Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Why a Search Incident to Arrest Cannot Become a Hunt for Other Evidence

Published on: September 9, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Last updated July 29, 2026 · Reviewed by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts limits a search incident to arrest by statute, and that limit is narrower than what the Fourth Amendment allows. A Supreme Judicial Court decision issued July 17, 2026 enforced it against Boston officers who searched a handcuffed woman repeatedly to find her car key, then used the key to open her locked glove compartment. Commonwealth v. Dobson, SJC-13794, reversed the denial of her motion to suppress the firearm and pills inside, and it reaches into how many Massachusetts gun charges are built out of an ordinary traffic stop.

A search incident to arrest is a warrantless search of someone under arrest. General Laws c. 276, § 1 allows one for only two purposes: seizing evidence of the crime of arrest, and removing a weapon the arrestee might use to resist arrest or escape. Evidence from a search serving neither purpose is inadmissible under the statute’s own terms.

When Massachusetts Police Interrogate You in Spanish

Published on: September 4, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Last updated August 30, 2026 · Reviewed by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts trial judges have discretion over whether the Commonwealth must produce an English transcript before a recorded Spanish-language interrogation is used at trial. An Appeals Court decision issued August 7, 2026 declined to turn that discretion into a requirement and upheld a Framingham District Court conviction where no transcript was ever prepared. Commonwealth v. Figueroa, No. 25-P-1027, reaches anyone facing Massachusetts assault and battery charges whose statements to police were taken in a language the courtroom did not run in.

Under Commonwealth v. Portillo, 462 Mass. 324 (2012), a judge may order the Commonwealth to give defense counsel an English transcription of a recorded foreign-language interview and may exclude the statements if none is produced. That discretion is not a rule of automatic exclusion. A judge can keep those statements out of the prosecution’s case and still allow the interrogating officer to describe them later, in rebuttal, if the person charged decides to testify.

Who Can Tell a Jury That a Cell Phone Extraction Is Accurate

Published on: August 5, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Last updated July 29, 2026 · Reviewed by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

An officer who runs a cell phone extraction tool and an expert in digital forensics are not interchangeable witnesses in a Massachusetts criminal trial. The distance between them can decide how much of a phone’s contents a jury ever hears in a Massachusetts drug case. The Supreme Judicial Court drew that line in 2025 and returned to it on July 9, 2026, in Commonwealth v. Watson, SJC-13850, turning aside a reading of the earlier decision that would have erased the distinction.

A cell phone extraction report is the output of forensic software that unlocks a device and copies its contents into a readable file. Under Commonwealth v. Cronin, 495 Mass. 170 (2025), an officer trained on that software may testify to the steps he performed to generate the report. He may not testify that the tool is reliable or accurate.

Massachusetts Now Tests Every OUI Blood Sample for Drugs

Published on: July 22, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Massachusetts State Police crime laboratory changed how it analyzes blood in operating-under-the-influence cases as of February 19, 2026. Every blood sample drawn in an OUI investigation across Suffolk County and the Commonwealth now goes through both alcohol and drug testing, even when the alcohol result alone would explain the arrest. For anyone facing an OUI charge in Boston, that shift quietly widens the field of evidence the Commonwealth can use.

A positive drug result does not prove impairment on its own. Under M.G.L. c. 90 § 24, the Commonwealth still has to prove that a driver was actually impaired at the time of operation, and a substance showing up in the blood is not the same as proof that it affected the driving. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy has defended OUI cases in the Boston Municipal Court and across Suffolk County for more than 27 years, and this change makes early review of the full toxicology file more useful to the defense than before.

What the New Blood Testing Rule Changes for a Boston OUI Case

The laboratory used to run drug testing on OUI blood only when the alcohol concentration came back under 0.08, or when something in the case file suggested drugs were involved. That screening filter is gone. The toxicology unit now tests for both alcohol and drugs on every blood submission, and it issues the results in two stages. The alcohol report comes first, and a separate drug report follows once that analysis finishes.

Bodycam Footage at Boston-Area OUI Checkpoints After the Latest SJC Ruling

Published on: July 15, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

A Massachusetts sobriety checkpoint now routinely produces a complete audio and video record of a driver’s roadside encounter, captured on troopers’ body-worn cameras. The Supreme Judicial Court addressed that kind of recording for the first time in a decision issued June 2, 2026, holding that footage from a State Police checkpoint can be used as evidence in an operating under the influence prosecution. For a driver facing an OUI charge in Boston or elsewhere in Suffolk County, the ruling shapes both what the Commonwealth can show a jury and where the defense can still push back.

The recordings are admissible because the troopers did not secretly record the driver. The Court reasoned that a large, reflective sign warning of recording at the checkpoint, combined with body-worn cameras worn openly at chest level with visible red lights, meant there was no willful interception under the Massachusetts wiretap statute. That holding does not hand the prosecution an automatic conviction. Video of field sobriety testing often helps the defense as much as the Commonwealth, and Attorney Patrick J. Murphy has spent more than three decades defending OUI cases in Boston and across Suffolk County by holding the Commonwealth to every element it must prove.

What a Sobriety Checkpoint Stop Actually Looks Like in Massachusetts

A New SJC Ruling Gives Noncitizens a Way to Reopen Old Massachusetts Drug Cases

Published on: July 1, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts ruling issued May 7, 2026 has changed what a noncitizen can do about an old drug admission that is now driving a deportation case. In Commonwealth v. Chhieng, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a District Court judge’s immigration warning was legally inadequate because it mentioned only a “conviction” and said nothing about the immigration consequences of an admission to sufficient facts. For a lawful permanent resident who closed out a Boston-area drug charge years ago with a continuance without a finding, that gap can mean the difference between keeping the right to live here and facing removal.

Under M.G.L. c. 278, § 29D, a person who never received the proper warning can move to withdraw a plea or admission at any time, even years later, once the federal government takes a step toward removal. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy handles Boston drug crime cases throughout Suffolk County, and this decision gives the defense a concrete tool for clients whose old District Court dispositions have come back to threaten their status.

What an Admission to Sufficient Facts Really Does to a Noncitizen

A New Mass. Appeals Court Ruling Reshapes Criminal Responsibility Defenses

Published on: June 9, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you or a family member is facing assault and battery on a police officer or a similar charge in Boston, and mental illness was part of what happened that day, a brand-new Massachusetts Appeals Court decision matters to your case. On May 12, 2026, the Appeals Court reversed convictions out of the Boston Municipal Court because the Commonwealth failed to prove the accused was criminally responsible at the time of the offense. The decision is Commonwealth v. Brunette-Silveira, and it tightens what prosecutors in Suffolk County must actually put on the record before a fact finder can reject an insanity defense.

Here is what that means in practical terms. Once a Boston criminal defense attorney raises criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth has to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt with real evidence, not assumption. Attorney Patrick J. Murphy has handled these cases in BMC and across Suffolk County for more than 27 years, and the new ruling gives the defense meaningful additional leverage.

What the Court Actually Held

The accused was charged with four counts of assault and battery on a police officer under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13D and one count of threatening to commit a crime under M.G.L. c. 275, § 2. The conduct happened at and after the Edward W. Brooke Court House. A defense forensic psychologist testified that the accused was in a manic episode tied to a chronic, major mental illness and lacked the substantial capacity to control his conduct.

Massachusetts Court Weighs in on the Issue of Consent in Indecent Assault and Battery Cases

Published on: June 2, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you have been charged with indecent assault and battery in Boston and the alleged contact happened in a setting where some touching was expected, such as a tattoo appointment, a massage, a medical exam, or any service that involves physical contact, a new Massachusetts Appeals Court decision changes how a jury can think about consent in your case. On April 28, 2026, the Appeals Court decided Commonwealth v. Benevides, affirming a conviction under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13H and clarifying that consent to a specific procedure is not blanket consent to any touching that follows.

Here is what that means in practical terms. In Boston indecent assault and battery cases, prosecutors no longer need to prove that the accused person heard a clear “no” before the alleged touching occurred. They can argue that the scope of consent was limited from the start. Attorney Patrick J. Murphy has defended these charges in Suffolk County district courts and the Boston Municipal Court for more than 27 years, and the ruling reshapes how you must approach these cases from the first interview forward.

What the Court Actually Held

The case involved a tattoo appointment in Leominster District Court. The accused was convicted of indecent assault and battery for two touchings during a tattoo session, contact with the client’s pubic area while applying ink and rubbing of the inner thigh after the tattoo was finished. The defense argued on appeal that by sitting for a tattoo on her thigh, the client consented to touching in that area, and that the Commonwealth had to prove she withdrew consent before the alleged indecent contact.

Massachusetts Cracks Down on Rideshare Drivers: What the New DPU Regulations Mean for You

Published on: May 7, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you drive for Uber or Lyft in Massachusetts, the rules are changing—and not in your favor.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has proposed sweeping new regulations aimed at increasing safety and oversight in the rideshare industry. While the stated goal is “public protection,” the real-world effect will likely be more deactivations, more investigations, and more drivers being pushed out of the system.

For drivers, this isn’t just regulatory fine print—it’s a direct threat to your ability to earn a living.

Boston Drug Motions When Fentanyl Safety Rules Keep Evidence Out of Court

Published on: April 17, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are dealing with a Boston drug charge in Suffolk County, a defense attorney will often focus early on the motion to suppress. These hearings usually decide whether the police had a lawful basis to stop, search, and seize. A February 13, 2026, Massachusetts Appeals Court decision out of Boston Municipal Court adds a timely procedural wrinkle. Court fentanyl safety protocols can restrict when suspected fentanyl enters the courthouse, and a judge cannot turn a personal demand to physically bring drugs into the courtroom into a gate that blocks a suppression hearing.

What Triggered the Appeals Court Decision

In the Boston Municipal Court case, the Commonwealth arrived for a suppression hearing with witnesses ready to testify. The judge insisted that the prosecutor physically bring the seized drug evidence into the courtroom before the hearing would go forward. The prosecutor raised the Trial Court fentanyl safety protocols, which restrict fentanyl and suspected fentanyl from entering courthouses except under controlled procedures.