Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Massachusetts SJC to address whether the Sender of a Text Message has Standing to challenge the search under the 4th Amendment

October 31, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Does a Defendant Have Standing to Challenge a Warrantless Search of a Co-Defendant’s Cellphone?

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral arguments in a case on November 2nd addressing who has standing to challenge the illegal search of a phone. Does a person sending a text message have standing to challenge the illegal search of a phone.

This issue came up in the case of Commonwealth v. Delgado-Rivera. This case is on appeal from Superior Court allowing a Motion to Suppress on behalf of Mr. Jorge Delgado-Rivera. The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that Mr. Delgado-Rivera has standing to challenge a warrantless search of a Co-Defendant’s cellphone on the grounds that Mr. Delgado-Rivera had sent the Co-Defendant text messages. Standing means does a person have a right to have the court hear their claim that their 4th Amendment rights were violated. Simply put, this means did the person have a expectation of privacy that society deems reasonable. This case is very important as more and more information is shared over technology.

First Amendment Protection for Panhandling to be decided By Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

October 29, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is expected to hear Massachusettts Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Fall River, this Monday, November 2nd regarding the controversial Massachusetts statute “17A.” This statute basically forbids soliciting from vehicles on public ways. Although panhandling is not explicitly mentioned in the statute, in March of 2019, the Fall River Police Department filed over 150 criminal complaints under the statute, most of which targeted the homeless.

This case is being brought by members of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. The named plaintiffs in this case, John Correira and Joseph Treeful are both members of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. Correira and Treeful are both low-income residents of Fall River. Both have experienced homeless and both rely on panhandling as a source of income. Because of this, they have been subject to combined forty-three criminal complaints, and both have been incarcerated in connection with the complaints.

Panhandling is a prevalent issue that has been around since Colonial times. In light of stagnant wages, high rent, the opioid crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, panhandling is not going to disappear anytime soon. With the current state of tragedy the world is in, many individuals are going to find themselves at rock bottom, without a steady income to fall back on.

How Domestic Violence cases in Massachusetts can be proven without the victim testifying

October 29, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Domestic Assault and Battery case in Massachusetts can be proven even if the victim does not wish to testify. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, these cases involve important questions of Constitutional law and the right of confrontation. The right to confront an accuser in court is one of the most important right to ensure a fair trial and justice in court. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently decided a case addressing the 6th Amendment right of confrontation in a domestic assault and battery case. The Appeals Court addressed this issue in Commonwealth v. Roy Rand decided in June of 2020.

What guidance did the Appeals Court provide as to when a 911 call is admissible in evidence at trial?

The Appeals Court stated that the Court engages in a two step inquiry to determine when an out of court statement can be admitted:

Duty of Colleges to Protect Students from Harm in Massachusetts

October 23, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Supreme Judicial Court holds that universities have a duty to protect their intoxicated students

The SJC has recently decided in Helfman v. Northeastern University, that colleges have a special duty of care to their students and must protect them even when they are voluntarily intoxicated.

What happened in Helfman?

Can a Parent consent to a search of an adult child’s house under the 4th Amendment?

October 16, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Fourth Amendment precludes police officers from entering a home without a warrant; one of the exceptions to this requirement is when consent to search is given. The Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed the issue of who can consent to a search in the case of Commonwealth v. Richard Santos decided in June of 2020.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SANTOS CASE

In Santos, the defendant lived in one apartment with her daughter living in the apartment next door. The mother told the police that she owned both apartments. The mom told the police that she sometimes lets her son stay in her daughter’s apartment. the police asked the mother to consent to a search of her daughter’s apartment. The mother granted permission. The Appeals Court addressed the issue of whether the mother had apparent authority to consent to the search of her daughter’s apartment.

When are Miranda rights required in a Massachusetts DUI arrest?

October 15, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts OUI Lawyer, one question that is often asked is what happens if a police officer failed to read Miranda rights. In an OUI case, police officers are allowed to ask routine questions without reading Miranda. A recent case from the Woburn District Court demonstrates when Miranda rights are required in an OUI case. In the case of Commonwealth v. Vellucci, decided in August of 2020, the defendant was charged with OUI out of the Woburn District Court, second offense. He filed a motion to suppress arguing that statements he made to the officer during field sobriety tests should be suppressed. The motion was denied and he was convicted after trial of a Second Offense OUI. He appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

What were the pertain facts of this OUI trial from Woburn District Court

In this case, the defendant got out of his car after being stopped for an alleged traffic infraction. The defendant appeared frustrated and angry and was waiving his arms.

Massachusetts Domestic Assault and Battery crimes: How are they prosecuted without the victim’s cooperation

October 12, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

How are Massachusetts Domestic Assault and Battery Cases prosecuted without the cooperation of the victim? The case of Commonwealth v. Roy Rand, decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on June 29, 2020 demonstrates how even without the victim testifying, prosecutors in Massachusetts can secure a conviction of domestic assault and battery. The key piece of evidence is the 911 call which can come into evidence, despite the fact that you will not have the opportunity to cross examine the victim if the Court defines the call as non-testimonial. The Rand cases discusses what makes a statement admissible under this rule and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

BACKGROUND OF THE RAND CASE

The defendant was charged with Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery. The case was indicted and brought to the Superior Court. This means that the incident must have been particularly vicious and or the defendant had a bad record as most Strangulation cases would stay in district court.

Worcester Criminal Defense lawyer comments on drug distribution involving probable cause to search a home when a confidential informant is used by the police

October 7, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Worcester Criminal Defense Lawyers. a recent case from Worcester Country decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court raised important issues of search and seizure in drug cases. Drug cases often involve confidential informants and whether police can establish a nexus between the location of the search and drug distribution activity.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently decided a case concerning a search and seizure of a home in Commonwealth v. Andre-Fields No. 19-P-846, 2020 WL 5648611 (Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 23, 2020).

Two defendants, Milano Andre-Fields, and his girlfriend Mindy Doherty, had their home raided and a large number of firearms and illegal drugs were confiscated. Prior to trial, Andre-Fields and Doherty filed motions to suppress this evidence. The Superior Court granted this motion on the basis that search warrants failed to establish the requisite nexus between the objects sought and the premises to be searched.

Are Searches of computers and cell phones are the Border without a warrant permissible under the Fourth Amendment

October 5, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The United States Supreme Court may review a case called United States v. Williams that deal with the issue of what is the scope of a permissible search at the border: Can the search include personal computers and cell phones under the Fourth Amendment?

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to review a case concerning the Fourth Amendment rights travelers have when entering the country with their personal electronics. The circuits are split multiple ways regarding this issue of warrantless searches of personal electronics at the border. Some courts allow the search of electronic devices at the border under any circumstances, while other courts hold these searches to a higher standard. In the case of United States v. Williams, the Tenth Circuit declined to rule on whether searches of personal electronic devices at the border must be subject to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Williams, 942 F.3d 1187, 1190 (10th Cir. 2019). But reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify a warrantless border search of personal electronic devices, and that is the point at issue in this case.

What happened in the Williams Case?

Massachusetts SJC decision will promote the goal of all voices being heard in the jury room by lowering the bar to show Juror was excluded based on Race

October 1, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it easier for defendant to show race improperly played a role in prosecutors using a peremptory challenge on a juror by eliminating the requirement that a defendant show a pattern of conduct in excluding minority jurors. Prosecutors no longer get a free opportunity to strike one juror based on race because other were kept on the jury. This is an important victory preserving the right to a fair trial and making sure all voices are heard in the jury room. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court changed the standard for challenging peremptory strikes in Massachusetts state court. The Supreme Judicial Court has adopted the standard of Batson v. Kentucky, “retiring” the language of Commonwealth v. Soares.

The defendant in Commonwealth v. Sanchez challenged the prosecution’s peremptory strike in which a nineteen year old African American was removed from the jury. The trial judge upheld the peremptory strike. The defendant appealed. After losing his state appeal, the defendant applied for federal habeas corpus relief. There, the judge noted that the Massachusetts standard for challenging peremptory strikes in Soares was harder for defendants to meet than Batson. Still, defendant was denied habeas relief. Defendant then moved for a new trial in state court, which was granted. The Commonwealth appealed.

A Pattern of Discrimination is no longer required when challenging Race Based use of Peremptory Challenges