Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

In Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, a Massachusetts appellate court considered a case involving a conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of MGL c. 94C, § 32(a) & (b). The case arose when a state trooper and sergeant were waiting outside an address in Brockton. The state trooper had a search warrant authorizing him to search for controlled substances at the address and on the defendant’s person. The officers saw a rental car driving up the road. The trooper knew that the defendant’s license was suspended, and so they pulled the car over and arrested the driver (the defendant).

When the defendant came out, the trooper told him that they were there to execute a search warrant and put him in handcuffs. The police searched the defendant and found 14 small bags of heroin, weighing about five grams, in his pants pocket and $1,155 in another pocket.

Later at trial, an expert police officer testified that users usually pay for heroin in cash, but it would be unusual for a user to have 14 bags of heroin at once or a large amount of cash. Plus, users usually have paraphernalia to use the drugs. Dealers usually sell individually wrapped half grams of heroin. The 14 small bags were worth roughly $700 altogether. The police also found keys to the building. They used the keys to enter the outer door as well as the defendant’s individual unit. There, they found 11 1/2 fingers of heroin, scales, bags, and firearms. The heroin weighed more than 100 grams.

Continue reading

In Commonwealth v. Dominguez, a Massachusetts Appeals Court considered a drug distribution case. The defendant, Jose Dominguez, was convicted of distributing the class B substance of cocaine, which is a violation of MGL c. 94C, § 32A(b), and doing so in a school zone, thereby violating MGL c. 94C, § 32J. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the judge shouldn’t have admitted implied hearsay by two police officers.

The case arose when an officer and a detective were in an unmarked car near the door of a CVS. They were conducting surveillance and saw Danielle and Alan Frieta standing nearby. Danielle was looking at her cell phone, and the detective thought she looked like she was hoping to buy narcotics. Danielle walked toward the CVS and met Dominguez there. Talking, they stepped into the vestibule. Their hands touched, but the officer saw nothing in their hands and the two left the vestibule. Then Dominguez walked one way, and both Danielle and Alan Frieta walked a different way, going into a car parked on the side of the road.

The officer got out of the police car and stopped Dominguez. He identified himself as an officer and read the defendant his Miranda rights. He then searched the defendant’s pockets and found a one-dollar bill in one pocket and four twenty-dollar bills in a different pocket. Nothing else associated with a drug transaction was found on the defendant.

Continue reading

In Commonwealth v. Stampley, a Massachusetts defendant appealed from a jury conviction under G.L. c. 94C, § 32C(a) for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He argued that the evidence was not sufficient to show he had intent to distribute.

The case arose in the evening when the defendant and a female friend were alone on the bleachers in a field smoking a blunt (a marijuana cigar). The smell attracted a police officer’s attention. He approached them and noted they seemed to be in their mid-teens. He noticed they were fidgeting, and they gave him false names. The defendant consented to a search of his backpack. Inside the front were 13 blue-tinted sealed mini-Ziploc bags. The defendant’s friend had four of these. There was nothing else on the defendant that suggested he was involved in drug sales.

In a prior case, the court held that five plastic bags of marijuana inside a defendant’s pocket didn’t support an inference that he intended to distribute them. Neither did his defensive demeanor. He didn’t have cash, a scale, a cell phone or pager, or empty plastic bags. There wasn’t enough probable cause to issue a complaint.

Continue reading

Trafficking in heroin in Massachusetts is prohibited by Section 32E of the Controlled Substances Act. Often, attorneys must defend a drug crime like this one by using a motion to suppress evidence. In Commonwealth v. Alix, the defendant appealed from a conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin and violating drug laws within 300 feet of a park or school. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence that was seized at his home. He argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant didn’t establish a connection between the alleged crime and his home. The motion was denied.

The defendant appealed. The affidavit had claimed that a confidential informant had told police that a Hispanic man (who had the same first name as the defendant and drove a gray Saab) was selling heroin. Detectives became aware due to another investigation that the defendant had the name mentioned by the informant and drove a Saab.

The informant initiated a transaction that the police controlled. He called the defendant and asked to buy heroin at a specific location. The detectives searched the informant and his vehicle for controlled substances and gave the informant money to conduct the transaction. They also watched the defendant’s home and saw him leave his home and go into a gray Saab. The detectives watched continuously as the informant went into the Saab to meet the defendant and went to a location to meet the detective, where the informant handed the detective heroin. The informant returned home.

Continue reading

In Commonwealth v. Jovani A. Garcia, the defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Two detectives were doing undercover surveillance in a “high crime area” at the prompting of neighbor complaints. One detective was in an unmarked vehicle, while another was near a residential building.

A detective saw a car turn right on the street, stayed still, drove north, and then made a U-turn to drive south again. Around the same time, a man came out of the building. The detectives were familiar with him. They described him as “light-skinned” and “Spanish.” The man got into the car’s back seat. The car traveled a short distance and stopped, whereupon the man got out and went back inside the building and the car drove off.

The police believed they’d just witnessed a drug transaction. They radioed takedown detectives to stop the car. At the stop, the takedown officers discovered 3-4 bags of crack cocaine on the front seat.
Continue reading

It is a felony to distribute or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in Massachusetts, if the substance falls into class A, B, or C. Distribution or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance that falls into class D or E is a misdemeanor. Class B drugs include cocaine, crack cocaine, or methamphetamine.

Section 32A of Chapter 94C provides that conviction of manufacturing, distribution, or intent to distribute is punished by up to 10 years in state prison and up to a $10,000 fine. With a prior similar drug crime conviction, the mandatory minimum is two years in state prison. Those serving a mandatory minimum for this offense are only eligible for parole after serving half of the maximum term of the sentence if the sentence is to the house of correction, unless there is a finding of an aggravating circumstance, such as use of a firearm or threats of violence.

Possession with intent to distribute is a charge that usually relies on circumstantial evidence, and intent can be proved by evidence showing you had multiple individually wrapped baggies of drugs and large amounts of cash. Often, these charges can be defended by arguing that the way the police found the evidence was illegal.
Continue reading

In Commonwealth v. Martin, a Massachusetts court considered a drug case in which a defendant filed motions to withdraw four guilty pleas related to 30 drug offenses. The case arose during the investigation of the defendant’s boyfriend. Contraband was discovered in the defendant’s car, a search warrant was executed at the defendant’s home, and a controlled buy was conducted with the defendant’s boyfriend’s half-brother. After the investigation, there were four sets of indictments involving 12 substantive drug crimes involving cocaine trafficking, as well as school zone and conspiracy charges.

The defendant pled guilty to the 30 drug offenses. All six of the cocaine trafficking charges were reduced to a lesser offense: possession with intent to distribute. She pled guilty to these and all remaining charges except a charge of possession to distribute a class D substance, a school zone violation, and a firearm violation. She was sentenced to 5-8 years in state prison on the possession with intent to distribute charges and all but one conspiracy charge. She was also sentenced to five years of probation that would follow her time in prison on a conspiracy charge.

Three years later, she filed a motion to withdraw the pleas, arguing there had been no factual basis to establish some of the charges, her guilty pleas weren’t made voluntarily or intelligently, and her attorney was ineffective in failing to file a motion to dismiss certain conspiracy counts that were duplicative and a motion to suppress. Her motions were denied. The judge ruled that the record showed that the defendant was informed of all elements and that the prosecutor recited facts establishing all of the charges.
Continue reading

In the recent case Commonwealth v. Thompson, a Massachusetts court considered the conviction of a man charged with selling cocaine in a school zone. While the man’s appeal was pending, the statute related to school zone drug crimes was amended to reduce the radius of the area that is considered a “school zone.” Previously the radius was 1,000 feet, and while the appeal was pending it became 300 feet. An appellate panel ruled initially that the amendment wouldn’t apply retroactively and rejected the defendant’s arguments.

The case arose while the police were patrolling in Cambridge. They watched from an unmarked vehicle as two people sat on the curb next to the parking lot of a convenience store. They were familiar with the parking lot from previous investigations of drug crimes. The two people counted change and were glancing around. The woman stood up and made a call at a pay phone. Soon after, she hung up and came back to the curb. In 10 minutes, the defendant approached on his bike. He didn’t stop but said something to the woman. The woman followed the defendant quickly.

They stopped at a nearby house. They had an exchange that appeared to involve the passing of something between their hands. This happened about 500 feet from the school. The woman continued to pace and returned to the man at the curb. She and the man hurried away, and the defendant got back on his bike and rode off. The detectives pulled into the driveway and approached the house where the man and woman were. The man had a plastic baggie of crack cocaine in his hands, and he dropped it over a nearby fence to drop it.
Continue reading

In a recent Massachusetts appellate case (Commonwealth v. Freddy Baez), a Massachusetts defendant appealed from a conviction for trafficking in cocaine. The case arose when the police were conducting surveillance of the defendant’s address while investigating drug crimes. They saw the defendant leave his house and followed him to another part of Boston, where he picked up his eventual codefendant.

The defendant stopped briefly elsewhere and then went to pick up the defendant’s mother. After that, he changed lanes without signaling, and the police pulled over his car for an infraction. The police asked for identification. The defendant gave the officers identification, but the codefendant provided a fake driver’s license. The codefendant was arrested for the fake license and a default warrant for cocaine trafficking.

The police searched the car and found thousands of dollars in the glove compartment. The defendant was cited for the infraction, but he and his mother were allowed to go.
Continue reading

In a recent case, a Boston Municipal Court granted the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence based on a protective sweep. The sweep arose when a Massachusetts State Trooper ran a license plate check on a Mercedes. The car’s owner had an active warrant for operating his car on a suspended license and other offenses.

The trooper activated his lights to stop the Mercedes, but he gave up the pursuit after the car sped away. Later, he verified the warrant was still active, but he learned that the man now had a valid license. He ran the license plate and went to the man’s address in East Boston. He saw the Mercedes nearby and went to the apartment building to serve the warrant.

Several police officers waited at the back of the building, while three officers entered from the front. They knocked, claiming to be delivering pizza. A voice from inside the apartment stated the police couldn’t enter without a warrant. The officer knocked and identified himself, but nobody responded. The police heard sounds of toilet flushing and a door that might have been opening to the outside. An officer kicked the front door open to stop the suspect’s escape.
Continue reading