Articles Posted in Drug Offenses

Drug offense cases are always interesting, in part because in order to secure a conviction in most of these cases, the Commonwealth must establish through expert testimony that the substance the defendant was accused of possessing was indeed a controlled substance.

Because of this an a ruling that was handed down by the SJC in the past couple of years (Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 229, 2010), in order to prove that the substance in question was indeed the controlled (illegal drug that the prosecution claims, it must bring in the actual chemist from the state crime lab to testify in court as to what the substance is, and how the chemist arrived at that conclusion. The chemist must testify as to what chemical tests were conducted on the substance, what machines or methodology was used in the testing process, the nature and extent of his or her expertise, experience and education, and a number of other key areas of inquiry. Hence, the role of the state lab chemist in these types of cases, as well as their qualifications and integrity, is extremely important.

So it was very troubling to learn today that a chemist that is employed in just such a capacity for the state crime lab, was accused of intentionally mishandling and manipulating evidence and testimony in potentially thousands of drug cases that were prosecuted between 2003 and March of 2012, when the chemist involved reportedly retired from state employment. Work in the state crime lab in Jamaica Plain was officially suspended by Governor Deval Patrick yesterday (Thursday.) The 10 chemists who are employed in that lab have been placed on paid administrative leave until they can be placed elsewhere.

Last Thursday (July 26 2012,) two people died and approximately 20 people were hospitalized, when the “Identity Theft” music tour held at the Comcast Center in Mansfield erupted into what has been described as blizzard of alcohol and drug use. The Comcast Center holds about 20,000 people.

The Mansfield Police Chief stated that alcohol and other drugs – reportedly including PCP, LSD, Ecstasy and marijuana – pervaded the concert. He has commented that there was so much drug and alcohol use at the concert that it harkened back to the Seventies, when drug use was rampant. In total, 45 people were also arrested on various drug and alcohol charges, in addition to the deaths and injuries.

Drugs such as Powdered PCP – known as “ozone,” “rocket fuel,” “love boat,” or “embalming fluid,” are often associated with unpredictable and often violent behavior. Ecstasy is frequently used in club or dance settings and it can make users feel undesirable effects immediately, including anxiety, agitation, and recklessness.

As of July 26 at 11:30 PM, Governor Deval Patrick is still considering whether or not to sign the final version of the Massachusetts crime bill that the House and Senate sent to him for his signature very recently. There has been much debate about this measure, also known as the “three strikes crime bill,” since it would remove parole eligibility for convicts who have been convicted three times or more for certain violent crimes. There has been a lot of heated debate about this bill, with crimes victims’ advocates supporting the measure, and prisoners’ rights and other liberal groups opposed to the measure. The Chief Justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court also weighed in earlier today, in response to a letter of inquiry Gov. Patrick sent the high court, requesting clarification of certain mandatory appellate issues the bill might raise.

I’ve written previously about this issue, but I wanted to highlight a key portion of this bill that is receiving only secondary attention, too far behind the primary issue of whether the bill is fundamentally fair or not.

That portion of the bill has to do with changing the way judges can sentence non-violent drug offenders, and in possibly paroling inmates who are currently serving time in our jails and prisons for non-violent drug offenses. I’ve said repeatedly, in this blog and elsewhere, that our sentencing laws dealing with non-violent drug offenses are foolish and counter-productive. Incredibly unjust mandatory sentencing statutes in Massachusetts force judges to incarcerate many defendants convicted of non-violent drug offenses, without any discretion at all. An example: If you were arrested for buying or selling just over an ounce of pot within 1000 feet of a school zone, and you were convicted, the judge hearing the case has NO CHOICE but to sentence you to jail or state prison. Even though you were only buying perhaps an ounce and half or two, for your own private, recreational use. Even though your activities had absolutely nothing to do with selling to or involving school-age children in any way whatsoever.

As a Norfolk County drug crimes attorney, I know and understand how serious the law is when it comes to Massachusetts drug crimes. Drug offenses, after Massachusetts DUI offenses, are some of the most common criminal charges prosecuted in our state. Judges and prosecutors do not take these cases lightly – in fact it’s just the opposite – these crimes are very aggressively prosecuted, and the penalties are very severe.

And it doesn’t take much to get yourself arrested for a Massachusetts drug crime. For example, if you are stopped by police for any reason and they find prescription drugs on your person — but you do not have the prescription bottle with you at that moment — you could actually be held by police and charged with illegal drug possession.

So it’s not surprising that there was a major Boston drug sweep this past week. Fifteen people in South Boston were arrested on various Massachusetts drug charges including alleged drug possession, alleged distribution of Class A, B, and C substances and alleged intent to distribute drugs. Boston Police said that its officers will continue in this crackdown, which they refer to as Operation Three Ring.

This coming November, Massachusetts residents will vote on a ballot question concerning medical marijuana. And now, opponents of medical marijuana have claimed that the standing version of the ballot question is misleading. Justice Robert J. Cordy of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on June 7, ruled in favor of the opponents.

Because of his decision about the ballot question, the “yes” section of the ballot question must now be re-written by Attorney General Martha Coakley and state Secretary William Galvin. Then, the re-written section must be submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court for review.

Heidi Heilman, the president of the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance, stated that she would like the question to explain three things: that, under the proposal, 35 dispensaries would be created in the first year, that patients would be able to possess an undefined 60-day supply of medical marijuana, and that some people would even be able to grow marijuana in their own homes. She explained that, as the question is currently written, she finds it to be vague and that it misinforms voters. She also continues to be opposed to the use of the term “medical marijuana,” which she and her group believe is misleading, because she says the drug is federally classified as having no medical value.

To all of my readers out there – hope and pray that this doesn’t ever happen to you.

Imagine that you are on a public sidewalk, when the police decide that you look suspicious, and decide to conduct a strip search of you – in public. Suddenly, you find yourself lying face down on the sidewalk, with your hands handcuffed behind your back and your buttocks exposed to the world. Illegal drugs are found on your person.

This is exactly what happened to a defendant accused of Massachusetts drug crimes. However, the Massachusetts Supeme Judicial Court upheld a Superior Court judge’s decision to suppress drugs found during a strip search on a public sidewalk. In other words, those drugs cannot be used as evidence against the defendant accused of Massachusetts drug possession, because of the inappropriate location of the search and the manner in which the search was performed.

If you think it’s bad enough to be arrested on one charge – imagine what it’s like to be arrested on six charges.

That’s exactly what happened to one Cesar Ortiz, of Waltham, the other night. He was in his car in Norwood, at the Rama Plaza on Washington Street, when officers suspected Ortiz’s vehicle to be suspicious. Not only did they reportedly discover that Mr. Ortiz had two outstanding warrants out for his arrest, but K-9 unit allegedly retrieved drugs from a compartment in Mr. Ortiz’s car. He was charged with:

• Possession with intent to distribute a Class A substance (heroin)

A Massachusetts man, who allegedly hails from New York’s famous Colombo crime family, is expected to plead guilty next week, to charges of racketeering conspiracy, which are related to alleged large-scale drug trafficking in Massachusetts.

Next Thursday, Ralph DeLeo of Somerville, is expected to plead guilty in U. S. District Court in Boston to his alleged crimes. It is alleged that Mr. DeLeo sold large amounts of cocaine and marijuana in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Florida and Arkansas.

He is said by federal investigators to be the crime “boss” of the Colombo crime family of La Cosa Nostra. Whether he is guilty of these crimes, of course, remains to be seen.

A 31 year-old Hingham Massachusetts woman was arrested by Braintree police last Tuesday and charged with possession of heroin and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. In addition to the woman, two men who allegedly sold the woman the heroin were also were arrested and charged with possession and conspiracy to distribute. Braintree police had received a tip about the alleged transaction, and had staked out the street, Logan Drive, where they reported observing the alleged Massachusetts drug offense.

Allegedly, the woman exited her car, conversed briefly with the two men, then got back in her own vehicle. Afterward, the two cars drove away in separate directions. Police intercepted both vehicles, and questioned the suspects. Two bags of what reportedly appeared to be heroin were allegedly discovered on the woman’s person, inside a cigarette pack. After being questioned by police, the woman reportedly stated that the two men who she spoke with on Logan Drive, had provided her the heroin. Noel Vazquez, 29, of Jamaica Plain and Orlando F. Negron, 31, of Dorchester were arrested and charged with distribution of heroin and conspiracy to violate the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, Negron, who drove the vehicle, was also charged with operating with a suspended driver’s license, possession of a Massachusetts and Pennsylvania driver’s license with a false name. Aside from the more serious drug offenses involved hee, these Massachusetts motor vehicle violations also carry serious penalties. Negron was also charged with providing a false name to a police officer following arrest, and he has an outstanding warrant for drug and traffic offenses in Weymouth. $1,127 in cash was seized from the two men. The Hingham woman’s name was not yet available at the time of this writing.

I can assure my readers that Massachusetts drug offenses, from the petty and minor to the most serious, are charged in the courts throughout Massachusetts, every day. As a Dedham, Massachusetts drug offenses lawyer, I see it all the time. But what makes arrests like this stand out a little more is the fact that the defendant who is accused of buying the heroin, is from a very upscale, wealthy community. Most of the time when people hear of serious drug offenses involving substances such as heroin, they think of inner-city urban crime, often found in the gritty streets of crime-infested communities. I could name you such communities in Massachusetts, but I won’t. What I can tell you, though, is that the problem of serious drug use on the scale of heroin and cocaine, does indeed occur in wealthy suburbs, too – and reports like this illustrate that unfortunate point.

Two recent Massachusetts Appeals Court rulings have caused yet more confusion over probable cause standards that police must meet to be granted valid search warrants of a person’s home for illegal drugs. One recent case seemed to lower the bar somewhat for police seeking warrants to search a person’s home for illegal drugs, while another case seemed to suggest police must meet a higher standard before being granted a warrant. The rulings come in the wake of two very important decisions issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2009 regarding Massachusetts drug prosecutions, as those SJC decisions appeared to set the current probable cause standard for search warrants.

Those 2009 SJC decisions, Commonwealth v. Pina and Commonwealth v. Medina, seemed to establish the current probable cause test regarding warrants to search a person’s home for illegal drugs. That test, or standard, basically outlines how much evidence police must present in an application for a search warrant, before a judge can issue a valid warrant to search a person’s home for illegal drugs. Commonwealth v. Pina was the first of those two cases, Medina the second. In deciding Medina, the SJC cited its holding in Pina, which enunciated the principle that evidence establishing that a person may be guilty of illicit drug activity does not necessarily establish probable cause to search that person’s home for illegal drugs.  Clarifying this, the SJC stated that “the fact that a defendant drives from his home to the location of a drug transaction, and returns to his home on the transaction’s conclusion, with no other facts connecting the residence to drug sales, does not provide probable cause to search the residence.”  Commonwealth v. Pina, supra at 441, 902 N.E.2d 917.

Hence, Pina and Medina seemed to establish that the current test for this type of search warrant required a nexus between the observed activities of the defendant, and probable cause that illegal drugs were being either stored in, or sold from, the defendant’s residence. Those decisions made it harder for police to receive valid warrants to search a person’s home, and harder for prosecutors to use that evidence against a drug defendant.