» Drug Possession

Illegal Drug Related Charges, SCHOOL ZONE DISMISSED, Negligent Operation, Speeding, License Suspension, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE

June 26th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)

Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J

Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)

Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation Chapter 90 Section 18
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense Chapter 90 Section 23E
Client was recently licensed barber who was charged with several offenses. Those offenses included Possession of Heroin, Possession of Heroin with the Intent to Distribute, School Zone/Park Drug Violation, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Failure to Stop for Police, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, and related civil infractions. According to police, they saw client driving and they knew from prior knowledge that he did not have an active license. They stated they were “very familiar” with client. The statement that they were very familiar with client was supported by the client’s former arrest for distribution and possession of drugs. When they hit the sirens to pull him over he took off and the police chased him for several streets until they caught him on a one way. After client was stopped, they arrested him and took him for booking. After the arrest they found ten separate baggies of what was heroin, packaged in a method consistent with distribution of the drug. Moreover, and very problematic for the Defendant, was that the police charged him with distributing the drugs in a school zone, which carries a two-year house of correction sentence—mandatory—meaning no suspended sentence, no house arrest and obligatory jail time. After nearly a year of litigating the case and hiring an expert in distribution of drugs, the day of trial finally arrived. At trial, the Commonwealth brought with them their own expert in drug distribution, an expert in school zone measurement, two police officers, a chemist from the State Police crime lab, and a representative from the Department of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Despite Attorney Barabino's ability to and desire to prove his client's innocence, a deal was offered that client was very receptive to. The deal included the Commonwealth dismissing the School Zone Drug Violation charge, dismissing the Possession Charge, reducing the Driving on a Suspended License offense from a subsequent offense to a first offense, a Continuation Without a Finding on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and no fine imposed for the civil offenses.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE.

Unlawful Drug Possession, Drug Violation Near School Zone/Park, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, ENTIRE CASE DISMISSED

April 4th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a hard working tattoo artist who was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin within a school zone. The school zone charge is a minimum-mandatory sentence of two years in a house of correction. The police alleged that they came into his home and viewed numerous drug-dealing equipment and unsold heroin. The client had had a search warrant served on his premises merely a week before, and the police were eager to make a bust. In this case, the police received a 911 call that an assault took place at the premises and used that as part of their authority to enter the home of client. When they entered the home, they did not have a warrant, but did receive permission from roommates---but not enough permission to make the search legal. As a result, after nearly a year of litigating the case, Attorney Barabino along with the other co-defendants placed the case on for a Motion to Suppress the evidence that was recovered from police. The goal was to suppress the evidence (or throw out) all the drugs and drug dealing equipment from being used at trial as proof against defendants, because the search was not constitutionally legal. After the hearing, at which the police and defendants testified, the court issued a three page-decision agreeing with client that the police search was unconstitutional and all the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case against the client was dismissed on all counts.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, ENTIRE CASE DISMISSED.

1 2 Last »