Result

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

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

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

Massachusetts Court of Appeals

98 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY AGAINST RETIRED STATE EMPLOYEE DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE

 Defendant, a Brockton man and retired Massachusetts State employee, was charged with domestic Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13M). Brockton Police responded to the Defendant’s home in response to a 911 call from his wife who reported that the Defendant had been drinking and pushed her. Upon arrival, Defendant admitted that he pushed his wife.

Result: After the Defendant was arraigned, he hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately requested a trial date. On the trial date, the wife invoked her marital privilege and elected not to testify against her husband and the case was dismissed.

Brockton District Court

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

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

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

Hingham District Court

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

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

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

Brockton Juvenile Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST AN INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED JUVENILE DISMISSED AT A CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

The client was a 14 year-old boy from Brockton who punched a security guard while in the emergency room at the Brockton Hospital. The juvenile’s parents received a court summons on a criminal complaint charging their son with an Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan conducted an intensive interview of the juvenile’s parents to obtain all the information regarding the juvenile’s behavioral and mental health history, which was extensive. The juvenile was transferred from the Brockton Hospital emergency room to an inpatient behavioral hospital. Attorney Noonan interviewed the juvenile’s mental health counselor, and obtained hundreds of pages of the juvenile’s treatment records. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was diagnosed as being Intellectually Disabled and suffered from a brain injury. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not competent to stand trial, and was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental condition. After the hearing, the criminal complaint did not issue.

Plymouth Superior Court

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

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

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

Stoughton District Court

RESISTING ARREST:                    DISMISSED

BREAKING & ENTERING:          PTP

VANDALISM:                                  PTP

DISORDERLY CONDUCT:           PTP

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

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

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHILE ON BAIL FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN ANOTHER COURT. THE COMMONWEALTH REVOKED HIS BAIL AND THE CLIENT WAS BEING HELD FOR AT LEAST 60 DAYS. AFTER CONTACTING OUR FIRM, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND THE CLIENT WAS IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

Defendant had an open criminal case in Suffolk County for Breaking & Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), (2) Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), (3) Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), and (4) Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7). While on bail for his criminal cases in Suffolk County, Defendant was arrested in Brockton for Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265,§13M); the alleged victim being his girlfriend. As a result, the Commonwealth revoked his bail, and the Defendant was ordered to be held in custody for at least 60 days under G.L. c. 276, §58A – for committing a new offense.

Result: While in jail, client hired our firm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the Brockton case. Our private investigator interviewed the witness who called the police to report the assault. The witness told our investigator that he did not witness the incident, but called the police because he heard yelling from the Defendant’s residence. Thus, there was no viable witness who would testify to the incident at trial. We were able to get the case dismissed quickly. Even though the case was dismissed, the Judge could still hold the Defendant in custody for at least 60 days. Our office convinced the judge to release the Defendant prior to the expiration of the 60 days, and the Defendant was immediately released from jail.