The Brockton Enterprise reports that police in Rockland, Massachusetts acted after receiving nearly twenty civilian complaints of suspected Massachusetts Drug Dealing starting this past April. People specifically reported extensive automobile and foot traffic at a specific location. In response, officers set up surveillance of a home on Liberty Street to verify the complaints. While doing so they observed what they believed was a drug transaction between two people, defendants Richard Stanton and Selena Keaney. Stanton was driving a car and found to be in possession of Heroin. Keaney was found in possession about four grams of Heroin. Keaney has been charged with five criminal matters including Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Stanton is facing charges of Possession of Heroin. The cases will be prosecuted in the Hingham District Court.
The first thing that comes to mind for an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer when reading this article is moving to Suppress the Search. In past blog posts I have often repeated that police officers are not permitted to stop and conduct a threshold inquiry absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. The word “reasonable” requires the suspicion to be based on “specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom”. In order to give that phrase meaning judges look at these matters on a case by case basis. One Massachusetts Appeals Court case held that an experienced officer’s actions after making an observation of what he believed to be a drug deal in a “high drug crime area” was in fact an illegal search where even though the officer saw an exchange and purported counting of money. The same court has held otherwise on cases involving similar facts. Knowing the law in cases like this one and being able to persuade the judge hearing the motion that this case replicates one in which suppression was granted is the job of the criminal defense lawyer thereby making your choice of lawyer an extremely critical decision.
It is often difficult to determine how the Motion to Suppress will be turn out before the hearing. Police officers’ testimony often exaggerates the narrative in their reports in an attempt to “fill in the blanks” that they either know or have learned necessary to sustain their Search and Seizure. This is yet another reason to make sure that you choice of lawyer is someone who has the experience to address this situation in court. This is also why Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers often reserve filing a memorandum of law in support of the motion to suppress until all evidence has been adduced at the hearing on the motion.
The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is committed to defending the accused and to fighting for your rights. We maintain that there is a defense to every case and we will help you present that defense and get you the best result possible. Call us at 617-263-6800 or email us with any questions or concerns. The time to begin your fight is now.