Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Community Caretaking Eliminated as Grounds for Warrantless Entry into Homes

The community caretaking exception once allowed police officers to carry out warrantless searches of residences in the United States – and in Massachusetts. Under this doctrine, a police officer can legally enter someone’s home without a warrant while carrying out a “wellness check.” At first glance, this might seem like a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment. After all, police officers should be able to help citizens struggling with urgent health issues without wasting time obtaining a warrant. But when you consider this exception in more detail, the potential for abuse is clear. A recent case in Massachusetts has eliminated the “community caretaking” exception for warrantless entry. To learn more, consider discussing this new development alongside a Massachusetts defense attorney. 

Commonwealth Acknowledges That Community Caretaking Exception is No Longer Valid

In COMMONWEALTH vs. MARK TOMAS REGAN, the courts found that the community caretaking exception to warrantless entries is no longer valid. This case involved a defendant who was found inside a residence with a deceased individual, and the defendant attempted to argue that the police violated his constitutional rights by entering his home without a warrant. 

The officers in question entered the home on the basis of a “community wellness check.” They had been told by numerous parties – including the victim’s family – that something was wrong. These family members suspected that the victim may have suffered some kind of health emergency, as he was an elderly individual with known health problems. The victim’s brother also appeared at the victim’s residence and urged police to enter. 

After entering, the police encountered the defendant in close proximity to the body. They also located firearms and ammunition. In an attempt to adhere to the Fourth Amendment, they claimed to have “frozen” the crime scene after initially entering and removing the defendant. They then exited, obtained a warrant, and re-entered.  

In reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the court upheld his murder conviction. However, they vacated his firearm and ammunition charges. 

In justifying their decision, the court accepted that the United States Supreme Court had ruled (two years after the defendant’s conviction) that wellness checks no longer allow police officers to carry out warrantless entries. They also specifically stated that “the Massachusetts Constitution may not provide less protection to defendants than the Federal Constitution,” and “the community caretaking doctrine is insufficient to justify a warrantless entry.” 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Attorney Help With Warrantless Entries into My Home?

If you are facing criminal charges because a police officer entered your home without a warrant, consider a consultation with an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer. With help from Edward R. Molari, you may be able to avoid criminal charges by raising a Fourth Amendment defense. Because the community caretaking exception has now been eliminated, it may be easier to raise this defense in Massachusetts than ever before. Book your consultation today to learn more. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Motion to Suppress
Murder
Search and Seizure
Reasonalbe Suspicion

New Jury Instruction on “Incarcerated Informant Testimony” in Massachusetts

Some people might regard witnesses in criminal cases as heroes – brave souls who stand up to alleged criminals with powerful testimony. To others, these individuals are nothing more than “snitches” – opportunistic individuals who will do anything to survive. At the end of the day, context is important. Can you really trust the testimony of someone who works out a deal with prosecutors? Is this testimony really valid if the witness receives a shorter sentence in return? New jury instruction on “incarcerated informant testimony” (ie. snitch testimony) sheds light on this complex issue, and you can discuss the subject further with a Massachusetts defense attorney.  

In Commonwealth v. Paul Francis, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dealt with a murder case where the key evidence was the testimony of an incarcerated informant. The informant claimed that Paul Francis had confessed to the crime while they were both in jail. The court expressed concerns about the reliability of such testimony, as informants often have incentives like reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation. As a result, the court established a new requirement that juries must receive specific instructions to critically assess the credibility of incarcerated informants.

Case Background:

Paul Francis was convicted of a 1996 murder based largely on the testimony of an incarcerated informant, who alleged that Francis confessed to the killing while in prison. The informant's testimony became central to the prosecution’s case, raising concerns about the reliability of informant testimony—particularly when such witnesses may be incentivized by the possibility of sentence reductions or other benefits. The case drew attention to the broader issue of wrongful convictions tied to informant testimony, which is often difficult to verify independently.

Court’s Decision:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that juries must receive tailored instructions on how to evaluate the testimony of incarcerated informants. These instructions should emphasize the need for jurors to approach such testimony with caution, considering factors like the informant's potential motives and the possibility of fabrication. The decision represents a significant step in strengthening protections against wrongful convictions and ensuring that juries are fully informed about the inherent risks associated with informant testimony.

This new jury instruction requirement seeks to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions that stem from unreliable or incentivized informant testimony, marking a significant development in Massachusetts’ legal landscape.

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me Address Snitch Testimony?

Edward R. Molari can help defendants approach witness testimony with confidence. Although it might seem daunting to face testimony from someone who claims to have knowledge of your alleged crimes, various strategies could be helpful in this scenario. Contact our law firm today to learn more about your legal options alongside an experienced Boston defense lawyer.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Murder
Armed Assault to Murder
Armed Assault to Rob

What are the Penalties in Massachusetts if I Cause a Fatal Crash in a Stolen Car?

Causing a fatal crash can lead to serious criminal charges, but doing so in a stolen vehicle may lead to even higher penalties. If defendants combine these offenses with operating under the influence (OUI), they face potential homicide charges. This became clear after a recent incident in Plainview that killed a 10-year-old child. If you face similar charges, you may want to get in touch with an experienced defense lawyer in Massachusetts. 

Man Pleads Not Guilty to Charges After Fatal Massachusetts Crash

A man from Massachusetts recently pleaded not guilty to 14 charges, all related to a fatal crash in Plainview. The crash occurred in August of 2024 and claimed the life of one child. The 42-year-old defendant has been accused of vehicular manslaughter, negligent operation, motor vehicle larceny, and assault with a dangerous weapon. Another report states that he faces an additional charge of vehicular manslaughter with OUI liquor. 

Police say that the defendant stole a Jeep Grand Cherokee from a parking lot outside a Kenny Chesney concert. The owners left the keys inside the vehicle, allowing the defendant to travel down Interstate 495. At some point during this journey, he collided with a Nissan Altima occupied by a family. The impact killed a 10-year-old and caused the other five family members to suffer various injuries. 

Police say that when they arrived, the defendant was highly disorientated. He allegedly believed that he was driving his wife’s car, and he was recorded making self-incriminating statements on numerous occasions. The first alleged statement was recorded during a phone call with his wife, during which the defendant reportedly admitted to having “one too many.” He then agreed to an audio-recorded interview with the police, during which he admitted to drinking during the concert. 

Probable Cause Hearing Set for September 19th

A probable cause hearing is set for September 19th, and there are a few things to note about his defense. First, he refused a blood test – so there may be minimal supporting evidence of his intoxication. Second, it may be difficult to convict him of auto theft if he genuinely believed he was driving his wife’s car. If his wife’s car is an identical model, he could realistically argue that he took the car by mistake – especially given the keys were sitting inside the vehicle. If he can avoid both the OUI and the auto theft charges, he may only face the remaining traffic violations. 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Lawyer Help After a Fatal Crash?

If you have been accused of causing a fatal car accident in Massachusetts, consider a consultation with a defense attorney. Choose Edward R. Molari and discuss your unique situation in more detail to assess potential defense strategies. The consequences of OUIs, fatal crashes, and auto theft can be very serious – especially when you commit them simultaneously. That being said, an experienced defense lawyer may be able to help you avoid some – or all – of these convictions. Reach out today to learn more about your options. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Prosecutors Charge Defendant With Witness Intimidation After Innocent Phone Call

Witness intimidation is a serious offense in Massachusetts. If convicted, you could spend up to 10 years in prison – and you might be forced to pay significant fines. However, it is important to recognize that the definition of witness intimidation is specific in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth cannot convict people of this crime on a whim, and a recent case shows that these prosecutions fall flat when made on flimsy foundations. Innocent conversations do not constitute witness intimidation, and you can fight these charges effectively alongside an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer.  

Commonwealth Reverses Witness Intimidation Conviction

In August 2024, the Commonwealth reversed a witness intimidation conviction stemming from a seemingly innocent phone call between a defendant and his fiancee. The call was recorded from a house of correction. The transcripts show a relatively tame discussion between the two parties, in which the defendant tried to convince his fiancee to avoid speaking with law enforcement officials. 

One might argue that he was simply instructing his fiancee to remain silent, which is a right afforded to everyone in the United States under the Constitution. During the call, he also promised to marry his fiancee when his legal issues had been resolved. It should be noted that the fiancee was the one complaining about the constant visits from police at her residence – and she seems to have been asking for advice on how to deal with this unwelcome attention. 

Perhaps most notably, the defendant at one point instructed his fiancee to “do whatever you choose to want to do” and to do “whatever you think that’s going to help you and benefit your situation.”

For whatever reason, the Commonwealth interpreted this as witness intimidation. They pointed out that the defendant had “conveyed an offer or promise” of something of value – presumably the promise to marry her. However, there are clear issues with this interpretation. 

The appellate court noted that equating a continued relationship with a “thing of value” was questionable. One might argue that as fiancees, this couple had already promised to get married long before the phone call was made. Reaffirming this promise is something that normal fiancees do. The court also found that the Commonwealth’s assertion that this promise represents intimidation was far too vague. The defendant did not specifically promise financial support, gifts, or anything else of that nature. He merely stated that he still wished to marry his partner.

Ultimately, the Supreme Judicial Court allowed for further appellate review. 

Find an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston

Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, witness intimidation, or a combination of both, it makes sense to consider your legal options alongside an experienced defense attorney in Boston. Edward R. Molari can help you push back against excessive penalties for crimes you never committed. Book a consultation today to discuss potential defense strategies in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

The “Staleness” of Gun Crime Evidence in Massachusetts

One of the most counterintuitive concepts in gun crime cases is something called the “staleness of evidence.” Essentially, this relates to the length of time that a piece of evidence (usually a firearm) can be linked to a gun crime in Boston. After a gun crime, how much time needs to pass before a suspect can carry a gun without suspicion? A few hours? A few days? This question was addressed by a recent case in Massachusetts.  

Firearm Found in Backpack Three Months After Murder

In August 2024, the Commonwealth rejected an argument from a defendant accused of murder in the second degree. The defendant argued that a firearm seized from his backpack should have been suppressed due to a variety of alleged issues – including a Fourth Amendment violation. 

The murder occurred in 2017. Caught on camera by surveillance cameras, the shooting occurred relatively quickly – with the suspect discharging several shots before fleeing. However, the surveillance video proved less important than the eyewitness who witnessed the murder while looking out of a nearby window. This witness conducted their own independent internet research and claimed to have discovered the identity of the defendant. 

The authorities finally tracked down the suspect three months later, proceeding to arrest him without a warrant before searching his vehicle and backpack. It was this backpack that contained the firearm, which was subsequently matched to the scene of the murder. 

Was This Evidence “Stale?”

In making its decision, the Commonwealth addressed the question of “staleness.” In particular, it notes that there would have been probable cause if the defendant had been arrested on the night of the murder. The fact that the defendant was likely to still have the firearm seems to have been sufficient in the eyes of the court. However, one has to question this logic – especially since one would “reasonably” expect a murderer to destroy or dispose of any evidence linking them to their alleged crime. This logic obviously applies to firearms. 

How long is too long when it comes to information that might indicate the presence of incriminating evidence? The Commonwealth points to two important factors in this situation: The nature of the crime and the nature of the item. Perhaps most notably, investigators must consider whether the item is “durable” enough to remain intact over the course of several months. 

While a firearm is obviously more durable than other evidence (including drugs), the three-month delay pushes previous boundaries. The Commonwealth could only point to one similar case, pointing out that a duration of six weeks indicated firearm evidence was “not stale.” There is obviously a notable difference between six weeks and three months. One might argue that both durations are unreasonable from the perspective of most people. 

Find an Experienced Gun Crime Defense Lawyer in Boston

If you have been searching for an experienced gun crime lawyer in Boston, look no further than Edward R. Molari. We have considerable experience with gun crime defense in Massachusetts, and we can help you explore various defense strategies. Reach out today to continue this discussion in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Firearms

Murder Charges Dropped in Massachusetts Due to Miranda Rights Violations

Although your Miranda Rights represent only a few words uttered by arresting officers, they are essential. If an officer fails to inform you of your rights before placing you under arrest or questioning you, you may avoid criminal consequences. This was made clear after a recent case, with a defendant avoiding a murder conviction in Massachusetts because he was never informed of his rights.  

Defendant Successfully Appeals Murder Conviction in Massachusetts

In July 2024, the Commonwealth agreed with a defendant who argued that his statements and certain evidence should have been suppressed. The defendant had previously been convicted of murder, and this conviction would have stood if this appeal had not been successful. Essentially, the officer who arrested and questioned the defendant forgot to read him his Miranda Rights. This alone seems to have been enough to avoid conviction. 

The Background of the Alleged Murder

This case revolves around an incident that occurred in 2017. On an October night, an officer found an individual lying on the street with various wounds. He was struggling to breathe and eventually died. An eyewitness claimed to have seen two people assaulting the individual before they ran down a nearby street. 

The officer called for backup and soon located four individuals nearby. These individuals allegedly dropped knives onto the ground as the officers approached, and the defendant was among them. Officers separated the defendant from the group, along with a woman who allegedly participated in the assault. An interrogation (some might call it an “interview”) soon followed. 

During this interview, the officer noticed that the defendant had blood on his shoes and asked where the blood came from. The defendant said that it was his own blood, but the officer did not believe him. As a result, the officer asked the defendant to hand over his shoes. The defendant complied and made several other statements during the interview. The authorities then matched a blood sample from the shoes to the victim, and the defendant was quickly charged with murder. 

Determining Whether the Defendant’s Rights Were Violated

In determining whether the defendant’s rights were violated, the court considered whether the defendant was in custody. This was a relatively easy question to answer since the defendant was placed in handcuffs during the interrogation. Clearly, he was not free to leave. In the words of the court, this represents “a physical restraint on freedom tantamount to arrest.” The court also considered whether the defendant represented a safety threat to the officers, which he did not. Finally, the court found that taking evidence from the defendant “exceeded general investigatory questioning.” Based on these factors, the court concluded that the defendant should have been informed of his Miranda Rights before the interview began. 

Find an Experienced Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

If you have been searching for an experienced defense attorney in Boston, look no further than Edward R. Molari. With our assistance, you can explore defense strategies targeted to your unique circumstances. Although it may be possible to avoid a conviction if the arresting officer failed to read you your Miranda Rights, there may be other ways to mitigate criminal consequences. Reach out today to continue this important discussion during a consultation. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Boston Police Searching for Suspects After Multiple Fourth of July Shootings

The Fourth of July can be a wonderful time of celebration in Boston, but it can also lead to instability and serious violence. Boston Police are trying to locate those responsible for multiple shootings during the celebratory holiday, and local residents are demanding answers. It goes without saying that the authorities are now facing serious pressure to ensure criminal consequences for the people who pulled the triggers. One can only hope that they do not sacrifice due process in their eagerness to provide “results” for the community.  

“String of Gun Violence” Reported in Boston Over the Fourth of July

Even before the fireworks began in Boston, gunfire rang out and sent people running for cover. This continued throughout the next few days, leaving two dead. A total of seven people were struck by rounds, and some have been seriously injured.  

The first incident occurred at about 1:30 AM on July 5th – while many were still celebrating. Three adults were hit by rounds in Jamaica Plain. About three minutes later, another shooting occurred in Roxbury, causing one death. Witnesses say that they heard approximately seven shots and immediately realized that they were not fireworks. 

A few hours passed before a third shooting at a gas station in Dorchester. This incident left one person with “life-threatening injuries.” Shootings continued into broad daylight the next day, and a fourth incident caused one death and two injuries. Police say that shots were fired in Mattapan at around 12:30 PM on July 5th – long after the celebrations had stopped. Police arrived to find two individuals inside a vehicle with gunshot wounds. While one individual survived after being transported to a nearby hospital, the other did not. 

Police are Facing Enormous Pressure to Find Those Responsible

Police in Boston are now facing serious pressure to find the people responsible for carrying out these shootings. The community is reeling, and the family members of the deceased individuals are undoubtedly demanding swift justice. One can only hope that they conduct their investigations in a logical, careful manner. It is all too easy to round up people who are only vaguely connected to shootings in Boston to satisfy the mob and their demands for justice. 

This pattern is not unique to Boston. Across the nation, numerous shootings occurred during the Fourth of July celebrations. According to AP News, at least 33 people died from gunshot wounds over the course of this 24-hour period. 

Find an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston

Time and time again, Boston Police have shown a willingness to “round up” numerous suspects after shootings – even if they’re not confident about their involvement. If you were wrongly accused of a shooting, you should get in touch with a Massachusetts defense attorney at your earliest convenience. With help from Edward R. Molari, you can strive for positive results and fight for your rights. Reach out today to book a consultation. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Expert Testimony on Drug Trafficking Lab Results in Boston

In order to convict someone of drug trafficking in Boston, prosecutors must first prove that the drugs in question actually exist. This almost always requires some degree of analysis in a laboratory. Lab technicians must determine that the substances recovered from the defendant are actually prohibited, and this may require significant analysis of the drug’s chemical structures. But what happens when the person who tested the drugs can’t testify? Can prosecutors call upon some other “substitute expert” to speak about the test results? This is a question that the Supreme Court of the United States was forced to answer.  

Supreme Court Sends Important Drug Trafficking Question Back to State Court

On June 21, the Supreme Court was asked to review a decision about a substitute expert in a drug case. The expert in question testified about analysis that he did not actually perform, and the defendant argued that this was a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Specifically, he argued that he had a right to face his accuser. This is also known as the “confrontation clause.” 

The Supreme Court mostly disagreed with this sentiment, although they left the door open for further debate in the future. Although the Justices were unanimous, many had very different things to say about how this type of situation should be handled. Justice Alito provided one of the most interesting comments, stating that the substitute expert “stepped over the line” and “testified to the truth of the matter asserted.” 

Could the Supreme Court Ban Substitute Experts?

Despite the unanimity of the Supreme Court's decision, the court may one day prevent substitute experts from testifying about drug analyses that they did not perform. Such testimony is routinely offered during drug trafficking trials in Massachusetts, and a potential Supreme Court decision could have serious implications. 

If prosecutors have no other choice but to locate the specific technician or analyst who performed the lab tests, they may struggle to get the testimony they need. It is much easier to find a random analyst who just so happens to work at the same lab, and this is a strategy that has served prosecutors well over the years. In the Commonwealth, prosecutors must present forensic evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the exact chemical composition of the drugs in question. 

Where Can I Find a Defense Attorney for Drug Distribution Charges in Boston?

If you are serious about fighting your drug distribution charges in Boston, contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law. We have helped numerous defendants over the years, including those who face drug trafficking charges. We know how crucial drug testing analysis can be, and we can help you fight for your constitutional rights during this legal process. Book your consultation today to discuss the most appropriate defense strategy in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Defendant Beats Drug and Firearm Charges in Massachusetts on Sixth Amendment Grounds

The right to a speedy trial can be helpful for those facing criminal charges in Massachusetts. This was made adamantly clear when the Commonwealth decided to drop all charges against a defendant who successfully argued his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. This situation illustrates when a Sixth Amendment defense might be useful, how much time needs to pass, and how defendants can implement this strategy when fighting drug and firearms charges in Massachusetts. 

Commonwealth vs. Juan Carlos Felix

In a recent case, the Commonwealth was left with no other choice but to reverse its judgments of conviction due to a successful Sixth Amendment defense. The case revolves around a defendant charged with possession of fentanyl, cocaine, firearms, and ammunition. He also faced a charge of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling. Although he was initially found guilty on all of these charges, he filed an appeal and claimed that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. Upon examining the case, the Commonwealth failed to justify the delays and let the man walk free. 

The incident involved an alleged shooting incident in Fitchburg. A witness initially saw a group of individuals in an armed altercation while driving through the area. Police arrived at the scene and found two of the three individuals walking nearby. One of these individuals was the defendant, who fled and tried to hide underneath a porch. However, he was apprehended and discovered with a firearm and various drugs. 

His indictment was issued by a grand jury on March 16th, 2017. About three months later, he attended the pretrial conference. Two weeks passed, and he filed a discovery motion – with a discovery hearing scheduled shortly afterward for September 2017. However, delays forced the Commonwealth to reschedule for October of that year. The defendant then filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was eventually denied in December 2017. By February of 2018, he had filed another motion. Eventually, a final pretrial conference was scheduled for April – but once again, the Commonwealth was forced to push the date back until June. 

It was not until a full year had passed that the actual trial was scheduled. Even then, the date was pushed back even further based on requests from both parties. These delays continued for years, and in October 2019, the defendant argued that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The court ignored this request and proceeded with a trial, which occurred on January 6th, 2020. 

The Commonwealth later acknowledged that it needed to justify trials that take more than one year to occur. Since this trial took not one but numerous years to actually occur, they had no choice but to conclude that the defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated. 

Find an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts

If you have been searching for an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Massachusetts, look no further than Edward R. Molari. The Sixth Amendment is just one potential defense strategy that may prove useful when fighting firearms or drug charges in the Commonwealth. To discuss other legal options, be sure to book a consultation at your earliest convenience. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Can Police Search My Criminal Record Just By Looking at My License Plate?

Your criminal record in Massachusetts is tied to your license plate number. Assuming the vehicle is registered in your name, there is nothing stopping police officers from running a criminal record check based only on your license plate number. Unlike a traffic stop, they do not need probable cause to do this. Since criminal records are public, virtually anyone could do the same. A recent case in Massachusetts shows that police may initiate traffic stops having already decided whether they want to search vehicles. 

Boston Police Fail to Mention Use of Criminal Record Check Before Search

In May of 2024, the official website of the Boston Police announced that they had successfully recovered a large-capacity firearm during a traffic stop in Roxbury. They claimed to have initiated the stop because the defendant "failed to stop at a stop sign" on two separate occasions. They proceeded to pull the defendant over. For whatever reason, the Boston Police found it necessary to mention that the defendant did not stop "immediately" – implying some kind of pursuit took place. However, the same report notes that the defendant complied and pulled over on Washington Street.

The police then claim to have noticed the man "visibly shaking" while handing over his license and registration. It's not clear whether this can be corroborated by bodycam footage – or any evidence other than the officers' testimony. 

The report then goes on to say that the officers made "multiple attempts" to extricate the driver from their vehicle. Again, it's not clear how exactly this happened. Did the officers merely request that the driver exit this vehicle, or did they physically remove him against his will? They then searched the man's body but ostensibly found nothing. Unsatisfied, they proceeded to search the vehicle and recovered a firearm. 

Police say that the Glock 23 handgun is stolen and that it features a 21-round magazine. They also mention that it has been fitted with a laser sight, although this is completely legal in Boston. As a result of this traffic stop, the defendant was charged with numerous firearms offenses and receiving stolen property. 

Did the Police Decide to Search His Vehicle Ahead of Time?

As most people know, police officers in the United States need a valid reason to search a vehicle due to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Based on this report, it seems that the Boston Police are trying very hard to justify pulling this man over under extremely flimsy circumstances. Most drivers would need to cause an accident to be pulled over for "not coming to a complete stop" at a stop sign.

The Boston Police also seem to imply that the defendant failed to stop "immediately," although he did pull over and comply fully. How long did the defendant wait before pulling over? Was he simply searching for a safe spot to stop? The police do not give any specifics in this regard, and they seem content to vaguely imply that this individual attempted to flee. 

Finally, we have the dubious claim that the man was "shaking" while handing over his license. This observation is the kind of thing that is impossible to confirm or deny. Even if he was shaking, one might argue that interacting with police is an inherently scary experience – even if you've done nothing wrong. 

In the end, it is safe to say that the police had already decided that they wanted to pull this man over and search his vehicle. They inevitably ran his plates before initiating the traffic stop, learned of his criminal record, and made a decision to violate his Fourth Amendment rights. While the Constitution is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches, the reality is clear: Police can theoretically pull us over and search our vehicles whenever they feel like it. We should also note that although the recording of the interaction will be suppressed, the officers involved may testify "at trial as to what was said during the three transactions or what he observed during them."

Find an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Boston

If you have been searching for a Boston criminal defense lawyer, consider Edward R. Molari. We have helped numerous defendants fight unlawful searches, seizures, and traffic stops. We have considerable experience with firearms defense, possession defense, and more. Book a consultation today to discuss an appropriate defense strategy. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Pages