Drug Crimes

Published on: April 5, 2016

Men Arrested in Marlborough for Alleged Robbery

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, three men were arrested earlier this week and charged with robbery in Marlborough. The article states that the three defendants met the alleged victim outside a Burger King for the purpose of buying marijuana from him. When the alleged victim presented the drugs, the three defendants reportedly reached into their pockets and pretended to have weapons. One of the defendants then reportedly grabbed the marijuana from the alleged victim while the other two defendants allegedly pushed him and attempted to steal his cellular telephone. The defendants then reportedly drove off in a silver vehicle. The alleged victim called the police and provided them with a description of the vehicle and the license plate number. Officers stopped the car a short distance away. Inside the vehicle, the officers found a bag of marijuana. Following the stop, the alleged victim identified the three men in the car as the people that robbed him. The driver was charged with unarmed robbery, use of a motor vehicle without authority, and conspiracy to violate the drug laws. The other two defendants were charged with unarmed robbery, assault and battery, and conspiracy to violate the drug laws.

The evidence against the defendants appears to be strong at first glance. However, the case ultimately hinges on the alleged victim’s testimony – he is the only witness who will be able to testify to what happened in the parking lot – and there appear to be two potential problems with calling him as a witness. Continue reading →

Published on: April 5, 2016

Framingham Couple Arrested for Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a man and a woman were arrested in Framingham earlier this week by police officers searching for a suspect in an unrelated crime. The article states that the police went to 10 Main Street in Framingham looking for a suspect believed to be involved in a pistol whipping incident at UMASS Amherst that occurred two weeks ago. The man and woman that were arrested reside in one of the apartments at the Main Street address – the police specifically went to the address because they reportedly “had word” that the suspect in the UMASS incident was friends with the female resident. When the police arrived, they immediately arrested the woman, who had an outstanding warrant for a probation violation. According to the article, the police obtained a search warrant for the apartment and then proceeded to search the residence for the suspect in the UMASS incident. The suspect was not located, but during the course of the search, the police found “a large amount of marijuana” (approximately half a pound) located in several jars under the sink. In addition to the marijuana, officers also reportedly found $5,000 in cash, several scales, empty plastic bags, and other evidence of marijuana growing – there is no information as to where these items were found. Following the discovery of the marijuana and other items, the officers arrested the male resident as well. The man and woman were subsequently charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

Fortunately for the defendants, there does appear to be a viable motion to suppress. A motion to suppress is a written request by a defendant asking the court to keep certain evidence from being introduced against them at trial because that evidence was obtained as a result of unconstitutional or illegal police activity. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The police have a legal basis to enter a home if they have a search warrant, as long as the search warrant is supported by probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present in the location to be searched. If the search warrant is not supported by sufficient probable cause, however, evidence obtained as a result of the search should be suppressed. Continue reading →

Published on: March 14, 2016

Female Substance Abusers Will no Longer be Subject to Civil Commitment at MCI Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

Governor Charlie Baker recently signed a new bill, which will go into law ninety days after it was signed on January 25, 2015. The law specifically impacts civil commitments for individuals struggling with substance abuse.

Under G. L. c. 123, § 35, a police officer, doctor, family member, guardian, or court official may petition a judge in the district or municipal court to civilly commit a person whom he or she has reason to believe is an alcoholic or substance abuser. The court must then hold a hearing to determine whether: (1) the person is an alcoholic or substance abuser; and (2) there is a likelihood of serious harm as a result of the person’s alcoholism or substance abuse. If the court determines that the individual meets the above referenced criteria , the court may order the person to be civilly committed for a period not to exceed ninety days.

According to the statute, the commitment is for the purpose of inpatient care in public or private facilities approved by the department of public health for the care and treatment of alcoholism or substance abuse. Among the criminal defense bar, however, there has been some question as to the effectiveness of such treatment. This has been particularly true because the facilities that an individual could be sent to currently include Bridgewater State Hospital – a hospital within the state prison system – for male individuals committed under the statute, and Framingham state prison, for females committed under the statute. Although there are other facilities not within the state prison system where such individuals may be committed, depending on bed availability at the various facilities, indviduals with substance abuse issues but no criminal history could ostensibly find themselves in the state prison system during the pendency of their civil commitments under this statute. Continue reading →

Published on: January 5, 2016

Woburn Woman Arrested for Shoplifting, Drugs

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Woburn woman was arrested on larceny and drug charges this past week at the Marshalls located at Shoppers World. The store security officers were allegedly familiar with the woman because she had been involved in thefts at both Marshalls and TJ Maxx on various dates in November of this year. These thefts reportedly consisted of the woman taking several pairs of jeans from the shelves and bringing them into the dressing room. Once in the dressing room, the woman would reportedly remove the security tags and bring the items to the help desk to return them. She allegedly used the gift cards that she got for the returns to purchase other items in the store. According to the article, the woman got more than $1,000 worth of gift cards. Police officers reportedly identified the woman from surveillance footage and obtained a warrant for her arrest. When the woman returned to Marshalls after the issuance of the warrant, store security alerted police, who then came to the store to make the arrest. After arriving, police reportedly confronted the woman and asked for her name, which she provided. When the officers told her that there was a warrant for her arrest, the woman allegedly claimed that the warrant was for her sister, not her. The woman then reportedly attempted to give a different name but was ultimately arrested. While effectuating the arrest, the woman reportedly resisted, flailing her arms. She also allegedly dropped a small plastic bag on the ground and attempted to kick it away. The officers recovered the bag and found that it contained a substance that they believed to be heroin. The officers also found two additional bags of what they believed to be heroin in the woman’s purse, as well as $500 in cash. As a result, the woman was charge with possession with intent to distribute heroin, resisting arrest, and five counts of larceny under $250.

Although the woman is facing serious charges, she does appear to have at least some defenses – specifically, she may well have an argument that she did not have the requisite intent to sell the drugs. To prove the woman guilty of possession with intent to distribute under G. L. c. 94C § 32, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the substance in question was in fact heroin; (2) that the defendant possessed some perceptible amount of that heroin with the intent to distribute it to another person; and (3) that the defendant did so knowingly or intentionally. Continue reading →

Published on: May 24, 2015

SJC Issues Decision on Dookhan Cases

By Daniel Cappetta

This past week, the Supreme Judicial Court rule that people who pled guilty in cases where evidence was mishandled by former state chemist Annie Dookhan may not be charged with more serious crimes if given a new trial and, if convicted, may not be given a worse sentence than the judge originally imposed. The decision – Commonwealth v. Bridgeman – was unanimous.

Dookhan is the former Massachusetts drug lab chemist accused of tampering with evidence in a drug testing scandal that threatened thousands of criminal cases in Massachusetts. Dookhan, who worked at the state’s Hinton Laboratory in Jamaica Plain, was accused of fabricating test results and tampering with drug evidence. She played some sort of a role in more than 40,000 drug tests at the Hinton lab, where she worked from 2003 until 2012. The state police first learned of Dookhan’s actions after a chemist at the lab in which she worked said that he observed “many irregularities” in her work. During a subsequent investigation, Dookhan admitted to authorities that she took shortcuts, such as only testing some of the samples that she was assigned to, and then listing them all as positive for the presence of a drug. She also acknowledged that sometimes, if a sample tested negative, she would take a known controlled substance from another sample and add it to the negative sample in order to make it test positively. Dookhan ultimately pled guilty in November 2013 to twenty-seven counts of misleading investigators, filing false reports, and tampering with evidence, and was sentenced to three to five years in state prison, followed by two years of probation that included mental health counseling if needed.

As a result of Dookhan’s malfeasance, the state shut down the laboratory in 2012. A list of so-called “Dookhan” cases was compiled so that the convictions could be re-visited and motions for new trials could be filed. Counties across the state set up “Dookhan” sessions to deal with defendants’ motions for new trials. Some defendants chose to go forward with new trials or re-negotiated pleas. Others chose not to for fear that they might lose at trial and get a worse sentence. Alternatively some defendants who had originally pled guilty to reduced charges in return for the plea chose not to try and vacate their pleas because of the concern that the original charges (rather than the reduced ones) would be reinstated. As a result, many defendants chose to take no action, despite the clear violation of their due process rights.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 29, 2015

Buyer Allegedly Robbed by Drug Dealer in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman reported to police that her drug dealer robbed her at knife point last week. The article specifically states that the woman had arranged to buy marijuana from her dealer, whom she identified as “Florida.” The woman stated that when she showed up to the buy location, Florida allegedly took out a black pocket knife and told her to give him her money. The woman then reportedly gave him $20. According to the woman, Florida began to walk away, but then turned and charged at her with the knife. She called the police to report the robbery as she was running away. The woman was unable to provide the police with Florida’s actual name.

Even if the police are able to identify and apprehend Florida, however, it seems unlikely that they will have much of a case against him. Specifically, the woman appears to have a Fifth Amendment privilege. The Fifth Amendment states that a person cannot be compelled to testify against herself if that testimony is potentially incriminating and/or could result in criminal prosecution. The woman, by her own admission, appears to have engaged in some sort of agreement to purchase drugs. Because the woman could potentially face criminal charges herself, she appears to have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could therefore refuse to testify. Continue reading →

Published on: December 14, 2014

Man Arrested on Marijuana Charges in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two men were arrested in Framingham following a traffic stop earlier this week. The article states that the police pulled a vehicle over on Concord Street due to a broken taillight. The driver of the vehicle reportedly got out of the car and attempted to run away but was ultimately stopped by an officer. The passenger remained in the vehicle. During the stop, the officers allegedly saw the passenger rummaging through a duffel bag at his feet. The officers believed that the passenger was possibly trying to conceal a weapon, so they ordered him out of the car and searched him, as well as the duffel. The police recovered bath salts and eight bags of marijuana in the duffel, as well as a bag of marijuana in the passenger’s pocket. There is no indication that the total weight of the marijuana exceeded an ounce. The passenger admitted that the bag was his and the police charged him with possession with intent to distribute marijuana subsequent offense under G. L. c. 94C, § 32C and illegal possession of bath salts under G. L. c. 94C, § 32B. During the course of the stop, the police also determined that the driver’s license was suspended and arrested him for driving with a suspended license subsequent offense under G. L. c. 90, § 23. The police also cited him for the broken taillight.

While the driver may have a hard time defending the charge issued against him, the passenger does appear to at least have a potential defense to the possession with intent to distribute charge. To prove that the passenger is guilty of this charge, the Commonwealth would have to show the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the substance was in fact marijuana; (2) that the passenger possessed some perceptible amount of it with the intent to distribute it to another person; and (3) that he did so knowingly and intentionally. As to the second element, the jury is entitled to consider a number of different factors, including the quantity of the drugs in the passenger’s possession, the street value of the drugs, the passenger’s financial resources, how the drugs were packaged, whether other items were found along with the drugs which might suggest drug sales, such as packaging materials, scales, or large amounts of cash, whether there was any evidence suggesting that a sale was in progress, whether there was any evidence that the drugs were part of a larger stash, and/or whether there was any evidence that the passenger repeatedly traveled at short intervals to known drug centers. Continue reading →

Published on: November 23, 2014

Framingham Man Arrested for Drug Distribution

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the Metrowest Daily News a Framingham man was recently arrested for drug distribution. The article states that the Framingham Police Department was investigating the man and was working with a confidential informant as part of the investigation. The police had the informant set up a heroin deal with the man. Specifically, the informant allegedly arranged a drug deal during which he was supposed to pay the man $350 in exchange for three grams of heroin. The deal was supposed to take place at Dunkin Donuts on Cochituate Road. The article indicates that after the informant set up the deal, the police followed the man from his apartment to the Dunkin Donuts and reportedly watched the informant purchase the heroin from the man. Following the deal, the man left in his car and the police pulled him over shortly thereafter. The police did not find any drugs in the car, or on the man’s person. The police then went on to search the man’s apartment. Again, no drugs were found, however the police did recover some items associated with drug distribution including packaging, a digital scale, and a tool called a heroin press. As a result, the man was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin.

For the Commonwealth to prove that the man possessed heroin with the intent to distribute it under G. L. c. 94C, § 32, it would have to show the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the substance reportedly sold to the informant was in fact heroin; (2) that the man possessed some perceptible amount of the heroin with the intent to distribute it to another person; and (3) that he did so knowingly and intentionally.

Fortunately for the man, there do appear to be some problems with the Commonwealth’s case. For starters, the Commonwealth almost never shares the identity of a confidential informant with the defense. Generally, the police do not want to put an informant in any sort of danger, which might happen if it became public that the informant was working with the police. Additionally, the police want to be able to continue to use an informant, which they would not be able to do if it became known that the individual was working with them. Because the Commonwealth will likely be unwilling to identify the informant, it will not be permitted to call the informant to testify against the defendant. Therefore, the police will have to rely solely on their observations to prove the Commonwealth’s case against him. Continue reading →

Published on: September 22, 2014

Woman Arrested in Hopkinton on Drug Charges

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, police officers found a woman using drugs in a school parking lot in Hopkinton earlier this week. The article states that a Hopkinton officer noticed a car parked in a school parking lot around 2am on Tuesday morning. The officer stopped to investigate and observed the woman sitting inside the vehicle, nodding in and out of consciousness. The woman had something tied on her arm as a tourniquet, which, according to the article, is a practice common among intravenous drug users. The officer could also see a hypodermic needle inside the vehicle. The officer knocked on the window and the woman made an attempt to hide the needle, and a bag of what the officer believed to be heroin. The officer then arrested the woman and searched the car, finding an additional six small bags of heroin. The woman was charged with several drug related crimes, including possession with intent to distribute, possession, and a school zone violation.

To convict the woman of possession with intent to distribute under G. L. c. 94C, § 32, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the substance was in fact heroin; (2) that the woman possessed some amount of the heroin with the intent to distribute it to another person; and (3) that she did so knowingly or intentionally. As to the second element, the Commonwealth must specifically prove that the heroin was not solely for the woman’s own use, but rather that it was intended for distribution to others. The following factors may be considered in determining whether the heroin was for distribution rather than personal use:

the quantity of the drugs that were possessed;
how the drugs were packaged;
the presence of other items associated with drug; distribution, such as cutting powder, packaging materials, scales, or large amounts of cash; and
whether there is any evidence suggesting that sale was in progress.

To convict the woman of a school zone violation under G. L. c. 94C, § 32J, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the woman committed the offense of possession with intent to distribute within 300 feet of a school; (2) that this offense was committed between 5am and 12am.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 19, 2014

Framingham Couple Arrested for Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham couple was charged with distribution of cocaine this past week. The couple was traveling on Concord Street when an officer noticed that the vehicle in which they were traveling had a defective headlight. The officer pulled the car over and approached the driver’s side. As he was walking toward the car, the officer noticed that the man and woman were moving around “frantically.” The officer specifically saw the man reaching toward the woman’s mid-section. When the officer got to the car, he saw several empty liquor bottles and an open beer bottle. The officer also allegedly saw a plastic bag sticking out of the top of the woman’s pants, and could also reportedly see that the bag contained a white power. The officer then pulled the bags out of the woman’s waistband and saw that they consisted of two glassine bags with a white powder, which the officer believed to be cocaine. The officer ordered the pair out of the vehicle and conducted a more thorough search of both them, and the car. The officer found a digital scale in the vehicle, and a third plastic bag of cocaine in the man’s sock. The woman reportedly told the officer that the man had put the drugs in her pants, which is consistent with the officer’s observations as he approached the car. The man also told the officer that all of the drugs were his. Despite both of their statements, however, the police charged both the man and the woman with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

To obtain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine under G. L. c. 94C, § 32A, the Commonwealth would have to prove that: (1) the substance was in fact cocaine; (2) the man and the woman each respectively possessed the cocaine with the intent to distribute it to another person; and (3) they did so knowingly or intentionally. As to the second element, the Commonwealth must prove that the cocaine was intended for distribution rather than held solely for personal use. Factors to be considered in making this determination include the quantity of drugs that were possessed, the purity of the drugs, the street value of the drugs, how the drugs were packaged, whether other items were found along with the drugs that might suggest drug sales, such as cutting powder or packaging materials, scales, or large amounts of cash, whether the is any evidence that a sale was in progress, and whether there is any evidence that the drugs were part of a larger stash. As to the third element, to act knowingly and intentionally, a defendant must have acted consciously, voluntarily, and purposefully, and not because of ignorance, mistake, or accident. Continue reading →