Case Results
Commonwealth v. L.I.
Brockton District Court
FALSE INSURANCE CLAIM: DISMISS
FILING FALSE POLICE REPORT: DISMISS
ATTEMPTED LARCENY: DISMISS
After an investigation conducted by the Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts, Defendant was charged with the felony offense of filing a False Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim (G.L. c. 266, §111B), Falsely Reporting a Crime to Police (G.L. c. 269, §13A), and Attempts to Commit the Crime of Larceny (G.L. c. 274, §6). According to the investigation, Defendant falsely reported to the police that, while she was parked in a vehicle, she was struck by another vehicle, which fled the scene. Further, she claimed that she sustained injuries as a result of the hit-and-run accident. She filed a claim with the car insurance company for the injuries she sustained in the car accident. The insurance company conducted an examination of her vehicle, which concluded that the property damage sustained to her vehicle was inconsistent with her report of the incident. Specifically, the vehicle damage showed that her vehicle was traveling, and in motion, when it collided with another vehicle – which was inconsistent with her story that her vehicle was parked at the time she was struck by another vehicle. Further, Defendant was examined under oath by the insurance company and they concluded that her testimony and version of events was inconsistent and not truthful.
Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired by the Defendant, Attorney Noonan got all charges dismissed immediately. Attorney Noonan made arrangements whereby restitution was paid to the insurance company. Attorney Noonan persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss all charges based on the payment of restitution. The client has always worked in the medical field. Currently, she is finishing school to earn a degree in Nursing. A criminal conviction would have prevented her from getting employed as a nurse. This was a great victory for the client, as she will have no guilty finding, conviction, or adverse adjudication against her, and she will be able to pursue her career in nursing.
Commonwealth v. J.B.
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.
Commonwealth v. A.H.
Brockton District Court
Plymouth Superior Court
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FINDS DEFENDANT DANGEROUS AND ORDERS HIM HELD IN JAIL UNTIL HIS TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN APPEALS AND CONVINCES THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. ON APPEAL, DEFENDANT IS FOUND “NOT” DANGEROUS AND HE IS RELEASED ON $1,500 BAIL AND CONDITIONS.
Defendant, a Brockton resident, was a passenger in a vehicle. The vehicle was wanted for being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021. State Police attempted to stop the vehicle in Boston, but the operator of the vehicle fled resulting in a car chase. The car chase went all the way from Boston into Brockton. The fleeing vehicle, traveling at a high rate of speed, crashed in Brockton. The vehicle was heavily damaged entrapping the Defendant, the passenger, and the co-defendant, operator. A team of officers ordered the defendant and co-defendant out of the vehicle by gunpoint. The co-defendant refused the officers’ commands, and police used a taser to subdue him. Police searched the glove compartment and found two handguns and large capacity ammunition. At the floor of the gas pedal, at the operator’s feet, police found a magazine. The co-defendant operator was wearing body armor underneath his jacket. Upon his arrest, Defendant had two warrants. Defendant was charged with: Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(a)), Carry a Loaded Firearm without a License, Possession of a Firearm without an FID Card (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Unlawful Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device (G.L. c. 140, §131M), and Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). The arrest was featured in the news.
Result: In the Brockton District Court, the prosecutor moved to have the Defendant held in jail until his trial on the grounds that he was “dangerous” and there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public or to assure his appearance in court. A 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Brockton District Court. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had three (3) witnesses prepared to testify. The witnesses would testify that the Defendant was not involved in the drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021 because the Defendant was at home in his father’s house in Brockton on that date. Essentially, Attorney Noonan had alibi evidence showing that the Defendant was not involved in the Boston shooting. Moreover, the witnesses would testify about the circumstances which led him to be a passenger in the vehicle on the night in question; and the proposed evidence suggested that the Defendant did not know the co-defendant-operator, and that the Defendant was a passenger in his car because he asked for a ride home. Lastly, Defendant’s father would testify that the Defendant has roots in the community and has lived with his father at the same address in Brockton for some period of time and the Defendant had a record of employment. If released, Defendant would continue to reside with his father, as he has always done. The District Court Judge did not allow Attorney Noonan’s witnesses to testify. The District Court Judge found that the prosecution proved that the Defendant was “dangerous,” and found that there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed to the Superior Court. A new 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Superior Court. After the hearing, the Superior Court Judge found that the Defendant was “not” dangerous; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. Further, the Superior Court found that there were conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public and his appearance in court; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. The Superior Court released the Defendant from jail on $1,500 cash bail and the conditions recommended by Attorney Noonan. Attorney Noonan is now preparing the case for trial.
See https://www.wcvb.com/article/three-police-departments-investigating-brockton-crash/35223556#
See https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/car-crashes-in-brockton-after-police-chase/2281107/
Commonwealth v. R.C.
Norfolk Superior Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF A POLE CAMERA AIMED AT THE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
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. After executing the search warrant, police seized electronic devices containing illegal evidence.
Result: At the time of the Defendant’s arrest, there were no reported court cases in Massachusetts dealing with the government’s use of pole cameras because this kind of technology was new. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan found a recent case in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, United States vs. Moore-Bush, 381 F. Supp. 3d 139 (D. Mass 2019) in which Judge Young found that the government’s use of a pole camera was a search in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant on the grounds that law enforcement’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search. At the suppression hearing, nearly 100 exhibits were introduced and numerous witnesses testified. After the hearing, the U.S. District Court reversed Judge Young’s decision, holding that the use of the pole camera was not a violation of the Federal Constitution. However, Attorney Noonan argued that the use of the pole camera was a search in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. After the hearing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a new decision in Commonwealth v. Mora, 485 Mass. 360 (2020) where the SJC held that the government’s use of pole cameras was a search in violation of the State Constitution. After the SJC’s decision in Mora, the Superior Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the government’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search in violation of the State Constitution. Presently, this case is still being litigated on the issue of whether the illegal search should result in the suppression of evidence. Stay tuned.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING
Defendant was charged with Shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A) stemming from an incident at Walmart where the Defendant took printer ink, placed it in his waistband, and exited the store without paying for it.
Result: At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the Defendant took the printer ink because he needed it for school, as he was attending a local college, and he didn’t have enough money to pay for the item, and this was a split-second decision where the Defendant impulsively took the printer ink without thinking and instantly regretted it. Defendant was working full-time while attending college and he played on the college’s soccer team. He was having difficulty with his finances and difficulty paying bills and he was struggling to pay his rent, pay his student loans, and make ends meet. After the hearing, the clerk decided to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, Defendant does not have a criminal record due to this incident.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Hingham District Court
IN PERHAPS THE FIRST CASE DECIDED BY THE COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS, A DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES IS EXPUNGED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF DEMONSTRABLE ERRORS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A LIVE EXPLOSIVE DEVICE.
Expungement of a criminal record is extremely rare in Massachusetts. Recently, in October of 2018, the Legislature passed new legislation regarding the expungement of criminal records. G.L. c. 276, §100K states that the Court may order the expungement of a criminal record if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the record was created as a result of demonstrable errors by law enforcement. As of the date of this case, Attorney Noonan has not found one reported case in Massachusetts in which a Court has expunged a criminal record due to errors committed by law enforcement.
Result: Police were called to the Defendant’s home after wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making suicidal threats. Upon arrival, police sectioned the Defendant and had him transported to the hospital for an evaluation. As the Defendant was committed for mental illness and substance abuse, his License to Carry Firearms was suspended and the police went to his home to seize all his firearms. In the Defendant’s home, they recovered a hand grenade in a gun locker. The police incorrectly concluded that it was a live grenade. Defendant told the police that he purchased the grenade online and that the grenade was “fake.” A K-9 alerted to the presence of explosives in the grenade. The Bomb Squad inspected the grenade and erroneously concluded that it was a live grenade and contained explosive material. The Bomb Squad brought the grenade to a site where they detonated the grenade. According to the Bomb Squad, the grenade detonated as designed; another incorrect conclusion. It was the opinion of the Bomb Squad that this was a live grenade with explosive material in it. Laboratory testing showed that the grenade did not contain any explosives. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the evidence reviewed by an explosives expert, who formed an expert opinion that the Bomb Squad should have known that this was not a live grenade. The grenade had a distinctive marking, which indicated that it was a practice grenade and not live. The Bomb Squad could have scraped any explosive material out of the grenade and tested it. If the grenade did contain explosives, any explosive material would have a very distinct odor readily identifiable to an expert. The detonation of the grenade was unnecessary because a trained explosives expert would have been able to conclude that it was not a live grenade. When the Bomb Squad detonated the grenade, they introduced their own explosive material to cause the explosion and the grenade did not detonate, as designed. After the hearing, the Court found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendant was charged with this crime due to demonstrable errors committed by law enforcement.
Commonwealth v. C.M.
Taunton District Court
PROBATION DEPARTMENT MOVES TO DETAIN THE DEFENDANT IN JAIL FOR COMMITTING A NEW CRIME WHILE ON PROBATION, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT RELEASED
Defendant was on probation in the Taunton District Court after having admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on two charges of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). While on probation, Defendant was arrested by the Rehoboth Police for Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Child under 14, a felony. The Probation Department requested that the Defendant be detained, or held in jail, pending a hearing on his Probation Violation. However, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the judge to release his client pending the Probation Violation Hearing. Stay tuned.
Jermaine Hood vs. Lowell Police Dept.
Lowell District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS DUE TO ARRESTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.
Plaintiff had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was suspended by the Lowell Police Department because he was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. According to the police department, the Plaintiff’s arrest made him an “unsuitable person” to possess a firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision of the police department to the Lowell District Court. The Police Department opposed the appeal and maintained that the Plaintiff was an unsuitable person.
Result: At the hearing in the Lowell District Court, the firearm licensing officer for the Lowell Police Department testified that the facts and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s arrest for OUI and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated justified the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the officer and pointed out that the Plaintiff was found not guilty of OUI and the firearm offense was dismissed by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the Lowell Police Department felt that the facts surrounding his arrest supported the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that the OUI should not be considered as a basis for a suspension because a jury, upon hearing the facts of the case, determined that the Plaintiff was not guilty of committing that offense. The Police Department maintained that the Defendant’s possession of a firearm while arrested for an OUI made him unsuitable. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer never investigated, or determined, why the prosecution decided to dismiss the firearm offense. The Court inferred that the firearm offense must have been a weak case if the prosecution decided not to prosecute him for that offense. Moreover, the licensing officer did not contact the Plaintiff to interview him to learn about outcome of the criminal case. The Court found that the Lowell Police Department should have conducted further inquiry before deciding to suspend the LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that it was unreasonable to suspend the LTC because the arrest occurred a long time ago, and the decision to suspend his license was not based on any recent evidence of unsuitability. Attorney Noonan had his client testify and he presented evidence of his suitability, which the Court credited. After the hearing, the Court reversed the decision to suspend the LTC and found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving that the decision by the Defendant was an abuse of discretion.