ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN WHO ACCIDENTALLY DISCHARGED HIS FIREARM WITH A STRAY BULLET STRIKING HIS NEIGHBOR’S HOUSE.

Police were dispatched to a residence in response to a report from a homeowner that a bullet was shot through the house and into the living room. The bullet was found inside the home on the floor of the living room. There was a bullet hole in the wall to the home. Police identified the bullet as a 9mm full metal jacket. Police interviewed the neighbor, the Defendant, who admitted that he accidentally discharged the firearm in his backyard. As a result, Defendant was charged with Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Dwelling (G.L. c. 269, §12E), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Defacing Property (G.L. c. 266, §126).

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed after a period of time, so long as the Defendant abides by certain conditions. Attorney Noonan argued that the client accidentally discharged the firearm while handling it inside the shed of his backyard. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan spoke with the victim-homeowner who was agreeable to Attorney Noonan’s proposed disposition. The client is a 64 year-old man with no criminal record and professional truck driver.

CLIENT WAS INVESTIGATED FOR STEALING OVER $100,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER. CLIENT CONTACTS NOONAN LAW OFFICE AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE FILED.

Client was employed as an armed security guard. Part of his responsibilities included transporting large sums of cash. Over the course of several months, over $100,000 in cash was stolen. His employer accused him of stealing the money. An investigator from his employer’s fraud department conducted an interview of the client. It was clear that the client was the target of the investigation. The client denied taking any money. The client provided a written statement. The investigator contacted the client and conducted a second interview targeting the client. The investigator concluded that the client had stolen the money. The client was terminated.

Result: Because the investigation determined that the client had stolen over $100,000, the client contacted Noonan Law Offices because he was concerned that he would be criminally charged. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately contacted the employer. Attorney Noonan sent several letters, and had several conversations with the employer, asserting that his client was innocent and there was insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime. As a result of the efforts by the Noonan Law Offices, the client was never charged with a crime.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND A CONVICTION FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CLIENT’S LTC REINSTATED. 

The client had a Class A License to Carry Firearms. The client was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The client traversed into a raised median, crashed into a light pole, dragging the light pole into the middle of an intersection. After his arrest, the police department suspended his LTC. The client hired the Noonan Law Offices to represent him on the criminal charges. After a trial, the client, represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, was found not guilty of OUI, but he was found guilty of Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. After the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the police department to request the reinstatement of the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the trial showing that the client was not intoxicated. After considering the evidence, the police department decided to reinstate the client’s LTC.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MILITARY VETERAN CHARGED WITH DRUG POSSESSION.

Police were conducting surveillance and their attention was drawn to a vehicle parked in a parking lot. Officers observed two males in the vehicle looking down and manipulating something. Officers approached the vehicle and observed the Defendant cutting white powder with a credit card on top of a clipboard. Police searched the vehicle and recovered cocaine. Defendant admitted that the cocaine belonged to him. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession of Class B Substance pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §32A.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed, so long as the Defendant stayed out of trouble for three months. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, served in the United States Marine Corps. Defendant was highly decorated and was honorably discharged. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client passed numerous drug tests. The clerk agreed to dismiss the complaint after three-months, so long as the client stays out of trouble.

CLIENT WAS INVESTIGATED FOR MANSLAUGHTER FOR ALLEGEDLY SUPPLYING HEROIN TO A ROOMMATE WHO DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE. CLIENT CONTACTED THE NOONAN LAW OFFICES AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE FILED.

The client resided in a hotel room with a roommate. The client discovered that his roommate was unconscious and unresponsive. The client immediately tried to revive his roommate, but was unsuccessful. The client called 911 for assistance. Paramedics were unable to revive the roommate. The roommate died of a drug overdose. At the scene, officers questioned the client about the circumstances of his roommate’s death. The client was cooperative, but declined to answer certain questions. Shortly thereafter, police contacted the client and requested that he come to the police station to answer questions regarding his roommate’s death. The client contacted Noonan Law Offices, who immediately contacted the lead investigator on the case. After discussions with the lead investigator, the client was not charged with any crimes.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN CHARGED WITH AIRPORT SECURITY VIOLATION WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND IN HIS TRAVEL BAG UPON INSPECTION.

The Defendant went to the airport with his wife and children. They were traveling out-of-state because his son was participating in a sporting competition. While security was checking his bag at the airport, they discovered a handgun. As a result, Defendant was charged with Airport Security Violation pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §12F(b).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant inadvertently left his firearm in his travel and he forgot that his firearm was in his travel bag when he went to the airport. When notified of the discovery, Defendant was extremely cooperative and apologetic. Security seized the firearm and allowed the Defendant and his family to get on their flight. Defendant is 59 year-old with no criminal record.

Supreme Judicial Court
489 Mass. 155 (2020)

IN A VICTORY FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT THAT 15 DAYS OF POLE CAMERA SURVEILLANCE TARGETED AT THE DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH.

Defendant was under investigation by the Massachusetts State Police for the crimes of Possession of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29C) and Dissemination of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29B). Police obtained evidence that an IP address associated with a residence, a large apartment building, was used to commit the crimes of possession and dissemination of child pornography. Police installed a pole camera across the street from the apartment building to conduct surveillance. After viewing the pole camera footage, State Police obtained a search warrant to search apartments within the apartment building. Upon executing the search warrant, police arrested the defendant in the driveway and used his keys to access an apartment within the building. In the apartment alleged to belong to the defendant, police seized electronic devices, which they claimed to contain illegal evidence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued this case before the Supreme Judicial Court and convinced the SJC that 15 days of pole camera surveillance targeted at the Defendant’s home was a search under the Massachusetts constitution, which required a search warrant. The Commonwealth argued that 15 days of pole camera was not enough to constitute a search. The Commonwealth argued that a longer period of surveillance was required to constitute a search. The government was concerned about establishing a precedent where pole camera surveillance could constitute a search within a short period of time. The Commonwealth cited case-law to support its argument that prolonged surveillance was required. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the pole camera was installed across the street approximately 84-feet from the front door. Attorney Noonan introduced numerous photos from the pole camera, which provided a window into the Defendant’s daily life, habits, and routines. Attorney Noonan provided a daily breakdown of the pole camera surveillance capturing and tracking the Defendant’s daily movements around his home. Within the short time span of 15 days, the pole camera was able to generate a mosaic of the Defendant’s activities. The pole camera captured things that were otherwise unknowable. Attorney Noonan introduced specific images highlighting the intrusive nature of the pole camera surveillance, such as tracking all visitors and guests to his home. The camera was able to facially identify all guests and visitors to the Defendant’s home. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence concerning the camera’s intrusive capabilities, which created a digital searchable log, which allowed law enforcement to quickly and easily search for any footage down to the minute and second. The camera allowed police to remotely manipulate the camera by zooming in, magnifying, tilting, and rotating the camera, as well as taking still images. The decision was considered a victory for privacy rights. The case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and other publications for its significance regarding the government’s use of emerging technology infringing upon the privacy rights of Massachusetts citizens.

Brockton District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE.

The client was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a high-speed police chase. The vehicle was the subject of reports of being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the operator fled, accelerated, and a high-speed police chase ensued ultimately ending in the vehicle crashing at an intersection. Officers ordered the operator and the client (passenger) to exit the vehicle by gunpoint and to show their hands. Police alleged that the client resisted arrest by refusing to show his hands and by refusing officers’ commands to exit the vehicle. The operator refused officers’ commands to exit the vehicle, the operator resisted arrest, officers had to use a Taser and physical force to restrain and arrest the operator. Upon a search of the vehicle, officers discovered firearms and ammunition in the glove compartment. The operator and the client were charged with Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B) and various firearms offenses.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause, arguing that the client’s actions in refusing to show his hands and refusing to exit the vehicle did not amount to resisting arrest because there was insufficient evidence to show that the client used or threatened to use physical force or violence against the police officers, or that the client used any other means which created a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the police officers. The motion to dismiss was allowed.

Plymouth District Court

CHARGE OF LARCENY AGAINST 20 YEAR-OLD NURSE, WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD, DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. CLIENT WILL HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Client is a 20 year-old college student with no criminal record. She is a Certified Nursing Assistant, Personal Care Attendant, and she was accepted to the nursing program at several colleges. The client was the personal care attendant for an elderly couple. The daughter of the elderly couple went to the police department alleging that the client had stolen over $500 from the elderly couple. The client made doordash purchases on behalf of the victims. The victims’ did not have a doordash account. The client used the victims’ debit card information (with their permission) and entered said debit card information into her own doordash account and she made doordash purchases on behalf of the victims. After the client stopped working for the victims, she forgot that the victims debit card was still set to her default payment setting. As a result, when the client made personal doordash purchases, the victims were charged for the purchases, totaling over $500. The client was charged with Larceny under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to dismiss the criminal charge prior to arraignment to save the client from having a criminal record. Attorney Noonan argued that the client did not have any intent to steal any money from the victims and the client did not know that her personal doordash purchases were billed to the victims because she forgot that the victims debit card information was set to her default payment setting. Attorney Noonan presented substantial character evidence, including a letter from the daughter of an elderly woman, who the client cared for, stating that the client was always responsible, provided excellent care, and the family trusted her, knowing that the client had access to the elderly woman’s finances. The District Attorney’s Office, to their credit, considered all the evidence and agreed to place the client into the pretrial diversion program. So long as the client complies with the conditions set forth by the Commonwealth, the case will be dismissed prior to arraignment, the client will have no criminal record, and she can confidently pursue her dream career in nursing.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION IS SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

The client currently serves in the United States Navy. He enlisted when he turned 18 years-old. He is an aspiring police officer. He applied for the position of a full-time police officer with a police department in another state. Although the police department was willing to hire the client, a criminal background check showed that the client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The police department stated that they were willing to hire the client as a police officer, so long as the charge of Negligent Operation was sealed from his criminal record. The client contacted the Noonan Law Offices. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the criminal charge from the client’s record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C. After a hearing, the court entered an order sealing the criminal charge from the client’s record. As a result, the client is in an excellent position to get hired as a police officer.

Taunton District Court

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON A CHILD AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS THE DEFENSE OF PARENTAL DISCIPLINE TO THE JURY.

The Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Child under 14 pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, which carries a maximum state prison sentence of 15 years. The evidence presented at trial was as follows: Defendant had several children, including the alleged victim, who was his 11 year-old son. The alleged victim testified that the Defendant became angry, pushed him, and struck him seven times in the buttocks with a wooden spoon. The Defendant struck the child so hard that the wooden spoon broke. At the police station, police took photographs of the injuries to the child, including numerous linear marks and bruises on the child’s buttocks, and a mark on his left shoulder. When questioned by police, Defendant stated that he spanked the child with his hand, and never used an object or wooden spoon.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defense of parental discipline. In 2015, the Massachusetts Court recognized the defense of parental discipline in Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (2015), which provides that a parent, stepparent or guardian may use reasonable force against a minor child, under his care, if it is reasonable and reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. At trial, the defense introduced evidence that the child had a history of misbehavior. All disciplinary methods failed and the child’s misbehavior continued to escalate. On the weekend in question, the child was beating up his siblings on several occasions. The defendant placed the child in time-out and took away his privileges, which proved unsuccessful. In addition, the child’s grandmother attempted to correct his behavior with time-outs, but the child continued to act up. The defendant warned the child that if he continued to misbehave he would be spanked. The child continued to be rough with his younger siblings, and the Defendant took a wooden spoon and spanked him on the buttocks, over the child’s thick sweatpants. After the spanking, the child went upstairs and spoke with his grandmother. Although the child was initially upset and crying in the immediate aftermath, after his conversation with the grandmother, he was fine, no longer crying, and went to play with his sister, laughing along the way. Attorney Noonan argued that the marks to the child’s buttocks, and the pain from the spanking, was only temporary. The jury found the Defendant not guilty.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN CHARGED WITH IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM.

Police were conducting an investigation into drug distribution and executed a search warrant at the Defendant’s home. The target of the search warrant was the son of the Defendant’s girlfriend who resided in the Defendant’s home. Police searched the home for drugs and weapons. Defendant’s girlfriend told the police that the Defendant had a valid LTC and that he had a firearm in the house. Police searched the home and located the Defendant’s firearm, which was not secured. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint for Improper Storage of a Firearm dismissed. Defendant is 35 year-old with no criminal record. He works three jobs to support his disabled girlfriend.

CHARGES FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT TEACHERS AND SHOOT UP THE SCHOOL, AGAINST A JUVENILE, DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client, a 13-year-old juvenile, made statements to teachers at his school threatening to shoot teachers and shoot up the school. Understandably, the statements were extremely concerning and the school expelled the student and brought criminal complaints against him for Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the child had various disabilities, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, ADHD, and socio-emotional disorders. The child had a history of acting impulsively, inability to control his behavior, difficulty responding to authority, and not understanding the full picture of the long-term consequences of his actions. Part of the child’s Individual Education Plan provided instructions for teachers in addressing the child’s behavior, which included giving the child time and space to calm down. Attorney Noonan argued that the child’s statements were not legitimate threats to commit harm and the juvenile had no intention of committing any harm to anyone. Rather, the child was acting impulsively and made statements without understanding the significance or seriousness of the statements. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided to keep the matter on file for three months and, so long as the child behaves, the criminal complaints will be dismissed.

IN A RARE DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OBTAINS A COURT ORDER FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT TO UNDERGO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

Defendant was charged with Assault to Rape (G.L. c. 265, §24) and Indecent Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265,§13H). Defendant is facing serious penalties if convicted. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had falsely accused another man of rape. Police investigated the prior rape allegation and obtained video footage showing that no sexual assault occurred and the accused was never charged. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had accused another man of sexual assault, but during the prosecution of the accused, the alleged victim dramatically changed her story and exhibited concerning behavior while being interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office leading to the charges being dropped. Attorney Noonan obtained various police reports showing that the alleged victim had some sort of mental disorder, which was not fully understood by investigators. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion seeking a court order to have the alleged victim psychologically evaluated pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §19. In a rare decision, the court ordered the psychological evaluation of the alleged victim. At the present time, Defendant is awaiting trial.

Brookline District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON DISMISSED AGAINST GREEK IMMIGRANT.

The client is a 54 year-old man with no criminal record. In 1988, he emigrated to the U.S. from Greece. He never applied for U.S. citizenship. He is married and has two adult children. He owns and operates his own landscaping and snow plow company. On the incident in question, Defendant was performing a fall clean up at a residence in Brookline. He was using a leaf blower to gather and remove the leaves. He had blown some leaves into the street. The alleged victim confronted the Defendant and asked him not to blow leaves into the street, but the Defendant continued blowing the leaves into the street. The alleged victim became upset and started to take pictures of the Defendant’s landscaping truck with his cell phone. The Defendant knocked the cell phone out of the victim’s hands and waved the hose of the leaf blower at him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, a felony offense, which would result in possible deportation if the Defendant was convicted.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the felony charge dismissed. Had the client been convicted of the felony offense, he faced possible deportation from the United States.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED PROBATION BY FAILING A DRUG TEST, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE LAB TESTING WAS INCONCLUSIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

The client was on probation after having pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. As a condition of his probation, the client was required to submit to random drug testing by appearing at an independent laboratory and providing a urine sample. The client was notified that he violated his probation when the laboratory reported that the client tested positive for opiates. For violating probation, the client was facing potential incarceration and other significant consequences. The client was adamant that he was clean and didn’t use drugs. He had been sober for 17 months. He was on track to complete his probation because he was doing extremely well. The client retained the Noonan Law Offices to represent him at the probation violation hearing.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the laboratory report of the failed test and was suspicious because the laboratory report did not identify the particular opiate detected in the urine. Attorney Noonan believed that the preliminary urine test was unreliable and a confirmatory test should be done. The lab performed a confirmatory test, which was inconclusive. Attorney Noonan contacted the laboratory to obtain information about the confirmatory test. The lab informed Attorney Noonan that the confirmatory test was neither a positive nor a negative result. At the violation hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that probation failed to meet its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated probation by testing positive for drugs. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, on his own, obtained a hair follicle test with a negative result for drugs. Attorney Noonan argued that the hair follicle test was more reliable because it detects previous drug use for up to three months. After the hearing, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated probation. The client is now on track to successfully complete his probation.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT DISMISSED AGAINST 54 YEAR-OLD PROFESSIONAL WOMAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant struck her car on the highway and fled the scene. After interviewing the alleged victim, Massachusetts State Police charged the Defendant with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a 1/2 )(1)

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. The Defendant was stopped in traffic on the highway when the alleged victim exited her vehicle and confronted the Defendant accusing her of striking her vehicle. Frightened by this person, the Defendant did not exit her vehicle and continued driving when the traffic cleared. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant immediately called the Massachusetts State Police to report the fact that this person was falsely accusing her of striking her vehicle. Defendant never struck the other vehicle and Attorney Noonan introduced photos showing no damage to his client’s car. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim had a disturbing criminal record and was not credible. Defendant is a 54 year-old woman with no criminal record, she is happily married with three adult children and she is the director of a rehabilitation facility.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HAITAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN DRUNK-DRIVING CASE AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti. He is not a U.S. citizen. Client attended a wedding on Cape Cod. He was driving home to Brockton. As he was driving on Route 24, State Troopers were parked in the breakdown lane. The Trooper observed the Defendant speeding, his vehicle crossed the fog line, and he came close to striking the police cruiser. Troopers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle, as it exited the highway. Police located the Defendant’s vehicle parked in a Gas Station. It was almost 2:00 a.m., and the gas station was closed, but the Defendant approached the gas pump thinking the gas station was open. Officers observed that the Defendant’s pants were unbuttoned and there was liquid on his crotch area. Troopers administered two Field Sobriety Tests and the Trooper testified that the Defendant failed the tests. The Trooper testified that the Defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Police found a liquor bottle in his car. As a result, Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation, Obstructing an Emergency Vehicle, and Open Container of Alcohol.

Result: After a bench trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively cross-examined the State Trooper and challenged his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated and attacked his testimony concerning the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle. After the trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges, but was found response of committing a marked lanes violation.

JUVENILE CHARGES SEALED FROM CRIMINAL RECORD OF MILITARY SERVICEMAN AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Client is a 29 year-old member of the United States Navy and aspiring police officer. Client applied for the position as a full-time police officer for a police department in another state. Although he was more than qualified, the police department told him that he needed to seal juvenile charges on his criminal record. The police department was willing to hire him subject to his juvenile record being sealed. Client had charges on his juvenile record including Breaking & Entering and Larceny. The client needed the juvenile charges sealed immediately because he was close to getting hired. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to seal the juvenile charges quickly such that the client could proceed with the application process.

Barnstable District Court

PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN CASE OF CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.

The client, a longtime restaurant manager and resident of Yarmouth, was charged with Carrying a Firearm While Intoxicated (G.L. c. 269, §10H) in the Barnstable District Court. The police received a call for a wellness check. Defendant’s father reported to the police that the Defendant made suicidal statements and was in the possession of a firearm while parked in his car outside the father’s house. Upon arrival, the police officer observed the Defendant parked in a vehicle with his firearm located on the passenger seat. The officer observed numerous empty nip bottles of liquor in the vehicle. The officer determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the prosecution’s evidence that the Defendant was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol. The Commonwealth’s case rested on the testimony of the police officer and his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The case was won on Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of the police officer. After his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and that his consumption of alcohol affected his ability to safely carry a firearm.

Brockton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT TRIAL UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MISCONDUCT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER.  

Police responded to the scene of a grocery store upon receiving a report that the Defendant was disruptive, threatening an employee, and stealing from the store. Upon the arrival of police, Defendant was walking down the street. Police confronted the Defendant who provided a false name. Defendant did not want to engage with the police officers and turned his back to walk away from them. However, officers claimed that the Defendant grabbed hold of the officer’s jacket resulting in a physical altercation between the Defendant and the two police officers. The two officers used excessive force, punching the defendant numerous times in the face, and using a baton on him. The officers charged the Defendant with numerous crimes, including Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest.

Result: During his investigation and preparation of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the arresting officer had engaged in misconduct in connection with two, unrelated criminal cases. In the first case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case. In that case, the Motion Judge found that the arresting officer’s testimony was very questionable and ruled in favor of the Defendant. In this Attorney’s opinion, the arresting officer’s testimony was not credible and very misleading. In the second case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case, but his testimony was contradicted by video footage showing the officer’s actual encounter with the Defendant. Therefore, the arresting officer provided very questionable testimony in relation to two other criminal cases. Prior to this trial, Attorney Noonan notified the prosecution that he intended to introduce evidence of the arresting officer’s misconduct in the two other criminal cases. At trial, the prosecution stated that they did not intend to call the arresting officer as a witness and the case was dismissed.

Plymouth District Court

IN A HIGH PROFILE CASE, PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF STRANGULATION, ASSAULT & BATTERY, AND THREATS. CASE WAS FEATURED IN THE NEWS. 

The client, a military veteran and retired pilot with no criminal record, was charged in the Plymouth District Court with criminal complaints of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Strangulation (G.L. c. 265, §15D), and Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. 275, §2). The charges stem from an incident between the client and a teenager over a property dispute in Marshfield. The case was featured in Channel 7 News. The teenager reported to the police that the Defendant confronted him about trespassing on his property in Marshfield. The teenager reported that the Defendant grabbed him and threw him to the ground and proceeded to choke and strangle him by the neck while repeatedly threatening to kill him.

Result: At the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the alleged victim and thoroughly attacked his credibility and revealed a multitude of contradictory information and inconsistent statements. Attorney Noonan then called his client to the witness stand. The client denied assaulting, strangling, and threatening the alleged victim. After brief deliberations, the jury quickly returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.

https://whdh.com/news/marshfield-man-acquitted-in-assault-trial/

District Court

AN ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS REINSTATEMENT OF THE CLIENT’S LTC.

The client, a young man with no criminal record, was in the process of applying to become a police officer. The client was highly qualified for the position of police officer. The client progressed quite far in the application process. During the application process, a police officer interviewed the client at his residence. The interviewing officer requested to see where the client’s firearm was stored in his residence. The client escorted the officer to his bedroom. The officer observed that the client’s firearm was located in the drawer of his nightstand, but the firearm was not stored properly, as it was secured in a locked container or affixed with a trigger-lock. Due to the fact that the client failed to store his firearm properly in compliance with Massachusetts law, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended, and his hopes of becoming a police officer was destroyed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and eventually won the reinstatement of the client’s LTC restoring his hopes of becoming a police officer in the future.

Wrentham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST BANKER AND FATHER OF THREE.

The client is a banker, father of three, and a resident of Mansfield with no criminal record. At approximately 2:00 a.m., a Wrentham Police Officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle exiting the parking lot of a drinking establishment in Wrentham. The officer observed that the Defendant exited the parking lot without activating his headlights. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and stopped the vehicle after noticing some improper operation. After conducting several field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that the Defendant was intoxicated and arrested him for Operating under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Operating Negligently (G.L. c. 90, §24).The client was charged in the Wrentham District Court.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The officer testified that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Attorney Noonan introduced medical evidence showing that the Defendant was obese and suffered from a knee injury. Attorney Noonan moved to introduce portions of the booking video at the police station. Attorney Noonan provided the court with a chart highlighting portions of the booking video, which were consistent with the Defendant’s sobriety and lack of impairment. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of negligent operation was insufficient, as the officer’s observations of the vehicle’s operation was limited due to the fact that the officer stopped the Defendant’s quickly. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges, and Attorney Noonan was able to have the client’s driver’s license reinstated the next day.

Mass. Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Kaweesi Marvin

Docket No.: 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2022)

CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR AFTER TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS THE CASE ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED, AND THE CLIENT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY. CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION.

The client is an immigrant and not a legal U.S. citizen. While represented by another highly-experienced and effective attorney, the client was found guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol after a bench-trial in the Waltham District Court. Prior counsel and the client sought Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s services in appealing the conviction.

Result: On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication was insufficient, as a matter of law, and he should have been found not guilty by the trial judge. There are very few appeals finding that evidence of intoxication was insufficient as a matter of law. In a rare case, Attorney Noonan was able to persuade the Appeals Court that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient requiring reversal of the conviction. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction and the client was subsequently found not guilty.

Plymouth Superior Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF SEX-TRAFFICKING INDICTMENT IN THE PLYMOUTH SUPERIOR COURT. THE PROSECUTION HAS APPEALED THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT.

The Defendant, along with four-other defendants, was indicted in the Plymouth Superior Court on charges of Trafficking a Person for Sexual (G.L. c. 265, §50) and Sexual Conduct for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). Sex-trafficking carries a serious penalty of five-years in State Prison. Law enforcement posted an advertisement online, posing as prostitutes, advertising sexual services in exchange for fees. The advertisement contained a phone number for the customer to call. Defendant responded to the advertisement and contacted the phone number and conversed with an undercover officer, who was posing as a prostitute, and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex services. Defendant arrived at a hotel to meet the undercover officer and was arrested.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Sex-Trafficking charge in the Plymouth Superior Court arguing that there was no probable cause to support the offense. Attorney Noonan, citing a recently decided case by the Supreme Judicial Court, argued that the offense of sex-trafficking requires proof of an actual, human being victim. Here, there was no actual human being victim, as the Commonwealth identified the victim as “society.” There was no victim, but an undercover who was posing as a prostitute and no commercial sexual activity would ever occur. There was no human being victim, but an undercover officer posing as a fictitious person. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature, in enacting the Sex-Trafficking statute, did not intend to punish Johns who offer undercover officers money in exchange for sex. The Legislature intended to punish Johns under a different statute, the Sexual Conduct for a Fee statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature enacted the sex-trafficking statute to target “pimps” and those who enslave sex workers. The Superior Court allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss and the Commonwealth has appealed the allowance of the Motion to Dismiss to the Appeals Court.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION.

Client is a hard-working Haitian immigrant, a young man, newly married, who has never been in any trouble. Defendant was stopped by State Police based on the Trooper’s belief that the vehicle was being operated erratically. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol. The Defendant was nowhere near his intended destination. The Trooper requested that the Defendant submit to field sobriety tests. The Defendant attempted the first test, but stopped, and declined to participate in any other field sobriety tests, citing an old basketball injury. Defendant was placed under arrest. The passenger in the vehicle was free to leave.

Result: During the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the credibility of the Trooper’s testimony, particularly attacking his observations that the Defendant’s operation was erratic. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the Defendant committed a minor marked lanes violation, and pulled over into the breakdown lane when signaled to pull over. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant had no difficulty exiting the vehicle and no issues with his balance when standing at roadside while speaking to the officer. Attorney Noonan argued that the first field sobriety test should not be considered because the Defendant briefly attempted the test but declined to complete the test because of his basketball injury. Attorney Noonan argued that the minimal evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance of the field sobriety test did not establish that he was intoxicated or impaired. Attorney Noonan requested production of the Trooper’s body camera, which was never provided or introduced, and the defense argued that the body camera would have been helpful for his case. In addition, there was no video of the Defendant’s booking. The judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges.

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 2022-J-0555

Commonwealth v. M.T.

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A TRIAL AND SENTENCED TO SERVE 6 MONTHS IN JAIL. DEFENDANT WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES APPEALS COURT TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF HIS SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL. CLIENT IS RELEASED WHILE HIS APPEAL IS PENDING. 

Defendant was found guilty, after a bench trial, of Larceny over $1,200 by False Pretense (G.L. c. 266, §30), a felony offense. The judge sentenced the Defendant to serve six (6) months in jail, and the Defendant was immediately taken into custody when he was sentenced. Defendant’s incarceration seriously affected his life, his business, and the custody of his minor children. Attorney Noonan requested that the Trial Judge stay the execution of his sentence, which was denied. Attorney Noonan appealed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion in the Appeals Court to stay the client’s sentence and release him from custody while he appeals his conviction. After a hearing, the Appeals Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the Defendant did not present any security precautions (if released) and the Defendant had solid grounds to appeal his conviction. The client has been released. Attorney Noonan has appealed the conviction and we are awaiting a hearing in the Appeals Court.

Brockton District Court

IN A LANDMARK DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS LACK AUTHORITY TO STOP THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE, SEARCH HIM, AND SEIZE HIM. THIS CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 

Defendant was operating his vehicle in the town of Whitman. Two Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) were stationed in marked police cruisers conducting radar patrol. The APOs clocked the Defendant’s speed as 53 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The APOs stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. The APOs suspected that the Defendant had been drinking and questioned him regarding his alcohol consumption. The APOs looked into the vehicle and observed alcoholic beverages in plain view. The APOs detained the Defendant at the scene while they contacted a sworn police officer to arrive to the scene. The sworn police officer arrived, conducted an investigation, questioned the defendant, and administered field-sobriety tests. The sworn police officer arrested the Defendant for Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion-to-suppress evidence resulting from the stop of the Defendant’s motor vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) did not have authority to effectuate motor vehicle stops, to seize or detain citizens, or to conduct searches. After conducting exhaustive research, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no legal authority, which authorizes APOs to conduct traffic stops. Attorney Noonan made a request to the Whitman Police Department and the Town of Whitman for any written policies and procedures regarding APOs, but the Police Department and the Town did not produce any written policies defining the scope, duties, responsibilities, or powers of APOs. The Brockton District Court agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that the APOs lacked this authority and suppressed all evidence derived from the motor vehicle stop. This was a huge decision because many Police Departments, as part of a longstanding practice, have utilized APOs who play active roles in police investigations, but their powers were never examined. This case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. “Defense duo shines light on renegade auxiliary cops.”

Plymouth District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-DRUGS CASE ARGUING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS CONSUMPTION OF MUSHROOMS. 

Defendant, a paramedic with no criminal record, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs. At trial, the police officer testified that he noticed the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street. Defendant was found asleep in the backseat of the vehicle. Defendant admitted to the officer that he consumed “mushrooms,” a hallucinogenic drug. Defendant was acting erratically. Defendant’s mood would dramatically fluctuate from being claim to highly emotional; randomly blurting out obscenities. The officer was very concerned about the Defendant’s state and requested an ambulance. Defendant was sent to the hospital. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained a pretrial order preventing the officer from forming an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs. The officer did not have any training regarding the drug (mushrooms) and the specific effect of mushroom use on the human body. Therefore, the officer could not testify that the Defendant’s mushroom use was the cause of his impairment. Specifically, the officer could not testify that the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant were the result of mushroom use. The officer could not connect any displayed signs of impairment to the Defendant’s consumption of mushrooms. Therefore, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty. 

Department of Children & Families

Fair Hearing

THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT SEXUALLY ABUSED A CHILD UNDER HIS CARE. ON APPEAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES DCF TO REVERSE ITS DECISION.

A mandated reporter made a report to the Department of Children and Families accusing the Defendant of sexually abusing a child under his care. After conducting an investigation, DCF found that the allegations of sexual abuse were supported. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision by DCF. At DCF the hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of sexual abuse. After presenting his evidence at the hearing, DCF agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that there was insufficient evidence of sexual abuse and reversed its decision.

Brockton District Court

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION AND HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AN LTC. 

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms. The police department denied the application because the client was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from a domestic violence incident. On appeal, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim of the domestic violence incident recanted and changed the story she provided to the police. Further, the alleged victim submitted an Affidavit in support of the client’s application for an LTC. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The police department never interviewed the alleged victim. After a hearing in which the Firearm Licensing Officer and the Client testified, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the decision to deny the application was arbitrary and without reasonable ground and the court issued an order for the Police Department to issue his client a License to Carry Firearms.