CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR RECKLESS OPERATION OF A VEHICLE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

Boston Police responded to a car accident on Boylston Street. Defendant stated that he lost control of his vehicle while taking a sharp turn and crashed into three parked cars. Defendant admitted that he was speeding and trying to “show off” or impress his friends and lost control of his car. He was traveling at 55 mph in a 25 mph zone. Defendant admitted that he made a stupid mistake. The three vehicle sustained heavy damage. Police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Reckless Operation of a Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Noonan ensured that the owners of the three damaged vehicles were fully compensated by insurance. Attorney Noonan had his client complete a driver’s safety course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was an honor roll student at Curry College where he is studying criminal justice. Attorney Noonan introduced character letters from the client’s employer where he works as a Security Officer. The Clerk issued a civil citation for Speeding but dismissed the criminal charge.

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FROM STOUGHTON DISMISSED AT TRIAL FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE

The client, an electrician from Stoughton, was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M) stemming from an incident with the mother of his child. The client was operating his vehicle. The child’s mother was in the passenger seat and his two year-old daughter in the backseat. An argument ensued where the child’s mother began to attack and punch the client, as he was driving the car. He pulled over and the child’s mother kicked him out of the car and drove off with the daughter in the backseat. The client, left abandoned on the street, called 911 to report that he had been assaulted and kicked out of his car. He was concerned about the safety of his child. The police went to the residence of the child’s mother and she told the police that the Defendant grabbed and twisted her hand during the car ride. Based on statement of the child’s mother, police arrested the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan marked the case for trial and advised the prosecutor that the Defendant was the victim of the attack. Attorney Noonan explained that the child’s mother would incriminate herself were she to testify against the Defendant at his trial. She had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for physically assaulting the client, kicking him out of the car, and taking off with their daughter. Attorney Noonan explained that, without the testimony of the child’s mother, there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. For example, the child’s mother did not call 911; the child’s mother did not have any physical injuries to corroborate her claim that the Defendant twisted her hand; there were no photographs of her hand to show any physical injuries; she did not seek any medical attention; she was not upset or emotional in speaking to police, and the Defendant never admitted to physically touching her (in fact, as evidenced from his 911 call, Defendant was adamant that he was the victim of an assault). On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AND LARCENY AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

The alleged victim went to the Brockton Police Department reporting that the mother of his one year-old daughter (defendant) broke into his vehicle and stole his cell phone. Officers called the Defendant in an effort to obtain the victim’s cell phone but the Defendant was uncooperative and argumentative with officers. The Defendant eventually returned the victim’s phone but it was smashed and damaged. As a result of the victim’s allegations, Brockton Police sought criminal charges for Breaking and Entering in the Daytime with the intent to commit a felony (G.L. c. 266, §18) and Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there has been a contentious relationship between the Defendant and the alleged victim. Several years ago, Attorney Noonan’s client was the victim of an assault by the alleged victim, which resulted in the father being charged. There were contentious proceedings in the Probate and Family Court between the parties over custody of the child and child support. Defendant became upset over the father’s infidelity. Defendant was being harassed by the father’s current girlfriend. Defendant was further upset about the fact that she was working as a CNA and supporting the child without any support from the father. The alleged victim appeared at the Clerk’s Hearing and Attorney Noonan, along with the Clerk-Magistrate, mediated the dispute between them. The parties were able to mediate the dispute and the criminal complaints were dismissed.

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MILITARY VETERAN AND HEROIN ADDICT FOR POSSESSION OF FENTANYL

Undercover officers were in a high-crime area of Brockton conducting patrols for narcotics activity. Undercover officers ran a board of probation check for the registered owner of a vehicle (defendant) and found that the Defendant had charges for drug possession. Officers proceeded to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers concluded that the Defendant was engaging in activity consistent with being the purchaser of narcotics. The Defendant made a U-turn and pulled into the parking lot of a grocery store. Officers observed someone approach the passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle and reach into the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers believed that the Defendant was purchasing narcotics from the person who approached and reached into his vehicle. After the alleged drug transaction, officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. While stopping the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed that the Defendant was engaging in furtive movements consistent with trying to hide or conceal evidence. Officers observed a syringe in the driver’s side door compartment. Officers observed a knotted baggie in the center console. Officers seized the knotted bag and the contents of the baggie tested positive for Fentanyl. Defendant was charged with Possession of Class A Substance to wit: Fentanyl (G.L. c. 94C, §32).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal charge giving his client an opportunity to potentially have the criminal complaint dismissed before any criminal complaint was issued. At the hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client was honorably discharged from the military. During his military service, he became disabled and he was now a disabled veteran. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client developed a drug addiction / opiate addiction following his discharge from the military. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was actively undergoing psychological treatment and substance abuse treatment with the Department of Veteran Affairs to treat his severe drug addiction and mental health disorders. At the conclusion of the hearing, no criminal charges were issued saving this military veteran from having a criminal record.

2^ND OFFENSE OUI: REDUCED TO 1^ST OFFENSE OUI

Defendant was convicted of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) in 2012 in the Taunton District Court. In 2017, Defendant was charged with OUI (second offense) arising out of an arrest in West Bridgewater. In the new OUI, Defendant had a blood-alcohol-content of 0.27%, which is three times over the legal limit of 0.08%. On the scene, Defendant was described as “legless” and officers have to physically assist him into the police cruiser and they had to physically assist him into the police station. The booking process was videotaped and the Defendant was obviously intoxicated. He admitted to being an alcoholic and taking prescribed medication to treat his alcohol addiction.

Result: A second-offense OUI may be reduced to a first-offense OUI if the first-offense OUI occurred more than 10 years ago; this is known as a Cahill disposition, Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). In this case, the Defendant did not qualify, technically, for a Cahill disposition because his first-offense OUI did not occur more than 10 years ago. In fact, the first-offense OUI occurred approximately five years ago. Even though the Defendant did not technically qualify for a Cahill disposition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to reduce the second-offense OUI down to a first-offense OUI and the Judge imposed a first-offense OUI sentence instead of a second-offense sentence. With a second-offense OUI, a Defendant faces more severe penalties. In this case, Defendant received the benefit of a first-offense sentence.

INDECENT EXPOSURE:               SEALED

OUI-LIQUOR:                                 SEALED

NEGLIGENT OPERATION:         SEALED

Defendant, a 66 year-old real estate agent, contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was encountering difficulties obtaining employment due to criminal offenses on his record, including Indecent Exposure (G.L. c. 272, §53), Operating under the Influence of Liquor (G.L. c. 90, §24), and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).  After contacting Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, all charges on his criminal record were sealed within 30 days.

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR (THIRD OFFENSE) AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION

Defendant, a construction worker from Hanover, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police and charged with OUI-Liquor (third offense), see G.L. c. 90, §24. A third-offense OUI is a felony, which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an 8-year suspension of driver’s license. State Police received a call from an off-duty police officer who reported that the Defendant was driving erratically on Route 3 in Rockland. Based on that report, State Troopers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 3. The Trooper approached the Defendant and noticed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. The Trooper observed an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had consumed alcohol and the Defendant stated that he consumed a few nips about an hour prior. Troopers searched the Defendant’s vehicle and found six empty nip bottles. The Trooper administered two field sobriety tests, the One-Leg Stand and the Nine-Step Walk and Turn, which, in the Trooper’s opinion, the Defendant failed. During the booking process at the police station, the Defendant fell asleep. The Trooper had to shout the Defendant’s name several times and had to physically jostle the Defendant in order to wake him up.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won not guilty verdicts on all charges. At trial, Attorney Noonan was able to exclude certain testimony related to the off-duty police officer’s observations of the Defendant’s so-called erratic operation on Route 3. Attorney Noonan introduced the Defendant’s booking photo and the Defendant’s driver’s license photo to show that the Defendant did not have red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes, as the Trooper claimed. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the police did not identify any nip bottles in the vehicle when they conducted an inventory search of property in the Defendant’s vehicle. Troopers did not photograph or seize the nip bottles as evidence. For the field sobriety tests, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant satisfactorily performed the Nine-Step Walk and Turn with some minor errors. The vehicle stop occurred in the evening, after the Defendant had worked a full-day in construction and he was wearing work boots during his sobriety tests. The Defendant’s drowsiness during booking could be explained by the fact that he worked a full-day in construction and was tired as a result. Lastly, Attorney Noonan highlighted a huge inconsistency in the prosecution’s case. During her opening statement, the prosecutor argued that the jury would hear evidence that the Defendant admitted to consuming “three nips,” which turned out to be inaccurate.

MANSLAUGHER:               NOT GUILTY

In 2015, Defendant was charged with Manslaughter (G.L. c. 265, §13) for allegedly selling heroin to a middle-man, the middle-man distributed the heroin to a victim, and the victim consumed the heroin and died of a drug overdose. Manslaughter requires proof that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin was wanton and reckless and that his act of selling heroin was the cause of the victim’s death. At this time in 2015, there was case law and precedent in Massachusetts finding that a Defendant’s sale of heroin was wanton and reckless so as to support a charge of Manslaughter.  In 2016, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin to a middle-man was not wanton and reckless and was insufficient to support the Manslaughter charge. Attorney Noonan argued that the case law in the Commonwealth was outdated. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is no per se rule finding that the sale of heroin, by itself, was sufficient to convict a Defendant of Manslaughter. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present evidence, in addition to the sale of heroin, to establish wanton and reckless conduct, such as: the potency of the heroin, the quantity of the heroin, and the Defendant’s knowledge regarding the victim (such as the victim’s prior drug use, prior overdoses, vulnerability, etc.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Manslaughter charge because: the potency of the heroin was weak; the heroin was not laced with any other substances increasing the risk of overdose; the quantity of the heroin was small (consistent with personal use); and the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell directly to the victim. The Motion to Dismiss was denied.

At trial, Defendant was represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty; echoing the arguments that were raised in his pretrial Motion to Dismiss and applying the facts presented at trial. In his Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty, Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the Defendant sold heroin which, by itself, was not sufficient to convict him of Manslaughter. First, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the heroin was of low-strength.  In particular, the heroin was only 24% pure and weaker than the average dose of heroin on the street. A DEA Chemist testified at trial that the average street level strength of heroin is between 20% – 60%, placing the Defendant’s heroin at the weak end of the spectrum. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the heroin was not laced with any other substances, such as Fentanyl, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Third, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant sold a small quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Fourth, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell the heroin directly to her but instead sold the heroin to a middle-man. The trial judge denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Defendant was convicted of Manslaughter on April 6, 2018.

While the Defendant’s appeal was pending, there was a similar appeal pending before the Supreme Judicial Court where a Defendant had been convicted of Manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim. In this related appeal, (Commonwealth v. Jesse Carrillo), the Defendant (Carrillo) was raising the same arguments that the Noonan’s raised in their pretrial Motion to Dismiss and in their Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty at trial. The Defendant’s appeal was stayed (or put on hold) until the SJC made a decision in Carrillo. On October 3, 2019, the SJC in Carrillo held that: As an issue of first impression, evidence that the Defendant transferred heroin to the victim, without more, was insufficient to support a Manslaughter conviction. Given the SJC’s new decision, it was clear that the Defendant’s conviction should be overturned. The Defendant sought a highly skilled appellate attorney who fought hard on his behalf. Following the SJC’s decision in Carrillo, Defendant’s appellate attorney renewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. The District Attorney’s Office assented to (or agreed) to the Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Trial Judge entered a finding of Not Guilty.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN INCIDENT WHERE HIS TEENAGE SON ACCESSED HIS FIREARM FROM AN UNLOCKED SAFE AND POSTED VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND THE GUN ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINDTATE HIS LTC

Client, a Brockton resident, is a 54 year-old engineer and real estate agent with no criminal record whatsoever. The client and his wife (a certified nursing assistant) emigrated from Haiti and built a great life for their family in the United States. The police department suspended the client’s LTC due to an incident where his teenage son accessed his firearm from an unlocked safe and posted videos of himself posing with the gun on social media. The videos on social media were reported to the son’s school who, in turn, contacted the police department. As a result of this incident, the police department suspended the client’s License to Carry Firearms (LTC).

Result: The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in an effort to persuade the police department to reinstate his LTC. The firearms licensing officer told Attorney Noonan that the client was extremely remorseful for the incident and took full responsibility for the incident. The firearms licensing officer was open to considering an LTC reinstatement based, in large part, on the client’s truthfulness about the incident and his genuine remorse for what happened. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client made a poor mistake but something like this would never happen again. He left the unloaded firearm out of his sight for only a few minutes, which resulted in this incident. The client immediately completed a course in firearm’s safety. The main reason why the officer was willing to entertain a potential reinstatement was the client’s genuineness and truthfulness in speaking with police about the incident, his sincere expression of remorse, and his willingness to correct the mistake. After negotiations, the client’s LTC was reinstated.

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT WITH ASPERGER’S SYNDROME DISMISSED

 Defendant, a Plymouth resident, is a young man with Asperger’s Syndrome, which is a developmental disorder affecting the ability to effectively socialize and communicate. Defendant was adopted and lived in a large household with his adopted parents and the adult children of his adopted parents. On one evening, an argument ensued between the Defendant and his brother. During the course of the argument, there was some pushing, shoving and punches were exchanged. Other members of the household had to intervene to break up the altercation. When the police were called, the Defendant had visible injuries from the altercation, which the police ignored and chose not to photograph or document in their police report. The police also chose to ignore statements and information provided to them that the Defendant was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. After things cooled off, Defendant and his brother reconciled and the brother did not want to proceed with any criminal charges against the Defendant. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M).

Result: After being retained, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided documentation to the Commonwealth showing that his client was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Attorney Noonan also provided the Commonwealth with photographs of his client’s injuries, which suggested that his client was not the primary aggressor but was on the receiving end of the assault. Defendant had no criminal record or any involvement with police or the court system. The Commonwealth saw that this was an altercation between two brothers who have since reconciled and the alleged victim did not wish to proceed with any criminal charges against the Defendant. One the day of trial, the criminal charge was dismissed.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO A SHOPLIFTING ARREST BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINSTATE HIS LTC.

Client obtained a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) for his job as an armed security guard where he provided armed security for federal buildings in Boston. Client was arrested for shoplifting from the Lord & Taylor department store in the Braintree Mall. As a result of his arrest, the client’s license to carry firearms (LTC) was suspended by the police department finding him to be an “unsuitable” person to possess an LTC and firearms. Due to the suspension of his LTC, the client lost his job in armed security. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to have his LTC reinstated.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Police Department who suspended the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s LTC should be reinstated because the basis for the suspension (the shoplifting arrest) was dismissed. Even if a criminal charge is dismissed, the police department may still suspend an applicant’s LTC if the police department determines that the applicant is “unsuitable” to possess an LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client was a “suitable person” and that his shoplifting arrest was a stupid mistake. The client earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing and graduated with high honors. Attorney Noonan presented letters from the client’s co-workers in armed security attesting to his character and suitability. After the shoplifting case was dismissed, the client got a job as a health care provider at a residential facility treating of people with mental illness. The client received an award for providing life-saving assistance to a patient suffering from a medical emergency. Since the suspension, the client satisfactorily completed a firearm’s safety course. In sum, although the client was deemed to be unsuitable for his shoplifting arrest, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s suitability and the police department changed its mind and reinstated the LTC.

IN A CASE FEATURED ON THE NEWS, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN ACCUSED OF BEATING AN ELDERLY MAN AFTER A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT

The Defendant is a Brockton man with no criminal record. He has never been in trouble before. On January 2, 2019, Defendant was at a stop light in Easton. According to police, Defendant attempted to pass another vehicle when the two cars hit one another. The other driver, however, did not pull over so the Defendant followed him. The other driver eventually pulled into the parking lot of a bank. A verbal argument ensued. Defendant was accused of punching the elderly man in the face several times. Photographs were taken showing lacerations and bleeding to the alleged victim’s face. Defendant was arrested by Easton Police and charged with the felony offense Assault & Battery on Elderly or Disabled Person pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13K. On the second trial date, all charges against our client were dismissed.

“Man Accused of Punching 71-Year-old After Road Rage Incident in Easton.” https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/03/road-rage-brockton-man-assault-71-year-old-man-easton-police-arraignment/

“Police: Brockton man beats senior citizen in Easton road rage attack.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20190103/police-brockton-man-beats-senior-citizen-in-easton-road-rage-attack

CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST TAUNTON MAN FOR RECKLESSLY CAUSING A CAR ACCIDENT IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Raynham Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-vehicle car accident. On the scene, police spoke to the Defendant who stated that the vehicle traveling in front of him gave him a “brake job,” e.g., applying the brakes as the Defendant was traveling behind him. Defendant admitted that he accelerated and passed the other vehicle and, while the Defendant was traveling in front of the other vehicle, the Defendant reciprocated by giving that vehicle a “brake job.” However, the other vehicle crashed into the rear of the Defendant’s vehicle as a result of the Defendant’s “brake job,” causing significant front end damage to the other vehicle. The other driver told the police that the Defendant recklessly passed him and “locked up his brakes” causing the crash. Based on the Defendant’s incriminating statements and the significant vehicle damage, the police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal complaint giving his client an opportunity to save himself from having a criminal record before a decision was made to issue formal criminal charges. In preparation for the hearing, Attorney Noonan had his client complete a safe driving course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim’s motor vehicle damage had been paid for by insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing his client’s good character, including a character letter from the Defendant’s employer where the Defendant had worked for six-years. Attorney Noonan argued that his client made a foolish mistake but took responsibility for his actions. At the conclusion of the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, no criminal complaint issued against the client and the client has no criminal record as a result of this incident.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT FROM HAITI FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A LICENSE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Client is a 23 year-old woman who emigrated from Haiti. She attended Massasoit Community College and later became a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and she is currently employed as a CNA for a nursing home. She obtained a Learner’s Permit to operate a motor vehicle, but she had failed her driving test. She did not have a valid driver’s license when she was pulled over by police for a motor vehicle infraction and she was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). She did not have any criminal record.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. Usually, the client would have her aunt drive her to and from work. On this occasion, the client made a poor mistake in judgment and drove without a license.

MBTA WORKER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED AFTER CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR UNLAWFULLY CARRYING A FIREARM OUTSIDE HIS RESTRICTION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED

The client has a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with a restriction for target shooting purposes only. The client was criminally charged in Boston with unlawfully carrying a firearm outside his target shooting restriction. At 2:41 a.m., Boston Police were patrolling a high crime area, which had been the scene of recent shootings. Officers were suspicious that the Defendant’s vehicle and another vehicle were parked in close proximity to each other (in this high-crime area) and the vehicles took off in separate directions. Officers followed the Defendant’s vehicle and their suspicious increased because the vehicle’s windows were tinted and the license plate was obstructed by some plastic covering. Officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him if he had a firearm in his possession. Defendant was truthful and stated that he had a firearm underneath his seat. His LTC was restricted to target shooting only and the police felt that the Defendant had possessed the firearm outside his restriction and charged him criminally. Following the criminal charge, the client’s LTC was suspended.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned the Police Department to reinstate his client’s LTC for the following reasons: First, the criminal charge was dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing. He was only issued warnings for the civil infractions for the tinted windows and license plate obstruction. Second, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was in that specific area in Boston because he was visiting his grandmother. The client was not doing anything suspicious. Third, the client had gone target shooting that day at the Braintree Rifle and Pistol Club with co-workers of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Fourth, Attorney Noonan presented strong character evidence. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed by the MBTA for six years. Several respectable members of the community offered letters attesting to the client’s character. Finally, the client completed a firearm’s safety course. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the police department reinstated the client’s license to carry firearms.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 209A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST BROCKTON MAN, ACCUSED OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, TERMINATED.

The Plaintiff brought a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant on behalf of his sixteen year-old daughter pursuant to G.L. c. 209A. Defendant resided on the first-floor of a multi-family home in Brockton. The Plaintiff resided on the second-floor with his two daughters who were minors. The Plaintiff-Father alleged that the Defendant engaged in some inappropriate behavior with his two minor daughters. The father alleged that the Defendant was giving money to his daughters for some inappropriate purpose, but the daughters refused to tell their father why the Defendant had given them the money, or if there was any inappropriate behavior. The father believed that something inappropriate happened with his daughters, but he didn’t know what.

Result: At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the father who admitted that he was unsure about the Defendant’s alleged misconduct because his daughters did not make actual disclosures to him. After some questioning, the father agreed to withdraw his request for a restraining order. The restraining order has been vacated.

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH FELONY 4^TH OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS THE CHARGE REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR 2^ND OFFENSE, SAVING THE CLIENT FROM A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 2 YEARS.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24M) and Negligent Operation. This was his 4^th offense for drunk driving carrying a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 years in the house of correction. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle almost strike a telephone pole and nearly struck trash barrels. Police observed the vehicle swerving all over the road. The vehicle was driving in the opposite travel lane for over 20 yards. The officer approached the Defendant’s vehicle and observed a strong odor of alcohol. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Defendant’s speech was slurred. The officer was unable to understand some of the Defendant’s statements due to his slurred speech. Defendant admitted to have a “few too many” drinks. Officers administered Field Sobriety Tests, including the One Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn, and determined that he had failed the tests.

Result: Immediately after getting hired, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested to have his client evaluated by the Veteran’s Court because his client was a highly decorated combat veteran. This was the first time in the client’s life that he had ever been evaluated by a clinician for the effects caused by his combat experience. For the first time in his life, the client was diagnosed and treated for the effects caused by his horrific combat experience. He was diagnosed with PTSD, Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety, which led to his substance abuse and alcoholism. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with a breakdown of the client’s entire military service, awards, and decorations. In the Veteran’s Court, the clinicians dug deep into the client’s military experience, which included combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The client was a Platoon leader and two of his closest friends were killed in combat. Attorney Noonan provided numerous character letters, records of his 20 years of employment, and records of his substance abuse treatment. After reviewing all the evidence provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the 4^th offense OUI down to a 2^nd offense OUI. With a 4^th offense OUI, a felony offense, the client was facing a mandatory 2 years in jail. With a reduction to a 2^nd offense, the client is now charged with a misdemeanor. Ultimately, the client was placed on probation, on the reduced charge, with conditions to continue treatment. Client avoided having to serve a mandatory 2 years in jail.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT TERMINATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING VIOLENT OFFENSES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR VIOLATING THE RESTRAINING ORDER ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

The Plaintiff is the former girlfriend of the Defendant. Defendant was charged with many serious crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including Stalking (G.L. c. 265, § 43), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A), and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). The Plaintiff provided police with a cell phone video showing that the Defendant had jumped on her car, gained access to the inside of her car, and began driving her car, while the Plaintiff was seated in the passenger seat screaming out in fear. She provided police with photographs of injuries to her arm that were inflicted by the Defendant. She told police that she broke up with the Defendant but he continually stalked her. When the Defendant was arraigned on those criminal charges, the girlfriend obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which ordered him to stay away from her, not contact her, and not abuse her. While the Restraining Order was in effect, the Defendant violated the restraining order because he had contacted the girlfriend several times and showed up to her workplace. As a result of the violations, Defendant was criminally charged with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209, §7).

Result: A hearing was scheduled on the Plaintiff’s request to extend the restraining order against the Defendant. The Plaintiff had a very good chance of prevailing in her request to extend the restraining order because the Defendant was currently charged with a multitude of violent crimes against her, and he had violated the restraining order three different times. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to represent him on the criminal charges. Attorney Noonan is aggressively defending him on the criminal charges, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge, he has retained an expert witness, he has conducted his own investigation into the allegations, and he has been pressing for more evidence. The Plaintiff obtained an temporary extension of the 209A Order with the Court by telephone, but Attorney Noonan demanded an evidentiary hearing on her request to extend the restraining order. The Plaintiff had shown all indications that she would be pursuing an extension of the restraining order. She has been heavily involved in the Defendant’s prosecution, provided police with evidence of his crimes, including videos, photos, e-mails, and text messages. It was expected that she would appear at the hearing to request an extension of the Order, but she did not appear and the Order was vacated.

AFTER HEARING, JUDGE ALLOWS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRESPASSING CHARGE BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT MEANING THAT THE DEFENDANT (WHO IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN) WILL HAVE NO RECORD.

 Brockton Police responded to the parking lot of an apartment complex in response to 911 calls reporting that a vehicle in the parking lot was firing gunshots. Upon arrival, Police found the Defendant in the parking lot, standing by his vehicle. The Police demanded that the Defendant leave the property, or they would arrest him for Trespassing. According to police, Defendant refused law enforcement’s demands to leave the property immediately. Defendant was charged with criminal Trespassing (G.L. c. 266, §120). Defendant was not a U.S. citizen. Certain criminal convictions against non-U.S. citizens may result in deportation.

Result: Upon hiring Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Attorney Noonan conducted an immediate investigation and learned that the Defendant’s cousin, who lived in the apartment complex, had given him permission to be on the property. Attorney Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with an Affidavit from the cousin stating that he had given the Defendant permission to be on the property. As a result, Defendant did not commit a Trespass because he had lawful authority to be on the property. Moreover, Attorney Noonan argued that there was no probable cause for the offense because the police had no authority to demand that the Defendant leave the property, because the police did not have lawful control over the premises, as they were not residents of the apartment complex. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed, and the case was dismissed prior to arraignment, meaning that the Defendant (who is not a U.S. citizen) will have no record as a result of this case.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED BY BOSTON POLICE FOR BEING UNCOOPERATIVE DURING A POLICE INVESTIGATION, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED.

Client is a 30 year-old Boston man with no record of criminal convictions. He was issued a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) by the Boston Police. Client was employed in armed security, which required him to have an LTC. In 2020, client was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Hyde Park where he was shot in the leg. While in the hospital, police proceeded to question him, but the officer found that the client was being “uncooperative.” As a result, Boston Police suspended his LTC alleging that he was an “unsuitable person” to be issued an LTC because he was uncooperative with the police.

Result: The client’s livelihood depended on him having an LTC. Because his LTC was denied, he lost his job in armed security and was unemployed. The client’s career in armed security seemed bleak because his LTC was suspended. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Complaint in the Boston Municipal Court seeking judicial review and appealing the decision of the Boston Police in suspending his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that: There is no reasonable nexus between the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police and a risk to public safety – and the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police was not reasonably related to the statute’s goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of persons who would cause a risk to public safety. Shortly after the filing of the Complaint and the Appeal, the Boston Police rightly decided to reinstate the client’s LTC. Now the client can return to work in armed security.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals

98 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2020)

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY DRUG OFFENSES AFTER A TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE HIS CONVICTIONS AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS ARE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented this client since he was arrested in 2016 on two-counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In this case, a Confidential Informant (CI) provided Brockton Police with information that the Defendant was selling heroin in Brockton. The CI engaged in two controlled buys for drugs with the Defendant under the supervision of Brockton Police. In the two controlled buys, Police observed the Defendant meet the CI and engaged in a drug transaction. After each controlled buy, the drugs were field tested as positive for heroin. As a result of the information supplied by the CI, and the two controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Brockton for drugs. When executing the search warrant, police found 37 bags containing a half-ounce of heroin, and glass jars containing over 3 lbs. of marijuana. As a result of the search, Brockton Police charged the Defendant with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, and Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C(a)).

Result: In the Brockton District Court, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, which was denied. Attorney Noonan filed an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals appealing the denial of his Motion to Suppress, which was also denied. Attorney Noonan also represented the Defendant at his jury trial in the Brockton District Court, which ended in guilty verdicts. This time, Attorney Noonan was successful in his appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which resulted in the reversal of his convictions, and Not Guilty findings were entered for the Defendant.

“Police seize half ounce of heroin, 3lbs of marijuana from Brockton brothers.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20160629/police-seize-half-ounce-of-heroin-3lbs-of-marijuana-from-brockton-brothers

Read the Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Gregory Pierre-Charles.

See Video of Attorney Patrick J. Noonan arguing the appeal before the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE OFFENSE.

 Stoughton Police arrested and charged the Defendant with Resisting Arrest pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §32B. Police were called to a parking lot for a male party sitting in a vehicle “who was reported to be not acting right.” Officer approached the vehicle, and spoke to the Defendant who was mumbling and argumentative. Police observed several empty alcoholic nips bottles in the vehicle. Officers asked him about his drinking, and Defendant was argumentative. Police observed that he was very intoxicated. Police asked him to step out of the vehicle. As he exited the vehicle, Defendant lost his balance and the officer reached out to grab him to prevent him from falling, but the Defendant pulled away and tried to get away from the officers, causing officers to grab the Defendant and take him to the ground. While on the ground, Defendant continued to resist the officers, causing officers to deliver knee strikes to his body.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause arguing that: Defendant was not placed under arrest at the time he resisted officers, Officers did not have probable cause to arrest the Defendant for any crime at the time the Defendant resisted officers, and the officers never communicated to the Defendant their intent to arrest him. After a hearing, the Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

Brockton District Court

SHOPLIFTING CHARGE DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING. CLIENT HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT.

 Defendant was arrested by Abington Police and charged with shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A) stemming from an incident at Walmart where she allegedly stole a flat screen TV; claiming to Walmart employee’s that she had already purchased the TV but had forgotten her receipt. Defendant made her way out of the store with the TV and she never came back to return the TV.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the theft was a sudden, impulsive decision by the Defendant, and not a premediated theft. Attorney Noonan presented evidence regarding the client’s background as a college graduate, and she had been gainfully employed for the same company for over seven years. Attorney Noonan presented letters attesting to the client’s character to demonstrate that this incident was an aberration. Defendant expressed extreme remorse for the incident and she immediately paid restitution for the stolen item. The Clerk decided to dismiss the criminal complaint, saving the client from having a criminal record.

Hingham District Court

DA’S OFFICE DROPS FELONY CASE AGAINST HANOVER MAN FOR POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE DEVICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS PROOF THAT THE DEVICE DID NOT CONTAIN ANY EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL.

 Hanover Police were called to the Defendant’s residence after his wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making threats to commit suicide. Upon arrival, police observed that the Defendant had been consuming alcohol, and the Defendant confirmed that he had made suicidal threats. Police sectioned the Defendant and had him involuntarily committed due to substance abuse and mental health issues. After his arrest, Police seized firearms and ammunition from his residence. Police noticed a hand-grenade, and immediately contacted the Bomb Squad who believed that the grenade was a live explosive and contained explosive material. A K-9 alerted to the grenade as containing explosives. The Bomb Squad detonated and exploded the grenade. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession of an Incendiary Device (G.L. c. 266, §102(c)), which carries a potential State Prison sentence of not less than five (5) years.

Result:  Defendant had purchased the grenade on gunbroker.com. The grenade was shipped to him by a company in Florida. Our investigator contacted the vendor who sold the grenade to the Defendant. The vendor stated that these grenades were shipped to them from Poland, and the grenades were screened by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs before the grenades entered the U.S. The vendor stated that the grenades were dummy grenades used by law enforcement for training purposes. The vendor stated that the grenades typically have a white stripe, which indicates that it is a dummy grenade used by law enforcement for teaching purposes. Photographs of the Defendant’s grenade showed that it had a white stripe. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, which was denied by the Judge. Attorney Noonan made several requests to the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case, and provided proof from the vendor that the grenade was not live. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was a collector of old military memorabilia, which he used to decorate his home office. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant purchased the grenade, believing it was fake, to decorate his home office, which contained many old military collectables. After three requests, the District Attorney’s Office finally dismissed the case.

Plymouth Superior Court

DEFENDANT WAS FACING A MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE OF 8 YEARS FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING, BUT THE INDICTMENT WAS REDUCED TO A LOWER LEVEL OF DRUG TRAFFICING, AND THE DEFENDANT WAS SPARED FROM SERVING AN ADDITIONAL 4 ½ YEARS IN PRISON.

 Defendant was the target of operating a large scale drug trafficking operation in Brockton. The investigation consisted of information provided to the police by two (2) separate confidential informants. A confidential informant participated in several controlled buys. Under the supervision of police, the informant purchased cocaine from the Defendant, several times, at the Defendant’s residence in Brockton. Police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s residence. When the police executed the search warrant, they recovered the following evidence from the Defendant’s residence, 92.5 grams of cocaine in a closet, 19 grams of cocaine in a bureau, 503 grams of marijuana, 16 Vicodin pills, 5 Percocet pills, over $60,000 in cash, and distribution materials. Defendant was charged with: (1) Trafficking Cocaine (over 100 grams) under G.L. c. 94C, §32E(b), (2) Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana under G.L. c. 94C, §32C, and (3) Possession of Class B substance.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the evidence seized from the Defendant’s residence pursuant to the search warrant. The police obtained a No-Knock search warrant, which allowed them to enter the residence without having to knock and announce their presence. Attorney Noonan argued that, when the police arrived to the residence at 4:00 am to execute the warrant, there were no exigent circumstances present because all the occupants in the house were sleeping – and the police were required to knock and announce their presence because there was no evidence that the occupants of the home presented a threat to officer safety. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan discovered that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the police served the Defendant, in-hand, with a copy of the search warrant, which is required by law. The lead investigating officer testified that he did not have a copy of the search warrant in his possession when he executed the search warrant. The lead officer did not personally serve a copy of the search warrant on the Defendant, and the lead officer did not see any other officers serve the warrant on the Defendant. Rather, the lead officer testified that another officer had a copy of the search warrant, but the officer did not see him serve the warrant on the Defendant. Despite his efforts, Attorney Noonan’s suppression motion was unsuccessful. The indictment for trafficking 100 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory prison sentence of eight (8) years. Attorney Noonan hired an expert chemist who reviewed all the drug evidence, and Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence at trial that the Commonwealth would have difficulty proving that the police seized at least 100 grams of cocaine. The Commonwealth deserves a lot of credit because they reviewed the evidence and determined that they might have difficulty in proving that the Defendant trafficking 100 grams or more of cocaine – so the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the indictment to trafficking under 100 grams. Trafficking in cocaine under 100 grams carries a mandatory prison sentence of 3 ½ years. The Defendant pled guilty to the reduced offense, and he was spared from serving 4 ½ years in prison.

Stoughton District Court

RESISTING ARREST:                    DISMISSED

BREAKING & ENTERING:          PTP

VANDALISM:                                  PTP

DISORDERLY CONDUCT:           PTP

Defendant is 29 years old. Defendant has a history of severe alcohol abuse. On the night in question, Defendant was in his second-floor apartment in Canton and he was highly intoxicated. Defendant climbed his second-story balcony and broke into the third-floor apartment, which was unoccupied. Police were called to the third-floor apartment after receiving reports of loud noises coming from that apartment. Police entered the apartment where they found the Defendant sitting on the floor. He was intoxicated and argumentative. Defendant was experiencing hallucinations. Police were so concerned about the Defendant’s mental state that he sectioned him and had him transported to the hospital. Defendant was arrested by Canton Police and charged with: (1) Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Breaking and Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), Vandalism (G.L. c. 266, §126A) and Disorderly Conduct.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan investigated the case and determined that there was a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, also known as an insanity defense. Attorney Noonan consulted with a Psychiatrist who concluded that there was evidence of temporary insanity, and the Psychiatrist was prepared to testify as an expert witness for the defense. The proposed evidence of temporary insanity was the following: Defendant was admitted into a detox facility for alcohol dependence where he was administered several dosages of a medication known as Librium. The facility should have held the Defendant for a minimum of three days before discharging him. Defendant was able to discharge himself from the facility during the early stages of his detox. Attorney Noonan argued that the facility was negligent in prematurely discharging the Defendant because the Defendant still had the Librium in his system and it was very likely that the Defendant would consume alcohol after his discharge. After he was discharged, the Defendant returned to his apartment where he consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol. The combination of the alcohol and the Librium caused the Defendant to suffer from an acute mental reaction, as evidence by the fact that the Defendant was hallucinating when the police arrived and the police sectioned him due to his alarming mental state. When he was taken to the hospital, Defendant had no memory of what took place. The Commonwealth agreed to place the Defendant on Pretrial Probation for a period of one year with the condition that he continue with his mental health and substance abuse treatment. If the Defendant complies with these conditions, all charges will be dismissed. Pretrial Probation is an excellent outcome because the Defendant does not have to admit to any guilt or wrongdoing, and the charges are dismissed without any adverse finding against the Defendant.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF SCIENTIST.

 Client is a 29 year-old. He had a Ph.D in Chemistry and he was employed as a Senior Scientist for a major, worldwide research laboratory. The client was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct stemming from an incident outside a bar in Boston where he, and his friends, were assaulted and injured by bouncers of the bar. When the police arrived, the client and his friend were suffering from injuries as a result of the bouncers’ assault. The client was in a highly emotional state, he was upset about being attacked for no reason, and he demanded that the police arrest the bouncers for assaulting them. The client was disorderly, argumentative, and combative with police, so he was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53(b)).

Result: The criminal charge on his record posed a very serious threat to his current employment and future employment. In order to get hired, the client was required to pass a very rigorous background check, including a thorough criminal background investigation. After being hired, every employee is subject to recurring criminal background checks. If his employer were to conduct a new background check, they would see that the client was charged with Disorderly Conduct, and he would most likely be terminated. Moreover, the client was considering applying for jobs with other employers in his chosen field. All prospective employers would see the charge of Disorderly Conduct when conducting a background check and the client would be prevented from obtaining future employment opportunities due to this charge. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to swiftly seal the client’s criminal record (under G.L. c. 276, §100C) preserving the client’s current employment, and giving him a clean record in applying for future jobs.

Falmouth District Court

A VICTIM OF HARASSMENT HIRES ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WHO SUCCESSFILLY OBTAINS A HARASSMENT PREVENTION RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR.

The client, a stay at home mom and resident of Falmouth, was the subject of harassment from a neighbor. The client reported the incidents of harassment to the police, but the police declined to charge the neighbor with any crimes. It was a she-said he-said scenario and her word against his. The client was the victim of the neighbor’s continuous acts of harassment and she did not feel safe from him. The client would encounter the neighbor regularly and did not feel safe around him.

Result: The client hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan to obtain a Harassment Prevention Restraining Order against the neighbor. In order to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order under G.L. c. 258E, the Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence of at least three incidents of harassment. The statute defines harassment as “3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” After conducting an investigation, Attorney Noonan gathered sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof. Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order, which ordered the neighbor to not contact her, to stay away from her, and to refrain from abusing or harassment her.

Quincy District Court

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.

The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.

Quincy District Court

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.

The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.

Roxbury District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES FELONY CONVICTION FOR DRUG DISTRIBUTION.

 In 1997, when the client was 23 years old, he was arrested and charged with Distribution of Marijuana (Distribution of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §32A), an offense carrying a punishment of 10 years in state prison. The charge stems from an incident in which the police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area. Police observed a vehicle occupied by the Defendant (the operator), a front seat passenger (co-defendant), and a backseat passenger. Police observed the vehicle pull into a McDonald’s parking lot. Police observed a white male, standing on the side walk next to the McDonald’s, continuously pacing back and forth while looking at the parked vehicle. Police observed a passenger in the vehicle, exit the vehicle, and approach the white male. Police observed the two men exchange money and an object. After the alleged drug transaction, police stopped the vehicle where they found some cash and beepers. Defendant pled guilty to the felony offense of Drug Distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the Defendant’s conviction for felony drug distribution pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 30(b). Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant, as the driver, was an accessary, accomplice, or a joint venturer in the drug transaction. Further, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant shared the mental intent of the person who committed the crime of drug distribution. After reviewing the Motion to Vacate, and the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the District Attorney’s Office agreed to vacate the conviction. Once the conviction was vacated, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi, a statement by the prosecution that they will no longer prosecute the case. In their Nolle Prosequi, the Commonwealth stated: “Following a review of the facts and circumstances of the above case, and in an effort to proceed in the interests of justice, the Commonwealth respectfully enters this Nolle Prosequi.”

FIREFIGHTER’S LTC WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT’S LTC REINSTATED.

Client has been a longtime firefighter and paramedic. He is a veteran of the U.S. Navy. The client was embroiled in a bitter, contentious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife. His LTC was suspended after his ex-wife went into the police station and reported that the client had been physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive throughout their marriage. The ex-wife also called the Chief of Police and requested that the client’s LTC be suspended due to his alleged history of abuse, and she did not feel safe with him possessing weapons. As a result of the ex-wife’s allegations, allegations including a multitude of many serious criminal offenses, the police department suspended the client’s LTC.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately appealed the LTC suspension. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Attorney for the police department and presented extensive evidence of his client’s character and suitability, and Attorney Noonan pointed out issues surrounding the wife’s allegations. After months of negotiation, the police department agreed to reinstate the client’s LTC.

Plymouth District Court

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPON:             DISMISSED

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPON:             DISMISSED

THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER:                                           DISMISSED

IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM:                                  GUILTY, PROBATION

Defendant, a Plymouth resident and commercial lobsterman, was a front seat passenger in a car driven by his wife. Defendant was extremely intoxicated and threatened to blow his wife’s brains out. Defendant proceeded to punch and elbow the passenger side window causing the glass to shatter. Defendant then jumped out of the moving vehicle. His wife called the police. Upon arrival to the scene of the incident, police found the Defendant lying on the ground, covered in vomit, and intoxicated. Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Laboratory tests showed the presence of alcohol and drugs. Defendant placed in a secured psychiatric unit of the hospital. Because the Defendant had a License to Carry Firearms, police went to his residence to secure all his weapons. Police located an assault rifle. Modifications had been made to the rifle causing it to be an illegal assault weapon. Police also located a magazine which had been illegally modified causing it to be in an illegal feeding device for the assault weapon. The magazine’s pin had been removed and modified to hold 30 rounds of ammunition. Defendant was interviewed by police where he admitted to making the illegal modifications. When searching his house to seize all his firearms, police were unable to locate a firearm that had been registered to the Defendant. Police were eventually able to locate the missing firearm in a kitchen cabinet. This firearm was not properly stored. Defendant was charged by the Plymouth Police with two counts of illegal possession of an assault weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §121, threats to commit murder pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2, and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed motions to suppress key evidence in the case. First, Attorney Noonan sought to suppress the Defendant’s confession to committing the crimes on the grounds that his statements were not voluntary due to his alcohol and drug intoxication and psychiatric conditions. Second, Attorney Noonan sought to suppress the search of the Defendant’s home because his wife did not have legal authority to consent to the search and seizure of the Defendant’s personal property. Prior to litigating the motions to suppress, the Commonwealth offered to dismiss all charges except for the misdemeanor offense of Improper Storage of a Firearm to which the Defendant pled guilty and was placed on probation for one year.

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST SUSPECT INVESTIGATED FOR STEALING POLITICAL LAWN SIGNS.

The clients were being investigated for stealing political signs from the victim’s front yard. The police contacted the suspects and police sought to question the suspects for their potential involvement in the theft of the political signs. While being the target of the investigation, clients contacted our law firm for representation. Our law firm interceded in the investigation and ensured that no criminal charges would be filed.

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST FATHER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a call for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s daughter who alleged that her father pushed her during an argument causing her to fall to the ground. Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately requested a trial date intending to prove his client’s innocence. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE DISMISSED AFTER CLERK’S HEARING.

Defendant had a very bad driving record riddled with driving offenses and convictions of operating with a suspended driver’s license pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §23. This was a subsequent offense for driving with a suspended license. He had been previously charged with being a Habitual Traffic Offender per G.L. c. 90, §22F. He had also served jail time for driving-related offenses. Defendant’s prior attorney was unable to get the criminal complaint dismissed, so he hired our law firm.

Result: Although the Defendant had a poor driving record, he had taken substantial steps to prove that he would be a responsible driver. We continued his clerk’s hearing in order to give the Defendant time to remedy his driving-related issues. Defendant completed three driving retraining courses, and he paid all outstanding traffic tickets and fines. He refrained from operating a vehicle even though he was employed as a full time construction worker and he was forced to find alternate means of transportation to get to work every day. With this criminal complaint dismissed, the client is eligible to apply for the reinstatement of his driver’s license. We wish him the best.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST AIR FORCE ACADEMY PREP SCHOOL CADET DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client was a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy Preparatory School in Colorado. She graduated from high school in Massachusetts as an exemplary student and athlete. Due to her hard-work, strong work ethic, and impressive background, she was accepted to the U.S. Air Force Academy Prep School. Upon her graduation, she will apply to the United States Air Force Academy with aspirations of serving a career in the United States Air Force. She was alleged to have shoplifted items from a department store, and the police department filed an application for criminal complaint against her for larceny under G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint for larceny, which was a huge win for this client, as a criminal record would virtually destroy her dreams of serving in the United States Air Force. The client will have no criminal record as a result of this incident.

Lowell District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS DUE TO ARRESTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.

Plaintiff had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was suspended by the Lowell Police Department because he was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. According to the police department, the Plaintiff’s arrest made him an “unsuitable person” to possess a firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision of the police department to the Lowell District Court. The Police Department opposed the appeal and maintained that the Plaintiff was an unsuitable person.

Result: At the hearing in the Lowell District Court, the firearm licensing officer for the Lowell Police Department testified that the facts and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s arrest for OUI and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated justified the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the officer and pointed out that the Plaintiff was found not guilty of OUI and the firearm offense was dismissed by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the Lowell Police Department felt that the facts surrounding his arrest supported the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that the OUI should not be considered as a basis for a suspension because a jury, upon hearing the facts of the case, determined that the Plaintiff was not guilty of committing that offense. The Police Department maintained that the Defendant’s possession of a firearm while arrested for an OUI made him unsuitable. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer never investigated, or determined, why the prosecution decided to dismiss the firearm offense. The Court inferred that the firearm offense must have been a weak case if the prosecution decided not to prosecute him for that offense. Moreover, the licensing officer did not contact the Plaintiff to interview him to learn about outcome of the criminal case. The Court found that the Lowell Police Department should have conducted further inquiry before deciding to suspend the LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that it was unreasonable to suspend the LTC because the arrest occurred a long time ago, and the decision to suspend his license was not based on any recent evidence of unsuitability. Attorney Noonan had his client testify and he presented evidence of his suitability, which the Court credited. After the hearing, the Court reversed the decision to suspend the LTC and found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving that the decision by the Defendant was an abuse of discretion.

Dedham District Court

CLIENT FACING MANDATORY JAIL TIME FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL THIRD-OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE REDUCED TO SECOND-OFFENSE OUI, SAVING THIS MILITARY VETERAN FROM SERVING 180 DAYS IN JAIL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24), this being his third offense. The case was un-triable due to overwhelming evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication and guilt. The odds of winning at trial were virtually impossible. Compounding things further, Defendant was convicted of his prior 2nd offense OUI shortly before his arrest on the 3rd offense. Additionally, Defendant was charged with assaulting the police officer during his arrest. Defendant’s prior attorney was unable to secure a favorable deal with the prosecution. As a result, the client contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan in hopes of getting a better outcome.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan started from scratch and sought and obtained as much favorable information about his client as possible, in hopes of securing a good deal with the prosecution. The Defendant served in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained all favorable evidence pertaining to his military service. Defendant struggled with alcohol for years. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pushed his client to dedicate his life to sobriety and treatment. The client made treatment his top priority. He participated in intensive inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment. He passed drug and alcohol tests. He participated in Alcoholics Anonymous almost daily. Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of his AA Attendance, and character letters from his AA sponsor and his AA group. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of the client’s gainful employment as a licensed plumber; operating his own business, and he taught courses for those seeking to become licensed plumbers. He raised three stepchildren, as if they were his own children, and Attorney Noonan obtained character letters from his stepchildren. Defendant also has underlying mental health issues, which had gone unaddressed and, with Attorney Noonan’s help, he began to receive mental health treatment. Attorney Noonan gathered as much favorable evidence as possible, and presented it to the District Attorney’s Office requesting a reduction to a second-offense OUI. The prosecution could see that the Defendant was dedicated to his treatment, and they were convinced of his good-faith efforts in seeking recovery. The prosecution deserves a lot of credit in reviewing all the evidence. They agreed to reduce the felony offense to a misdemeanor, and the client avoided a mandatory jail sentence.