Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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.

Boston Firearm Case Shows How Anonymous 911 Tips Fail To Establish Reasonable Suspicion

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

A recent decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court shows how easily a firearm charge can collapse when police rely on an anonymous 911 caller without confirming any real criminal behavior. In Commonwealth v. Morales, the court affirmed suppression of a gun that Boston officers found during a street stop in Dorchester. The tip involved a report of a man “waving a gun,” yet the caller refused to identify themselves, refused to stay on scene, and did not provide enough detail to show that a crime was actually happening. Officers located someone wearing the same clothing described in the call, but they saw no illegal conduct before stopping him. The Appeals Court held that the anonymous call and the limited police observations did not amount to reasonable suspicion required under Massachusetts law.

Courts use decisions like this to clarify how firearm stops must be handled in Boston. Anonymous tips often sound alarming, yet judges expect officers to confirm that criminal conduct may be occurring before detaining someone in public. When a stop is based only on a vague caller and a clothing match, the search that follows can be ruled unconstitutional. A successful motion to suppress removes the firearm from the case, potentially ending the prosecution before trial.

How Massachusetts Courts Evaluate Anonymous 911 Tips

Anonymous tips create major problems for the prosecution. Courts expect officers to verify meaningful details before stopping someone in a public place. Clothing description, location, and general appearance normally count as innocent facts. Those details show that the caller saw someone, yet they do not show illegal activity. A valid stop must be based on the combination of the caller’s statements and police observations that point to possible criminal conduct.

Boston OUI Jurisdiction Challenges and Early Motions

Published on: March 18, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you face an OUI charge in Suffolk County, a Boston OUI lawyer will usually start with one practical point. A strong legal issue does not always end a case early, yet it can still change the outcome when you build the record the right way. A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision issued on February 3, 2026, reinforces that reality. When a District Court judge denies a motion to dismiss based on a police jurisdiction argument, the higher court generally expects the case to follow the normal trial-track process rather than getting fast-tracked through extraordinary relief.

The Recent Massachusetts Decision That Set the Ground Rules

The February 3, 2026, decision involved OUI and related District Court charges, in which the accused argued that the arresting officer acted outside the territorial jurisdiction. Instead of pursuing the usual litigation path, the accused sought relief under the SJC’s superintendence power, seeking intervention before trial. The single justice denied the request, and the full court affirmed, stressing that extraordinary relief is reserved for situations in which no adequate alternative remedy exists. In this setting, the usual remedy is to litigate the jurisdiction issue in the trial court, preserve it, and address it through ordinary review if the case proceeds.

First-Time Shoplifting Charges in Boston and What to Expect in Court

Published on: March 11, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

A first shoplifting or larceny charge can leave you worried about your job, your record, and what will happen at your first court date. Many Boston cases start fast, often after a store report, a quick police response, and a charge that feels heavier than the incident itself. Massachusetts law gives prosecutors several charging options, and the path your case takes often depends on the facts, your history, and how the evidence looks on day one.

You can take steps early that reduce risk. The right approach often starts with understanding what you are charged with, what the Commonwealth has to prove, and how Boston-area courts typically handle first-time, lower-level property cases.

Shoplifting Charges in Massachusetts

Snapchat Messages and 209A Restraining Order Charges in Massachusetts

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

A 209A restraining order charge tied to a Snapchat message usually comes down to identity. The Commonwealth has to show the message came from you, not just from an account that looks like yours or a screenshot that points in your direction. A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Bustard, gives a useful example of how courts scrutinize proof of who actually sent an electronic message.

These cases can move quickly and feel intensely personal. Courts often impose strict no-contact conditions right away, and confusion about what counts as contact can create new exposure. A clear understanding of what the Commonwealth must prove can help you protect yourself from avoidable mistakes early on.

209A Restraining Order Violations and Electronic Contact