Result

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST FATHER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a call for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s daughter who alleged that her father pushed her during an argument causing her to fall to the ground. Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately requested a trial date intending to prove his client’s innocence. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE DISMISSED AFTER CLERK’S HEARING.

Defendant had a very bad driving record riddled with driving offenses and convictions of operating with a suspended driver’s license pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §23. This was a subsequent offense for driving with a suspended license. He had been previously charged with being a Habitual Traffic Offender per G.L. c. 90, §22F. He had also served jail time for driving-related offenses. Defendant’s prior attorney was unable to get the criminal complaint dismissed, so he hired our law firm.

Result: Although the Defendant had a poor driving record, he had taken substantial steps to prove that he would be a responsible driver. We continued his clerk’s hearing in order to give the Defendant time to remedy his driving-related issues. Defendant completed three driving retraining courses, and he paid all outstanding traffic tickets and fines. He refrained from operating a vehicle even though he was employed as a full time construction worker and he was forced to find alternate means of transportation to get to work every day. With this criminal complaint dismissed, the client is eligible to apply for the reinstatement of his driver’s license. We wish him the best.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST AIR FORCE ACADEMY PREP SCHOOL CADET DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client was a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy Preparatory School in Colorado. She graduated from high school in Massachusetts as an exemplary student and athlete. Due to her hard-work, strong work ethic, and impressive background, she was accepted to the U.S. Air Force Academy Prep School. Upon her graduation, she will apply to the United States Air Force Academy with aspirations of serving a career in the United States Air Force. She was alleged to have shoplifted items from a department store, and the police department filed an application for criminal complaint against her for larceny under G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint for larceny, which was a huge win for this client, as a criminal record would virtually destroy her dreams of serving in the United States Air Force. The client will have no criminal record as a result of this incident.

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.

Dedham District Court

CLIENT FACING MANDATORY JAIL TIME FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL THIRD-OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE REDUCED TO SECOND-OFFENSE OUI, SAVING THIS MILITARY VETERAN FROM SERVING 180 DAYS IN JAIL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24), this being his third offense. The case was un-triable due to overwhelming evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication and guilt. The odds of winning at trial were virtually impossible. Compounding things further, Defendant was convicted of his prior 2nd offense OUI shortly before his arrest on the 3rd offense. Additionally, Defendant was charged with assaulting the police officer during his arrest. Defendant’s prior attorney was unable to secure a favorable deal with the prosecution. As a result, the client contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan in hopes of getting a better outcome.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan started from scratch and sought and obtained as much favorable information about his client as possible, in hopes of securing a good deal with the prosecution. The Defendant served in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained all favorable evidence pertaining to his military service. Defendant struggled with alcohol for years. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pushed his client to dedicate his life to sobriety and treatment. The client made treatment his top priority. He participated in intensive inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment. He passed drug and alcohol tests. He participated in Alcoholics Anonymous almost daily. Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of his AA Attendance, and character letters from his AA sponsor and his AA group. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of the client’s gainful employment as a licensed plumber; operating his own business, and he taught courses for those seeking to become licensed plumbers. He raised three stepchildren, as if they were his own children, and Attorney Noonan obtained character letters from his stepchildren. Defendant also has underlying mental health issues, which had gone unaddressed and, with Attorney Noonan’s help, he began to receive mental health treatment. Attorney Noonan gathered as much favorable evidence as possible, and presented it to the District Attorney’s Office requesting a reduction to a second-offense OUI. The prosecution could see that the Defendant was dedicated to his treatment, and they were convinced of his good-faith efforts in seeking recovery. The prosecution deserves a lot of credit in reviewing all the evidence. They agreed to reduce the felony offense to a misdemeanor, and the client avoided a mandatory jail sentence.

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.

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.

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.

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 4^th 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.

BOSTON POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO SUIDICAL THREATS AND INTOXICATION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HER LTC REINSTATED

Client is a Boston Police Officer. Client requires a valid license to carry firearms in order to work as a police officer. The client’s license to carry was suspended because the police were called to her home for a report that the client was making suicidal statements and she was intoxicated. The police sectioned the client for mental health and substance abuse and she was transported to the emergency room for an evaluation. Because her license to carry was suspended, the client could not return to work as a police officer and her career was placed in jeopardy. If she could not have a valid LTC, she would lose her job as a police officer.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately had the client evaluated by a licensed psychologist who reviewed the police report, discharge paperwork from the hospital, and he spoke with the officers involved in the case. The psychologist performed an extensive psychological evaluation and gave his expert opinion that the client was not suicidal and she did not have substance abuse addiction. He opined that the client was stable, she was fit for duty, she was fit to return to work as a police officer, and she did not pose any danger if she were to possess firearms. The psychological evaluation, coupled with other evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, resulted in the police department reinstating and activating her LTC. Now the client can return to work as a police officer.