2015
Commonwealth v. E.P. – Attleboro District Court
OUI-THIRD OFFENSE: REDUCED TO SECOND OFFENSE
Defendant was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor this being his third offense. The Defendant was operating his vehicle when he struck two parked cars. Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and failed all field sobriety tests. Defendant had been previously convicted of two prior OUI offenses. A third offense OUI is a felony. With this offense, there is a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days or five months.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to reduce the third offense OUI to a second offense OUI thus saving his client from serving a mandatory jail sentence of five months. The Defendant was placed on probation and ordered to undergo alcohol treatment in lieu of a jail sentence. If convicted, Defendant would have lost his job. If convicted, Defendant’s family would have suffered greatly, as they would have no other means of financial support.
Commonwealth v. D.W. – Brockton District Court
OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED
An identified civilian witness called 911. She called to report that she was driving home when her vehicle was cut off and blocked in by another vehicle. She claimed that the male operator in the vehicle pulled out his penis and motioned for her to follow him. She claimed that the male operator turned on the interior light, thrust his hips upward, opened his pants, exposed his penis, and proceeded to masturbate. She provided police with the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle. She provided police with a physical description of the suspect as being: a white male, in his late 30s / early 40s, with a long strawberry colored beard, and heavy up top. Police conducted an RMV query of the vehicle, which was registered to the Defendant. The Defendant’s RMV photograph matched the witness’s description in that the Defendant’s picture showed that he had a long strawberry colored beard. The police presented a photo array of potential suspects to the victim. She identified the Defendant’s photograph and stated that she was 100% certain that the Defendant was the suspect. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police conducted the photo array. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant’s photo “stood out” from the other photos. First, there were substantial disparities in the age of the suspects. The victim described the suspect as being in his late 30s / early 40s. The Defendant was 34 years old. The majority of the photos were of males that were in their early to mid-twenties. Second, several of the suspects had skinny builds unlike the Defendant’s build, which was heavier. Third, the most striking point of suggestion was that only two of the eight suspects had long facial hair. Fourth, the photos that were presented to the victim were in black and white, not in color. In addition to the Defendant’s photo standing out, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police presented the photos to the victim. Originally, police generated an 8-person photo array. However, when the police presented the photos to the victim, they mistakenly left out two photos, and the photo array only consisted of 6 photos. The victim went through the six photos and stated that the suspect was not in the 6 photos. Police realized that they mistakenly left the two missing photos at the police station. Police generated the same 8 person photo array and conducted a second showing to the victim. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police re-used the same 6 filler photos, which were already shown to the victim. Contrary to standard practice, the police did not shuffle the photos and presented them in the same order as they did the first time. The victim breezed through the first 6 photos because she had already looked at these same six photos in the first presentation. The suspects in the first six photos did not have facial hair. When the victim got to the seventh photo, she identified the Defendant, as his picture showed that he had long facial hair. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police did not show the victim the eighth and final photo. The last photo showed a suspect with a long beard. Other than the Defendant’s photo, the suspect pictured in the last photo had a long beard, and this photo should have been shown to the victim.
Result: At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge that the photo array procedure used by police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and therefore violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights. As a result, the judge suppressed the out of court identification from evidence and precluded the Commonwealth from presenting the victim’s positive identification of the Defendant at trial.
Commonwealth v. D.F. – Attleboro District Court
OUI-LIQUOR (0.124% BAC): NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: NOT GUILTY
On January 17, 2013, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a police officer claimed he was traveling on West Main Street when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling in front of him. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and that the Defendant’s vehicle took an abrupt right hand turn into a parking lot. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle then exited the parking lot at an excessive rate of speed. The officer then claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was traveling erratically and failed to use a turn signal. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan established that the officer’s observations of the Defendant’s operation were incredible. First, the officer was in no position to observe that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and he was in no position to see the Defendant’s vehicle make an abrupt turn into the parking lot. Attorney Noonan established that this officer was not traveling behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was traveling in the oncoming direction / lane when he happened to observe the Defendant’s vehicle. Second, the officer had no basis upon which to determine that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding or traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. The officer simply believed that the Defendant’s was speeding when he passed him in the oncoming direction. The officer turned around to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. When the officer turned around, he was not traveling directly behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was several cars behind the Defendant and was in no position to make any observations of erratic operation. It was established that this officer was not the officer that conducted the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. A different officer made the stop based on the other officer’s observations. Attorney Noonan established that the stopping officer made no observations that would warrant a stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the stopping officer relied on the observations of the first officer. The stopping officer did not even write a police report with regards to the case. Attorney Noonan argued that the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle was pre-textual. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the officer pre-determined that he would stop the Defendant’s vehicle because it was seen exiting a bar at 1:30 a.m. Defendant admitted to consuming “four beers” at the bar but the officer omitted the Defendant’s statements that he consumed the beverages over course of several hours. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. Attorney Noonan introduced a color photo of the Defendant’s booking photograph, which contradicted the officer’s testimony in that the color booking photo did not show that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, or glassy. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s speech was thick and slurred. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle smelled strongly of alcohol. The officer claimed that the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Legged Stand Tests. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant was not a very coordinated individual. Defendant had poor posture with a hunched back. Defendant was bow-legged and walked with his feet facing outward. Defendant had difficulty walking in a straight line and balancing not because he was intoxicated but because he was not a very coordinated person. Prior to trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan suppressed from evidence the results of the Defendant’s breathalyzer test, which was 0.124%.
Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan won Not Guilty Verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation.
Commonwealth v. Juvenile – Dedham Juvenile Court
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.
Commonwealth v. Juvenile – Attleboro Juvenile Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY on PREGNANT WOMAN: PRETRIAL PROBATION
Juvenile was a high school student. In class, his teacher disciplined him repeatedly causing the Juvenile to become upset. After class, the Juvenile grabbed the teacher’s hand for a hand shake. During the handshake, the Juvenile twisted her arm in an unnatural way causing the teacher “extreme pain” in her wrist and arm. The handshake pulled the teacher’s body downward. The teacher called out in pain and the Juvenile ran away. The Juvenile admitted to the Dean of Students what the teacher had reported. The teacher was visibly five and one-half months pregnant. The Juvenile was aware that the teacher was pregnant. The Dean of Students suspended the Juvenile for 10 days. The Juvenile had an extensive disciplinary record, including a violation physical altercation with school staff. At the time of this incident, the Juvenile had an open criminal case for being a minor in possession of alcohol.
Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to place the Juvenile on pretrial probation for six-months with the condition that the Juvenile enroll in and complete the Bridging the Gap Youth Program. Upon the successful completion of probation, the aggravated felony charge of Assault & Battery on a Pregnant Woman, and the misdemeanor charge of Minor in Possession of Alcohol will be dismissed.
Commonwealth v. M.S. – Brockton District Court
Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
Defendant was charged with four felony counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. The allegations were that the Defendant was terminated from the Company he was employed at for over 30 years. The police report alleges that the Defendant vandalized the Company’s outdoor air chiller unit on at least four different occasions. The company told police that the equipment was vital to the day to day operation of the business. The company alleged that they had to shut down production due to the vandalism. The company claimed that the value of the damage caused by the Defendant was approximately $102,000.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report failed to present sufficient probable cause to support each element of the felony offenses.
Commonwealth v. A.A. – Brockton District Court
Docket No.: 1515 CR 4306
OPERATING w/ SUSPENDED REGISTRATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
While monitoring traffic, Police ran the registration on the Defendant’s vehicle and found that the Defendant’s insurance was revoked. Police pulled the Defendant over and he admitted that his vehicle was not registered and not insured. Defendant had a bad driving record. In 2004, his driver’s license was revoked for one-year for operating to endanger. In 2005, his license was suspended. In 2006, his license was revoked for 60 days due to surchargable events. In 2007, his license was revoked for 60 days.
Result: On the first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to dismiss all charges against his client.
Commonwealth v. B.K. – Fall River District Court
LARCENY FROM PERSON: DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LARCENY: DISMISSED
Police received a 911 call from an Ice Cream Shop reporting that a male party attempted to steal the tip jar on the counter in front of the service window. The clerk caught the Defendant in the act of stealing the tip jar and he dropped the tip jar and ran out of the store. The caller provided a very specific description of the male including his clothing. A second 911 call came in from the owner of the Ice Cream Shop. She was pursuing the male suspect in her vehicle and reported that he was hiding in the woods. Police pursued the male party in the woods and located him with a K-9. The witnesses identified the male party in the woods as the person who attempted to steal the tip jar. At the police station, Defendant admitted to trying to the steal the tip jar. Defendant stated that he conspired with another person to commit a larceny at the Ice Cream Shop. The other party was the get-a-way driver who fled the scene when the Defendant ran out of the store.
Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the Larceny from Person and Conspiracy charges dismissed.
Commonwealth v. N.B. – Brockton District Court
UNLAWFUL POSS. OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED
At 12:30 a.m., police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant was driving his pick-up truck and struck a utility pole. Upon arrival, police called the ambulance and the Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Upon investigation, it was determined that the Defendant operated his vehicle negligently so as to endanger the safety of others. Police observed heavy front-end damage to the pick-up indicating that the Defendant was operating at a high rate of speed. Contents in the bed of the pick-up had been scattered all over the road. Police observed extensive damage to the utility, which had been broken in half also indicating that the Defendant struck the pole at a high rate of speed. Police observed very little skid marks prior to the crash. Police searched the Defendant’s pick-up truck and found a box containing 50 cartridges of .357 caliber ammunition. Police also found 13 cartridges of .38 caliber ammunition. Defendant did not have a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or any license to possess the ammunition. Defendant was a 21 year-old male with no criminal record. He had an Associate’s Degree and planned on enrolling as a student at Bridgewater State University. He was employed as full-time construction worker. He was also employed by the city as a snow-plower. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have jeopardized Defendant’s employment for the city as a snow-plower and would have affected his ability to enroll in college.
Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police department and the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, no criminal charges will appear on the Defendant’s record.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – New Bedford District Court
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.”