» Heroin

Drug Possession, DISMISSED

May 19th 2015
Drug, Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense
According to police, they arrived at a local McDonald's bathroom to find the accused under the influence of a drug and with brown bags of powder and a needle. According to police, he admitted that he had taken heroin. The Commonwealth made an attempt to obtain medical records to support the charge, but after a hearing, that was denied. Also, the commonwealth was unable to obtain a drug certification certificate from the state crime lab. As a result, at the day of trial, they simply withdrew the prosecution. The court and its staff along with the District Attorney were professional, competent, and classy. In the end, the case was withdrawn from prosecution. In essence, Dismissed.
RESULT: Class “A” Possession, SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, DISMISSED.

Drug Possession, License Suspended, Disguise to Obstruct Justice, MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED, NO CONVICTIONS, NO DRUG SCREENS OR PROBATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED

May 7th 2015
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Gabapentin
Possession of Class “B” Suboxone
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle
Disguise to Obstruct Justice
Client was hard working contractor who was a target of a drug task force. The task force pulled him over with no license, and client giving a fake name and information resulted in arrest. In addition, task force had warrants. Upon searching the motor vehicle it found various drugs of different categories. He was charged with illegally possessing those as well. Also, client had recently been released after doing a committed jail sentence for various crimes. Fortunately, Attorney Barabino and client reviewed the case and Attorney Barabino found an imperfection with the arrest process---an imperfection that could lead to a judge determining that the arrest was illegal and that the evidence should be thrown out. After Attorney Barabino provided the court with a detailed legal memorandum, a hearing was set. Attorney Barabino and an experienced, seasoned DA, reviewed the progress client had been making and the probability that defense could be successful. Since drug screens would not be compatible with his job, both parties agreed on a two-year Continued Without a Finding (CWOF), which meant that the case would be dismissed after two years. No drug screens or attendance with probation would be necessary.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED, Probation with NO CONVICTIONS if continues crime free for two years. NO DRUG SCREENS OR PROBATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED.

Possession of Heroin, NO DRUG TESTING, NO FURTHER COURT DATES OR PROBATION RESTRICTIONS, NO FINDING OF GUILT

June 28th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Client was seen purchasing drugs with another female. Once police saw this activity they noticed and observed even more incriminating behavior. They approached the vehicle client and friend were in, and when they did the police saw heroin in plain view in her hand. Also within plain were items used to inject heroin. Client had desire to bring case to closure as quickly as possible, so Attorney Barabino negotiated a deal with the District Attorney that allowed her a one-year probation period with no guilty finding. In the end, the case would be dismissed after one year and client did not have to appear again in court as she was given administrative probation and did not have to have any drug testing.
RESULT: NO DRUG TESTING, NO FURTHER COURT DATES OR PROBATION RESTRICTIONS, NO FINDING OF GUILT

Possession of Heroin, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

March 20th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a very pleasant young woman from a great family. However, unknown to her family she had developed an addiction to heroin—a very powerful one for that matter. Attorney Barabino filed a rather obscure and rarely used IIIE statute. Under IIIE, if the Defendant acknowledges their addiction, enters and completes rehabilitation, the charge against them will be dropped. The court allowed the motion to be filed nearly a year ago and after one year of negative drug screens provided to the court, the case against the client was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

Drug Possession Charges, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, CASE DISMISSED

March 15th 2013
Reckless Endangerment of Child
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Substance
Client was a hard working waitress who had been associated with drug use and abuse for some time. On the above date, she was charged with possession of Class A, B, and E drugs and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. According to police, they received a 911 emergency call that two people were badly intoxicated, and they were consequently dispatched to investigate. Upon doing so, they saw a man who appeared to be intoxicated and client who was seated in a vehicle. According to police, there was evidence they were about to shoot heroin with their child in the back seat. Attorney Barabino challenged the method and extraction of client as unconstitutional and after hearing testimony, arguments being made, and supported case law asserted, the judge issued a decision, which allowed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Since the evidence was excluded, the case would be dismissed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.