Property Crimes

Control or Possession of Explosive Device in Massachusetts

Published on: October 2, 2014 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Homemade bombs are illegal in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Anybody convicted of control or possession of an explosive device faces the possibility of fines and imprisonment of either up to 2 1/2 years in the house of corrections or between 10-20 years in the state prison. In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Huacon, the defendant was charged with malicious burning of property, malicious explosion, control or possession of an incendiary device, and violating a restraining order. The case arose during the defendant’s and victim’s romantic relationship, which lasted about two years before the events at issue.

The victim lived with her family. The victim invited the defendant into her house, where they got in a fight. The victim’s mother asked the defendant to leave, but he wouldn’t. She went downstairs, and the defendant followed her.

He got a knife and told the family he would kill everyone and burn the house down. About 30 minutes later, three police officers arrived, took the knife, and arrested the defendant. Later, a restraining order was obtained. Nonetheless, the defendant called the victim at work.
Continue reading

Arrest Made in Connection with Cambridge Break-ins

Published on: November 14, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Cambridge police recently announced that they had made an arrest of a Boston man who was wanted on charges relating to two break-ins in Cambridge.State police and members of a U.S. Marshals task force seized cocaine, bath salts, oxycodone and more than $8,000 in cash. The man was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant for the housebreaks.

In addition to the charges stemming from the warrant, the man was also charged with two counts of possession of a class B drug and trafficking of cocaine. These charges were based on police stating that they seized 18 grams of cocaine, nine ounces of “bath salts,” and 38 grams of oxycodone pills that had been packaged for distribution pursuant to the arrest. Police also reportedly seized drug paraphernalia, items believed to have been taken during break-ins, and more than $8,000 in cash.
Continue reading

Dunkin’ Donuts Robbery Believed to be Man’s 18th Incident

Published on: October 2, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Newton police were called to the Dunkin’ Donuts on Needham Street this week for a reported robbery. Law enforcement believe the latest incident may be the 18th for the same individual.Witnesses say the thief entered the location through the back door and was holding a pistol. He then reportedly told workers to get onto the floor, and that he would shoot them if they tried anything. The man then reportedly took money out of the register and the box near the register where workers store larger bills, and thereafter left store.

Police say the gunman was wearing all black, including his clothing and mask. The same location was purportedly targeted previously in July. Law enforcement believes that the same man has targeted at least 18 Dunkin’ Donuts stores in the last several months in eastern Massachusetts and New Hampshire. An investigation remains ongoing.
Continue reading

Man Charged in Connection with Beverly Jewelry Store Burglaries

Published on: June 13, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

A Boston man was recently charged with burglary in connection with several Massachusetts jewelry store robberies, and authorities believe that he may also be responsible for several more.The suspect pleaded not guilty in Salem District Court on Monday to two counts of each of breaking and entering, malicious destruction of property, and to being a fugitive from justice. His bail was set at $750,000.

The charges stem from incidents which occurred at the same Beverly jewelry store, roughly one week apart, in December and January. During both instances, a fifteen to twenty pound dumbell was found within the store, which authorities believe was used to smash open glass doors and display cases. Police believe that the suspect may be responsible for more than a dozen similar “smash and grab” robberies in New York and New England, in which almost $500,000 of merchandise was taken.

Prosecutors said that the man’s blood, and thus DNA, was found at the store involved in the crime. The man’s attorney pointed out that this was the only evidence tying him to the alleged incident.
Continue reading

Attorney Patrick J. Murphy Fights for Accurate Court Records in Recent Revere Case

Published on: April 17, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Police are accusing a Boston area man of several crimes related to allegedly using a filed down key to gain entrance into a police bait car, and then removing several small items before being apprehended.At the arraignment last week, the client plead not guilty to the charges, which included:

possession of a motor vehicle master key
breaking and entering in the night to commit a felony
and larceny over $250

Attorney Patrick J. Murphy argued that his client had been set up by police. He stated that this was essentially a victimless crime, wherein all of the property involved in the allegations is owned by the city of Boston, and that the entire case was essentially a ruse set up by the Boston Police Department.

He further pointed out that his client had not been charged in any other break-ins, despite contentions otherwise by the Assistant District Attorney. Attorney Murphy expressed concern that all of the alleged prior charges recounted by the ADA during the hearing were not even for the correct defendant. In fact, the court documents listed the client with two different names, even though only one of them happened to be correct. This included documents reflecting the incorrect age for Murphy’s client in at least one place.

Further supporting the fact that the supposed prior crimes were not committed by this client is the fact that the client would only have been 15 years old at the time these purported crimes occurred. This means that even if we were to pretend that they were true, they would have been handled within the juvenile system. Attorney Murphy stated that he is working diligently to figure out how the improper criminal record was attributed to his client.
Continue reading

Warrantless Massachusetts Cell Phone Search Case to be Decided by SJC

Published on: May 25, 2012 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy has succeeded in convincing the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for Suffolk County to allow an interlocutory appeal to review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized from a defendant through an unlawful and warrantless search of a cell phone. The case originated from the Boston Municipal Court, East Boston Division. The SJC Docket No. is SJ-2012-0144.

At issue is whether the police acted improperly by searching the defendant’s cellular telephone without a search warrant after seizing it pursuant to a lawful arrest while the defendant was in custody back at the police station. Although the lower court denied the motion to suppress of the alleged cell phone evidence that the police said tied the defendant to the crime, in his decision, the judge at the motion hearing recognized that neither the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts nor the Massachusetts Appeals Court have addressed the issue of a warrantless search of a cell phone after the defendant is in custody.

Unfortunately, there is conflicting case law among the federal circuits. Attorney Patrick Murphy is urging the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to uphold the protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to require that the police show deference to the warrant requirement before such a search should take place.
Continue reading

Property Crime, Trespass and the right to protest in Massachusetts

Published on: October 1, 2011 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Yesterday, twenty-four people were arrested in Boston for the crime of trespass in Boston, Massachusetts. Thousands of protesters congregated near the offices of Bank of America to protest what they believe to be unfair bank foreclosure practices by BOA. Those arrested spent several hours at the police station being booked and processed for later arraignment in court. Although a law enforcement source was quoted in the Boston Herald that the individuals arrested are not likely to face “serious trouble” the crime of trespass is a misdemeanor property offense punishable by a fine of $100.00 or up to thirty days of incarceration, or both. A trespass arrest and conviction, under current law, will remain on a person’s criminal record history (CORI) and would be visible to potential employers. Although the crime of trespass is a relatively minor offense when compared to other property crimes, it is still taken seriously by prosecutors and the resolution of the case depends upon a number of factors including whether or not you have a prior criminal record for trespass or other crimes. Therefore, it is important to contact an experienced Boston, Massachusetts criminal defense trespass attorney right away to defend the case. An knowledgeable and experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer handling a trespass case will also explore pretrial disposition options for the client that may include dismissal of the charges prior to arraignment. Under such a resolution, the charge would not be listed on the defendant’s CORI.

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266, Section 120, in order for a person to be found guilty of trespass the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she, without right, entered or remained in a building or on the land of another. The prosecutor must also prove by the same high standard that the individual was forbidden to enter or to remain on the property by a person in lawful control of the premises either directly or by means of a posted no trespass notice. The first part is met by evidence that the individual either entered, in this case, on the bank’s premises without permission, or failed to leave the bank after being requested to do so. If there was a posted no trespass notice at the bank the prosecutor is not required to prove that the defendant actually saw a notice prohibiting trespassing. The Commonwealth is only required to prove that there was a reasonably distinct notice forbidding trespass, and that it was posted in a reasonably suitable place so that a reasonably careful trespasser would see it. If the bank did not have a posted notice there must be proof that the owner directly prohibited entry to the specific individual in question.
Continue reading