Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Know Your Rights at DUI Checkpoints in Massachusetts — And What Happens If You Refuse a Breathalyzer

Published on: June 11, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you’ve ever driven through a DUI checkpoint, you know how unsettling it can be — even for sober drivers. Flashing lights, uniformed officers, and the uncertainty of what’s expected can cause confusion and anxiety. While DUI checkpoints are designed to deter impaired driving, it’s critical for every Massachusetts driver to understand their rights and obligations during these encounters.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I regularly represent individuals charged with OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and other driving offenses. Many of my clients are good people who simply didn’t know what they were legally required to do — and more importantly, what they were not required to do — during a DUI checkpoint. Here’s what every driver in the Commonwealth should know:

1. DUI Checkpoints Are Legal — But Only If Properly Conducted

Boston Firearm Case Overturned Based on Lack of Evidence

Published on: June 3, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

When a routine police call in Boston’s North End leads to the discovery of a rifle, magazines of ammunition, and a defendant who readily admits he has no license to carry, most would assume that a conviction would stand. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s May 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Ferreira Artur shows how quickly a case can unravel when the Commonwealth’s evidence can’t meet every element of the crime.

The Facts of the Case

Around 4:45 a.m. on November 28, 2021, Boston police officers responded to a radio call in the North End. They found the defendant, Julio C. Ferreira Artur, seated on a sidewalk with a blanket over his shoulders. A blue bicycle and two black trash bags sat within five yards of him, and officers believed he was intoxicated. Shining a flashlight into one bag, an officer spotted what looked like the barrel of a gun. The weapon was secured, and Ferreira Artur was handcuffed and frisked. Inside his jacket pockets officers discovered two magazines containing thirteen rounds of ammunition. Because the defendant spoke only Portuguese, a State Trooper fluent in that language delivered a Miranda warning and conducted a brief interview. According to the Trooper, Ferreira Artur admitted he found the rifle in the trunk of an unlocked white car and that he lacked a license to carry.

How Far Can You Go in Protecting Another Animal or Disciplining Your Own?

Published on: May 9, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are accused of animal cruelty in Massachusetts, the law allows for some narrow exceptions, but proving them can be difficult. Claims of defense of another animal or bona fide discipline must be supported by clear evidence. A recent case decided by the Supreme Judicial Court demonstrates just how limited these defenses can be, particularly when the alleged harm occurs in public and involves the visible use of force.

In this case, the accused was convicted of animal cruelty after witnesses observed him repeatedly striking his dog at a public park. He claimed that he was trying to stop the dog from attacking a groundhog and that the strikes were controlled and necessary. On appeal, the trial court’s decisions to exclude expert testimony and to decline special jury instructions were challenged. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately upheld the conviction, stating that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and that the jury had enough information to evaluate the defense’s claims.

Understanding Bona Fide Discipline and Defense of Another Under Massachusetts Law

Massachusetts law criminalizes cruelty to animals, but it recognizes that not all physical contact with an animal is illegal. Discipline that is reasonable and not excessive may be permitted. Similarly, a person may use force to defend another animal, but only if the response is proportionate and necessary to the situation. These exceptions are narrowly applied and often require strong factual support.

How Appeals Can Help Reduce or Vacate Charges Based on Improper Convictions

Published on: May 9, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are facing multiple criminal charges after a single incident, you may assume that each conviction will lead to separate punishment. In some cases, however, those convictions overlap or cover the same conduct. In Massachusetts, a conviction may be thrown out if it is based on a charge that has already been resolved. A recent decision from the state’s highest court shows how appellate review can correct errors and reduce sentencing exposure.

In a case reviewed by the Supreme Judicial Court, the accused was initially convicted of seven separate charges, including mayhem, multiple counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to maim, and misleading a police officer. The altercation occurred after the accused gave a woman a ride home. A violent confrontation followed, resulting in serious injuries to another man. The jury returned guilty verdicts on several counts, but the SJC found that some of the convictions covered the same conduct and could not stand.

When Are Convictions Considered Duplicative in Massachusetts?

Have You Been Deactivated as a Rideshare Driver in Massachusetts? Here’s How You Can Appeal

Published on: May 1, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you’re a rideshare driver in Massachusetts—working with Uber, Lyft, or another platform—and have been deactivated due to background check issues, you’re not alone. Many hardworking drivers are sidelined every year, often without a clear explanation. Fortunately, you have rights and options to appeal. At the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy, we specialize in helping drivers like you navigate the appeals process with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU).

Understanding the TNC Division and Background Checks

In Massachusetts, the Transportation Network Company (TNC) Division of the DPU regulates rideshare driver eligibility. To legally operate, you must pass a two-part background check—one by the rideshare company and the other by the TNC Division. These checks examine your criminal history, driving record, and other factors to determine whether you’re a suitable candidate for rideshare services.

Withdrawing a Guilty Plea in a Massachusetts OUI Case

Published on: March 31, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Over the past several years, there has been extensive litigation in Massachusetts regarding a specific kind of breathalyzer machine called the Alcotest 9510 device. Challenges to this machine have revealed malfunctions and inconsistencies in the breath test results that the Commonwealth has consistently used in criminal proceedings.

Because of the Alcotest litigation, we now know that many defendants may have been unfairly convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) or operating under the influence (OUI). Breath test results from the Alcotest 9510 produced between June 2011 and April 17, 2019 are now banned from being entered into evidence in criminal cases. How does this reality affect criminal defendants who pled guilty to such a crime during the relevant time period?

Withdrawing Pleas in General

Under Massachusetts law, it is possible to withdraw a guilty plea under certain circumstances. Rules of criminal procedure say specifically that a defendant may successfully petition to withdraw a guilty plea if it appears that “justice may not have been done” at the trial stage. Courts can interpret this language however they see fit.

Can Race Be a Factor in Jury Selection in a Massachusetts Criminal Trial?

Published on: March 31, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Prior to beginning a trial, it is commonplace for the prosecution and defense to go through a process that is called jury selection. During this process, each party is permitted to exercise several “peremptory challenges” to possible jurors. This means that each party may tell the judge that they would like to remove a possible juror from the pool without providing any reason or justification. There is an important provision of Massachusetts and federal law, however, that says that neither party may use a peremptory challenge because of a juror’s race.

How do courts interpret this rule? In one recent case before a Massachusetts court, the defendant was on trial for murder. During jury selection, the prosecution used a peremptory challenge to remove one juror who identified as Hispanic. The defense, however, argued that the prosecution only asked to strike this juror because of his ethnicity. The judge should have recognized, the defense argued on appeal, that the peremptory challenge was based on race and therefore against the law.

When the higher court reviewed the trial judge’s decision to allow the peremptory strike, it noted that the prosecution explained during jury selection that it did not feel the juror could be impartial during trial. The juror specifically stated that he was skeptical because the defendant did not have any members of his race in the jury pool, opining that this was unfair to the defendant. This, said the higher court, was a legitimate reason to remove the juror. Just because the juror brought up race did not mean the prosecution only wanted to strike him because of his race.

Challenging Incriminating Statements in Massachusetts Criminal Cases

Published on: February 13, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Federal and Massachusetts laws provide robust protections to individuals accused of crimes, ensuring they cannot be compelled to offer testimony, talk to the police, or give a confession against their will. These protections are rooted in constitutional principles, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Over time, case law has refined these protections into procedural safeguards, such as the well-known Miranda warnings, which require law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogations. When police fail to comply with these requirements or obtain statements under coercive conditions, those statements can and should be excluded from evidence in a criminal proceeding.

A recent Massachusetts case illustrates how these protections are applied in practice. In this case, a man charged with a sex crime against a child made incriminating statements during a police interview that were later used to convict him. Despite his attorney’s efforts to suppress these statements, they were admitted at trial, leading to his conviction on multiple counts. This outcome highlights the critical importance of understanding your rights and exercising them when faced with police questioning.

The Facts

The defendant in this case was accused of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen. The investigation began when authorities received a report alleging abuse, prompting two detectives to visit the home where they believed the defendant was staying. Upon learning he no longer lived there, the detectives contacted him through his family, and he voluntarily returned to the house. During the interview, conducted in the family living room, the detectives provided Miranda warnings but did so imperfectly, requiring repeated clarifications. Despite these shortcomings, the defendant agreed to answer questions without an attorney present. Over the course of a 13-minute interview, he made several inculpatory statements, admitting to inappropriate conduct. He was subsequently arrested.

Mass. Appeals Court Agrees Police Officer Search Lacked Justification

Published on: February 4, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In criminal cases, when one side receives an unfavorable ruling, either the defense or the prosecution has the right to appeal to a higher court for reconsideration. While it’s common to see defendants appealing after a conviction, prosecutors can also appeal rulings that favor the defense, such as the suppression of evidence. This means that even if a defendant enjoys a favorable ruling before trial, they shouldn’t assume they’re out of the woods until all potential appeals are exhausted.

A recent Massachusetts case highlights this dynamic, where a defendant successfully challenged the admission of evidence before trial, only to have the prosecution appeal the ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. This case highlights the importance of having a skilled criminal defense attorney who can navigate both trial and appellate proceedings to protect your rights.

The Facts of the Case

When Can Police Use Secret Recordings Obtained Without a Warrant?

Published on: December 23, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts courts have long recognized the importance of protecting individuals from government overreach, aligning with the due process guarantees found in both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions. Judicial rules and legislative safeguards are in place to ensure that law enforcement actions respect these principles, particularly when it comes to gathering evidence in criminal cases. Illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible at trial, but there are exceptions where it might still be used. A recent Massachusetts case raised questions about the admissibility of secretly obtained recordings made without a warrant. This case underscores the critical importance of ensuring that constitutional protections remain intact during the criminal justice process.

The case involved an undercover officer who, without a warrant, used a cell phone application to record audio and video footage of three alleged drug transactions with the defendant. These recordings captured not only audio of the conversations but also video showing the defendant at various points. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the recordings, arguing that they were obtained in violation of Massachusetts’ wiretap law, which prohibits secret interceptions of oral communications without judicial authorization. The trial court agreed to suppress the audio recordings but allowed the Commonwealth to use the silent video footage as evidence. Both the defendant and the prosecution appealed this decision, with the defendant asserting that the entire recording—both audio and video—should be excluded, and the prosecution arguing for the admissibility of the silent footage.

On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered the intent behind the state’s wiretap statute, which provides robust privacy protections for individuals by prohibiting secret recordings without a warrant. The court concluded that the video footage, even without audio, fell under the statute’s definition of “contents” of a communication, as it revealed information about the identity of the parties and the existence of the conversation. As a result, the court ruled that both the audio and video components of the recordings must be suppressed. This decision upheld the legislative intent of deterring unauthorized surveillance and reinforced the privacy rights of Massachusetts residents.