Published on: | by

Recent arrests in Massachusetts prove that people from all walks of life commit crimes and the advantageous sector of welfare benefits provides ample opportunities for those looking to make a quick buck. The Huffington Post reports that two Massachusetts lottery winners have been accused of collecting welfare benefits. James Casey Jr. of Waltham and Frank Basile of Belmont face charges of larceny and fraud as of May 2012. After a full investigation, the Boston Globe reports that James T. Casey Jr. allegedly collected $12,157 in MassHealth benefits and $1,553 in food stamps since allegedly winning more than $700,000 from the state lottery in Massachusetts. In addition, Frank Basile allegedly collected $17,500 in MassHealth benefits despite having allegedly cashed in more than $316,000 in winning lottery tickets over four years. The two reportedly failed to report their lottery winning in order to claim the public health benefits. Welfare fraud is a serious criminal offense resulting in both civil and criminal penalties for those convicted. Welfare fraud takes place when people make false statements or fail to report important information when applying for these types of public programs in order to receive benefits to which they are not otherwise entitled. If convicted, Casey and Basile could potentially face incarceration for up to five years in prison and fines of up to $25,000. If you are suspected of welfare fraud, you should contact a well-educated welfare fraud defense attorney as soon as possible to maximize your chances of avoiding conviction. In some instances, early intervention by a lawyer may prevent the loss of welfare benefits or the filing of criminal charges.

Instances of welfare fraud have become more prevalent in recent years, as the economy continues to produce negative results and Americans feel the pressure of unemployment and lay offs. The Boston Herald reports that nearly $2 million in taxpayer-funded Massachusetts welfare has been fraudulently claimed since the beginning of 2012. In Massachusetts, the Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI), part of the State Auditor’s Office, is in charge of fraud prevention for public assistance programs. The Bureau of Special Investigations has identified many people who took advantage of welfare, food stamps, health care, housing, and childcare services. While welfare fraud remains a detrimental and growing problem, detecting instances of this practice are difficult because the current law does not require the lottery to disclose its list of winners to MassHealth. State officials have worked to change this so that they may combat the rising costs of the crime and Alec Loftus, spokesman for the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, says that as of 2014 MassHealth will have access to tax records.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The Boston Globe reports that at 12:51 a.m. on Saturday July 21, 2012 an off-duty Massachusetts state trooper was relieved of his active duty after being arrested for operating under the influence (OUI). The trooper, 46-year-old Daniel Sheehan, was arrested in Enfield, Connecticut after a patrolman came upon him sleeping or passed out behind the wheel of a Cadillac Escalade parked alongside the road. The arresting officer said there was no damage to the vehicle, no signs of a crash, and Sheehan was uninjured. However, upon the results of field sobriety tests, the officers determined Sheehan was definitely impaired and arrested him. Daniel Sheehan is a veteran police officer, having graduated from the State Police Academy in 2002. Sheehan was currently assigned to the Russell Barracks, located along the Westfield Road in Russell, MA. Arraignment of the State trooper is set for Monday July 30th and a hearing to decide his duty status will be held this week.

In Massachusetts, the terms operating under the influence (OUI), driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI) are synonymous. The official charge is Massachusetts is known as Operating Under the Influence (OUI). The laws pertaining to OUI in Massachusetts are very strict and impose harsh penalties on those found in violation of them. The prosecution often seeks maximum sentencing when dealing with OUI offenders in an attempt to draw awareness to the dangerousness posed to the public by drunk drivers. When the offender happens to be a dedicated member of the State Police force, matters become even more intense. When a person who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law puts the community at large in danger by getting behind the wheel of a vehicle after consuming alcohol, the case gains a heightened level of attention and comes under a higher level of scrutiny. The public and the press will follow the matter closely to determine if the accused is treated differently than anyone else accused of such a crime.

The impact of this arrest represents the nationwide crackdown on alcohol-impaired drivers. Massachusetts OUI lawyers know such enforcement efforts increase the risk of marginal and unfair arrests. A person who faces a first-time offense with no prior criminal history can be subjected to major sanctions, including jail time, a one year driver’s license suspension, fines and fees, possible alcohol education program and the possibility of probation in lieu of, or in addition to, jail time. Those are severe penalties for a first time mistake. That’s why it is important to contact an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney to inform you of the consequences you face and to explore all the possible avenues of defense.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

On Monday July 9, 2012 a combined effort by Boston police officers and FBI agents dismantled an alleged illegal drug ring, arresting fourteen people spanning twelve locations across Boston, Milton, and Canton. The Boston Globe reports that the enterprise was brought to an end as a result of the largest drug investigation to hit Boston in at least a decade. The investigation, nicknamed Operation Rodeo, lasted thirteen months and involved agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; Department of Homeland Security; Internal Revenue Service; and the Boston Police Department. The federal Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, formed to combat drug activity in and around Boston, purportedly collected thousands of hours of physical surveillance, forensic accounting, translation services, GPS tracking, confidential sources, and a supposed “tremendous” amount of electronic surveillance. Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said that eleven people have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine, as a result of those warrants and seizures. With three more people having been charged with related gun and drug offenses and additional complaints to follow, the police believe that cocaine trafficking business has taken a brutal blow.

The law enforcement authorities claim that the alleged trafficking operation was headed by Juan “White Boy” Guzman, formerly of Hyde Park, who is currently serving a jail sentence for gun and drug convictions. Guzman and his associates have allegedly been trafficking shipments of as much as 40 kilograms of cocaine at a time from Mexico to Boston. Authorities handling Operation Rodeo have seized assets including $500,000, four vehicles, nine bank accounts, and a safety­deposit box allegedly used by the drug ring. Some of those involved are said to also be under investigation for crimes of violence, murder, assault, and in particular, a 2010 triple-homicide at a Centre Street pizzeria in Jamaica Plain. Aside from Guzman, Numitor Vallejo, 31; ­; Thomas ­Lugo, Jr., 25; Caesar Aguasvivas, 32; and Jonathan Tejeda, 30. were arrested in relation to the cocaine trafficking, and Manuel Martinez, 24, faces gun and assault charges stemming from his involvement in the organization. Not guilty pleas have been entered for all individuals charged and all are presumed innocent of any crime alleged.

The crime of conspiracy to traffic cocaine is a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is punishable by up to 15 years in state prison and/or a fine of up to $25,000. In recent decades, the trafficking of drugs has become a worldwide phenomenon, as drugs remain a major commodity in the global black market. Drug trafficking involves the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of controlled substances and is prosecuted vigorously by State and Federal authorities, as the US attempts to make headway on its ‘War On Drugs’ campaign. Law enforcement officials remain concerned because they believe that the business of drug trafficking is usually surrounded with other violent crimes, including murder, human trafficking, slavery, racketeering, and extortion. Cocaine is the most lucrative of these illegal drugs. The United Nations estimates that sales of the drug net $88 billion a year in the retail market alone. Unfortunately, cocaine trafficking and abuse continue to threaten the health and safety of American citizens.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The use of Breathalyzer test instruments has become an increasingly regular routine in the United States, as they allow police officers to make roadside determinations of intoxication. The results from roadside administered breath testing machines provides evidence of the accused’s blood alcohol content, which is enough to constitute an arrest for Operating Under the Influence (OUI) in Massachusetts under General Laws c. 90 s. 24. However, the use of breath testing machines, more commonly known as breathalyzers, in OUI cases is often contested due to the inefficiency and inaccuracy of the machine’s readings. The problem with the testing machines arises when the breath testing instruments give an incorrect read, face problems of inaccuracy, or a police officer makes a mistake administering the test or during the aftermath of the arrest. Because breath testing involves the analysis of microscopic amounts of alcohol it is critical that everything involving the breath test be done with precision and pursuant to established procedures–small variances in procedures can result in huge variances in results. In the event that the breath testing machine has given a false or inaccurate read, an experienced Boston, Massachusetts OUI attorney will be able to file what is known as a Pierre Motion, or a Motion in Limine to have the results of the breath test suppressed.

WHAT IS A PIERRE MOTION?
Established in 2008 in Commonwealth v. Pierre, the Court held that the Commonwealth must prove the admissibility of a breath test result before admitting said result into evidence at trial. A breath test result is considered to be inadmissible at trial unless and until the Commonwealth proves the result’s admissibility by establishing compliance with breath test regulations. Massachusetts requires a breath test to be administered in accordance with M.G.L. c. 90, §24K and 501 CMR 2.00. Both this law and regulation set forth the proper method for administering a breath test, and require the certification of breath testing machines and completed training courses for officers who wish to operate the devices.

According to 501 CMR 2.14, proper administration of a breath test requires four parts: (1) The arrestee’s consent to a breath test shall be documented by the arresting officer or the Breath Test Officer (BTO), 
(2) The breath test shall be administered by a certified BTO on a certified breath test device, 
(3) The breath test shall consist of a multipart sequence consisting of: (a) one adequate breath sample analysis; 
(b) one calibration standard analysis; and 
(c) a second adequate breath sample analysis, and (4) If the sequence does not result in breath samples that are within 0.02% blood alcohol content, the officer must re-administer a new testing sequence. A Pierre Motion is a preliminary motion that will determine whether the testing was appropriately administered. In the event that the administration of the test was not in compliance with M.G.L. c. 90, §24K and 501 CMR 2.00, the test result is not considered reliable evidence and therefore the test result will be barred from entered as evidence. The Pierre Motion is a Motion in Limine, which means that the admissibility determination will be held away from the eyes and ears of the jury in a private meeting before the judge. This distinction prevents the jury from being prejudiced against the defendant due to evidence of the test result.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In the wake of the Penn State/Sandusky scandal, a Taunton High School teacher has been accused of having sex with two female students. Patrick Doyle, a history teacher, now faces charges of statutory rape and aggravated statutory rape of a child. NECN reports that the Doyle was indicted on twelve charges arising from the two incidents, and is currently being held without bail. A dangerousness hearing has been set for Doyle sometime next week. If convicted of these charges, Doyle faces a 10-year to life sentence in prison. Allegations of sex crimes are serious and should not be taken lightly. A conviction for a sexual offense in Massachusetts carries significant penalties of imprisonment and may confine an offender to a lifetime on the sex offender registry.

Earlier this year, two Newton men were arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography. The arrests were made in the same week during January 2012, although there does not appear to be a connection between the two men. Peter Buchanan, a 10-year city employee and Dave Ettlinger, an elementary teacher, both face serious charges stemming from the arrests. Dave Ettlinger was arrested in January 2012 for his participation in the child pornography website called Dreamboard, which requires members to post images of child pornography in order to keep their membership active. Ultimately, Ettlinger was charged with indecently assaulting three females and taping it. The arrest resulted from an international investigation of the website. A June 28th article by the Boston Globe proclaims that Ettlinger may plead guilty to the federal charges stemming from his role in the global child pornography network, although a plea has not yet been entered. If found guilty, Ettlinger faces imprisonment for 20 years to life under 18 USC §2252A. Upon the conclusion of the case, Ettlinger must return to Massachusetts to face state charges for the indecent assault on three females.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Many Boston area residents, workers, students and tourists were interrupted on Wednesday, June 6, 2012 when four people were stabbed on busy, downtown Beacon Street. The area, known as a local hotspot, became an area of chaos and confusion when four people were stabbed just after lunchtime across the street from the Omni Parker House. The Boston Globe reports that the stabbings stemmed from a murder trial underway at the nearby Suffolk Superior Courthouse. The stabbings were reportedly in connection with the murder trial of Kadeem Foreman and Terrell Rainey, who are charged with the May 22, 2010, murder of 24-year-old Toneika Jones. The two were charged with murder, armed assault with intent to murder, and gun offenses in Dorchester District Court after they allegedly shot Jones to death inside the foyer of a building at 183 Harvard St. All four of the men stabbed had been present at the day’s earlier proceedings, and two of which are said to be on the witness list for the trial.

Following the tumultuous incident, the Judge presiding over the case issued a continuance for a trial, nervous that the incident could set a dangerous precedent for future judicial proceedings. As reported by WCVB Channel 5, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Lisa Giles said that she was “outraged that this could set a precedent that all you have to do to derail a first-degree murder trial is attack one of the participants who are supporters of either side.” The attorneys for the defendants were split as to the decision to move the date for trial. Michael Doolin, defense attorney for Foreman, deemed it a necessity that the trial be postponed due to the severity of tensions stemming from the trial. But Rainey’s attorney, Stephen Weymouth, argued that the trial should proceed as not to delay the potential declaration of innocence for his client. Currently, the trial is set to resume on September 12, 2012.

The wake of this violent event has urged local police and officials to take precautions and step up punishments for the crimes of assault and witness intimidation. Law enforcement official assert that the protection of witnesses and those involved in trials of any kind need to be protected to ensure that justice is rightfully ensued. The crimes of assault and witness intimidation are taken very seriously in Massachusetts, as the crimes are usually of a physical nature and can end in fatal injuries. Intimidating a witness, as per M.G.L. c. 268, s. 13B is a criminal offense in the Commonwealth, and carries with it penalties of imprisonment in jail or house of correction for no more than 2.5 years, imprisonment in state prison for no more than 10 years, by a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 up to $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. Conduct that can constitute intimidating a witness is behavior such as threatening or attempting to cause physical, emotional, economic of property damage to, bribery, and misleading, intimidating or harassing any person who is a witness, judge, juror, attorney, or anyone involved in furthering the criminal proceedings or investigation. If you are involved in the crime of intimidating a witness, you may also be charged with the crime of assault.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

A Boston Globe article reports that the recently enacted Massachusetts harassment laws have led state officials to place Kingston Town Administrator, Jim Thomas, on administrative leave. The board, acting on the advice of town counsel Jay Talerman, made this decision after Thomas was allegedly heard making threats to Selectwoman Susan Munford. Munford filed the complaint after learning of three alleged occurrences threatening the Selectwoman. The final incident was reported to Munford after two Town Hall employees allegedly overheard Jim Thomas making loud, expletive threats expressing his intent to “bring [Susan Munford] down.” Following Thomas’ administrative leave, other town employees came forward with their incidents of Thomas’ unprofessional conduct, claiming that Thomas “used threatening and retaliatory behavior against them, along with bullying tactics, and displayed lack of respect in his dealings” with other employees. A hearing is scheduled to determine whether to reinstate Thomas or to permanently dismiss him from his duties.

Government officials, local, state and federal, are highly respected individuals expected to uphold the law and make decisions for the community at large. Harassment, discrimination, and abuse are crimes that not tolerated in the workplace as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. government officials are not immune to harassment crimes law in Massachusetts. Crimes such as harassment often escalate to more serious crimes including assault and battery and violation of harassment prevention orders and should be addressed immediately. Crimes against the individual are considered serious in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are prosecuted vigorously. The implementation of laws to curtail harassment in Massachusetts has resulted in an increase in court filings, hearings and charges alleging violation of harassment orders.

The harassment law mentioned above came into effect in Massachusetts in February 2010 and allows a broader range of individuals suffering from harassment to obtain a harassment prevention order. In the past, the Massachusetts Superior Court was the only court permitted to grant a restraining order or Ch. 209A protective order, unless a petitioner qualified as family or household member of the perpetrator of harassment. However, the implementation of Chapter 258E of the General Laws, allows for the Superior Courts, Boston Municipal Court, District Courts, and Juvenile Court to issue Harassment Prevention Orders if an individual can prove that they suffered from three or more acts of willful and malicious conduct. The law provides that a Harassment Prevention Order may be granted to protect an individual from abuse, harassment, and may require the defendant to refrain from contacting the individual or visiting the individual’s workplace or household, and may require the defendant to pay monetary compensation for losses suffered resulting from the harassment. Ex parte (one side only at the hearing) or temporary harassment prevention orders may also be ordered by the court to protect an individual if they are in immediate danger of harassment. Typically, a harassment prevention order remains in effect for one year, and may be extended for an additional period at the anniversary of the original hearing date if the petition requests an extension on that date.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Waltham, Massachusetts lawman Thomas M. LaCroix, the city’s chief police officer, was arraigned in Concord District Court on two charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and threats charges and was ordered held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing in court set for this Tuesday.

LaCroix is accused of attacking and injuring his wife and her female friend in two separate incidents at his home in Maynard, Massachusetts. LaCroix is said to have used a bicycle rack and a countertop as the dangerous weapons in the alleged attack. Further details about the case have yet to be released according to the report of the incidents in the Boston Globe. The prosecutor is seeking medical records,if any, of Mrs. LaCroix to substantiate the alleged injuries in the case. Waltham’s Mayor, Jeannette A. McCarthy deemed the arrest a “serious matter” and named the city’s Deputy Chief to act as Chief in place of LaCroix. LaCroix earns about $160,000.00 per year and has been suspended with pay and his badge and gun have been taken away from him by the Waltham police.

Domestic assault and battery in Massachusetts is taken seriously by prosecutors and the courts. When a person who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law gets in this type of trouble the case get extraordinary coverage and scrutiny. The public and the press will follow the matter closely to determine if the accused is treated differently than anyone else accused of such a crime. Right now we do not now all the details in this case and what really happened. Apparently, Mrs. LaCroix alleged that she was assaulted by her husband but she did not call the police when it initially happened. She went to a female friend’s house. The friend did not call the police either despite the fact that she allegedly heard LaCroix’s story and saw injuries. Remarkably, they both decided to go back to where the alleged perpetrator was at home. According to the report this is when the second alleged assault took place involving the wife and her friend. Sometime after this alleged assault the police were finally called. It is not clear how much time had elapsed between the first and second alleged incidents and when someone decided to call the police.

Although the police report and the prosecutions summary of the case were impounded by the court, at first glance, it does not appear that the chief has been treated fairly so far in this case. We can assume that the chief does not have a prior criminal history and, therefore, no history of defaults in court. From the news report, he apparently was a pretty good police officer rising through the ranks while earning his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree before being named police chief in Waltham. Is the District Attorney’s office looking to make an example out of the chief who was apparently hospitalized with chest pains after the incident? You be the judge. They claimed the chief may be suicidal but LaCroix’s own lawyer expressed no such concerns after meeting at length with his client. Is it remarkable that the prosecution would want the chief held without bail and that they would seek a dangerousness hearing against him, the result of which could cause him be held without bail for 90 days in a case such as this? The chief could have been released on his promise to come back to court. The prosecutor could have requested a bail warning or sought a reasonable bail in the case that would ensure that Mr. LaCroix would come back to court if he were released. The prosecutor could have asked the court to order the chief to stay away and have no contact with his wife or her female friend during the pendency of the case. The prosecutor could have asked the judge to order other pretrial conditions of release such as electronic or GPS monitoring on the chief or weekly reporting or conditions such as drug or alcohol testing if the abuse of substances was an issue. Yet, the District Attorney’s office decided to take the most drastic approach to the case which resulted in depriving the chief of his freedom even though he is presumed innocent of the crime. Did this action result in punishment before the case has even gone to trial? What are the odds of similar treatment to other ordinary defendants if your were to look up the last few cases involving allegations of assault and battery with the use of dangerous weapons in that court? Did the prosecution seek to hold those defendants pending a dangerousness hearing?

I think it’s safe to say that the chief probably didn’t appreciate a skilled and aggressive criminal defense attorney before these charges were leveled against him. He probably now hopes that he has such an attorney in his present defense lawyer, Peter Bella.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

One of the most common ways for Massachusetts State Police to charge drivers with Operating Under the Influence (OUI) is through the use of roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints. The purpose of a sobriety checkpoint as defined by the Massachusetts legislature is to “further educate the motoring public and strengthen the public’s awareness to the need of detecting and removing those motorists who operate under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs from our roadways.” Sobriety checkpoints and roadblocks are organized in a joint effort by the State and local police, through which cars traveling on a predetermined road will be stopped and subject to police questioning. This allows officers to take an initial overview of the condition of the car and the condition of the driver, assessing whether the driver could be under the influence of alcohol. If the officer reasonably suspects that the driver may be under the influence of alcohol, he or she will be directed to take a preliminary breath or chemical test or instructed to perform a series of roadside sobriety tests. If you register a 0.08% blood alcohol content during a roadside sobriety test or breath test in Massachusetts, you may be charged with operating under the influence and face serious consequences. In instances such as these, the evidence of ones impairment while operating a vehicle are exclusively found in the results of the breath, chemical, or roadside sobriety test issued by the police officer. The results of these tests are often incorrect or inaccurate due to human and machine errors. An aggressive and accomplished Massachusetts OUI defense attorney will know how to proceed with your case and achieve the most favorable outcome in the event you are charged with OUI at a roadblock.

Fourth Amendment Conflict
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, thus it is illegal to stop or search someone without a search warrant or at least probable cause. While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the OUI exemption to the Constitution, twelve states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable searches, and have banned the use of police sobriety roadblocks. However, this is not the case in Massachusetts. In the 1980’s, Massachusetts’s residents challenged the constitutionality of the use of such roadblocks to catch those driving under the influence. In Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137 (1983) and Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 92 (1985), the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that the State police’s method of using roadblocks to detect drunk drivers was reasonable under both the State and Federal constitution. The adjudication of these cases did however prompt the Massachusetts Supreme Court to outline the necessary requirements to establish a legal roadblock. For a roadblock to be permissible under Massachusetts state law, it appears that the selection of motor vehicles to be stopped must not be arbitrary, safety must be assured, motorists’ inconvenience must be minimized and assurance must be given that the procedure is being conducted pursuant to a plan devised by law enforcement supervisory personnel. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts also requires the state police to notify the media within four days that a sobriety checkpoint is going to be held on a specific date in a specific county.

The biggest issue with the use of roadblocks in Massachusetts is that police officers do not have to witness any erratic behavior or dangerous driving to pull you over; in other words, there exists no probable cause for the stop. This lack of probable cause leads to the dismissal of many OUI cases in Massachusetts, as the police officer will be required to admit that the individual’s driving or conduct was never at issue. An experienced Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney will know the best defenses and strategies to win your case. In the event that you are charged with an OUI at a roadblock, speak to a smart and qualified attorney immediately.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

As evidenced by recent news coverage, high school college student crime is significant and is an evolving and expanding area of the law. With the advent of social networking sites such as Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc., issues involving high school and college students have become widely publicized and come under intense scrutiny and criticism. The ever-evolving world of social networking websites has opened the lives of its users to the public, carrying with it certain advantages and disadvantages. This technological phenomenon, which has created links between different people and cultures of the world, has resulted in a need for the development of new laws to police people’s online actions. There are many issues arising from the use of social networking websites, such as privacy issues, internet scams and phishing, negative repercussions of website use in areas of business and employment, and the protection of children. For instance, high school students may now be held accountable for their actions on social networking sites, such as bullying other students, making threats against teachers and students, and posting inappropriate content or images. Similarly, on college campuses, students have been subject to punishment for partaking in illegal activities such as underage drinking, drug-related offenses, and sexual assaults on other students. Social networks can be a resourceful tool to market yourself or your business, reconnect with old friends, and even find romance; the important thing is to remember that these sites can be misused, and have damaging repercussions to high school and college students that may potentially affect their future. Criminal prosecution in court and expulsion or suspension from school or college can be expected when crimes are committed or exposed using social networking sites.

While many social networking sites have age restrictions in place to regulate their user base, it is quite simple to enter a fake birth date and gain access to these sites. The problem with young users is that they are not aware of the risks that these social networking sites create. Many young people share too much information online and do not realize that anyone with an Internet connection can view it, even pedophiles, employers, teachers, their school nemesis, and their parents. Even police departments have begun to integrate the use of social networking sites in investigations. The Boston Globe reports that police officials in half of fourteen departments surveyed admitted to using social networking websites to gather information when investigating crimes involving young people. This is the root of the problems now faced by an increasing number of high school and college age students.

USING SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH CRIMINALS
Social networking has also come under scrutiny due to the tendency of teen bullies to target teen victims on the sites. Bullying has become a serious and widespread issue in the United States, with the National Crime Prevention Council reporting that 43% of teens were the victim of bullying in the past year, and has called upon the sites to help prevent bullying and catch those committing the acts. For instance, videos of beatings and humiliation have been posted to the popular video hosting website YouTube, and have caused certain individuals to take their own lives due to the ridicule and embarrassment felt from the posts. The videos themselves have actually led police to the identification of the bully and introduced the video or posting as evidence against them in trial.
Continue reading

Contact Information
90 Canal St 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-367-0450Fax: 781-523-5454

We accept the following credit cards

Credit cards

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design