Published on: | by

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

Published on: | by

The Boston Globe reported that a Norfolk woman is facing a second drunken driving charge after allegedly causing a multiple car collision in Attleboro according to several 911 callers. State Police charged her with operating under the influence of liquor, second offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, unlicensed operation, and marked lanes violations. After interviewing other drivers and administering field sobriety tests, State Police determined that the woman was driving while intoxicated. Police arrested her and took her into custody, transporting her to the State Police barracks in Foxborough. Three people not seriously injured were taken to local hospitals for treatment. The woman was arraigned on Monday in the Attleboro District Court and was ordered held on $3,000 bail with pretrial probation conditions to remain alcohol-free and to refrain from driving an automobile. Her license to operate an automobile was confiscated by the State Police and revoked indefinitely because police deemed her an immediate threat.

If convicted of a second offense OUI, a judge could sentence a defendant to prison for not less than 60 days or up to 2 ½ years in a house of correction. There is a mandatory 30 days that must be served in a house of correction, which may be served at a designated treatment facility for alcohol issues. If a defendant has less than 2 prior convictions he or she is eligible for 2 years of probation in addition to a 14 day in-patient residential alcohol treatment facility. The Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts will also suspend your license for 2 years. A defendant can apply for a hardship license after a year with the requirement of an alcohol interlocking device in the car during the period of hardship.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In a recent ruling representing a change in the interpretation of Melanie’s Law, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that the Massachusetts Legislature did not intend that an “admission to sufficient facts” also known as a “CWOF” or “continuance without a finding of guilt” in a drunk driving case to be treated as a conviction by the Registry of Motor Vehicles when acting pursuant to G.L. c.90, § 24(1)(f)(1) to suspend an operator’s driver’s license for more that 180 days due to the driver’s refusal to take a breathalyzer test.

In so holding, the SJC decided that a person charged with operating under the influence of alcohol who receives a continuance without a finding -a routine disposition for first-time drunk driving offenders-shall not have their case counted as a first offense conviction on their record. The lawyer for the Registry of Motor Vehicles contended that a CWOF should be treated as a conviction subjecting a repeat (DWI/OUI) offenders to the additional license suspension penalties.

The case name is Souza v. Registry of Motor Vehicles and was decided on May 17, 2012 as reported in the Boston Herald. In this case, a defendant arrested and charged with OUI admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty but he did not plead guilty and his case was continued without a finding and later dismissed after he successfully completed his probationary terms. The defendant was arrested again thirteen years later and he had refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Later, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended his driver’s license for three years pursuant to G.L. c.90, § 24(1)(f)(1) which directs that the RMV suspend the license for three years for a breath test refusal if the driver has been previously convicted of an OUI crime. If there is no previous conviction, the RMV suspension is for 180 days.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

When you are charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the official charge in Massachusetts is Operating Under the Influence (OUI). Today, the terms ‘OUI’ ‘DUI’ and ‘DWI’ are used interchangeably. Operating under the influence has become one of the most commonly encountered offenses in Massachusetts. In fact, it is estimated that nearly 17,500 people were killed in automobile collisions involving alcohol in 2002. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), this represents 41 percent of the 42,815 people killed in all traffic accidents and crashes that year. Statistical evidence such as this lead to the passing of ‘Melanie’s Law’ in 2005, the purpose of which was to enhance the penalties attached to OUI offenders.

Being charged with an OUI is a serious offense in the state of Massachusetts, and someone charged would be well advised to seek legal counsel. A person may be found guilty of Operating Under the Influence (OUI) if they are 1) at least 21 and 2) register at .08% or higher when tested for your blood alcohol concentration (BAC). If you’re younger than 21, you will face administrative penalties if you test at .02 or higher, plus standard charges at .08 or higher. If you are convicted, the penalties can be harsh and include imprisonment, significant fines, and suspension of driver’s license, probation, community service sentence, and mandatory enrollment in DUI traffic school.

PENALTIES ATTACHED

Being charged with OUI for the first time can be an extremely stressful and frightening experience. However, retaining an experienced Massachusetts defense attorney for your case can relax the situation and minimize the apprehension. In the event one is found guilty of an OUI first-offense, an individual faces a maximum 2 ½ years in jail, a $5,000 fine, and a 5-year license suspension at your RMV hearing. Drivers arrested for a first OUI offense can get their sentences reduced by agreeing to complete a state-approved alcohol education program. This is not an option after the first offense.

As you probably expected, the penalties for a second offense OUI are more severe. In any case, a qualified OUI defense attorney can significantly reduce the harsh penalties you will be facing. If convicted of a second offense it is possible you will be punished by a fine of at least $600 to the maximum $10,000, and imprisonment for a minimum of 60 days ranging to 2 ½ years; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24. In addition, the Registry of Motor Vehicles will suspend your driver’s license for 2 years when you are convicted on a second offense OUI.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Significant changes to the Massachusetts Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law go into effect on May 4, 2012. Under the 2010 CORI reform we have already seen changes that were implemented as of November 4, 2010. As of that date employers are banned from asking questions about your criminal history on the initial written job application,unless the conviction information is required for a particular job pursuant to federal or state law. As of May 4, 2012, an employer must provide a copy of any criminal record information in that employer’s possession prior to questioning an applicant about their criminal history. If an adverse employment decision is made due to that individual’s criminal record, the prospective employer must give the job seeker a copy of the record that their decision was based upon.

SEALING YOUR CORI/WAITING PERIODS

One of the most significant changes under the new CORI reform relates to the waiting periods for sealing felony and misdemeanor cases. Under the new law the waiting period for sealing is now 10 years for felonies and 5 years for misdemeanors. The clock begins to tick when an individual is released from incarceration. If the sentence did not include a period of incarceration, the clock begins to tech at the time all court proceedings have been included including the end of any probationary term. It is important to note that an intervening conviction will reset the clock. Moreover, sealing your record does not occur automatically. It is very important to hire an experienced Massachusetts CORI rights defense attorney who will be able to review your entire criminal history, scan it for potential errors and inaccurate information, and file paperwork to correct your record so that you may be able eligible for sealing the record as soon as possible.

Under the new CORI reform law, there are procedures now in place to allow people the right to inspect and obtain a copy of their own criminal records. Moreover, new guidelines will be published to to help deal with the problem of correcting inaccurate information. The new law established a Criminal Record Review Board to hear complaints pertaining to violations of the CORI law, including the failure to provide a copy of your record before questioning by a potential employer or after an adverse decision regarding employment has been made.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The interaction between airline personal and members of the general public since September 11, 2001 seems to have changed and not in a positive way. Indeed, news reports of incidents involving people accused of crimes such as assaulting or harassing flight crew attendants or interfering with a member of a flight crew or operation of the aircraft in any way seem to have increased dramatically since 9/11. Is this change due in part to the hyper-sensitive reaction of flight attendants or flight crew to any criticism or concern raised by members of the flying public? If you find yourself in the position of being under arrest in these circumstances you just might think so.

Unfortunately, some conversations between flight attendants and the general public are often viewed as arguments or complaints that have escalated to the point where what we see now is the innocent individual being detained on the plane, arrested upon landing and prosecuted in the nearest court within the airport’s jurisdiction. The police take the statements of the airline crew at face value to substantiate the arrest and they seem more than happy to provide information that the person was in some way disruptive or disorderly while on a plane. Ultimately, the post-9/11 airline crackdown on alleged bad behavior may have had a chilling effect on speech and has led to many improper arrests of members of the flying public.

In Massachusetts, under M.G.L. Chapter 90, Section 40, a person can be prosecuted for interfering with, or threatening to interfere with the operation of an aircraft. The penalty for violation of this law is significant and involves imprisonment for not less than one month or not more than six months. Fines ranging from $10 to $500 may be imposed in addition to any incarceration. If a person is convicted of this crime also referred to as “interference with a flight crew”, the clerk magistrate of the court must report the conviction to the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.

If you have been accused of a crime while on an airplane that lands at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, you may be taken into custody by a trooper from the Massachusetts State Police (Troop F). Your case will fall under the jurisdiction of the East Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court located at 37 Meridian Street in Maverick Square, East Boston, Massachusetts. You will either be released after posting bail at the F Troop State Police barracks and given a date to appear for arraignment in court or you will be detained by the police and taken to the East Boston District Court on the day or your arrest or the next available date if you cannot post bail and your arrest occurs over the weekend or on a day when the court is closed.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

It happens all the time. A couple gets into a spat and someone calls the police to complain or a neighbor or passerby dials 911 because they hear an argument, some screaming or a loud noise and think that domestic abuse is involved. If the police or an ambulance is requested, the authorities will come to your home to carefully investigate whether some wrongdoing has occurred. The police always aggressively handle 911 emergency calls and there is a built-in presumption that some violence has taken place. Even if there is a change of heart by the person that dialed 911 the police are mandated to make an arrest and the prosecution will pursue the case with vigor. When the police call you back after an accidental 911 call or hang up they will come to investigate even if you are clear in telling them that nothing has happened and it was just an argument. The call cannot be cancelled and the police must come to the location of the call to speak with the parties involved and they will often arrest someone, usually the male party.

Under the law, the police shall arrest any person the law officer witnesses or has probable cause to believe has violated a restraining order or no-contact order or judgment. Even when there is no such order under Massachusetts law an “arrest shall be the preferred response” where an officer suspects domestic assault and battery even when there is a lack of physical evidence. When the 911 call is made the legal troubles usually begin in earnest. Indeed it has often been said the decent into hell begins when someone calls 911, even when you are innocent or where the other party was the first aggressor. The ramifications of the 911 call are wide and include the destruction of relationships, marriages and problems with family and children. In Massachusetts district court penalties for assault and battery include jail time of up to two and a half years in the house of correction. Conditions of any probation can also include a lengthy and costly batterer’s program, anger management classes or drug and alcohol abuse counseling. Some other problems that may result include the loss of a job with a conviction and your ability to exercise your Second Amendment rights to carry a firearm. Domestic assault cases are often reported in town police blotters causing unfair embarrassment and shame in the community.

Many times 911 calls are made on a Friday night or over the weekend when families are together. The courts are closed and the person arrested will remain in police custody for days until the courts reopen. Fortunately, with the help of a competent and experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, domestic assault cases that begin with a 911 can often be won prior to trial or at the trial stage. Changes in evidence law and other factors have also helped to level the playing field and allow for direct confrontation and cross examination of witnesses and alleged victims when the police are relying simply on a 911 tape to prove their case. So It is unwise and foolish to represent yourself in a domestic assault and battery case or enter into a plea bargain. You must contact an aggressive and knowledgeable 911 Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer right away in order to protect all of your legal rights.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

If you have an outstanding arrest or default warrant from any court in Massachusetts you are likely dealing with unwarranted stress and anxiety regarding possible detention by the police in addition to feelings of uncertainly about how the judge will ultimately respond to your absence from court. You probably also continue to worry needlessly about the underlying criminal case and how that matter will be resolved in court. By contacting an experienced Massachusetts arrest warrant criminal defense lawyer today, you can begin to immediately ease the tension you now feel and end the habit of looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life.

If you have an outstanding Massachusetts arrest warrant and the police stop you for any reason, even a traffic ticket, they will look your name up in their computer system to check you for warrants. Once they obtain this information they will arrest you and detain you until you can be brought before the nearest court. Also, if you are arrested while in another jurisdiction or state, the authorities there can hold you in their jail as a fugitive from justice until the authorities in Massachusetts determine whether or not to dismiss the warrant or extradite you back to Massachusetts to stand trial. Indeed, the courts have been reluctant to release individuals wanted for alleged crimes in another state. Unfortunately, the extradition process can be sloppy and time consuming and defendants are often subjected to lengthy detention while the two different jurisdictions attempt to coordinate the transfer of an individual back to the demanding state. Consequently, defendants often end up being punished more than they would have been if they simply appeared in court with a lawyer to remove the default and resolve the underlying criminal matter.

Old court defaults or arrest warrants can also cause you problems in other ways. If you have an old arrest warrant, the Registry of Motor Vehicles in your home state can prevent you from either obtaining or renewing your driver’s license due an arrest warrant still outstanding in Massachusetts. It is much more effective to make arrangements to walk into court with an experienced private attorney to remove an arrest or default warrant rather than having the police bring you in Monday morning after a Friday night arrest and detention wearing the same clothes.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

There is a distinction that is made under Massachusetts law between statutory disqualification and spousal privilege under G.L. Ch. 233, s. 20. The spousal disqualification applies in all actions, civil and criminal, and regardless of whether one of the spouses is a party or not; the spousal privilege applies only in criminal cases where the spouse is the defendant. The issue of spousal disqualification, sometimes confused with spousal privilege was raised recently in a federal case in Massachusetts, by the criminal defense lawyer for Patrice Tierney, the wife of U.S. Rep. John Tierney, who was convicted last year of assisting her brother in filing false tax returns. Patrice Tierney is a witness in the case. This case was highlighted in a Boston Herald article penned by reporter Laurel Sweet who contacted the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy and interviewed Boston criminal defense attorney Patrick J. Murphy. Attorney Murphy has written about spousal privilege and disqualification issues in Massachusetts. In response to a specific question Attorney Murphy was quoted in the Boston Herald and he stated “[g]enerally, any communications between husband and wife would be covered.”

Mrs. Tierney was expected to be called as a witness in the current case against her brother, Daniel, but so far has refused to meet with government investigators who want to ask her about conversations she allegedly had with her husband, who has already denied any knowledge about his brother-in-law’s alleged illegal gambling and money laundering operation. The case is also interesting because Mr. Tierney is also a lawyer and the prosecutor wants to ask Mrs. Tierney whether she consulted with him about the legality of her brother’s alleged gambling activities. This raises the issue, if the conversation did occur, as to whether it would be covered by the attorney/client privilege.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Are you facing a probation surrender hearing in any Massachusetts court because you were arrested or charged with a new criminal offense? Did your probation officer give you notice to attend an initial probation violation hearing because you allegedly violated the law or a general or specific term included in your probation contract or the conditions of a continuance without a finding (C.W.O.F.)? If so, it is crucial to hire an experienced Massachusetts probation violation defense lawyer right away to avoid being found in violation of your probation obligations.

If you find yourself before the court on an alleged probation violation, the District, Municipal or Superior Court judge has the discretion to impose a bail on you or hold you without bail while you await your final surrender or C.W.O.F. revocation hearing if he or she finds probable cause that you have been arrested or charged with a new criminal offense or that you have not adhered to your probation contract terms. This is the first stage of the probation violation hearing. If you are held without bail that action cannot be reviewed by the Superior Court.

At the final surrender hearing (the second stage of the process) the probation department officer, sometimes assisted by the prosecutor, will present all evidence of any violations usually through witness testimony and documentary evidence. The standard of proof at the final hearing is lower than a trial. The probation department need only prove a violation has occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant is allowed to testify at the hearing but is not required to testify. The role of the experience defense counsel at both stages is very important to the probationer.
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 © 2024, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design