2021

Commonwealth v. Z.S. and T.X.

Ayer District Court

IN A CASE FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH VALID CONSENT TO SEARCH HER HOME BASED ON EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DEFENDANT’S LANGUAGE BARRIERS.

Police were dispatched to the Weston Academy High School for a report that a student sent text messages to other students with pictures of a firearm while making suicidal statements. The student admitted to the police that he sent the text messages. The student told police that he took the firearm from his parents and sent pictures of the firearm to his friends. The student told the police that the firearm was currently located in his bedroom at his parents’ home in Westford. Police went to the student’s home where they encountered his mother (defendant) in the driveway. The police showed the mother a Consent to Search Form and they asked her to sign the form giving her consent to allow the police to search her home. After she signed the Consent Form, police searched the home and found the firearm in the son’s bedroom closet. The police proceeded to search the entire home where they recovered additional firearms and ammunition – none of which were properly stored or secured, including an AR-15 assault rifle. As a result of home search, the mother and father were charged with Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm and Possession of a Large Capacity Feeding Device pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(m), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. Card pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1) and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L. The mother and father were not U.S. citizens and they faced possible deportation if convicted.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained an expert witness specializing in English Language Proficiency. The expert interviewed the mother and performed a number of tests to determine her English proficiency, including her ability to speak, read, comprehend, and understand English. The parents were from China and moved to the U.S. four years prior to this incident. The expert determined that the mother met the definition of an LEP (Limited English Proficiency Person), which is defined as an individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who has limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The expert administered a Basic English Skills Test and a Reading Comprehension Test and testified regarding the results. The expert went through the Consent to Search Form signed by the Defendant. The expert determined that the Defendant could not understand the majority of the words on the Consent Form, including: waive, search warrant, constitutional, right, refuse, and voluntary. The expert provided his expert opinion that the Defendant was incapable of reading and understanding the Consent Form. Through cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the officer did not read or explain the Consent Form to the Defendant, but merely asked her to sign the form and she acquiesced and signed the form, as she was told. The Court agreed with the Noonan Defense Team and determined that the Defendant was unable to provide valid consent for the search of her home, and the Court suppressed all evidence (all firearms and ammunition) obtained as a result of the search of the home. As a result of the suppressed evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case. The case was featured in a publication of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING AS A RESULT OF ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident wherein the Defendant’s vehicle allegedly fled the scene. Upon arrival, police observed extensive damage to the other vehicle, and the other operator stated that the Defendant fled the scene. Other witnesses reported that the Defendant fled the scene. Police were provided with the license plate of the fleeing vehicle, and responded to the Defendant’s home where he was living with his mother. The Defendant denied causing the accident, and officers did not believe him. Defendant stated that he fled the scene because he didn’t know what to do. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. He presented evidence that the victim’s vehicle damage had been paid by insurance, and that the Defendant completed Safe Driving Courses. Defendant was a juvenile with no criminal record. He is a junior in high school with a great G.P.A., and he is a standout athlete on the varsity hockey team. Attorney Noonan presented character evidence. Attorney Noonan argued that his client, a young kid, was scared after the accident and went directly to his home, only two-miles away, where he told his parents what happened. Defendant and his mother were planning on returning to the scene to exchange information with the other driver, but the police had arrived to their home before they could do so. As the criminal complaint was dismissed, Defendant will have no record. He is planning on attending college.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

CHARGES OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS, DISTURBING THE PEACE, AND POSSESSION OF FAKE I.D. AGAINST RECENT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE AND MILITARY APPLICANT DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police received several reports of loud fireworks being lit off from a parking lot at 3:00 a.m. in Cape Cod. Witnesses called reporting that they were all woken up around 3:00 a.m. by the sound of many fireworks. Upon arrival, police observed a male, holding something in his hand, walking away from the parking lot and jogging away from police. Police approached the Defendant who was concealing fireworks. Defendant produced three Roman candle fireworks. He admitted to setting off the fireworks. Upon a pat-frisk search of the Defendant, police recovered additional fireworks. Officer asked the Defendant for identification and the Defendant produced a fake ID. Upon examination of the identification, police determined that it had been forged. As a result, the police sought criminal complaints against the Defendant for Unlawful Possession of Fireworks pursuant to G.L. c. 148, §39, Disturbing the Peace pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §53, and Possession of a Forged RMV Document pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24B.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. The client is 19 years old. He had no criminal record. He was a recent high school graduate and member of the National Honor Society. He was the captain of the varsity hockey team. He scored very high on the SAT. He was offered college scholarships to play hockey. The client started the process of enlisting in the military. The client is a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a lot on the horizon. He was young and made a mistake. It was an isolated incident. Criminal charges on his criminal record would adversely affect his ability to enlist in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate saving this young man from having a criminal record.

Plaintiff v. Police Department

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED DESPITE SUSPENSION FOR MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF INTOXICATION.

The client is a 54 year-old automobile mechanic and owner of a pet grooming business. Since 1995, the client has been issued a License to Carry Firearms with no incidents. However, the police department suspended his LTC due to multiple incidents occurring at his home. In one incident, the police were called to his home due to a verbal argument with his wife wherein the client became upset and threw a glass fruit bowl. During this incident, the wife told the police that her husband had a drinking problem and he spouts off at the mouth when he’s been drinking. In a second incident, the police were called to the client’s house in response to domestic incident between the client and his adult son, which became physical. Upon arrival, police observed that the client was intoxicated. Witnesses in the home reported that the Defendant had been drinking all day and was causing problems leading to a heated exchange with his adult son. Based on the two incidents, the police department suspended the client’s LTC finding him to be an unsuitable person to possess a firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the district court challenging the suspension. Attorney Noonan and legal counsel for the town engaged in extensive discussions, and Attorney Noonan provided additional information regarding his client’s background and the circumstances surrounding the incidents. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s successful substance abuse treatment. Through negotiations with town counsel, the police department reconsidered its decision and agreed to grant the client an LTC subject to the completion of certain conditions.

Commonwealth v. V.L.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED.

The police were called to the Defendant’s residence in Bridgewater in response to a call from a neighbor reporting loud yelling coming from the Defendant’s apartment. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s husband who stated that the Defendant lunged at him, grabbed his neck and shoved him. Defendant admitted to police that she lunged forward and shoved her husband, but she denied grabbing his neck. The police charged the Defendant with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a). Defendant is a Certified Nursing Assistant with no criminal record.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with background information about his client. The client is a 33 year-old woman with no criminal record. She is not a U.S. citizen, but she had a Green Card. She was born in Haiti and immigrated to the U.S. Despite her difficulties in speaking English, she took English language classes and eventually earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing. She worked at a nursing home as a Certified Nursing Assistant. She moved to Georgia where she obtained a job as a patient care technician assisting patients in dialysis treatment. She reconciled with her husband. They lived happily together in Georgia with their new baby. Her husband did not wish to pursue the charges. The husband wished to invoke his marital privilege and refused to testify against his wife. On the day of trial, the case was dismissed.

Plaintiff v. Police Department

Chicopee District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL AND OBTAINS A COURT ORDER REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR BEING AN UNSUITABLE PERSON.

The client was issued a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions. The Chicopee Police Department suspended his LTC alleging that he was an unsuitable person to possess a license stemming from an incident in which the police were called to his residence. Upon arrival, the client was outside his residence, intoxicated, and he was about to operate his vehicle until police intervened. The client’s wife told the police that the client had been drinking at the casino, was intoxicated, and she was concerned about him driving. The client wanted to take his firearm and leave the house prior to the police being called. The police went into the client’s home to retrieve his firearm while the client remained outside. The firearm was kept in a locked safe. The wife escorted police to the gun safe, she unlocked the safe, and the police seized the firearm. The client’s wife, who did not have an LTC, knew the combination to the gun safe and she was able to access the firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he was an unsuitable person because his wife knew the combination to the gun safe, she was able to access his firearm, and she did not have a gun license, and the police department was concerned that the client was going to access his firearm while intoxicated and drive away while under the influence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the Chicopee District Court disputing that his client was an unsuitable person. At the hearing, the Judge entered an order reversing the police department’s decision to suspend the LTC. The Court entered an order directing the police department to issue the client a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions.

Plaintiff vs. Police Department

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM UNTRUTHFULLY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC AFTER AN APPEAL.

The client is a 55 year-old professional truck driver. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied, because the police department determined that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. The police department alleged that the client was untruthful when answering questions about his criminal history. The police department alleged that the client failed to disclose criminal charges on his criminal record in his application.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the police department’s denial of the client’s application for an LTC arguing that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal record, but simply misunderstood the question. The client and his wife submitted statements explaining how they misunderstood the question when completing the application. During the appellate proceedings, through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the police department allowed the client to resubmit a new application and to disclose everything pertaining to his criminal record. The client resubmitted a new application and the police department issued him a License to Carry Firearms.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.

The client is a 39 year-old Brockton resident and a longtime union employee; working as a glass installer for commercial buildings. The client was issued a License to Carry Firearms. However, the client attempted to purchase a firearm, but the gun shop informed him that the sale was denied by the FBI because the client had been convicted in Massachusetts of Unlawful Possession of Class D-Marijuana. Under federal law, a conviction of simple possession of marijuana disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Specifically, a person falling into the category of a Federally Prohibited Person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and 18 U.S.C. §922(g) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition, including: Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – or any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and a conviction for simple possession of marijuana renders the person a Federally Prohibited Person. The client was convicted in the Quincy District Court for Simple Possession of Class D Substance to wit: Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §34 and the marijuana conviction made him a Federally Prohibited Person rendering him ineligible from purchasing a firearm under federal law. Therefore, the client must have the marijuana conviction vacated.

Result: In the police report, the police stopped the client’s vehicle due to a civil motor vehicle infraction. Defendant was placed under arrest because his driver’s license was suspended. The client told the police that he had some marijuana in a pack of cigarettes and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and was later convicted in 2006. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction because the evidence showed that the quantity of marijuana, within the pack of cigarettes, was less than one ounce making this a civil offense under present day Massachusetts law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See G.L. c. 94C, §32L. Attorney Noonan showed that it would be physically impossible to package more than one ounce of marijuana in a pack of cigarettes. Based on the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the conviction was vacated and dismissed.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED

STALKING: DISMISSED

VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER: DISMISSED

Defendant is a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, an electrical apprentice, and small business owner. Defendant is a resident of Halifax. He was in a dating relationship with his girlfriend for several years. After she broke up with him, she went to the Pembroke Police Station to report that she had been verbally and physically abused, and stalked by the Defendant. She recounted three instances of disturbing conduct by the Defendant. In the first incident, Defendant showed up to her birthday party, uninvited and unannounced, got into physical fights with her friends, was ejected from the party and the police were called. In the second incident, Defendant showed up to a bar and confronted her, as she was on a date with another guy. She got into her truck to leave, but the Defendant jumped on the back of her truck while yelling and screaming. Defendant slammed the car door on her leg. Defendant pulled her out of the truck and proceeded driving, as she was in the passenger seat screaming. She videotaped the incident and gave it to police. In the third incident, Defendant showed up at her friend’s house, parked outside and waited for her and followed her home and she called 911, but the Defendant fled before police arrived. She also provided police with photographs showing bruises on her as a result of the Defendant slamming a door on her arm. As a result, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with: (1) Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a), (2) Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b), and Stalking pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §43(a). The girlfriend obtained a restraining order against him known as an Abuse Prevention Order under G.L. c. 209A. After she obtained the restraining order, Defendant violated the restraining order on three separate occasions by calling her, texting her, and showing up to her place of work. As a result, Defendant was charged with three counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A, §7.

Result: Immediately, Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation to defend his client. He obtained evidence to contest the stalking charges showing that the evidence was insufficient to establish three separate instances of stalking, as required by the stalking statute. The girlfriend claimed that the Defendant stalked her after she broke up with him. However, the defense obtained text messages showing that they were still dating and were very much together and a couple when the alleged incidents of stalking occurred. Although the girlfriend claimed that the police were called to remove the Defendant from her birthday party, the defense obtained evidence showing that nobody ever called the police. To contest the charge of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon charge, Counsel viewed the video of this incident showing that the Defendant never slammed the car door (i.e., dangerous weapon) on her leg, as she claimed. Finally, the defense obtained evidence of prior criminal conduct by the girlfriend to attack her credibility, as well as her efforts to change her name to conceal her criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan came to trial ready to attack the case, but the Commonwealth decided to dismiss all charges.

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.