Case Results Drug Crimes

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.

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.

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.”

Wrentham District Court

CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF HEROIN / FENTANYL AND ANABOLIC STEROIDS ARE DISMISSED AGAINST RECOVERING DRUG ADDICT.

 Defendant is a young man who has been struggling with drug addiction since high school. Defendant’s parents obtained a court order under Section 35 to have him involuntarily committed to a hospital due to his severe substance abuse issues. Foxboro Police went to the Defendant’s gym to execute the Section 35 order. When they arrived in the locker room, officers observed the Defendant wiping fresh blood from his forearm. Officers placed him in custody and conducted a pat-frisk finding a bag containing heroin and fentanyl in his pant pocket. Officers searched his gym bag and found anabolic steroids. Defendant was charged in the Wrentham District Court with Possession of Class A Substance (Heroin / Fentanyl) and Possession of Anabolic Steroids under G.L. c. 94C, §34.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to secure a favorable deal from the prosecution called Pretrial Probation. So long as the Defendant passed drug tests and stayed out of trouble, his case would be dismissed. However, Defendant failed two drug tests and the prosecution moved to revoke the deal. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor to reinstate the deal and give his client another chance. However, while on pretrial probation, Defendant was arrested in Quincy for Possession of Heroin. As a result, the prosecution revoked the deal and the case was placed back on the trial list. After more than a year of litigation, Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecution to give his client one more chance – if he could prove that he had a prolonged period of sobriety and was undergoing drug treatment. The Defendant had undergone opiate treatment with a licensed physician. Through a suboxone treatment program, Defendant was able to stay off heroin, fentanyl and opiates, and he passed drug tests. He re-enrolled in school and he is finishing his final credits to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering. He got married, purchased a home, and was working two jobs. After considering all the evidence, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the charges, and the Defendant is doing very well.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.

The client is a 39 year-old Brockton resident and a longtime union employee; working as a glass installer for commercial buildings. The client was issued a License to Carry Firearms. However, the client attempted to purchase a firearm, but the gun shop informed him that the sale was denied by the FBI because the client had been convicted in Massachusetts of Unlawful Possession of Class D-Marijuana. Under federal law, a conviction of simple possession of marijuana disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Specifically, a person falling into the category of a Federally Prohibited Person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and 18 U.S.C. §922(g) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition, including: Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – or any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and a conviction for simple possession of marijuana renders the person a Federally Prohibited Person. The client was convicted in the Quincy District Court for Simple Possession of Class D Substance to wit: Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §34 and the marijuana conviction made him a Federally Prohibited Person rendering him ineligible from purchasing a firearm under federal law. Therefore, the client must have the marijuana conviction vacated.

Result: In the police report, the police stopped the client’s vehicle due to a civil motor vehicle infraction. Defendant was placed under arrest because his driver’s license was suspended. The client told the police that he had some marijuana in a pack of cigarettes and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and was later convicted in 2006. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction because the evidence showed that the quantity of marijuana, within the pack of cigarettes, was less than one ounce making this a civil offense under present day Massachusetts law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See G.L. c. 94C, §32L. Attorney Noonan showed that it would be physically impossible to package more than one ounce of marijuana in a pack of cigarettes. Based on the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the conviction was vacated and dismissed.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR FELONY DRUG OFFENSE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Defendant is a 39 year-old man and aspiring police officer. Defendant took the civil service exam to become a police officer and scored very high on the exams. However, Defendant’s ability to become a police officer was adversely affected by an old felony conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §32C. Defendant’s prior attorney did not conduct an investigation or challenge the case, but advised his client to plead guilty to the felony offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the conviction. When the Defendant was 18 years-old, he was a student at Brockton High School. An undisclosed source reported to the school that one of four students sitting at a table in the cafeteria was in possession of marijuana. Defendant, one of those students sitting at the table, was searched. In his book-bag, there was marijuana. A search of his car was performed where additional marijuana was found. In total, the school recovered 17 bags containing marijuana and $400 in cash. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s prior attorney was ineffective in failing to file a Motion to Suppress Evidence to challenge the lawfulness of the search of the Defendant’s person, his book-bag, and automobile. Defendant introduced evidence that he never distributed or sold marijuana to anybody. The $400 in cash was not the proceeds of drug sales, but was earned by two jobs the Defendant was working. A witness who attended Brockton High School with the Defendant, and has known him for 25 years, attested to the fact that the Defendant never sold marijuana. The marijuana in the Defendant’s possession was not intended for any distribution, but was for the Defendant’s personal use. Based on all the evidence presented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Court vacated the Defendant’s conviction in the interests of justice.

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.

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. 

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN IS SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF 20 CRIMINAL CHARGES.

A multi-department investigation was conducted utilizing the services of a Confidential Informant (CI) – who alleged that the Defendant had sold cocaine to him in the past on numerous occasions in the town of Norwood. The Confidential Informant participated in five (5) controlled buys with the Defendant for the purchase of cocaine. In each buy, the CI claimed that it had purchased cocaine from the Defendant. Based on the information supplied by the CI and in conjunction with the five (5) controlled buys, the police applied for, and obtained, a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Easton. When the police executed the search warrant, they found numerous large-capacity firearms, large-capacity ammunition, narcotics, cocaine, plastic baggies, scales, and large sums of cash, and some counterfeit money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained in connection with the execution of the search warrant – arguing that the information in the Search Warrant Affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be located in the target premises. In particular, Attorney Noonan argued that the information supplied by the CI, and the five controlled-buys, did not establish a nexus between the Defendant’s drug-selling activities and the target premises. The Court agreed and allowed the Motion to Suppress. As all evidence has been suppressed, all criminal charges, 20 criminal charges, will be dismissed.

Taunton District Court

FELONY OFFENSE OF OBTAINING DRUGS BY FRAUD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Obtaining Drugs by Fraud (G.L. c. 94C, §33(b)). Defendant’s ex-boyfriend called the police to report that the Defendant went to the CVS pharmacy and fraudulently obtained medication in his name. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the evidence, and conducted legal research, and learned that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove an essential element of the offense. To prove this offense, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the substance in question is a “controlled substance.” Attorney Noonan provided the prosecutor with evidence that the substance in question was NOT a controlled substance. As such, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove this charge at trial. The Commonwealth dismissed the felony offense prior to arraignment, and the Defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor offense of Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30(1)). Attorney Noonan is in the process of preparing this case for trial.

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OUI-DRUGS CASE DISMISSED AFTER CONVINCING THE COURT THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS CAUSED BY METHAMPHETAMINE FOUND IN HIS VEHICLE. 

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)). Police received a report of an erratic operator. Police received another report of a person slumped over the steering wheel of the same vehicle in a parking lot. Upon arrival, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel and was unresponsive. The officer believed that the Defendant was experiencing the effects of drug use. Defendant denied taking any drugs. In the Defendant’s vehicle, they found plastic bags containing Methamphetamine and glass pipes used to smoke this substance. Defendant was transported to the hospital. Defendant was also charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained the Defendant’s certified medical records, which lacked any laboratory or toxicology tests to show that the Defendant had any drugs in his system. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant’s impairment was caused by the methamphetamine found in the Defendant’s vehicle. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Methamphetamine caused the Defendant’s impairment because none of the officers at the scene were qualified to render any such opinion to connect the effects of this drug use to the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant. As a result, all charges against the Defendant were dismissed.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO DISMISS FELONY DRUG CHARGE IN BOSTON AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS SERVING A JAIL SENTENCE FOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS IN BROCKTON – SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVING SERIOUS JAIL TIME.

Defendant was charged, in the Brockton District Court, with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A-Heroin (G.L. c. 94C, §32) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C). While his Brockton District Court case was pending, Defendant was arrested in Boston and charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D (marijuana). In the Brockton District Court case, Defendant was convicted and was sentenced to serve time in jail while his drug case in Boston was still pending. As the Defendant was now previously convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute in Brockton, he was facing serious penalties in his Boston case.

Result: In the Boston case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion a Dismiss the drug charge for lack of probable cause, which was denied by the Judge. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of an intent to distribute was insufficient because the officer did not make any findings with regards to the quantity of the drugs. After his Motion to Dismiss was denied, the Boston case was then scheduled for trial. On the trial date, this time before a different judge, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the drug charge based on the same argument he made before; that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute drugs because there was no evidence with regards to the quantity of drugs in the Defendant’s possession. This time, the judge agreed and dismissed the drug charge. This was a big victory because the client was facing serious penalties due to the fact that he had been previously convicted for Possession with Intent to Distribute.

ON THE FIRST TRIAL DATE, PROSECUTOR DROPS CHARGE OF OUI-DRUGS AGAINST SCREENWRITER RATHER THAN TRY THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN.

On June 19, 2018, Massachusetts State Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 6 in Barnstable because one of his taillights was out. The State Trooper observed that the vehicle was suspiciously activating its brake lights, several times, even though no other vehicles were on the road. The Trooper approached the vehicle. Upon the driver’s side window being rolled down, a big cloud of smoke poured out of the vehicle and the Trooper detected a strong smell of marijuana. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had smoked any marijuana and the Defendant admitted that he had “been smoking all day.” There were three passengers in the vehicle; all of whom admitted that they were smoking marijuana. Defendant stated that they were coming from dinner. Defendant further stated that he had smoked a joint before and after dinner. The Trooper observed that the Defendant spoke in a very slow and delayed speech. Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. After several requests, Defendant could not locate his vehicle’s registration. Defendant did not have a valid driver’s license either. During the entire driver’s side conversation, the Trooper noted that the smell and smoke from the marijuana was continuously flowing out of the vehicle. The Trooper asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Defendant stumbled several times while walking to the front of his vehicle. The Trooper administered the Walk and Turn field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. Trooper administered the Romberg field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. The Trooper formed the opinion that the Defendant was Operating under the Influence of Drugs-Marijuana (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready for trial armed with evidence to prove that his client was not under the influence of marijuana. The District Attorney was ready for trial and the State Trooper was present and prepared to testify. Attorney Noonan elected to have a jury-waived trial before a judge rather than a jury. The court took a brief recess. After the brief recess, the trial was going to start. During the recess, the prosecutor approached Attorney Noonan and stated that the Commonwealth was dismissing the charge of Operating under the Influence of Drugs.

IN A MANSLAUGHTER INVESTIGATION FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, INCLUDING: SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S HOME, AND INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT. LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION DID A FEATURE ON THE CASE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

Police responded to a private residence for a drug overdose. Upon arrival to the scene, police found a male lying on the floor of his living room dead of a drug overdose. Police searched the deceased’s pockets and found a rolled up $20 bill with brown residue on the tip of it. Police also found on the deceased’s pocket a folded $20 bill and Keno ticket containing brown powder. The brown powder tested positive for heroin. Police searched the deceased’s cell phone and found text messages with the Defendant showing that the two had met the night before the overdose. Police used the deceased’s cell phone, posing as the deceased, and contacted the Defendant by text message and asked to buy some drugs from the Defendant. Police instructed the Defendant to bring the drugs to a parking lot. Upon Defendant’s arrival to the parking lot, Defendant is immediately arrested as soon as he exits his vehicle. Police search the Defendant’s vehicle and find heroin. Defendant is brought to the Stoughton Police Station where he is interrogated by police. In the interrogation, Defendant tells police that he has heroin and pills in his bedroom. The Defendant signed a form giving police permission to search his home. The Defendant also signs another form giving police permission to search his cell phone. Subsequently, police searched the Defendant’s home where they found heroin and pills. Police intended to use the Defendant’s cell phone records to prove that the Defendant sold the heroin, which caused the deceased to die from a drug overdose. Police intended to use the evidence they obtained from the Defendant to charge him with Manslaughter for having caused the death of the deceased.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in which he sought to suppress the following evidence: statements made by Defendant to police during the interrogation, defendant’s consent for police to search his home, and defendant’s consent for police to search his cell phone. After four hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the evidence was illegally obtained by police. Attorney Noonan proved that the statements made by the Defendant during the police interrogation should have been suppressed because he clearly invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney but the police continued to question him anyway in violation of his constitutional rights. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the Defendant’s consent for the police to search his home and cell phone was invalid because the Defendant’s consent was not given freely or voluntarily. Specifically, Defendant had never been arrested before, he had no prior involvement with police, and he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. On top of that, Defendant had been tasered by police prior to the interrogation and Defendant remained handcuffed during the interrogation. Officers admitted that the interrogation was aggressive, at times, and involved yelling. The Defendant’s consent to search his home was not voluntary, as there was evidence that police used the Defendant’s mother as a way to coax him into consenting to a search of his home. Defendant lived with his mother and he was concerned for his mother’s well-being should the police show up at her house, unannounced, and start searching throughout the home. In essence, police told the Defendant that things would be easier for his mother if he simply consented to a search of his bedroom.

See Lawyer’s Weekly Article about the case, “Search results from residence, cell suppressed (.pdf)”

DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO POLICE OF STEALING $6,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER ARE SUPPRESSED FROM EVIDENCE, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT POLICE DID NOT READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS.

Client was an employee for a company in Brockton. A fraud investigator from the company confronted the Defendant with evidence showing that he stole more than $6,000 from the company. The fraud investigator told Defendant he was going to the police to report it and it would be a good idea for the Defendant to come along. At the Brockton police station, the fraud investigator gave the police officer company records showing the Defendant’s thefts from the company totaling more than $6,000. The police officer proceeded to interrogate and question the Defendant about the thefts. During the interrogation, Defendant admitted that he stole from the company. Based largely on his confession, the officer charged him with Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 266, §30)

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress his client’s confession to the police officer on the grounds that the police officer did not read him his Miranda Rights. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress and his client’s confession is now suppressed from evidence. At trial, the Commonwealth cannot introduce any evidence that the Defendant confessed to the police officer that he stole the money.

MARIJUANA CHARGES ARE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM COMPUTER PROGRAMMER’S CRIMINAL RECORD

Client is a 38 year-old computer programmer and information technology specialist. Client had a great job opportunity to work for a major financial company. However, client was worried that he would not get the job because of some old criminal charges on his record. When the client was 18 years old, he pled out to a charge of Possession of Marijuana. When the client was 19 years old, he pled out to another charge of Possession of Marijuana. Other than these two charges, from when the client was a teenager, client had no other criminal record.

Result: Worried about being denied a new employment opportunity due to his criminal record, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who was able to permanently seal all charges from his criminal record.

CLIENT, WITH A PENDING DRUG CASE, GETS ARRESTED FOR A NEW OFFENSE AND THE DA SEEKS TO LOCK HIM UP FOR 120 DAYS BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS CLIENT’S RELEASE

Client had a pending criminal case in the Brockton District Court where he was charged with two felony counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In that case, police conducted an investigation with a Confidential Informant who purchased drugs from the Defendant on two occasions. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence where they recovered large quantities of heroin and marijuana, along with other items indicative of a drug selling operation. While this drug case was pending, Defendant got arrested in Boston for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. When police searched his vehicle, they found 3 jars containing marijuana resulting in a new charge for Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana.

Result: The District Attorney’s Office moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail and have him locked up for 120 days (or until his Brockton case was disposed of) because the Defendant was arrested on new charges of OUI-Liquor and Possession with Intent to Distribute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to release the Defendant on conditions rather than locking him up. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s proposal of placing Defendant on a GPS device and having him submit to drug testing.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 0403

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO ORDER DRUG TREATMENT INSTEAD OF JAIL TIME FOR MAN WHO OVERDOSED ON HEROIN WITH AUTISTIC CHILD IN CAR.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the Mobile Gas Station in Brockton for a report of a male who had overdosed in his car with a small child in the backseat. When officers arrived, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel with the engine running, the car in gear, and the car in reverse. Officers had to smash the window to gain access to the Defendant who was unconscious. Defendant had overdosed after injecting himself with heroin. Officers had to administer two separate doses of the overdose-reversing drug Narcan in order to revive the Defendant. The Defendant’s 10 year-old severely autistic son was in the backseat. The child was unable to speak due to his severe autism. Police found heroin and syringes in the car. The heroin was tested and found to contain the highly volatile substance Fentanyl. The Defendant admitted to police that he drove to the gas station and that he consumed heroin. Defendant was charged with: Operating under the Influence of Drugs, Child Endangerment, and Possession of Fentanyl.

Result: The case was un-triable, as the Commonwealth would have little difficulty proving its case. Attorney Noonan had no alternative but to plea his client out. The District Attorney asked the Judge to lock the Defendant up for 90 days. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that his client be given a suspended sentence, instead of jail time, and placed on probation for three years with conditions aimed at treating his drug addiction. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and imposed a suspended sentence of 6 months with three years of probation and conditions of drug treatment.

“Brockton overdosed driver avoids jail time in favor of treatment.” http://saugus.wickedlocal.com/news/20170224/brockton-overdosed-driver-avoids-jail-time-in-favor-of-treatment

POSS. INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS B: PERCOCET: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS C: ADDERALL: CWOF (Admin. Probation)

The DEA, Bristol County Drug Task Force, and Mansfield Police conducted a 6 year investigation into the Defendant’s drug activities. In 2009, police had a confidential informant engage in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Percocet and Oxycodone. The investigation re-launched in 2015 with another confidential informant. This informant provided police with information concerning the Defendant’s selling of prescription pills. This confidential informant engaged in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Oxycodone. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s apartment and motor vehicle. At the Defendant’s apartment, police recovered 48 blue pulls, 2 white pills, and 114 orange pills. $5,000 in cash was found in the Defendant’s vehicle. During questioning, Defendant admitted that he had Adderall pills in his storage locker. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed an extensive discovery motion seeking pointed information into the confidential informant’s used by the police in this 6-year investigation. When Attorney Noonan appeared for a hearing on the Discovery Motion, the Commonwealth offered to dismiss the felony Intent to Distribution charge and the Possession of Class B Percocet charge. The Commonwealth offered the Defendant a continuance without a finding on the Possession of Adderall charge, the least serious of all the charges. The Defendant was placed on administrative probation with no terms or conditions for one-year.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony Intent to Distribute charge and misdemeanor Possession of Class B Percocet charges dismissed. Defendant receives a continuance without a finding on the least serious charge of Possession of Adderall. Defendant was placed on administrative probation for one-year with no terms or conditions. Client was very pleased with the outcome of his case.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAWS: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED

Three 17-year-old juveniles were arrested on a theory of joint venture to distribute marijuana. A police officer conducting patrol observed three males standing in the middle of the street and the police officer detected a “strong, distinctive odor of marijuana.” The officer stopped and questioned the three juveniles. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client (Juvenile #1) had his backpack searched, which contained: a gallon zip lock bag containing marijuana, a marijuana blunt inside another zip lock bag, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and cash. The officer searched the backpack of another Juvenile #2, which contained: liquor bottles, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a glass pipe with marijuana inside. The officer searched the person of Juvenile #3 and recovered four plastic baggies of marijuana. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized from his client’s backpack. Upon examining the arresting officer, Attorney Noonan established that: the officer seized the juveniles immediately upon approaching them; the officer exceeded the scope of the threshold inquiry because possession of less than one-ounce of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and social sharing of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and most importantly, that the search of Juvenile #1’s backpack was not justified as a lawful pat and frisk for weapons. The officer testified that he searched Juvenile #1’s backpack for weapons because Juvenile #1 had a knife on him. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would not fear for his safety – as to justify a pat-frisk of the backpack for weapons.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was allowed. The judge found that the search of the Juvenile’s backpack was unlawful. As a result, the judge suppressed all evidence seized from the Juvenile’s backpack. With all the drugs suppressed from evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss all charges.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: EXPUNGED

Defendant is a 30-year-old woman with no criminal record. She is college educated. She has degrees in Graphic Design and Programming. She has been gainfully employed with the same company for 12 years, progressing from payroll, to accounts manager, to human resources manager. She earned a position with an international company as a data systems analyst. Defendant was charged with a felony offense of Uttering a False Prescription. The felony was docketed on her permanent record. She has been applying for positions with several international corporations, which perform extensive criminal background checks. She has not applied for any positions due to the felony charge on her record. In Massachusetts, expungement is extremely rare and only happens in very limited circumstances. In most, if not all cases, the Defendant’s remedy is to seal the record, not expunge the record.

Result: In a very rare case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to obtain a court order permanently expunging the Defendant’s record. Expungement involves the removal and destruction of records “so that no trace of information remains.”

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR / DISMISSED

Police stopped a vehicle for speeding. There were three males in the vehicle. Officers observed the male in the backseat (defendant) reaching down at his feet. In the vehicle, police found one package of marijuana, six individual packets of marijuana, twelve empty zip-lock baggies, an empty vile, and two condoms. Defendant was in the final stages of enlisting in the United States Air Force. Client would be disqualified from enlisting in the Air Force if the felony charge was not reduced to a misdemeanor and then dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Commonwealth to reduce the felony drug charge to a simple misdemeanor and to dismiss the simple misdemeanor outright, which allowed his client to enlist in the Air Force.

DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS B: AMENDED TO LESSER CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: GUILTY (Min. Mandatory Sentence)
DISTRIBUTION SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE: DISMISSED

On December 18, 2012, Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover detective within 300 feet of a school zone. With regards to the Distribution indictment (Chapter 94C, §32A(a)), there was a minimum mandatory jail sentence of two and a half years in the house of correction. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Commonwealth to amend the charge to §32A(c), which does not carry a minimum mandatory sentence. In 2007, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent making the Defendant a subsequent offender. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the Subsequent Offense indictment, which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 ½ years in State Prison. With the Distribution and Subsequent Offender indictments, Defendant was facing 3 ½ to 5 ½ years in prison.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving a prison sentence of 3 ½ to 5 ½ years.

POSSESSION CLASS A SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED and SEALED
POSSESSION CLASS A SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED and SEALED

Client, 32 year-old financial consultant, with no criminal record was arrested and charged with Possession of Class A Heroin (two counts). Police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area and observed a known drug dealer and a known drug user engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. Police then stopped Defendant’s motor vehicle and discovered heroin (Class A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion Requesting Assignment to a Drug Treatment Facility pursuant to Chapter 111E. The prosecutor objected. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence establishing Defendant’s drug dependency. Attorney Noonan presented a treatment plan to the court, which included the client’s enrollment in an outpatient program where he will be treated by a psychiatrist and a substance abuse counselor. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s treatment plan.

Result: Defendant’s case was dismissed upon his successful completion of drug treatment, and the drug charges were permanently sealed from the Defendant’s record.

OUI DRUGS: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAW: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE
FAILURE TO STOP FOR POLICE: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE

Client, 55 year-old, professional van driver, was arrested and charged with OUI (drugs) and other charges stemming from an incident on February 16, 2012. A State Trooper observed the Defendant’s vehicle speeding in Brockton and attempted to pull him over for Speeding. A total of three state police cruisers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle in an effort to effectuate a motor vehicle stop. Eventually, one police cruiser boxed Defendant’s vehicle in. The state trooper removed Defendant from the driver’s seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant and observed that the Defendant had urinated in his pants. Defendant’s speech was slurred and his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The Defendant admitted to consuming vodka or schnapps. Defendant stated that he ingested Xanax, Percocet, and Vicodin in combination with the vodka / schnapps. Police found syringes loaded with Heroin, burn spoons, glass pipes, and soaked cotton swabs in the vehicle. Defendant was administered and failed the HGN test, Hand Eye Coordination Test, Alphabet Test, One-Leg Stand, and Nine Step Walk and Turn. For 28 years, Defendant was employed as a professional van driver transporting elderly and disabled people. After his arrest, his employer laid him off and Defendant remained out of work during the pendency of his case. Defendant collected unemployment, went on assistance, and collected food stamps.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed all charges “with prejudice,” which means that the prosecution can never pursue the charges again, and the client is able to return to work.

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

Police arrested three known drug dealers and obtained a search warrant to search the residence of the main drug dealer. Police discovered three cell phones in the residence, which were ringing non-stop and receiving text messages from potential drug buyers. Police answered the suspects’ phone and received requests to purchase drugs. Police arrested three individuals, including the Defendant, who made orders to purchase drugs on the telephone and arrived to the residence with money for the purchase. After Defendant’s arraignment, he retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed, and client avoids having to admit guilt.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
FORGERY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, 47-year-old medical assistant with no prior criminal record, was arrested for uttering false prescription (felony) and forgery of a document (felony). Defendant was alleged to have filled large amounts of prescriptions for Percocet in other people’s names. Defendant confessed to police stating that she took blank prescription slips from her doctor and forged the prescriptions. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion Requesting Assignment to a Drug Treatment Facility pursuant to Chapter 111E. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully moved the court to have his client placed into an outpatient drug treatment facility in lieu of criminal prosecution. Client successfully completed the drug treatment program.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains outright dismissal of felony charges.

POSSESSION CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Client, 45 year-old laborer, was arrested for Possession of Class B Substance (cocaine) and Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws in connection with an undercover drug surveillance operation in Quincy. Undercover officers observed the co-defendant engage in a hand-to-hand transaction with another party. Undercover officers then conducted a stop of the co-defendant’s vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger. Defendant admitted to having $20 worth of cocaine stuffed in his sock from the hand-to-hand transaction.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss all drug charges upon the payment of $200 in court costs.

DRUG DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, 27 year-old male, was indicted on Distribution of Class B Substance (subsequent offense) and Distribution of Class B Substance in a School Zone. A Brockton Detective was conducting an undercover drug sting operation in which he arranged to purchase drugs from the Defendant. The Detective testified that he arranged to purchase two forties of hard crack cocaine from the Defendant. The Detective testified that the Defendant distributed the crack cocaine to the undercover officer within 300 feet of the Huntington School on Warren Avenue. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss under Commonwealth v. McCarthy arguing that there was insufficient probable cause presented to the Grand Jury that the drug transaction occurred within 300 feet of a school zone. The Superior Court Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion and the School Zone Indictment was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and saves his client from a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 ½ years.

DRUG OFFENSE: DISMISSED & SEALED FROM RECORD

Client, 22 year-old nursing student, was pulled over for a series of motor vehicle infractions. The officer immediately detected a strong odor of fresh marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Officers searched the vehicle and found a small bag of marijuana in the cubbyhole of the passenger side door. The front seat passenger was issued a citation for possession of marijuana less than one ounce. Officers searched the Defendant’s purse and recovered Percocet. Client was charged with Possession of Class B Substance (Percocet). She was applying for nursing positions at hospitals. After arraignment on the drug charge, client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses criminal charge outright and permanently seals the drug charge from his client’s record.

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED

Client, 18-year-old male, was driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s license and was pulled over for speeding. Police searched the vehicle with the Defendant’s consent and recovered one packet of marijuana, six small packets of marijuana, twelve zip lock baggies, an empty vile, and two condoms. Defendant was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute (felony). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought production of the certificate of analysis for the alleged substance as well as access / inspection of the alleged substance. The Commonwealth was unable to locate the alleged substance and the Commonwealth was unable to confirm whether the alleged substance was sent to the crime lab for analysis.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed felony drug charge outright.

POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA (THIRD OFFENSE): DISMISSED

Client, 24-year-old male, was arrested and charged with Possession of Marijuana (over one-ounce) stemming from a motor vehicle stop in Lakeville. This was the Defendant’s third offense for possession of marijuana. Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the side of the road on a quiet side street late at night with the interior light on and the headlights off. The officer approached the operator (defendant) and conducted a wellness check. The officer smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana in the vehicle. The officer observed a plastic container (with marijuana inside) and a digital scale in plain view. The officer searched the vehicle and found a large quantity of marijuana underneath the driver’s seat along with a glass pipe with marijuana residue. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress challenging the lawfulness of the motor vehicle stop and the lawfulness of the officer’s exit order and search of the vehicle.

Result: On the day of the hearing, the Commonwealth dismisses the drug charge and decriminalized the offense to a civil infraction.

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have possessed Heroin and Oxycodone with the intent to distribute the illicit drugs. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute the drugs, as the Defendant did not possess any accoutrements or tools of the drug trade. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence was more consistent with personal use, as opposed to distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and both felony drug offenses are dismissed outright.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 31-year-old accountant, charged with Uttering a False Prescription (felony) stemming from an incident in which she doctored several counterfeit prescriptions of Adderall and attempted to pass them at pharmacies.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got the criminal complaint dismissed prior to the arraignment saving his client from having a felony on her record.

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED after HEARING

Stoughton Police were conducting undercover surveillance of a home known for firearms violations, drug violations, and overdoses. Stoughton Police followed a vehicle leaving the driveway of the residence. The vehicle pulled into the parking lot of a Gulf Gas Station. Stoughton Police set up a surveillance post across the street from the gas station. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the vehicle that had been tailed by the Stoughton Police. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the passenger side of the vehicle and engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. After observing the alleged drug transaction, Stoughton Police stopped the Defendant and conducted a pat-down frisk and recovered a plastic baggie containing 12 pills believed to be Oxycodone. After an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan established that Stoughton Police did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop the Defendant and conduct a pat-down frisk of his person. The court ruled that the stop and frisk of the Defendant was unconstitutional and suppressed all evidence, including incriminating statements made by the Defendant and all physical evidence found on his person (the Oxycodone pills).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charge dismissed outright for constitutional violations.

POSSESSION OF CLASS D SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Client, 24 year-old salesman, was charged with Possession of Class D Substance (Ecstasy) stemming from an incident at the Comcast Center in which he was arrested for being intoxicated. A subsequent pat-down frisk of the Defendant uncovered Ecstasy tablets (Molly). After arraignment, client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. The case was immediately dismissed at the first court appearance, as Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth that the seizure of the Defendant was unlawful because police lacked the necessary probable cause to believe that the Defendant was “incapacitated” within the meaning of the protective custody statute. Under the law, it is illegal for police to place a person in custody who they believe has been incapacitated from the ingestion of drugs.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets drug charge dismissed on court costs against salesman.

DRUG POSSESSION: CRIMINAL RECORD SEALED

Client, 40 year-old physician’s assistant, was charged with Possession of Class B Substance (cocaine) stemming from an arrest at a Comcast Center. After the Defendant’s case was dismissed, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Petition to Seal his client’s criminal record, arguing that substantial justice required sealing of his client’s criminal record, as he is gainfully employed as a physician’s assistant and the effect of the charge would cause him to lose his license as a physician’s assistant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets drug charge permanently sealed on Physician Assistant’s record.

POSSESSION OF COCAINE: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Brockton Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle for an expired registration sticker. While preparing for a tow truck, the officer observed plastic baggie containing cocaine residue on the driver’s side floor. The officer conducted a pat-frisk of the Defendant and found a second plastic baggie containing cocaine. The Defendant admitted that the white powder was in fact cocaine. A field test showed that the substance was positive for cocaine. The cocaine in the Defendant’s pocket had an approximate weight of 0.5 grams. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan continued the arraignment and had the Defendant enroll in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss under Chapter 111E arguing that the case should be dismissed, as this was a first-time drug offense for which the Defendant received drug treatment. Attorney Noonan tendered documentation showing that the Defendant successfully completed the outpatient drug treatment program.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets case dismissed prior to arraignment saving his client from having a drug charge on his record.

CONSPIRACY TO TRAFFIC COCAINE: NOLLE PROSEQUI
TRAFFICKING COCAINE: DISMISSED
TRAFFICKING IN SCHOOL ZONE: NOLLE PROSEQUI

Attleboro Police in conjunction with the DEA commenced a narcotics investigation of Suspect #1. Police engaged in many controlled buys with Suspect #1 over the span of 8-9 months. Suspect #1 would depart from his home and sell drugs to an undercover officer at the same location. Suspect #1 engaged in at least controlled buys with police selling large quantities of cocaine (24.7 grams, 53.7 grams, 44.4 grams, 22.1 grans, 24.3 grams). On November 17, 2005, Defendant and Suspect #1 departed from Suspect #1’s residence to engage in a drug sale. Defendant drove Suspect #1 from his residence to the location of the drug sale in a Mazda pick-truck. Suspect #1 then sold 22.3 grams of cocaine to the undercover officer from the Mazda pick-up truck. Police also searched through the trash at Suspect #1’s residence and found evidence of narcotics distribution. The police sought arrest warrants for Suspect #1, Defendant, and two other defendants. Police executed a search of Suspect #1 residence and found 61.8 grams of cocaine, $6,979.00 in cash, and other evidence of drug distribution. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Indictments (denied) on the basis that the Commonwealth presented false and deceptive evidence to the grand jury. Mainly, the Commonwealth neglected to introduce exculpatory evidence that the surveillance team did not identify the driver of the pick-up truck in the drug transaction of November 17, 2005, except as an “unknown male.” Attorney Noonan demanded production of police reports concerning the alleged transaction of November 17, 2005 and was only provided with an Attleboro Police Report. Defendant was facing a very lengthy prison sentence and definite deportation if convicted of the offenses. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all charges dropped and the Trafficking charge reduced to Distribution of Class B and dismissed after one-year so long as the Defendant did not commit any new offenses. Result: On November 20, 2008, Drug Distribution charge was dismissed and Defendant avoids very length prison sentence and deportation from the United States.

POSSESSION OF CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Brockton Police observed the Defendant seated in his vehicle in the parking lot of Stop & Shop doing drugs and snorting cocaine for approximately 10 minutes. With the Defendant’s permission, police searched his vehicle and found a plastic baggie containing a “large amount of cocaine.”

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets drug charge dismissed.

LARCENY OF A FIREARM: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF A FIREARM: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
ENTERING DWELLING by FALSE PRETENSE: NOT GUILTY
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY

Police were dispatched to a residence for a report of a burglary. Upon arrival, police spoke to the homeowner. The homeowner stated that somebody broke into her gun safe and stole two firearms. The homeowner also stated that somebody stole her prescription medication from her pill bag. She told police that she felt the Defendant stole the firearms and prescription pills. Two days before she called police, David (a friend of the homeowner) came over to the homeowner’s house. David came over the house with Kevin, the Defendant. David asked the homeowner where she keeps her guns because Kevin wants to shoot it. She stated that she kept the guns in a safe but she couldn’t find the key. David kept asking her about the gun and the key. David and Kevin came back to her home later that evening. The homeowner told police that the Defendant kept walking in and out of her house. David and Kevin left the home a short time later. The next day, the homeowner discovered that her guns and prescription pills were missing. The homeowner stated that David and Kevin were the only people inside her home from the time she last saw the firearms until the firearms went missing. She stated that her prescription medications were in her pill bag before David and Kevin came over her house.

After she reported the guns missing, the homeowner called the police later that evening and reported that one of the guns was put in her mailbox. She told police that she believed David called her and told her that the gun was in her mailbox. Police were unable to extract useable fingerprints from the gun safe. The homeowner called to report to police that she saw the Defendant when she was in Taunton and that the Defendant threatened her by saying that she would be sorry if she were to testify against David. Later on, the homeowner called the police to report that the Defendant was pulling in and out of her driveway in a dark vehicle to scare her.

Result: After a two-day bench trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all 7 criminal offenses.

POSSESSION OF CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Abington Police observed a dark colored vehicle parked in a parking lot at night with the headlights off. The parking lot was known to police as being an area of illegal drug activity. Police observed the occupants looking down at the center console. As the officers approached the vehicle, they observed the passenger holding a crack pipe and having crack cocaine in his possession. Police observed the driver to be placing a white substance in the pipe. Police searched the vehicle and found crack cocaine and three crack pipes.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets drug charge dismissed.

POSSESSION w/ INTENT DISTRIBUTE: NOT GUILTY
SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATION: NOT GUILTY

Brockton Police Officers were assigned to foot patrol in the area of Legion Parkway in Brockton, which is a high-crime area. While on foot patrol, an informant told officers that a tall black male was dealing crack out of a white SUV in front of the Alamo Bar. The officers went to the Alamo Bar and inquired within as to owner of the white SUV. They received no response from the patrons inside the bar. One of the officers was approached by the bartender who stated that Michael Shelby is dealing crack and has made numerous trips to the bathroom to conduct drug sales. The officer recognized the name Michael Shelby and knew him to be a large black male. The officers then observed the Defendant walking westerly on the sidewalk and they followed him. The officers observed the Defendant discard some papers (Lottery tickets) on the sidewalk. Observing this violation of a city ordinance (littering), the officer called out to the Defendant, “Shelby, stop.” Defendant did not stop but walked quickly for approximately 20-25’ and he entered a convenient store abruptly. One officer observed the Defendant discard something in the trash container inside the convenient store. The officer approached the trash container and observed what appeared to be crack cocaine. The officer spoke with the clerk who confirmed that the person who just left had thrown something in the trash. Meanwhile, the other officer confronted the Defendant on the sidewalk. Officers arrested the Defendant and found two cell phones and $1,430 in cash. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Suppress the Evidence seized from his client (cell phones and cash) on the grounds that the Brockton Police relied upon a littering violation as a pretext to disguise their real reason for stopping the Defendant. The Motion was denied by Judge Jeffrey Locke but defense counsel elicited valuable testimony for the subsequent trial. At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the police officers. Specifically, Attorney Noonan challenged the testimony of the officer that he observed the Defendant discard something in the trash can inside the convenient store, which provided the basis for arresting the Defendant. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer was in no position to have made that observation. The officer was approximately 40-feet away from the convenient store when he supposedly observed the Defendant (through a glass door at approximately 7:00 at night) turn immediately to the right, bend over, and discard something into the trash container. When the Defendant had previously discarded the lottery ticket on the sidewalk, this same officer that he did not know where the paper landed. Having thoroughly attacked the credibility of the police officer, Attorney Noonan obtained not guilty verdicts on all charges.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on felony drug charges with mandatory jail sentence.

INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE IN SCHOOL ZONE: AMENDED TO SIMPLE POSSESSION
DRUGS WITHIN SCHOOL ZONE: DISMISSED
INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED

School officials received a tip from an anonymous person that the Defendant was seen smoking and passing around marijuana on school grounds. The Defendant voluntarily handed over to school official’s four individual bags of marijuana. A search of the Defendant’s school locker revealed three plastic bottles with burned holes and drug residue and a burnt joint.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charges with mandatory jail sentence dismissed against juvenile.

TRAFFICKING COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
TRAFFICKING COCAINE IN SCHOOL ZONE: NOT GUILTY

Brockton police received an anonymous telephone call reporting that drugs were being sold from a residence in Brockton. Police conducted surveillance and observed activity consistent with drug transactions. An undercover officer went to the residence and purchased cocaine. Police then obtained a search warrant for the residence. In executing the search, Defendant and two other co-defendants were inside the residence. Police found 58 plastic bags of white powder (76.2 grams), one plastic bag of white powder (46.1 grams), one plastic bag of white power (17 grams), and over $1,000 in cash.

Result: At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the judge that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to convict his client. The judge agreed and found the Defendant Not Guilty. The felony drug charges carried significant mandatory jail time.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL CHARGES OF LARCENY FROM A BUILDING, POSSESSION OF CLASS D SUBSTANCE, AND POSSESSION OF CLASS E SUBSTANCE DROPPED AGAINST HIGHLY-DECORATED U.S. ARMY COMBAT VETERAN.

Defendant was charged with Larceny from a Building (G.L. c. 266, §20), Possession of Class D Substance (Prozac), and Possession of Class D Substance (Marijuana). See G.L. c. 94C. Back in 2005, when the Defendant was 17 years-old, Defendant was charged with these crimes stemming from allegations that he stole cash and Prozac pills from the home of a family friend in Marblehead, Massachusetts. While the charges were pending in the Lynn District Court, the client enlisted in the U.S. Army when he turned 18 years-old and left Massachusetts while his criminal case was still active. The client served 11 years in the U.S. Army. He served in combat in places, such as Afghanistan. He was honorably discharged with the rank of Staff Sergeant. He was medically retired due to permanent physical injuries he sustained in combat. He earned countless awards for his service. The client was happily married with a young son in Oklahoma. One day, the client went to the military base in Oklahoma where he was informed that he had a warrant and he was not permitted to enter the military base. The client realized that the old warrant was from his criminal case back in 2005 when he was 17 years-old. The client did not have the money to come back to Massachusetts to clear up the warrant because he was disabled and was trying to support his family. The client intended to get a job on the military base, as a firearm’s instructor, but he couldn’t get on the military base because of the warrant.

Result: The client tried, unsuccessfully, to clear up the warrant himself while living in Oklahoma. The client was told that he had to return to Massachusetts and appear in court in order to remove the warrant. Fearing that he was out of options, the client contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan obtained all the records from the client’s 2005 case. Attorney Noonan made a written request to the District Attorney’s Office to remove the warrant and to dismiss the criminal charges. In his request, Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client was only 17 years-old at the time of the charges and he would have been charged as a juvenile under today’s laws. Attorney Noonan explained the circumstances of his client’s failure to appear in court because he mistakenly believed that his court case was resolved. Lastly, Attorney Noonan described the client’s military service, in detail, and provided the District Attorney’s Office with all his awards and medals. After reviewing Attorney’s Noonan request and arguments, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi, a written statement to the court that they were dropping the case “in the interest of justice.”