We are open during COVID-19 and available to speak about your case by video conference, over the phone or in person.

Articles Posted in probation violations

The Massachusetts SJC heard arguments in Commonwealth v. Rainey regarding the 4th amendment implications of police officer bodycam footage. In this case, an officer responded to a call at the defendant’s house and had a bodycam recording the outside and what could be seen of the inside of their house without a warrant. The basis for the claim was both the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

There were two arguments. The first argument was that it was error to rely on an illegal audio recording to determine that Mr. Rainey had committed a new crime, therefore violating his probation. Here, the illegal audio recording formed the entire basis of the judge’s revocation of Rainey’s probation and drove the result. The Massachusetts Wiretap Statute makes it a crime to “willfully commit an interception, attempt to commit an interception, or procure any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication.” An interception means “to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or personal communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication.”

In Commonwealth v. Yusuf, the SJC addressed privacy concerns of police body cameras recording the inside of people’s homes. This case mainly talked about video recording what was visible in plain view. The body cam was not obvious, and the officer even warned fellow officers that it was there since it wasn’t visible. The exceptions that would make this type of recording admissible are investigating organized crime or responding to a dangerous situation that is more than just an assault and battery. However, there is no exception for recording people in their private homes just because they sought the assistance of police.

In Massachusetts, a continuance without a finding — or CWOF — is equivalent to a “no-contest” plea in other states. It’s an admission that the Commonwealth would be able to prove the charges in court, but it’s in the defendant’s best interests to simply end the case. After entering this plea to the court, however, the defendant must prove through conditions of probation in the court where the case was resolved that they haven’t slipped up.

If they have a probation violation, they can be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowable for the charge, which is a big reason to complete the conditions of probation without any problems. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can properly advise you on what may be the best path to take in your criminal case. The prospect of future violations and the conditions of probation are two excellent reasons why consulting an experienced attorney is best done before accepting a plea offer.

With probation or other non-incarceration conditions, a defendant can slip up and miss reporting to their probation officer, skip an alcohol-based program if the charge is OUI or another misstep that can result in being back in front of the judge who just sentenced you.

Contact Information