Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

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

When police open a backpack without a warrant, most defendants hope suppression will follow. Yet the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s April 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Page reminds us that the community caretaking doctrine—though narrowed by the United States Supreme Court—remains a potent exception to the warrant requirement. Below we walk through the facts, the governing law, and the court’s analysis so you understand how a simple grocery-store stop turned into a lawful seizure of guns, drugs, and cash.

What Sparked the Parking-Lot Search?

On September 24, 2021, Greenfield Deputy Chief William Gordon and Officer Laura Gordon were off duty, dressed in plain clothes, and driving an unmarked cruiser to pick up groceries at the Big Y supermarket. As they pulled into the lot, a police radio call reported a semi-conscious person in a nearby vehicle. The officers rolled over to the car, where bystanders pointed to a man slumped at the wheel—later identified as the defendant, Page. His skin looked pale, his breathing labored, and Officer Gordon suspected an overdose.

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.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement, which can include unlawful arrests or detainments. In the event of an unlawful search or seizure, the law mandates that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in the prosecution. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently heard a case that challenged the suppression of evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the Defendant was stopped by police under suspicion of involvement in a drug transaction. The defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during the stop, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge ruled in favor of the defendant, suppressing the evidence. However, the Commonwealth appealed the decision, leading to a reversal by the Supreme Judicial Court.

The background of the case provides context for understanding the court’s decision. A police detective, with extensive experience in narcotics cases, conducted surveillance in a parking lot known for drug activity. The detective observed the defendant engaging in what he believed to be a drug transaction based on specific behaviors and contextual factors. Despite not witnessing an actual exchange of items, the detective’s observations, combined with information from a fellow officer regarding the defendant’s reputation as a drug dealer, led him to suspect criminal activity.

With the increasing seriousness and public awareness of the nationwide opioid epidemic, Massachusetts lawmakers, prosecutors, and courts seem eager to address the problems by seeking quick convictions and harsh sentences for crimes relating to the distribution of heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids. While this strict enforcement of drug laws may ultimately support public health, overeager police officers and prosecutors often violate Massachusetts residents’ constitutional rights in the process of enforcing drug laws. A criminal defendant recently appealed his conviction for heroin distribution, alleging that the search leading to his arrest was unconstitutional.

The case in question involved a defendant accused of distributing heroin. After a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge found the defendant guilty. The defendant subsequently appealed his conviction, challenging pretrial rulings made by the trial court. One of the primary defenses raised by the defendant was a motion to suppress evidence. The crux of this argument was whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s vehicle, leading to the discovery of evidence that could potentially incriminate him.

In assessing this motion, the court followed the established legal framework. It’s essential to note that police officers can affect a motor vehicle stop based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, the defendant contended that the police lacked such reasonable suspicion, which would render the subsequent evidence inadmissible. The court’s decision emphasized that when the basis for reasonable suspicion is a perceived drug transaction, it is not necessary for the police to observe an actual exchange of drugs or cash. Instead, it is essential that their observations occur in a factual context that points to criminal activity.

In the realm of criminal defense law, few issues are as critical as the effectiveness of legal counsel. The United States and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have both established that Massachusetts residents are entitled to a constitutional right to effective criminal defense counsel after being charged with a crime. A panel of The Appeals Court of Massachusetts recently reversed a lower court ruling denying a defendant the opportunity to withdraw a guilty plea for a drug possession charge, after his counsel failed to accurately advise him of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea.

The defendant, originally from the Dominican Republic, arrived in the Boston area in 2003. According to the facts discussed in the judicial opinion, the defendant was stopped by police in August 2008 on suspicion of a traffic violation. During the stop, police discovered suspected narcotics in his car’s center console, leading to multiple charges, including possession of a class B substance with intent to distribute. This charge carried a potentially severe punishment—up to ten years in a state prison.

In December 2008, the defendant opted to plead guilty to the drug offense and received a sentence of probation for one year, which he successfully completed. Fast forward to 2021, and the defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion for a new trial. His claim was centered on the allegation that his original plea counsel had failed to provide accurate advice regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. According to the defendant’s affidavit, if he had been correctly informed of these consequences, he would not have pleaded guilty.

Continue reading

Massachusetts law enforcement officers and agencies rely heavily on tips and testimony offered by confidential informants (CIs) when investigating and charging alleged criminal activity. Police often acquire CIs from the community in which they are investigating crimes. CIs who have previously been involved in criminal conduct are often offered incentives by prosecutors and law enforcement to encourage them to cooperate against their former compatriots. Because CIs are often involved in several investigations and are essentially working “undercover” in the criminal community while they are assisting law enforcement, the identities of active and inactive CIs are kept closely guarded by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that prosecutors do not need to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, even after a defendant argued that the identity may assist in mounting a defense against charged crimes.

The defendant in the recently decided case was stopped and arrested on suspicion of selling cocaine after a confidential informant notified police that the defendant was selling drugs on a Springfield street corner. Based on the informant’s tip, surveilling police officers witnessed the defendant performing apparent drug transactions and ultimately stopped him based upon a traffic violation after he entered the vehicle to leave the street corner. Before trial, the defendant requested the identity and other information about the confidential informant who allegedly told the police about his criminal activity. The trial judge granted the defendant’s motion, ruling that the information would assist the defendant in defending against the charges.

The prosecution immediately appealed the ruling to a higher court, and it was put on hold pending appellate review. On appeal, the Massachusetts High Judicial Court ruled that state law requires a trial judge to apply a two-step formula in deciding whether to unmask the identity of a confidential informant. After finding that the prosecution has properly invoked the informant privilege, a court must balance the competing factors of the defendant’s right to mount a defense with the state’s interest in protecting the functionality and physical safety of the CI. Because the trial court in the recent case did not appear to perform the two-step analysis, the high court reversed the trial judge’s ruling. Furthermore, the high court found that under the two-step analysis, the defendant would not be entitled to know the identity of the CI. As a result of the appellate ruling, the case against the defendant will proceed with the CIs identity undisclosed.

Earlier this month, a defendant in Massachusetts asked a court of appeals to overturn his conviction for possession of a class B substance with intent to distribute. On appeal, the defendant argued that his previous attorney had not properly advised him of the immigration consequences that he would face if he entered a guilty plea. If he had known these consequences, said the defendant, he would not have pled guilty in the first place. The court of appeals reviewed the defendant’s argument and ultimately agreed with him, reversing the lower court’s verdict as a result.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant came to the United States from Guatemala as a child. Because the defendant’s parents had neglected him in Guatemala, the defendant applied for a special immigration status called “Special Immigration Juvenile” status, which allows immigrants whose parents have mistreated them to gain status in the States.

While the defendant was awaiting a decision from the judge on his Special Immigration Juvenile status case, he was charged with drug possession after an officer found him with crack cocaine. The defendant received a court-appointed attorney to help him navigate the criminal case, and that attorney failed to mention to the defendant that if he pled guilty to the crime, he would no longer be eligible for the Special Immigration Juvenile status he had been working so hard to get.

Continue reading