Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Snapchat Messages and 209A Restraining Order Charges in Massachusetts

Published on: February 2, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

A 209A restraining order charge tied to a Snapchat message usually comes down to identity. The Commonwealth has to show the message came from you, not just from an account that looks like yours or a screenshot that points in your direction. A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Bustard, gives a useful example of how courts scrutinize proof of who actually sent an electronic message.

These cases can move quickly and feel intensely personal. Courts often impose strict no-contact conditions right away, and confusion about what counts as contact can create new exposure. A clear understanding of what the Commonwealth must prove can help you protect yourself from avoidable mistakes early on.

209A Restraining Order Violations and Electronic Contact

Were You Arrested in Boston for Possessing Prescription Drugs Without a Prescription?

Published on: January 28, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If Boston police arrest you with prescription pills that are not in your name, you may face serious criminal charges under Massachusetts law. Even though many people view prescription medications differently from street drugs, the law treats unauthorized possession just as seriously. Whether the drug is oxycodone, Adderall, Xanax, or another controlled substance, being caught without a valid prescription can lead to criminal penalties, including fines, probation, or even jail time.

Under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 94C, possession of a controlled substance without authorization is a criminal offense. Prescription medications fall into different classes, and the penalties depend on the type of drug, the amount involved, and whether prosecutors allege intent to distribute. That means simply carrying a few pills in your pocket could result in a possession charge, while larger amounts or packaging may lead to distribution allegations.

Understanding the Charges You May Face

Clerk Magistrate Hearings For Shoplifting And Minor Theft Charges In Massachusetts

Published on: January 5, 2026 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Clerk magistrate hearings in the Massachusetts District Court and Boston Municipal Court give you a chance to stop a criminal case before it starts. When someone accuses you of shoplifting or minor theft, the court often schedules a “show cause” hearing instead of issuing a complaint right away. If you handle that hearing correctly, you may avoid a criminal record, a public arraignment, and the stress of a full court case.

You handle these hearings differently from regular court dates. The rules feel informal, yet the stakes are high. Understanding how clerk magistrate hearings work helps you protect your record when a store, neighbor, or police officer accuses you of a low-level property offense.

What a Clerk Magistrate Hearing is in Massachusetts

A clerk-magistrate hearing, also called a show-cause hearing, is held before a clerk-magistrate rather than a judge. The clerk decides whether there is probable cause to issue a criminal complaint. In shoplifting and minor theft cases, police or private complainants often seek a complaint after an incident at a store, parking lot, or workplace. The law usually requires a hearing for most misdemeanor charges that do not involve an arrest.

SJC Rules on Independent-Source Doctrine in Affirming Murder Conviction

Published on: December 2, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Almeida settles three issues you care about if you or a loved one faces serious charges in Massachusetts. First, the Court upheld a search warrant under the independent-source doctrine, which means the police could still rely on the warrant even after a statement by the accused was suppressed. Second, the Court rejected several jury-selection challenges and explained how trial judges should evaluate strikes, hardship excusals, and questions about views on police credibility. Third, the Court vacated an unlawful-possession conviction in light of Commonwealth v. Guardado, sending that firearm count back for further proceedings. If your case turns on a warrant affidavit, a video identification, or a disputed gun charge, this opinion shows where suppression arguments still win and where they do not.

Why The Warrant Survived Under an Independent Source

Police linked the accused to a Boston shooting through surveillance footage, cell-site records, and clothing later recovered from an apartment. The trial judge suppressed a custodial statement but denied the motion to suppress evidence seized from that apartment. On appeal, the SJC agreed that the search warrant stood on its own because the affidavit showed probable cause without the tainted statement. That is the independent-source doctrine in action: when a warrant is supported by evidence gathered before or apart from the challenged step, the Court may uphold the search.

Cambridge Hits Pause on License-Plate Cameras

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

When Cambridge announced it was halting the use of automatic license-plate reader technology pending review of data-sharing practices, the decision reflected more than a policy debate. It exposed an emerging evidentiary fault line under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. At the same time, Brookline’s consideration of privately owned plate readers with police access demonstrates how quickly surveillance systems can expand beyond traditional public control. Together, these developments offer meaningful insight for defense counsel assessing whether the Commonwealth relied on warrantless, technology-driven tracking to build its case.

When prosecutors present evidence drawn from automated plate readers, defense strategy should center on three questions: how long the data was stored, whether it was shared with outside entities, and whether law enforcement used cumulative scans to reconstruct a person’s movements across time. Each of these factors directly influences whether the collection qualifies as a “search” under Article 14.

How ALPR Surveillance Becomes a Constitutional Issue

Massachusetts Court Clarifies Nonresident Gun Licensing After Donnell

Published on: October 15, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

You may not realize that moving through Massachusetts as a nonresident can trigger state licensing rules even if you lawfully carry at home. In Commonwealth v. Donnell, decided March 11, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court struck down the Commonwealth’s prior, pre-2022 nonresident licensing scheme under G. L. c. 140, § 131F because it vested unfettered “may-issue” discretion in the State Police colonel, which failed the Supreme Court’s Bruen text-and-history test under the Second Amendment. The SJC affirmed dismissal of the § 10(a) charge that depended on that unconstitutional scheme.

The Facts of the Case

In the early morning of November 8, 2021, two Massachusetts State Police troopers responded to a single-vehicle crash on I-495 northbound near the Lowell Connector. They found the driver, Dean F. Donnell, Jr., a New Hampshire resident, sitting near his Ford Explorer and noted signs of intoxication. After field sobriety testing, troopers arrested him for operating under the influence. During a subsequent vehicle search, they discovered a handgun and ammunition. Donnell did not hold a Massachusetts nonresident license to carry.

GPS Tracking and Bail Conditions in Massachusetts Criminal Cases

Published on: October 14, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that courts may impose GPS monitoring as a condition of release without violating the state constitution. If you are facing criminal charges in Massachusetts, and a judge orders you to wear a GPS device, you may be wondering whether that order is legal. In Commonwealth v. Goparian, the court clarified how far the Commonwealth may go when imposing electronic tracking during pretrial release.

This decision affects many defendants who are accused but not convicted. Understanding its implications is critical if you are currently subject to pretrial monitoring or if your release is under review.

Court Confirms GPS Monitoring Does Not Automatically Violate Privacy Rights

In this case, the court examined whether requiring GPS monitoring as part of bail conditions constituted an unreasonable search under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The defendant claimed that being tracked, even before a conviction, infringed on privacy protections.

Understanding Repeat OUI Charges After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Foley Decision

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

If you are facing charges tied to operating a vehicle with a revoked license due to a past OUI or motor vehicle homicide, your case may fall under Massachusetts laws that carry steep penalties. A recent opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth v. Foley, decided on July 15, 2025, explains how prior convictions influence new charges and sentencing enhancements. The ruling confirms how the state applies repeat-offender laws in cases involving serious driving offenses and outlines what prosecutors must prove to support those charges.

If your current charge stems from a prior OUI or similar offense, this case may help you better understand what the government needs to show and how an experienced lawyer can challenge parts of the case.

How the Court Interpreted Repeat Offender Statutes in This Case

GPS Monitoring Before Trial Raises Privacy Questions

Published on: August 19, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

When Massachusetts courts require GPS monitoring as part of pretrial release, many people are unaware that the location data collected may later be used as evidence against them. In a recent ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court, the justices reviewed whether law enforcement could lawfully access and rely on GPS records collected during monitoring to investigate a new incident. This case is important because it shows how conditions imposed before any conviction can still affect your rights well into the future.

If you are accused of a crime in Massachusetts, the conditions tied to your release may seem routine or temporary. However, as this case shows, each requirement can have lasting consequences. You need a criminal defense attorney who understands how to challenge surveillance measures and safeguard your rights from the beginning.

Massachusetts Court Confirms GPS Data from Bail Monitoring Can Be Used

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rejects Sex Trafficking Charges Based on Online Sting Operation

Published on: August 5, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In May 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the limits of the state’s sex trafficking statute. The court rejected the Commonwealth’s attempt to charge men who responded to online ads with trafficking, holding that their conduct did not meet the definition of that offense under G. L. c. 265, Section 50. This ruling matters for anyone facing solicitation or prostitution-related charges in Massachusetts, particularly in cases stemming from undercover operations.

If you have been charged with a sex crime in Massachusetts, especially after responding to an online ad, you may be unsure which charges the Commonwealth can lawfully pursue. This recent opinion makes clear that prosecutors cannot stretch trafficking statutes beyond their scope just to increase pressure on the accused. You need a defense lawyer who understands where police authority ends and where your legal protections begin.

Supreme Judicial Court Confirms Trafficking Law Does Not Cover Online Sting Buyers