their conduct did not meet the definition of that offense under G. L. c. 265, Section 50. This ruling matters for anyone facing solicitation or prostitution-related charges in Massachusetts, particularly in cases stemming from undercover operations.

If you have been charged with a sex crime in Massachusetts, especially after responding to an online ad, you may be unsure which charges the Commonwealth can lawfully pursue. This recent opinion makes clear that prosecutors cannot stretch trafficking statutes beyond their scope just to increase pressure on the accused. You need a defense lawyer who understands where police authority ends and where your legal protections begin.

Supreme Judicial Court Confirms Trafficking Law Does Not Cover Online Sting Buyers

Massachusetts Involuntary Manslaughter Case Highlights Double Jeopardy Risks in Criminal Sentencing

Published on: July 25, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Multiple charges often follow when someone is accused of a serious offense involving a fatal crash, each carrying its own penalties. However, the law does not allow prosecutors to stack overlapping charges for the same act. A recent decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarifies how courts must avoid imposing multiple punishments when offenses stem from the same event.

In a case decided in May 2025, the court considered whether a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter in connection with a fatal highway crash could also be punished for motor vehicle homicide and operating to endanger. The court ruled that the lower court erred by convicting the accused on all three counts, finding that the additional charges duplicated the involuntary manslaughter conviction. Those two lesser charges were vacated, while the manslaughter conviction and a separate conviction for driving without insurance were upheld.

This case is important for anyone facing multiple charges from a single incident. Prosecutors may file every possible charge during the early stages of a case, but not all of them can result in separate punishments. If you are charged with overlapping offenses, you may have legal grounds to challenge the sentence or the charges themselves.

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.