Result

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Abington Police were dispatched to a residence for a reported domestic violence incident. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s wife who alleged that the Defendant punched her in the face. Police observed an open wound to the alleged victim’s eyes, and observed that she was visibly upset and crying. Photographs were taken of the injuries to the alleged victim’s face. As a result, Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing where Attorney Noonan asserted that the alleged victim had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and that she would be invoking her Marital Privilege by refusing to testify against her husband at trial. Attorney Noonan argued that, without the alleged victim’s testimony, there was insufficient evidence to prove that his client committed the Assault and Battery. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed as a Distribution Manager with a career goal of obtaining a professional engineering license. The issuance of a criminal complaint would have affected the Defendant’s ability to obtain a professional engineering license, and his ability to obtain future employment, all necessary to support his wife and two children. Attorney Noonan presented numerous character letters. After considering all the evidence, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

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.