Case Results Operating Under the Influence (OUI)

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH FELONY 4^TH OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS THE CHARGE REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR 2^ND OFFENSE, SAVING THE CLIENT FROM A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 2 YEARS.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24M) and Negligent Operation. This was his 4^th offense for drunk driving carrying a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 years in the house of correction. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle almost strike a telephone pole and nearly struck trash barrels. Police observed the vehicle swerving all over the road. The vehicle was driving in the opposite travel lane for over 20 yards. The officer approached the Defendant’s vehicle and observed a strong odor of alcohol. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Defendant’s speech was slurred. The officer was unable to understand some of the Defendant’s statements due to his slurred speech. Defendant admitted to have a “few too many” drinks. Officers administered Field Sobriety Tests, including the One Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn, and determined that he had failed the tests.

Result: Immediately after getting hired, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested to have his client evaluated by the Veteran’s Court because his client was a highly decorated combat veteran. This was the first time in the client’s life that he had ever been evaluated by a clinician for the effects caused by his combat experience. For the first time in his life, the client was diagnosed and treated for the effects caused by his horrific combat experience. He was diagnosed with PTSD, Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety, which led to his substance abuse and alcoholism. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with a breakdown of the client’s entire military service, awards, and decorations. In the Veteran’s Court, the clinicians dug deep into the client’s military experience, which included combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The client was a Platoon leader and two of his closest friends were killed in combat. Attorney Noonan provided numerous character letters, records of his 20 years of employment, and records of his substance abuse treatment. After reviewing all the evidence provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the 4^th offense OUI down to a 2^nd offense OUI. With a 4^th offense OUI, a felony offense, the client was facing a mandatory 2 years in jail. With a reduction to a 2^nd offense, the client is now charged with a misdemeanor. Ultimately, the client was placed on probation, on the reduced charge, with conditions to continue treatment. Client avoided having to serve a mandatory 2 years in jail.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN JURY TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Defendant, a Brockton resident, received a phone call from her boyfriend who was in custody at the police station in Middleboro following his arrest for drunk driving. She was asked to come to the police station to bail him out. When she arrived to the police station to bail out her boyfriend, the police immediately suspected that she was under the influence of alcohol. They asked whether she had been drinking, and she admitted to consuming two beers several hours ago. While in the front lobby, the police officer testified that he was immediately overwhelmed by the odor of alcohol flooding the lobby. The Trooper testified that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy. The Trooper testified that the Defendant was argumentative and uncooperative. She stated that she knew a State Trooper and implied that they should let her go. She stated that she would agree not to drive a car. At trial, the Trooper testified that she was drunk. After a vigorous and effective cross-examination of the State Trooper by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict within 10 minutes.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN 2ND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, as he had been previously convicted of drunk driving. Defendant was also charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). With a second offense OUI, Defendant was facing stiff penalties, including a two-year suspension of her driver’s license. In this case, Defendant refused the Breathalyzer test. She had previously refused the Breathalyzer test in her prior OUI case, and her driver’s license was suspended for three-years. A Raynham Police Officer was stationed on Route 44 when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Route 44 and the Defendant abruptly swerved over a raised median and did a U-turn on Route 44 and started heading in the opposite direction. While following the Defendant, he observed that she grazed construction barrels and swerved over the fog line multiple times. The officer activated his lights to affect a stop, but the Defendant continued driving and got onto the Route 24 onramp. After a quarter-mile, Defendant finally pulled over. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was slurred and she stated that she was coming from “West Bridgewater” and she was going to “West Bridgewater.” Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. She admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. The officer administered a Field Sobriety test known as the One-Leg Stand; the Defendant attempted to perform the test, but later stated that she did not want to perform any tests and she stopped. The officer testified that the Defendant was extremely argumentative, she was swearing at him, and calling him names. During the booking process, Defendant was asked to remove her earrings, which she did. Later on, Defendant did not remember removing her earrings. The officer formed the opinion that she was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to exclude from evidence the fact that the Defendant was instructed to perform the One Leg Stand Test; the Defendant attempted the test, and later stopped performing the test and refused any other tests. Therefore, no evidence was presented at trial regarding any Field Sobriety Tests. Attorney Noonan conducted an effective cross-examination of the police officer and requested a Not Guilty verdict from the Judge. The Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. On the Negligent Operation charge, Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a disposition not resulting in a conviction. After the acquittal, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order to restore her driver’s license. She had been without a driver’s license since her arrest.

Taunton District Court

SECOND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CHARGE AGAINST COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

Defendant has been a longtime commercial truck driver. He resides in North Carolina. He is a long haul commercial truck driver, driving an 18-wheeler, transporting items for Amazon. He hauls throughout the United States. In this case, Defendant was driving across country to deliver items to Massachusetts. He pulled into a parking lot in Easton, Massachusetts. While attempting to park his tractor-trailer, he struck a parked car. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant and they detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant refused any field sobriety tests and was arrested. He refused the Breathalyzer test resulting in serious consequences for a commercial truck driver. He had an old drunk driving charge in North Carolina, but was not convicted. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). As a commercial truck driver, his entire livelihood was at stake. If convicted, he would undoubtedly lose his commercial driver’s license and was facing the possibility of a lifetime suspension of his commercial driver’s license.

Result: On the day of the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth of his intention to introduce a video of the Defendant’s booking at the police department. The booking video was exculpatory, as it showed that the Defendant did not exhibit any signs of intoxication or impairment. The evidence of intoxication was very slim. The only sign suggestive of intoxication was an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, and nothing more. Attorney Noonan discussed the weakness of the case with the Commonwealth and argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden to obtain a conviction at trial. The Commonwealth reviewed the booking video, interviewed witnesses, and evaluated the case, and agreed that it would have considerable difficulty proving this case at trial. All charges were dismissed at trial.

New Bedford District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IS ALLOWED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S STATUTORY RIGHT TO A BAIL HEARING.

The Dartmouth Police Department arrested and charged the Defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1); this being his second offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant’s statutory right to an out-of-court bail hearing under G.L. c. 276, §58 was violated because the Defendant was unreasonably and unnecessarily held in custody for an excessive amount of time without ever being provided the opportunity to be bailed out by a Bail Clerk. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence showing that the Defendant was held in custody for approximately 11 hours without ever being afforded the opportunity to be bailed out and released from custody by a Bail Clerk. The Court agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint. The client was a long-time commercial truck driver.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY IN TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a car accident. Upon arrival, police observed a traffic pole in the middle of an intersection. When speaking with the Defendant, he admitted that he was distracted and struck the traffic pole. The pole was knocked down and dragged into the middle of the intersection. Police took photographs of the Defendant’s vehicle showing damage caused by the collision with the traffic pole. Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. Defendant admitted that he had consumed one beer. Defendant failed the field sobriety tests administered to him, including the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One-Leg Stand. A booking photo was introduced showing that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. In the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed nip liquor bottles. At the police station, Defendant was administered a Breathalyzer test showing a blood-alcohol-concentration of 0.09%, over the legal limit of 0.08%. At trial, the officer testified that the Defendant, in his opinion, was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s testimony concerning the Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests because the Defendant admitted that he was very anxious when performing the tests, and the Defendant weighed 300 lbs., factors unrelated to alcohol use, which can explain his poor performance. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant did not have any slurred speech and the officer was able to understand everything the Defendant was saying without any difficulty. Upon his arrival, the officer observed the Defendant safely pull into a parking lot and park his vehicle. Defendant did not attempt to flee the scene. The officer observed that the Defendant did not have any difficulty or any unsteadiness when he exited his vehicle. Attorney Noonan highlighted exculpatory portions of the booking video showing that the Defendant did not exhibit certain signs of impairment. After the trial, the Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Unfortunately, the Judge found the Defendant guilty of Negligent Operation where the Defendant admittedly was negligent in striking the traffic pole. The client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended due to this arrest. However, after his acquittal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s LTC reinstated.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HAITAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN DRUNK-DRIVING CASE AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti. He is not a U.S. citizen. Client attended a wedding on Cape Cod. He was driving home to Brockton. As he was driving on Route 24, State Troopers were parked in the breakdown lane. The Trooper observed the Defendant speeding, his vehicle crossed the fog line, and he came close to striking the police cruiser. Troopers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle, as it exited the highway. Police located the Defendant’s vehicle parked in a Gas Station. It was almost 2:00 a.m., and the gas station was closed, but the Defendant approached the gas pump thinking the gas station was open. Officers observed that the Defendant’s pants were unbuttoned and there was liquid on his crotch area. Troopers administered two Field Sobriety Tests and the Trooper testified that the Defendant failed the tests. The Trooper testified that the Defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Police found a liquor bottle in his car. As a result, Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation, Obstructing an Emergency Vehicle, and Open Container of Alcohol.

Result: After a bench trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively cross-examined the State Trooper and challenged his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated and attacked his testimony concerning the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle. After the trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges, but was found response of committing a marked lanes violation.

Wrentham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST BANKER AND FATHER OF THREE.

The client is a banker, father of three, and a resident of Mansfield with no criminal record. At approximately 2:00 a.m., a Wrentham Police Officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle exiting the parking lot of a drinking establishment in Wrentham. The officer observed that the Defendant exited the parking lot without activating his headlights. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and stopped the vehicle after noticing some improper operation. After conducting several field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that the Defendant was intoxicated and arrested him for Operating under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Operating Negligently (G.L. c. 90, §24).The client was charged in the Wrentham District Court.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The officer testified that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Attorney Noonan introduced medical evidence showing that the Defendant was obese and suffered from a knee injury. Attorney Noonan moved to introduce portions of the booking video at the police station. Attorney Noonan provided the court with a chart highlighting portions of the booking video, which were consistent with the Defendant’s sobriety and lack of impairment. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of negligent operation was insufficient, as the officer’s observations of the vehicle’s operation was limited due to the fact that the officer stopped the Defendant’s quickly. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges, and Attorney Noonan was able to have the client’s driver’s license reinstated the next day.

Mass. Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Kaweesi Marvin

Docket No.: 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2022)

CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR AFTER TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS THE CASE ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED, AND THE CLIENT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY. CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION.

The client is an immigrant and not a legal U.S. citizen. While represented by another highly-experienced and effective attorney, the client was found guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol after a bench-trial in the Waltham District Court. Prior counsel and the client sought Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s services in appealing the conviction.

Result: On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication was insufficient, as a matter of law, and he should have been found not guilty by the trial judge. There are very few appeals finding that evidence of intoxication was insufficient as a matter of law. In a rare case, Attorney Noonan was able to persuade the Appeals Court that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient requiring reversal of the conviction. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction and the client was subsequently found not guilty.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION.

Client is a hard-working Haitian immigrant, a young man, newly married, who has never been in any trouble. Defendant was stopped by State Police based on the Trooper’s belief that the vehicle was being operated erratically. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol. The Defendant was nowhere near his intended destination. The Trooper requested that the Defendant submit to field sobriety tests. The Defendant attempted the first test, but stopped, and declined to participate in any other field sobriety tests, citing an old basketball injury. Defendant was placed under arrest. The passenger in the vehicle was free to leave.

Result: During the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the credibility of the Trooper’s testimony, particularly attacking his observations that the Defendant’s operation was erratic. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the Defendant committed a minor marked lanes violation, and pulled over into the breakdown lane when signaled to pull over. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant had no difficulty exiting the vehicle and no issues with his balance when standing at roadside while speaking to the officer. Attorney Noonan argued that the first field sobriety test should not be considered because the Defendant briefly attempted the test but declined to complete the test because of his basketball injury. Attorney Noonan argued that the minimal evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance of the field sobriety test did not establish that he was intoxicated or impaired. Attorney Noonan requested production of the Trooper’s body camera, which was never provided or introduced, and the defense argued that the body camera would have been helpful for his case. In addition, there was no video of the Defendant’s booking. The judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges.

Brockton District Court

IN A LANDMARK DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS LACK AUTHORITY TO STOP THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE, SEARCH HIM, AND SEIZE HIM. THIS CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 

Defendant was operating his vehicle in the town of Whitman. Two Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) were stationed in marked police cruisers conducting radar patrol. The APOs clocked the Defendant’s speed as 53 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The APOs stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. The APOs suspected that the Defendant had been drinking and questioned him regarding his alcohol consumption. The APOs looked into the vehicle and observed alcoholic beverages in plain view. The APOs detained the Defendant at the scene while they contacted a sworn police officer to arrive to the scene. The sworn police officer arrived, conducted an investigation, questioned the defendant, and administered field-sobriety tests. The sworn police officer arrested the Defendant for Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion-to-suppress evidence resulting from the stop of the Defendant’s motor vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) did not have authority to effectuate motor vehicle stops, to seize or detain citizens, or to conduct searches. After conducting exhaustive research, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no legal authority, which authorizes APOs to conduct traffic stops. Attorney Noonan made a request to the Whitman Police Department and the Town of Whitman for any written policies and procedures regarding APOs, but the Police Department and the Town did not produce any written policies defining the scope, duties, responsibilities, or powers of APOs. The Brockton District Court agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that the APOs lacked this authority and suppressed all evidence derived from the motor vehicle stop. This was a huge decision because many Police Departments, as part of a longstanding practice, have utilized APOs who play active roles in police investigations, but their powers were never examined. This case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. “Defense duo shines light on renegade auxiliary cops.”

Plymouth District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-DRUGS CASE ARGUING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS CONSUMPTION OF MUSHROOMS. 

Defendant, a paramedic with no criminal record, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs. At trial, the police officer testified that he noticed the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street. Defendant was found asleep in the backseat of the vehicle. Defendant admitted to the officer that he consumed “mushrooms,” a hallucinogenic drug. Defendant was acting erratically. Defendant’s mood would dramatically fluctuate from being claim to highly emotional; randomly blurting out obscenities. The officer was very concerned about the Defendant’s state and requested an ambulance. Defendant was sent to the hospital. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained a pretrial order preventing the officer from forming an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs. The officer did not have any training regarding the drug (mushrooms) and the specific effect of mushroom use on the human body. Therefore, the officer could not testify that the Defendant’s mushroom use was the cause of his impairment. Specifically, the officer could not testify that the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant were the result of mushroom use. The officer could not connect any displayed signs of impairment to the Defendant’s consumption of mushrooms. Therefore, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty. 

Stoughton District Court

IN 2013, DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA ON A CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A BREATHALYZER TEST. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE ONGOING LITIGATION REGARDING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF BREATHALYZER TESTS AND THE MISCONDUCT BY THE OFFICE OF ALCOHOL TESTING. AT THE NEW TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES.

In 2012, Defendant was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. At the police station, Defendant consented to a Breathalyzer test, which produced results showing that the Defendant’s blood-alcohol-concentration was 0.14%, over the legal limit. Defendant felt that he would be found guilty at trial based on the results of the Breathalyzer test showing that he was well-above the legal limit. Defendant felt that a trial was a lost cause because the Breathalyzer results would most definitely result in his conviction. The Breathalyzer test was the biggest factor in the Defendant’s decision to enter a plea. There has been a lot of litigation in Massachusetts regarding the scientific reliability of Breathalyzer tests. Further, as part of this ongoing litigation, it was discovered that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence regarding Breathalyzer tests from defendants and their attorneys. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea and for New Trial on the basis that the client’s decision to enter his plea was primarily due to the results of the Breathalyzer tests, but the client was unaware (at the time of his plea) that the results of his Breathalyzer test were inadmissible as being scientifically unreliable and the client was unaware of the extensive misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing. The client’s plea and conviction were vacated, and the case will now be proceeding to trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at his new trial on charges of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation and won not guilty verdicts.

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OUI-DRUGS CASE DISMISSED AFTER CONVINCING THE COURT THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS CAUSED BY METHAMPHETAMINE FOUND IN HIS VEHICLE. 

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)). Police received a report of an erratic operator. Police received another report of a person slumped over the steering wheel of the same vehicle in a parking lot. Upon arrival, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel and was unresponsive. The officer believed that the Defendant was experiencing the effects of drug use. Defendant denied taking any drugs. In the Defendant’s vehicle, they found plastic bags containing Methamphetamine and glass pipes used to smoke this substance. Defendant was transported to the hospital. Defendant was also charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained the Defendant’s certified medical records, which lacked any laboratory or toxicology tests to show that the Defendant had any drugs in his system. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant’s impairment was caused by the methamphetamine found in the Defendant’s vehicle. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Methamphetamine caused the Defendant’s impairment because none of the officers at the scene were qualified to render any such opinion to connect the effects of this drug use to the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant. As a result, all charges against the Defendant were dismissed.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Defendant was a 25 year-old with no criminal record. Police were called to the scene of a single-car accident. An off-duty EMT testified at trial that he observed the Defendant travel through an intersection, at a high rate of speed, and strike a curb and telephone pole. Upon arrival, the officer spoke with the Defendant, who was the operator of the vehicle. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer testified that the Defendant was unable to recall how the accident happened. The officer observed that her eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Police recovered an empty bottle of liquor in the center console. Defendant was administered the Nine-Step Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand field-sobriety test, and the officer testified that she failed these tests. Defendant admitted to consuming three glasses of champagne about two hours ago.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan emphasized that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field-sobriety tests were very understandable considering the circumstances. For example, Defendant was involved in a serious car accident. The airbag deployed striking her in the face, causing injuries to her nose and lip, which were bleeding. Defendant was emotional, crying, and was repeatedly expressing concern for her passenger, who was injured in the crash. Defendant was asked to perform these field-sobriety tests with four police officers on scene, three police cruisers on scene, and a fire truck surrounding her. The officer admitted that she was shook-up and frazzled by the accident. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant went to the emergency room after her arrest complaining of chest pain and rib pain. Despite all this, Defendant still performed relatively well on the field-sobriety tests, under these harsh circumstances. Attorney Noonan was able to suppress the empty liquor bottle from coming into evidence at trial because the prosecutor was unable to bring in the police officer who located the bottle in the vehicle, and they would be unable to authenticate this piece of evidence. Attorney Noonan aggressively argued that the Police Department was grossly negligent because they lost the video recording of the Defendant’s booking at the police station following her arrest. Attorney Noonan persuaded the trial judge to instruct the jury that they could infer that the lost booking video would have been favorable to the Defendant’s case. Attorney Noonan was successful in dismissing the unlicensed operation charge because the Commonwealth’s RMV records did not contain the date in which her license was suspended. After one-hour of deliberations, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of all charges and her driver’s license was restored.

ON THE FIRST TRIAL DATE, PROSECUTOR DROPS CHARGE OF OUI-DRUGS AGAINST SCREENWRITER RATHER THAN TRY THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN.

On June 19, 2018, Massachusetts State Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 6 in Barnstable because one of his taillights was out. The State Trooper observed that the vehicle was suspiciously activating its brake lights, several times, even though no other vehicles were on the road. The Trooper approached the vehicle. Upon the driver’s side window being rolled down, a big cloud of smoke poured out of the vehicle and the Trooper detected a strong smell of marijuana. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had smoked any marijuana and the Defendant admitted that he had “been smoking all day.” There were three passengers in the vehicle; all of whom admitted that they were smoking marijuana. Defendant stated that they were coming from dinner. Defendant further stated that he had smoked a joint before and after dinner. The Trooper observed that the Defendant spoke in a very slow and delayed speech. Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. After several requests, Defendant could not locate his vehicle’s registration. Defendant did not have a valid driver’s license either. During the entire driver’s side conversation, the Trooper noted that the smell and smoke from the marijuana was continuously flowing out of the vehicle. The Trooper asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Defendant stumbled several times while walking to the front of his vehicle. The Trooper administered the Walk and Turn field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. Trooper administered the Romberg field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. The Trooper formed the opinion that the Defendant was Operating under the Influence of Drugs-Marijuana (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready for trial armed with evidence to prove that his client was not under the influence of marijuana. The District Attorney was ready for trial and the State Trooper was present and prepared to testify. Attorney Noonan elected to have a jury-waived trial before a judge rather than a jury. The court took a brief recess. After the brief recess, the trial was going to start. During the recess, the prosecutor approached Attorney Noonan and stated that the Commonwealth was dismissing the charge of Operating under the Influence of Drugs.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE, AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE “WHO” OPERATED THE VEHICLE.

Bridgewater Police received a call from a resident stating there was a disabled vehicle parked in the street and the driver appeared to be sitting in the vehicle with his head back. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of the road with two tires blown out. The officer approached the driver’s side of the vehicle where the Defendant had been seated. The officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked how the tires were blown out and the Defendant stated that he must have hit something back there and pointed down the road. Defendant admitted that he had smoked a roach while attempting to change his tires prior to Defendant calling for a tow truck. Defendant claimed that he had a medical marijuana card but stated that it had been “responded” when he meant to say “expired.” Defendant admitted to drinking two Budweiser beers about three hours ago. There was a female sitting in the front passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. She told police that Defendant had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol earlier in the night but she felt he was fine to drive. There were two empty nip bottles on the ground outside the vehicle. The female passenger initially stated that the bottles belonged to her but later stated that the Defendant told her to throw out the nip bottles. The officer testified that the Defendant failed several field sobriety tests, such as the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. At the police station, police found a plastic bag containing marijuana in the Defendant’s pant pocket. At the police station, Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which shows that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, above the legal limit.

Result: In order to prove the Defendant guilty of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was the “operator” of the vehicle. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant, and not the female, was the operator of the vehicle, as there was evidence tending to show that the female could have driven the vehicle. Even though the Defendant had admitted to being the operator, that alone, was insufficient to convict the Defendant unless there was evidence to corroborate that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that, besides the Defendant’s admission to operating the vehicle, there was no other evidence to corroborate that he was the driver.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST PARAMEDIC

The client is a paramedic / EMT. On the night in question, she approached a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock in the Town of Canton. At the checkpoint, the police officer detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the client’s speech was slurred and that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The client admitted that she had consumed alcohol. The officer instructed the client to exit the vehicle so he could administer some field sobriety tests. The officer administered several field sobriety tests, including the Alphabet Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand Test. Based on his observations of the client’s sobriety and her performance on the field sobriety tests, the officer formed the opinion that the client was under the influence of alcohol.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan attacked the testimony of the police officers, questioned their observations, and challenged their opinion that the client was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client performed well on the field sobriety tests despite having to perform physical tasks while wearing flip-flops and the conditions under which the tests were administered were very difficult. After the police officer testified and the Commonwealth rested its case, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof and the judge found our client not guilty.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL FOR CLIENT CONVICTED OF DRUNK DRIVING BECAUSE HER BREATHALYZER TEST PRODUCED SCIENTIFICALLY UNRELIABLE RESULTS

Defendant, a single mother, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police for Negligent Operation and Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. At the police station, Defendant agreed to have a Breathalyzer Test to determine her blood alcohol content. The breath test machine gave a blood alcohol content result of 0.11%, which is over the legal limit. Based on the breath test result of 0.11%, Defendant pled out to the OUI charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired to vacate the Defendant’s conviction and win her a new trial. Recently, in the case of Commonwealth v. Ananias, a District Court Judge ruled that a Breathalyzer Machine did not produce scientifically reliable Blood-Alcohol-Content results during the time period of June 2012 to September 2014. Relying on the Court’s recent decision, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client’s conviction should be vacated and she should be awarded a new trial because the Breathalyzer Machine used in her case did not produce scientifically reliable results. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client’s conviction vacated and a jury trial is now scheduled.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CHILD ENDANGERMENT CASE

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence: An identified civilian called West Bridgewater Police to report an erratic operator, later identified as the Defendant. The witness was following directly behind Defendant’s vehicle and saw the Defendant’s vehicle swerve entirely off the road almost striking a fence then quickly swerve back crossing into the oncoming lane. The witness stated that the Defendant stopped at a traffic light, stuck her head out the window, and proceeded to vomit twice. The witness went to the police station and filled out a written statement. West Bridgewater Police were dispatched to locate the Defendant’s vehicle. The police officer observe the Defendant traveling on a residential street and saw the vehicle cross over the center line and travel a quarter-mile with its wheels in the oncoming lane. The officer stopped the vehicle and observed vomit all over the side door and on the Defendant’s clothing. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and observed that her speech was very slow and deliberate. Defendant admitted to drinking at a party. The police officer administered 5 field sobriety tests. In the officer’s opinion, Defendant failed all 5 field sobriety tests. The officer testified as to Defendant’s poor performance on all field sobriety tests and gave his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant had her three young children in the car. Due to the fact that the Defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol with her three children in the car, she was charged with the aggravated felony offense of Child Endangerment, which carries an enhanced penalty.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the arresting officer by showing that the officer rushed to judgment and did not conduct a fair investigation. Attorney Noonan argued that as soon as the officer observed the vomit he made up his mind to arrest the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. Attorney Noonan showed that: Before the officer conducted any investigation, he told the Defendant to call someone to come and pick up her kids because he had already made up his mind to arrest her for drunk driving. Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s friend to testify as a witness. The friend testified that she received a phone call from the Defendant who stated that she had been pulled over and needed her to come and pick up the kids. The friend testified that the officer grabbed the phone and told her to get down here immediately. Attorney Noonan argued the phone call was made while the Defendant was still sitting in the driver’s seat before she was asked to exit the car and submit to field sobriety tests. Shortly after receiving the phone call, the friend arrived to the scene and the Defendant was already under arrest. Attorney Noonan introduced the footwear the Defendant was wearing, which were boots with 2 inch heels. Attorney Noonan argued that it was difficult for the Defendant to perform the field sobriety tests demanded of her in these heels. Specifically, Defendant was asked to balance on one foot for 30 seconds while wearing these heels. In addition, the officer had Defendant walk 9 steps, back and forth, on an invisible line and maintain her balance in these heels. With regards to the vomit, Attorney called two witnesses to testify. These witnesses testified that they attended a funeral reception with the Defendant prior to her arrest. These witnesses testified that they ate the same food as the Defendant, chicken broccoli Alfredo. These witnesses testified that the chicken broccoli Alfredo was not cooked properly, smelled weird, and had a funky taste. They testified that they tasted the food and stopped eating it because it was gross. They testified to having conversations with the Defendant and others at the reception about the funky tasting food. They testified that the Defendant tasted the food and remarked that it tasted funky. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant vomited because of the bad food. The most compelling evidence came from the testimony of the owner and operator of a day care facility. Prior to getting pulled over, Defendant had picked up her kids at a day care facility and was on her way home when she was arrested. This witness testified that the Defendant dropped her three children off in the early morning while she attended the funeral. This witness testified that the Defendant came to pick up her three kids. This witness testified that they had a 10-minute conversation. This witness testified that she did not observe any signs to suggest that the Defendant may have been impaired by alcohol. This witness gave her opinion that the Defendant was not impaired by alcohol in any way. The witness testified that, as a licensed day care provider and a mandated reporter, she would have stopped the Defendant from driving away with her kids if she had any suspicion that Defendant was impaired by alcohol. After a two day trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts.

CLIENT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS DUE TO A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE OUI BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS A COURT ORDER TO REINSTATE THE CLIENT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE.

Client, a 33-year-old resident of Easton, had a conviction for OUI-Liquor where he was sentenced to one year of probation with the condition to complete the 24D program. Client was arrested for an OUI second offense where he refused the breath test resulting in a license suspension for 3 years because this was a subsequent offense. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan for his second-offense OUI and Attorney Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict. Even though the client was found Not Guilty of the second offense OUI, the Registry of Motor Vehicles nevertheless suspended his driver’s license because he refused the breath test and he was charged with a subsequent offense.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan appeared before the trial judge and obtained a court order to reinstate the client’s driver’s license. The client can now use this court order when he requests that the RMV reinstate his driver’s license.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS A NOT GUILTY ON A SECOND-OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

The client is a 33-year-old financial consultant from Easton, MA. The police officer testified that he was stopped at a gas station when his attention was drawn to the sound of a car horn beeping for about 5 seconds. The officer followed the vehicles as they approached an intersection. The police officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut off the other driver causing the other vehicle to slam on its brakes and swerve to avoid a collision. The officer pulled over the Defendant’s car. When he approached the Defendant’s window, the officer observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and he could smell an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The officer testified that the Defendant initially stated that he did not consume any alcohol but later admitted to drinking at a strip club. The officer testified that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test. The officer testified that the Defendant failed the Alphabet Test twice, the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn Test, and the Defendant failed the One-Leg Stand after attempting it twice.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the police officer and pointed out the inconsistencies in his testimony. Attorney Noonan pointed out everything the Defendant did well on the field sobriety tests, which the officer left out in his direct examination. Attorney Noonan introduced photos of the Defendant’s shoes to show how difficult it would be for someone to perform these field sobriety tests with this type of footwear, which had no ankle support. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the other driver and pointed out that the other driver had been speeding and he lost his patience when following the Defendant because the Defendant was not driving fast enough. Attorney Noonan called as a witness the police officer who booked the Defendant at the police station. Attorney Noonan established that the booking officer had booked the Defendant, in a small booking room, for about an hour. In a critical line of questioning, Attorney Noonan got the booking officer to testify that he could not formulate an opinion about the Defendant’s sobriety even though he had booked him for about an hour. After Attorney Noonan’s closing argument, the judge immediately found the Defendant Not Guilty. This was the Defendant’s second offense for drunk driving and he was facing possible jail time, a three year loss of license, and mandatory inpatient treatment.

JUDGE DISMISSES CASE WITH PREJUDICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE OFFICER LIED TO THE COURT.

The Defendant, a resident of Hull, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. A civilian witness reported to Hull Police that the Defendant’s vehicle crossed into his lane, struck the side of his vehicle, and continued driving without pulling over. The witness approached the Defendant at a stop sign and asked him to pull over but the Defendant continued driving for over a mile before pulling into a plaza to pick up a pizza he had ordered. The witness called the police to report the hit and run. When the police arrived to the parking lot, the officer observed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet and appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked the Defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests. From the start, the Defendant, in the officer’s words, was defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The Defendant insulted the officer. The officer found that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test that he performed and placed him under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. Back at the police station, when the Defendant was being booked, the arresting officer stated that the Defendant continued to be defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The officer stated that the Defendant claimed that he was not the operator of the vehicle when he previously admitted that he was the operator. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Booking Officer to testify as a witness. Attorney Noonan called the Booking Officer to impeach the testimony of the arresting officer. During booking, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s speech was “fair,” which contradicted the arresting officer’s observation that the Defendant’s speech was thick-tongued and slurred. More importantly, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s “attitude was indifferent” and there were “no unusual actions” by the Defendant, which contradicted the arresting officer’s repeated assertions that the Defendant was defiant, argumentative, uncooperative, and insulting. As the trial started, the District Attorney received word that the Booking Officer could not appear to the trial because he was “sick.” Attorney Noonan asked for a continuance of the trial because the Booking Officer was an important witness for the defense. When the Defendant left the courthouse and was driving home, he saw the Booking Officer performing a detail and directing traffic. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that the Booking Officer lied to the court when he represented that he was out sick when, in actuality, he was not sick but performing a paid detail. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained documentation showing that the Booking Officer performed a paid detail on the day of trial from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM for 13.5 hours.

Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence to show that the booking officer lied to the court, the Judge dismissed the OUI-Liquor charge, with prejudice, and found that the booking officer’s conduct was egregious. The case was dismissed with prejudice meaning that the Commonwealth cannot charge the Defendant with the same offense in the future. This is a rare case where a Judge dismissed a criminal charge with prejudice as a sanction for egregious police misconduct.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE STATE POLICE UNLAWFULLY DETAINED HIS CLIENT AT A DRUNK-DRIVING ROADBLOCK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE EVEN THOUGH HIS CLIENT HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OF 0.81%.

On May 28, 2016, the State Police were conducting an OUI Roadblock, as referred to as a Sobriety Checkpoint, on Route 18 in Abington. The Client, who was returning from a wedding, approached the checkpoint in his vehicle. At the checkpoint, the State Trooper believed that the Client was exhibiting signs of intoxication so he had the client get out of his car and submit to field sobriety tests. The State Trooper found that the client failed three of the field sobriety tests. The State Trooper had the client blow into a portable breath test device, which showed that the client had a blood alcohol content of 0.81%, which is above the legal limit in Massachusetts. The State Trooper then arrested the client and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his Client was unlawfully detained by the State Trooper. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to order his Client to get out of his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests. At a Hearing in which the State Trooper testified, Attorney Noonan proved that the only evidence of possible intoxication that led the Trooper to detain his client was the Trooper’s observation that the Client’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Attorney Noonan introduced a color copy of the Client’s booking photo, which clearly showed that his Client did not have glassy or bloodshot eyes. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to detain his client. Therefore, the Judge suppressed all evidence that was obtained as a result of his Client’s unlawful detention, which included all field sobriety tests and the breath test result of 0.81%. Because the majority of the evidence was suppressed, the District Attorney was forced to dismiss the case.

FINANCIAL ADVISOR FACING MANDATORY 60-DAYS IN JAIL AND A 1 YEAR LOSS OF LICENSE HAS CASE DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE.

Client, a 33 year-old financial advisor from Easton, was pulled over by State Police for a motor vehicle infraction. Client had a prior conviction for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI). In addition, prior to being pulled over in this case, Client had been arrested for a Second-Offense OUI. When the Client was pulled over in this case, his driver license was suspended for 180 days because he refused the Breathalyzer Test when he was arrested for the second-offense OUI. The Client was arrested and charged with Operating with a Suspended License while his License was suspended for OUI pursuant to G.L. c. 90, § 23 and, if convicted for this offense, the Client was facing a mandatory jail sentence of 60 days and a 1-year mandatory loss of license.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the Judge and the Assistant District Attorney to dismiss the charge upon the payment of court costs and Attorney Noonan saved his client from serving 60 days in jail and having a 1-year loss of license.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 0403

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO ORDER DRUG TREATMENT INSTEAD OF JAIL TIME FOR MAN WHO OVERDOSED ON HEROIN WITH AUTISTIC CHILD IN CAR.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the Mobile Gas Station in Brockton for a report of a male who had overdosed in his car with a small child in the backseat. When officers arrived, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel with the engine running, the car in gear, and the car in reverse. Officers had to smash the window to gain access to the Defendant who was unconscious. Defendant had overdosed after injecting himself with heroin. Officers had to administer two separate doses of the overdose-reversing drug Narcan in order to revive the Defendant. The Defendant’s 10 year-old severely autistic son was in the backseat. The child was unable to speak due to his severe autism. Police found heroin and syringes in the car. The heroin was tested and found to contain the highly volatile substance Fentanyl. The Defendant admitted to police that he drove to the gas station and that he consumed heroin. Defendant was charged with: Operating under the Influence of Drugs, Child Endangerment, and Possession of Fentanyl.

Result: The case was un-triable, as the Commonwealth would have little difficulty proving its case. Attorney Noonan had no alternative but to plea his client out. The District Attorney asked the Judge to lock the Defendant up for 90 days. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that his client be given a suspended sentence, instead of jail time, and placed on probation for three years with conditions aimed at treating his drug addiction. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and imposed a suspended sentence of 6 months with three years of probation and conditions of drug treatment.

“Brockton overdosed driver avoids jail time in favor of treatment.” http://saugus.wickedlocal.com/news/20170224/brockton-overdosed-driver-avoids-jail-time-in-favor-of-treatment

OUI-SERIOUS BODILY INJURY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Defendant was alleged to have caused a major motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to his passenger and himself. Defendant was driving a vehicle on Route 24 South with a female passenger in the front seat. Witnesses told police that they saw the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed and abruptly swerve into the Burger King rest area and then crash into the rear of a parked 18-wheel tractor-trailer. The vehicle was completely crushed and lodged underneath the rear of the tractor-trailer. Upon arrival, Defendant and the passenger were unconscious and unresponsive. As the Defendant was unconscious in the driver’s seat, police officers detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The Defendant and the female passenger were taken by helicopter to the Rhode Island Hospital. The female passenger remained in the hospital for nearly one month. She sustained serious bodily injuries, including: partial blindness in one eye, head trauma, broken bones (especially in the legs), and internal injuries. Police interviewed the Defendant’s wife who stated that the Defendant had issues with alcohol and cocaine use. Police interviewed the Defendant who admitted to consuming beer prior to the accident.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan examined a civilian witness who was the first responder. Prior to any police arriving to the scene, this witness went over to the vehicle, looked in, and checked on the status of the Defendant and passenger. This witness attempted to speak to them but received no response. This witness physically went inside the vehicle and physically extricated the female passenger from the vehicle. The witness was unable to extricate the Defendant. During Attorney Noonan’s examination, the witness stated that he did not detect any odor of alcohol inside the vehicle and he did not detect any odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant – which was inconsistent with the reports of police that they detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant, as he lay unconscious in the driver’s seat. The Commonwealth sought to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records from the Rhode Island Hospital. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the Commonwealth’s request to subpoena the hospital records – but a Brockton District Court Judge issued a court order for the Defendant’s hospital records. In order to lawfully obtain a person’s medical records from the Rhode Island Hospital, the requesting party must comply with the laws of Rhode Island. Here, the Commonwealth obtained a Massachusetts Court Order, but did not comply with Rhode Island law. Attorney Noonan pressed hard for a trial date. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. The Commonwealth requested a continuance in order to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the continuance and stated that he was ready for trial. The Commonwealth was unable to proceed without any medical evidence. As a result, the case was dismissed on the trial date. Had the client been convicted, he faced a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an automatic 2-year loss of license. The Defendant owned and operated a professional truck driving business and his business would have been ruined if he were convicted.

DANGEROUSNESS HEARING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

Fall River Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle crash involving two vehicles. Officers observed front-end damage to the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers observed rear-end damage to the second vehicle. The operator of the second vehicle told police that he pulled over to the right-hand side of the road to take a phone call when he was rear-ended by the Defendant’s vehicle. The other operator had to assist the Defendant from his vehicle. The other operator told police that he believed the Defendant to be intoxicated. Upon speaking with the Defendant, police immediately observed a strong odor of alcohol, glazed eyes, and slurred speech. Defendant agreed to participate in field sobriety tests. Defendant failed all the field sobriety tests. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor, Negligent Operation, and Marked Lanes Violation. During booking, police discovered that the Defendant had three prior convictions for OUI-Liquor with the most recent conviction being in 2015. Defendant was arraigned on the charge of OUI-Liquor Subsequent Offense. Because this was the Defendant’s fourth offense for OUI-Liquor, the Commonwealth moved to have the Defendant held in custody during the pendency of his case under the Dangerousness Statute. The Commonwealth argued that: based upon the nature of the offense and the Defendant’s criminal history, no conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community. If successful, the Defendant could be held in custody for up to 180 days.

Result: At the conclusion of the dangerousness hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in persuading the court to release the Defendant from custody. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there were conditions that the court could impose that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan advocated that the court impose certain strict conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. The Judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s recommendation and released the Defendant upon certain strict conditions. As a result, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saved his client from serving considerable jail time (up to 180 days), as his case was pending.

OUI-LIQUOR (subsequent offense): NOT GUILTY

A Bourne Police Officer conducting radar patrol on the highway detected the Defendant’s vehicle traveling at 86 mph and stopped his vehicle. The officer approached the Defendant on the driver’s side. The officer noticed that Defendant stared straight-forward when answering the officer’s questions. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol. When the officer asked whether the amount of alcohol he consumed would affect his ability to operate his vehicle the Defendant answered “sure.” When speaking to the Defendant outside the vehicle, the officer had to ask the Defendant repeatedly to remove his hands from his pockets. The officer noted that the Defendant was belligerent, argumentative and defiant when asked questions. The Defendant would sigh and curse. The Defendant passed the Alphabet Test. With regards to the Counting Test, the Defendant said, “You fucking do it.”

Result: After a bench trial in which Attorney Gerald J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the officer, the judge found the Defendant Not Guilty. The Defendant was charged with second offense OUI and had a third OUI pending at the time of trial. Attorney Noonan saved his client from facing a third offense OUI.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A civilian witness testified that she was driving on Route 3 South when she was almost struck by a large SUV driving erratically. She followed the SUV and observed that it was “all over the road” in that it almost struck the guardrail in the breakdown lane. A State Trooper observed the SUV driving erratically at a high speed and almost hit the guardrail. There was a passenger passed out in the front seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol. The Defendant failed all three field sobriety tests. At the police station, Defendant was verbally assaultive and uncooperative.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense) NOT GUILTY

An off-duty sheriff testified that he was returning home from work when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut him off, travel at a high rate of speed, cross over the center line four times, travel in the opposite lane, and almost strike the shoulder of the road. The sheriff observed the Defendant slam on his brakes at a stop sign and skid to a stop with his vehicle parallel to oncoming traffic. The sheriff conducted a motor vehicle stop and radioed police. Police observed a half-empty 12 pack of beer in his car. Police observed that his speech was very slurred, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one-legged stand tests. A portable breath test gave a result of 0.19%. During booking, Defendant stated that he had stopped drinking for four years and all it takes is “a few too many.”

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A gas station employee called 911 and reported that the Defendant pulled into the gas station and exited his vehicle and appeared to be very drunk and observed that the Defendant had fallen over. Police arrived and observed that the Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, that his eyes were bloodshot and red, and that he was very unsteady on his feet. The police officer testified that he could not conduct any physical field sobriety tests because the Defendant was “highly intoxicated.” The police officer testified that he did not administer any physical field sobriety tests because he was concerned that the Defendant would fall and injure himself.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY

On July 8, 2013, Detective O’Connor of the Stoughton Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Park Street / Route 27 in the town of Stoughton without any headlights on. Defendant committed a marked lanes violation and almost struck the police cruiser causing Detective O’Connor to swerve to the right in order to avoid a collision. Detective O’Connor pulled the Defendant over in a parking lot. When approached, Defendant looked at the Detective with a blank stare. She did not roll down her window. When she opened her door, the detective was “struck with an over powering odor of alcohol.” He observed that the Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot. Defendant’s speech was slurred. She could not locate her license or registration. Defendant admitted to consuming wine. Defendant had to use her vehicle and lean against the vehicle for balance. Defendant failed the one-legged stand and nine-step walk and turn. When arrested, Defendant gave a false last name. After a jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained a not guilty verdict and the jury only deliberated for approximately 30 minutes. Attorney Noonan thoroughly discredited the arresting officer. In addition, Attorney Noonan showed that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field sobriety tests were due to the fact that she was wearing flip-flops, which impeded her performance. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer’s description of the Defendant’s vehicle, as contained in his police report, was totally wrong. Attorney Noonan presented testimony from witnesses showing that the Defendant consumed wine at her home, was not intoxicated, and left the home to pick up her niece at work in Stoughton when she was pulled over and arrested.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets a Not Guilty on OUI-Liquor charge.

OUI DRUGS: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAW: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE
FAILURE TO STOP FOR POLICE: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE

Client, 55 year-old, professional van driver, was arrested and charged with OUI (drugs) and other charges stemming from an incident on February 16, 2012. A State Trooper observed the Defendant’s vehicle speeding in Brockton and attempted to pull him over for Speeding. A total of three state police cruisers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle in an effort to effectuate a motor vehicle stop. Eventually, one police cruiser boxed Defendant’s vehicle in. The state trooper removed Defendant from the driver’s seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant and observed that the Defendant had urinated in his pants. Defendant’s speech was slurred and his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The Defendant admitted to consuming vodka or schnapps. Defendant stated that he ingested Xanax, Percocet, and Vicodin in combination with the vodka / schnapps. Police found syringes loaded with Heroin, burn spoons, glass pipes, and soaked cotton swabs in the vehicle. Defendant was administered and failed the HGN test, Hand Eye Coordination Test, Alphabet Test, One-Leg Stand, and Nine Step Walk and Turn. For 28 years, Defendant was employed as a professional van driver transporting elderly and disabled people. After his arrest, his employer laid him off and Defendant remained out of work during the pendency of his case. Defendant collected unemployment, went on assistance, and collected food stamps.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed all charges “with prejudice,” which means that the prosecution can never pursue the charges again, and the client is able to return to work.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: NOT GUILTY

Client, 31-year-old teacher and high school basketball coach, was charged with Operating under the Influence and Operating to Endanger stemming from a three-car crash in which the Defendant lost control of his vehicle and struck two parked cars. Defendant admitted to consuming “mixed drinks” and failed all field sobriety tests. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully moved for a required finding of not guilty after establishing that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle in question. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan stated that the evidence showed two possible operators of the vehicle. When the police arrived, Defendant was standing next to the passenger side of the vehicle. The other occupant was being assisted by ambulance. The Commonwealth failed to present any evidence as to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty is allowed and client is acquitted and avoids losing his job as a school teacher.

Dedham District Court

OUI (4th Offense): REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR 2ND OFFENSE /
NO JAIL TIME

Client, 42-year-old photographer, was charged with Operating under the Influence (third offense) and Operating under the Influence (fourth offense). Defendant had two prior convictions for OUI in South Carolina and Georgia. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in attacking the validity of the prior out-of-state convictions thereby reducing both Massachusetts cases to misdemeanor second offenses. Both misdemeanor second offense cases were consolidated into one probationary sentence and the Defendant did not have to serve any jail time. Because the offenses were reduced to misdemeanors, Defendant was able to return home to California.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reduces fourth offense OUI to second offense OUI, saving his client a minimum mandatory jail sentence of one-year.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was traveling on a secluded country road when he lost control of his pickup truck and crashed into a stone wall. Defendant admitted to drinking six Heineken beers at a bar and he failed all field sobriety tests. In pretrial proceedings, Attorney Noonan obtained a court-order for the prosecution to provide him with the booking video of his arrest and his color booking photo. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss because the prosecution did not provide him with the booking video or booking photo. The judge continued the trial to give the prosecution another opportunity to provide defense counsel with the discovery. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the officer responsible for maintaining the booking videos and booking photos to appear at trial. At the second trial date, the prosecution did not provide the discovery to the Defendant. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the criminal complaints must be dismissed because the Commonwealth lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence by willfully disobeying court orders and dodging the subpoena.

Result: Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all charges were dismissed outright by the judge.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 24-year-old engineer with no criminal record, was charged with operating under the influence and negligent operation stemming from a rollover accident on Route 24 South in which the Defendant drove off the highway and crashed into unoccupied construction trucks and equipment, causing serious property damage. A State Trooper arrived on the scene and observed that the Defendant smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, had glassy / bloodshot eyes, and was unsteady on his feet. At a Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that the Defendant was impaired by alcohol.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against engineer with no criminal record.

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED

A State Trooper observed the Defendant speeding on Route 95 and clocked his speed at 82 mph. The Trooper observed the vehicle weaving and swerving and initiated a motor vehicle stop. The Trooper had to sound his air horn several times, sound his siren several times, and use his PA system several times to get the Defendant to pull over. The trooper detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was slurred and thick-tongued. The Defendant repeated the same number three times on the counting test. Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test and registered a blood alcohol content of 0.11. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed discovery motions to obtain all periodic testing and maintenance logs for the breath test machine because the Defendant’s first attempt at the breath test was terminated because the machine registered an “interference.” The case was scheduled for trial four times and Attorney Noonan appeared ready for trial each time. On the last trial date, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to comply with court orders to provide the Defendant with the breathalyzer discovery, which was exculpatory because the BT machine malfunctioned during the Defendant’s first attempt to provide a sample.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against business executive.

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED
DISTURBING THE PEACE: DISMISSED

A civilian witness called the Whitman Police to report a motor vehicle accident in which he was struck by a purple Jeep and two men fled on foot. One suspect was described as wearing a white shirt and the other suspect was described as wearing an orange shirt. Moments later, a male party (co-defendant) approached the scene on foot and told police that he was riding as a passenger in the Jeep. Later, a K-9 located the Defendant in the woods approximately 100 feet away. The co-defendant pled Guilty to Witness Intimidation. The defense was premised on the argument that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant (and not the co-defendant) was the operator of the purple Jeep. See Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470 (1988). On April 7, 2011, the case was scheduled for trial and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan appeared ready. The Commonwealth requested a continuance because the eyewitness failed to appear. Attorney Noonan objected to the continuance and moved for dismissal.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all charges, including OUI-Liquor, dismissed against sheet metal worker.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED

On October 23, 2008, Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle struck a telephone pole and he was taken by ambulance to the emergency room. Defendant was not placed under arrest or charged with a crime. On January 14, 2009, a criminal complaint issued against the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. On December 17, 2009, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaints because his client was denied the opportunity to appear at a clerk-magistrate’s hearing and to challenge the probable cause needed to charge him with the offense. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report contained insufficient probable cause that the defendant was under the influence.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed. The Commonwealth decided not to pursue the charges after the criminal complaint was dismissed.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

On June 1, 2008, police were dispatched for a caller reporting an erratic operator. The caller was actually following the Defendant while reporting the information to police. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and observed her cross the yellow center line. Defendant did not pull over right away but continued traveling for another fifty yards before finally pulling over to the very edge of the roadway. The officer asked Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. She stated that she had been coming from a wedding and denied drinking any alcohol. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breathe and he observed that her eyes were bloodshot. Defendant exited the vehicle in bare-feet stating that she had been wearing heels all night. Defendant failed all field sobriety tests, which included the one-legged stand and nine-step walk and turn. During booking, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet, that she walked into a wall, and that she almost fell into the hallway when being escorted to her cell. The officer stated that the Defendant’s face was flush, that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that she appeared to be confused. Three months prior to her arrest, Defendant was convicted of OUI-Liquor having registered a blood alcohol content of .22, making this a second offense. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan called a mechanic to testify. The mechanic had inspected and test-driven the Defendant’s vehicle and he testified that the vehicle would drift in a certain direction because the alignment was bad. Attorney Noonan called a witness who testified that he attended the wedding with the Defendant prior to the arrest and that he sat at the same table with her during the wedding. The witness testified that he did not observe the Defendant consume any alcohol at the wedding and that she appeared sober at the wedding. Finally, Attorney Noonan impeached the officer by introducing Defendant’s color booking photo, which showed that her eyes were clear and face was normal in contradiction to the officer’s testimony that her face was flush and that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict on second offense OUI saving his client from possible 60 days in jail and a three-year suspension of driver’s license.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY

On November 29, 2006, Boston Police officers heard a vehicle spinning its tires and rapidly accelerating on Harvard Ave. in Brighton. The officers then stopped Defendant’s vehicle on Harvard Ave. The officer, in fear for his safety, immediately removed the operator from the vehicle. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the operator and the officer observed that his eyes were extremely bloodshot and glassy. Defendant’s speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed all four field sobriety tests, which included the nine step walk and turn, the one-legged stand, the counting test, and the alphabet test. At the police station, Defendant took a breathalyzer test and registered a blood alcohol content of 0.11.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty on OUI-Liquor charge against defendant with 0.11 blood alcohol content.

OUI-LIQUOR (0.19 BAC) NOT GUILTY

Hanover Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident in which a motor vehicle had ended up in a wooded area. Upon arrival, the police officer observed a red pick-up truck in the woods approximately 15-feet off the roadway. The motor vehicle was damaged and hit several branches. There was no one inside the vehicle. The officer observed approximately 100 feet of skid marks leading up to the motor vehicle. While checking the area for the operator, Defendant approached the police officer. The officer asked who he was to which the Defendant replied, “It’s my truck.” The officer asked him if he was driving the truck and the Defendant replied, “Yeah, I don’t know what the fuck happened.” The officer observed that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. Defendant stated to the officer, “I’m fucked.” Defendant failed all field sobriety tests, which included the alphabet test, the counting test, the nine step heel-to-toe test, and the one-legged stand. Back at the police station, Defendant agreed to take a breath test and his blood alcohol content was 0.19, more than double the legal limit. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acquitted his client of OUI-Liquor by attacking the Commonwealth’s case by showing that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant was the “operator” of the motor vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty on OUI-Liquor charge where defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.19.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY

A State Trooper observed the Defendant passed his police cruiser on Route 91 South traveling at a high rate of speed in excess of 100 mph. The Trooper pursued the Defendant’s vehicle reaching speeds in excess of 100 mph and at one point clocked his speed at 110 mph. The Trooper detected an odor of alcohol and a faint odor of burnt marijuana emitting from the Defendant’s vehicle. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot that his speech was slurred and that he appeared lethargic. Defendant accused the Trooper of racially profiling him and being trigger happy. Defendant admitted to consuming two beers. Defendant failed the alphabet test. On the one-legged stand, Defendant raised his leg above the requested six-inches to thigh level because she wanted to “do extra.” However, the Trooper noted that he counted to seven and put his foot down on the ground. Defendant failed the finger-to-nose test on five attempts. At the police station, Defendant was argumentative and uncooperative. He immediately stated, “I have to piss.” He accused the Trooper of having a quota. He refused to tell the Trooper that phone number and the name of the person he called from the police station. During booking, Defendant unbuttoned his shirt, got on his knees, and raised his arms saying. “I’ll get naked, whatever you want me to do.” Defendant then fell asleep in his cell.

Result: After a three-day trial in the Lawrence District Court, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict for his client.

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED

Client, a senior at Stonehill College, was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. On March 25, 2005, Bridgewater Police were dispatched for a report of a suspicious vehicle in a driveway. Upon arrival, Police observed the vehicle backing out of the driveway. Police followed the vehicle, which pulled forward and stopped. The officer approached the vehicle and knocked on the window. The officer asked the operator to turn down the radio but the operator turned off the ignition. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the operator’s breath, that his speech was slurred, and that his eyes were glassy. Defendant could not locate his registration. The Defendant failed the alphabet test. The officer asked the Defendant to touch his left index finger to his nose but the Defendant bent over and touched his toes. The Defendant could not touch the tip of his nose with his index finger. Finally, the Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn after several attempts. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case and no criminal complaint issued against his client and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained an order restoring the Defendant’s driver’s license.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against college student and his driver’s license restored.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENTY OPERATION: NOT GUILTY
LEAVING SCENE PROPERTY DAMAGE: NOT GUILTY

Easton Police responded to a hit-and-run accident. Stonehill students were traveling in a vehicle and attempted to make a left-hand turn into the campus entrance. Defendant’s vehicle attempted to pass the Stonehill vehicle on the left, as it was making the left-hand turn. Defendant’s vehicle smashed into the driver’s side of the Stonehill vehicle then fled the scene pulling into a parking lot approximately one-half mile down the road. The Stonehill student called 911 and gave the police the Defendant’s registration. An SUV traveling behind the Stonehill vehicle followed the Defendant’s vehicle to the parking lot. Upon arrival, officers observed two males attempting to change the front passenger side tire of the vehicle, which had been extensively damaged from a collision. Defendant admitted to police that he was the operator and that he had gotten into and accident and was changing the tire. After three requests, Defendant was able to produce his license and registration. Defendant admitted to having two beers at the Union Villa Bar. Defendant then changed is story by saying that he had been at Owen O’Leary’s and had two beers and a shot of Vodka. Defendant stated that he had been drinking “Bud” and then stated that he had been drinking “draft.” Officers detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. Officers observed that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was thick and slurred. After three attempts, Defendant failed the alphabet test. After two attempts, Defendant failed the one-legged stand. Lastly, Defendant failed the nine step walk-and-turn. An identified witness informed police that he observed one of the male’s throw a cooler over the wooden fence. A search of the backseat found ice and two cold Michelob beers. During the booking process, Defendant became argumentative and confrontational, which was captured on videotape. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acquitted his client on all charges by arguing that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proof on an essential element of the crime; that the Defendant (and no one else) was the “operator” of the motor vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor, against Navy man.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN AND PATRICK J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND RECKLESS OPERATION CASE AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)) and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The prosecution introduced the following evidence at trial: A Westwood Police Officer was on patrol in the parking lot of the Marriot Hotel when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving around the parking lot and driving around in circles with no headlights. The officer followed the vehicle, as it exited the parking lot still with no headlights on. The vehicle went through a stop sign without stopping and began to travel the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. The prosecution argued that the Defendant could have killed or seriously injured someone by traveling the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed a rear seat passenger drinking out of a Corona beer bottle. There were three passengers in the car. A search of the car revealed an open Corona beer bottle and a nearly empty Corona beer bottle in the backseat. The prosecution introduced photos of the beer bottles for the jury. The officer asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and to perform field sobriety tests. On the first test, the One-Leg Stand test, the officer testified that the Defendant almost hopped into the street. The officer had to terminate the test because he was concerned for the Defendant’s safety. On the next test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the Defendant repeatedly told the officer that he felt pressured into performing the test. The officer then administered the Alphabet test and testified that the Defendant recited the letter “z” out of order. The officer testified that the Defendant continuously swayed throughout his encounter with him. The officer testified that the Defendant swayed back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” The officer testified that the Defendant had a “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was “extremely slurred” and that he had bloodshot eyes.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer for over an hour and attacked his credibility. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer did not ask the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions prior to administering the field sobriety tests. Officers are taught and trained to ask someone if they have any physical or medical conditions because those factors may affect their performance on the field sobriety tests. In this case, Defendant had a pinched nerve in his back from a prior car accident, which caused numbness in his left leg. Although the arresting officer testified that the Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, a back-up officer testified that the Defendant did not have a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The most crucial piece of evidence was the booking video, which served to discredit the officer’s testimony. In his closing argument, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that Defendant appeared sober on the video and did not exhibit the signs of intoxication, as testified to by the police officer. On the video, Defendant was not swaying back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” There was nothing on the video to substantiate the officer’s testimony that the Defendant’s balance was so bad that he almost hopped into the street. The officer testified that he had to physically assist the Defendant out of the police cruiser and escort him into the police station. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the video told a completely different story. Specifically, the video showed the Defendant getting out of the police cruiser, with no assistance from anyone and with no difficulty, even though he had both arms handcuffed behind his back. Defendant walked into the police station with perfect gait and without any assistance. Attorney Noonan highlighted certain portions of the video, which demonstrated the Defendant’s sobriety. Although the Defendant drove the wrong way down the street, he immediately apologized to the officer and admitted that he made a mistake. After a two-day trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on all charges.

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEYS PATRICK J. NOONAN AND GERALD J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A WALTHAM MAN WHO ALMOST DROVE HIS VEHICLE INTO SOMEBODY’S HOUSE.

Defendant, a self-employed Realtor from Waltham, caused a major car accident in Watertown. Defendant lost control of his vehicle, drove through two sign posts, crashed through a fence and almost drove into the front of somebody’s house. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence. Upon arrival to the car accident in Watertown, a Watertown Police Officer testified to the severity of the crash, which caused significant damage to the Defendant’s vehicle rendering it inoperable and a total loss. The Defendant was immediately uncooperative with police. They asked him to remain in his vehicle but he refused and exited the vehicle. He was described as argumentative. The officer alleged that the Defendant was unable to recall where he was coming from. The Defendant admitted to consuming two or possibly three beers. He had an odor of alcohol on his breath. His speech was slurred. The officer decided to conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs). When walking to the location of the FSTs, Defendant was “extremely unsteady on his feet.” Defendant almost fell to the ground but the officers caught him. Defendant dropped his wallet on the ground. He mumbled to himself and spoke with slurred speech. Defendant was instructed to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn test. However, the Defendant continually interrupted the officer and attempted to start the test, on two occasions, before the officer had an opportunity to finish her instructions. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn test, the officer noted that the Defendant stumbled, did not walk heel to tow, did not count the steps out loud, used his arms for balance, and took the incorrect number of steps. On the One-Leg Stand test, the officer noted that on the Defendant’s first attempt he could only raise his leg for one-second and his body was tipping. On his second attempt, Defendant swayed and almost fell to the ground before the officers caught him. Defendant could not recite the Alphabet. After his arrest, Defendant was booked at the Watertown Police Station. The booking officer testified that he could detect an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant during the booking process. The arresting officer stated that the Defendant was unsteady during booking.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called, as a witness, a police officer from the neighboring town of Belmont to testify. Just minutes prior to the car accident in Watertown (which resulted in the Defendant’s arrest for OUI), Defendant was involved in a minor car accident in the town of Belmont where he rear-ended another vehicle. A Belmont Police Officer investigated the minor car accident in Belmont and interviewed the Defendant. At the conclusion of her investigation, the Belmont Officer gave the Defendant a warning for following too closely and she allowed the Defendant to leave the scene and drive away in his vehicle. Attorney Noonan questioned the Belmont Officer who testified that she did not observe any signs of intoxication by the Defendant and she found that the Defendant was sober. Attorney Noonan established that the accident in Belmont (where the Belmont Officer found him to be sober) occurred just minutes prior to the accident in Watertown. Therefore, just minutes prior to his arrest for OUI-Liquor in Watertown, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that another officer from Belmont found the Defendant to be sober. At the scene of the Watertown car accident, Defendant was evaluated by EMTS prior to the officer administering his FSTs. Defendant refused medical treatment. Attorney Noonan introduced the ambulance report, which showed that the EMTs did not observe any signs that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan also introduced medical records of the Defendant showing that he had chronic medical issues, which could have affected his ability to perform the FSTs. Finally, Attorney Noonan introduced portions of the Defendant’s booking video, which showed evidence of the Defendant’s sobriety. After a two-day jury trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS A NOT GUILTY IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO CAUSED A SERIOUS CAR ACCIDENT AND HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF .214%.

Defendant, a Brockton man, was traveling on Route 24 South in Randolph when he caused a serious motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that the Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed and rear-ended another vehicle causing both vehicles to spin out of control and end up off the highway. The Defendant’s vehicle rolled over multiple times and ended up in the woods. Defendant caused significant damage to the rear of the other vehicle. There were three occupants in the other vehicle. Upon arrival, Defendant did not follow the instructions of the officers. Officers observed that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath; he spoke with slurred speech, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant admitted to consuming two beers. Defendant was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The investigating officer went to the hospital where he spoke with the Defendant. The officer made the same observations of the Defendant’s sobriety that he made at the scene. The officer formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. At the hospital, Defendant’s blood was drawn and tested for alcohol. The blood test revealed that the Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .214%, which is well over the legal limit of 0.08%.

Result: Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who fast-tracked the case to trial before the District Attorney’s Office had an opportunity to subpoena his client’s hospital records and find out that he had a blood alcohol level of .214%. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant sustained a head injury and bodily injuries in the crash. In his cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Noonan got the officer to admit that his observations of the Defendant’s alleged intoxication could have been symptoms from the crash and his injuries as opposed to signs of alcohol consumption. For example, Defendant’s unsteadiness on his feet, slurred speech, and his inability to follow the instructions of police could have been symptoms from his head and bodily injuries, and not symptoms of intoxication. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was intoxicated. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant Not Guilty.

WHITMAN MAN IS CHARGED WITH OUI-LIQUOR (2ND OFFENSE) AFTER HE CRASHES INTO UTILITY POLE, TELLS POLICE OFFICER, “I KNOW I’M GOING TO JAIL FOR THIS,” AND HAS A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.249%. CLIENT AVOIDS A CONVICTION, JAIL TIME, AND A 3-YEAR LOSS OF LICENSE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE JUDGE TO TREAT THIS CASE AS A 1ST OFFENSE OUI.

Defendant, a 38 year-old Whitman man, was driving erratically and struck a utility pole with such force as to snap the pole at its base. A concerned citizen called 911. Upon arrival, the officer observed that the Defendant was highly intoxicated. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant’s eyes were red and glassy. When asked for his license, Defendant attempted to open his car door and fell to the ground. The officer could not administer any field sobriety tests due to the fact that the Defendant could not stand and was falling over. Defendant told the officer, “I know I’m going to jail for this.” Defendant was transported to the hospital where they tested his blood for alcohol. Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.249%, which is three times over the legal limit. Defendant was charged with a second offense OUI (as he was previously convicted of OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The District Attorney’s Office had an expert ready to testify at trial that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.249%.

Result: Although charged with a second-offense OUI, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to sentence his client to a first-offense OUI pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). Defendant received a Continuance without a Finding (CWOF) with one-year of probation instead of a Guilty. If the Defendant successfully completes probation, the case will be dismissed. With this first offense disposition, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for only 45 days. If he was sentenced to a second offense OUI, Defendant would have lost his driver’s license for 3 years. With a Cahill disposition, the Registry of Motor Vehicles must honor the decision of the court to treat a second offense OUI as a 1st offense if it occurs more than 10 years from the date of the 1st drunk driving conviction. It should be noted that the District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s request for the judge to treat this case as a 1st offense OUI and the Commonwealth requested a Guilty finding with a suspended jail sentence.

Click Here to Read Enterprise Newspaper Article:  “What Whitman main charged with drunken driving told police.”

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR OUI-LIQUOR DISMISSED AT A CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO CRASHED INTO POLICE CRUISERS AND ADMITTED TO POLICE THAT HE HAD SEVERAL SHOTS OF LIQUOR AND WAS TIPSY.

Defendant was watching a Red Sox playoff game with his family at his home. He ordered some take-out food. While driving to pick up his food, Defendant lost control of his vehicle and struck two parked police cruisers at a high rate of speed. An officer was inside one of the parked cruisers and temporarily lost consciousness from the high-impact crash. Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath and he admitted to consuming several shots of liquor. He told another officer, “I’m not going to lie. I’m tipsy.” Defendant stated, several times, that he was “tipsy.” Defendant was taken to the hospital. Another officer interviewed the Defendant at the hospital. Several officers had formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant was charged with OUI-Liquor and Speeding.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that his client consumed some alcohol but was not under the influence of alcohol. Although one officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, another officer detected only a faint odor of alcohol. Attorney Noonan stressed that an officer conducted a lengthier interview of the Defendant at the hospital and this officer did not form the opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. This officer was in the best position to make observations of the Defendant and form an opinion on his sobriety. Specifically, the only indication of alcohol use noted by this officer was a faint odor of alcohol. The officer noted that the Defendant was steady on his feet and spoke in a normal tone of voice. Attorney Noonan argued that the observations by officers of signs of intoxication were actually symptoms from the car crash and not from alcohol use. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint for OUI-Liquor.