Boston Criminal Attorney Blog

Here’s an interesting point: Most people would be able to tell you that if you are questioned by police in a police station or in an environment where your ability to leave is otherwise restricted, police must read you your Miranda Rights. This type of questioning is referred to legally as “custodial interrogation.” Miranda Rights, as anyone with a television set knows, are the rights that persons are afforded by the United States Constitution, whenever a person is the subject of custodial interrogation. These rights were first created by a famous U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona.

But what if a person is questioned in his home by police? Is he entitled to be provided his Miranda Rights in that setting? A federal Appeals Court recently took a look at that, and had an interesting answer. It all started when a U.S. naval officer living in Maine, claimed that when he was questioned by police in his home as part of a crime investigation, he was effectively “in custody”, and that because police did not provide him his Miranda Rights, any statements that he made to them as part of that questioning should be inadmissible in court.

Do you think most people would agree? Well, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit did.

As I always say, the Devil is in the details, so here they are: It seems the defendant sold his personal computer to someone. The buyer found child pornography on the computer, a sex offense in Maine (and also a Massachusetts sex offense,) so he called the local police, who dutifully teamed up with the Maine state computer crime unit to investigate. Because of the fact that the suspect was a naval officer at Maine’s Brunswick Naval Air Station, the police also involved the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, or NCIS. State police obtained a warrant to search the residence where the suspect lived with his pregnant wife and child, and they made plans to conduct the search at a time when they knew that the suspect would be on duty at the naval station. Meanwhile, NCIS staffers asked the suspect’s commanding officer to order him to report to them at the base, where they instructed him to go directly home. They gave the suspect no explanation.

When the suspect arrived home, an officer told him that he was not going to be arrested and reassured him that the police were concerned not so much with the fact that child pornography was on his computer, as where it was downloaded from. When questioned, the suspect first denied that he had downloaded the material, but he eventually admitted he had. After about an hour of questioning, the police asked the suspect if he would come to the police station for more formal questioning. He agreed. Once there, he was advised of his Miranda Rights, per standard police procedure. Notwithstanding, he agreed to talk and signed a waiver of his rights.

As a result of questioning, he was charged with unlawful possession of child pornography. His attorney filed a Motion to suppress his statements to police while in his home, and when the motion was denied, he pleaded guilty. Notwithstanding, as part of his plea, he reserved the right to appeal the court’s decision denying his motion to suppress the statements he made to police in his home. A federal appeals agreed with him, and reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements. The court ruled that “We think the record speaks with a fair measure of clarity in showing that the combined law enforcement authorities [involved] deliberately planned to subject [the defendant] to unwarned questioning under conditions that would make it difficult for him to avoid them.” “We … infer that [the defendant]’s situation at the house would have left any member of the armed services reasonably feeling that he lacked free choice to extricate himself, and sufficiently compelled to answer to authority.” As a Boston, Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that the key to this reasoning is that here, the defendant had been ordered by his military superiors at the naval base to go to his home, where police were waiting for him as part of an orchestrated plan. The court didn’t feel that a member of the service in the defendant’s position would feel free to leave his own house under those circumstances: “To begin with, we think [the defendant] was in custody at the house under conditions that required the Miranda warnings, the want of which compels suppression of the statements given there. The dispositive basis for our [decision] goes to the weight to be assigned to the influence of military authority on someone in [the defendant’s] position when subject to the order he was given on the morning he was questioned.” [I]t is fair to say that whenever a member of the services is questioned in circumstances mandated by a superior’s order, he is in the situation that Miranda was meant to address, where the line between voluntary and involuntary response is at least so blurred that the Fifth Amendment guarantee is in jeopardy.”

Given the offense that was involved in this case, a lot of people might find this decision objectionable. I can understand that. But why is this case important? First, because as I said above, a lot of Massachusetts residents now have a family member serving in some branch of the armed forces – whether full-time or National Guard. That exposes them to potential interrogation scenarios such as existed in this case. Second, even if someone isn’t in the military, if police question someone at their home within an atmosphere that leads the person being questioned to believe that he is not free to leave the interview, that situation likely triggers Miranda Warnings. If those rights are not provided, statements made to police while in your home may be inadmissible in court. Third, Miranda Rights are among rhe most important and admirable of criminal law rights in America, and once they are chipped away at, we're all at risk of losing those rights.

Always remember: If you are ever questioned by police, ask if you are free to leave or otherwise terminate the interview. In general, when questioned by police in a criminal matter, it is best to have a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer present.

A California trucking company, Inland Empire, hired two men to drive a tractor-trailer to Boston, a trip that driver Miguel Aguilar made at least 10 times in the past year. Last week Aguilar made the trip with novice driver Jose Cubias.

State police, working on a Massachusetts drug crimes investigation, pulled over the purple Volvo 18-wheeler with California plates. According to prosecutors, police asked the men a few questions. The suspects replied that they were California residents who were employed in that state, and they consented to a search of the vehicle. That’s when police found 66 pounds of cocaine and $570,000 in cash inside the vehicle.

Aguilar and Cubias were charged in Chelsea District Court on charges of Massachusetts drug trafficking and conspiracy to violate Massachusetts state drug laws. They were each held on $950,000 cash bail, and both men pleaded not guilty.

Aguilar’s lawyer said that her client had no idea what was in the truck.

As a Boston/Norfolk County drug crimes defense attorney, I see cases like this all the time. Knowing only information contained in media reports at this time, in my opinion, these men may be wrongly accused, as they were merely driving the truck and had no idea of its contents.

If you have been wrongly charged with a Massachusetts drug crime, call us. We are highly experienced at dealing with drug crimes and successfully defending clients who have been charged with Massachusetts drug offenses.

In another case, this past week Boston police pulled over a Providence, Rhode Island resident named Santo Gonzalez, in a routine traffic stop. They discovered that he had neglected to return his car to the rental company he had obtained the car from. While preparing the vehicle to be towed, police found 40 pounds of cocaine and 20 pounds of heroin in the car – having a street value of millions of dollars. Gonzalez pleaded not guilty and was held on $500,000 cash bail.

We have effectively defended cases involving a wide range of drug-related offenses, including the following:
- All Drug Possession cases
- All Drug Possession with intent to sell and/or distribute cases
- All Drug Trafficking cases
- All Drug Manufacturing

In Massachusetts, conviction of a drug offense can cause dire legal consequences, including mandatory minimum jail sentences and loss of a driver’s license. A criminal record of drug offense(s) can destroy a person’s career, and limit the chances to gain entrance to college or graduate school, and/or receive a scholarship. A drug offense record can also drastically limit the chances of obtaining citizenship in the United States, and can also result in deportation. A criminal record stemming from any drug conviction can follow someone for the rest of his or her life.

If and when you are arrested, it is important to have an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer on your side. If need be, we will even make “house calls” and consult with you at your convenience. Call us for a free consultation.

This blog isn’t entirely about criminal defendants’ legal rights. It’s about promoting awareness of safety in an unsafe world.

This became all too clear just a couple of days ago, when a 14 year-old girl in Lynn was almost the victim of a Massachusetts kidnapping, after an attempted abduction by a stranger in Lynn. Just a few steps away from Lynn Classical High School, the girl was by an assailant described as a teenage black male with a Haitian accent. Thankfully, the girl was able to break free from the abductor, who escaped. The girl told police that the suspect has yellow dots in his eyes, and a scar on his nose. She said he tried to drag her into a bright red , 4-dorr car with a rear seat that had yellow dots on it.

The mere thought of this happening to a young child is frightening and disturbing. And even though the principal of Lynn Classical High School told police that this is the first time in his 30 years being principal that an attempted abduction of a student had taken place, this incident should remind parents and students everywhere that safety and self-awareness should always be priorities whenever walking alone. Had this suspect been able to abduct this youth, the crime of kidnapping would be charged. If he is apprehended, he will be charged with, among other crimes, attempted kidnapping. As a Boston Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, I can assure readers that safety should always be priority one.

Think that women are more frequently the victims of sexual assault?

As a Dedham Massachusetts sexual offense lawyer, I can tell you – it’s not the case.

According to a new report published in U.S. News and World Report’s HealthDay News, men with disabilities are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than nondisabled men. This study was conducted by investigators at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Their study revealed about 14 percent of men with disabilities had been victims of sexual violence at some point in their lifetime. This contrasts with less than 4 percent of nondisabled men.

And who were the perpetrators? Acquaintances and strangers, along with family members, caregivers and intimate partners. As a Norfolk County Massachusetts sexual assault attorney, I can tell you this is, tragically, no surprise.

The men in the study were considered disabled if they had limitations from physical, mental, emotional or communication-related problems.

It all goes to show you that men with disabilities are at a heightened risk for being victims of sexual violence and victimization, and that, sadly, women and children are not the only victims of Massachusetts rape and sexual abuse.

If you have a loved one who is disabled, and you suspect that he or she has been the victim of sexual assault, contact our offices for a free consultation. Or if you have a loved one in a nursing home who is disabled, regardless of whether that person is a man or a woman, and you believe he or she may have been the victim of sexual assault, contact us. We are experienced in handling Massachusetts sexual assault, rape and sexual violence cases, and if need be, we will also come to your home for a free consultation.

Having connections into the White House won’t necessarily spare someone from spending time in the Big House.

President Barack Obama’s uncle was brought before Framingham District Court earlier this week, where he appeared for a pre-trial conference hearing, after being arrested on August 24 on a charge of Massachusetts DUI/OUI, as well as other charges. At the time of his arrest, authorities learned that Onyango Obama, 67, who is the half-brother of President Obama’s late father, was also in violation of an almost 20 year-old immigration order to return to his native Kenya (apparently, he has been living in Framingham for quite some time.) As a result of that violation, Obama was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities, but was released on September 9 by ICE officials without public comment. At the time, an ICE spokesman would only say that federal privacy laws prohibit agency officials from commenting on individual cases. True. I'll leave that alone.

At Obama’s court hearing earlier this week, his lawyer and prosecutors for the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office agree to continue the case until November 17 2011. This is not uncommon for many criminal charges, including OUI/DUI. At his earlier arraignment, Obama had pleaded not guilty to the formal Massachusetts charge of operating under the influence of alcohol. At the time of his arrest, it was reported that Obama told police, “I think I will call the White House’’ in order to arrange bail. Not a bad decision.

The case will now enter what is known as a Discovery phase, where prosecutors will be required to exchange certain information, including any exculpatory evidence (evidence that tends to exonerate the defendant,) with Obama’s defense attorney. As a Dedham, Massachusetts DUI/OUI defense lawyer, I can tell you that certain evidence will be key to determining the legal trajectory of this case. This includes whether or not Obama took a Breathalyzer test, what any blood alcohol content values were, how much time passed between Obama’s arrest and the administering of any Breathalyzer or blood alcohol content test, and whether or not the Breathalyzer machine was accurately maintained or calibrated. A number of pre-trial motions may be in order here, including Motions to Suppress, but as I’m not familiar with the details of the arrest and police report, it’s difficult to say precisely. Regardless, these charges show that knowing someone in high places won’t necessarily save someone from the long arm of the law. Aside from these immediate criminal charges that stem from Obama’s August 24 arrest on OUI charges, it’s clear that he’s going to have a number of immigration problems, and may be required to leave the country. I’ll leave that question to immigration law experts.