» Motion to Suppress

November 16^th 2015
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Firearm Carrying without a license
The defendant was a passenger in his mother's car when it was pulled over by Massachusetts State Police. When State Police noticed he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, they wrote him a citation. When they wrote him a citation, they noticed he had active warrants. The police testified that when defendant provided his license to police, they noticed that he slid a small black pistol in between the seats. After the Defendant was arrested the police located and secured a small black revolver. After a motion to suppress, the case was set for trial. Ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, and various witnesses were called. The coordination was tedious, but all the pieces needed to be in place for the trial to begin. After five separate trial dates, the court dismissed the case, without prejudice. However, if the case is brought back to court, Attorney Barabino can move to dismiss the charges for failure to comply with time standards.
RESULT: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON ALL CHARGES. Upon re-applying for charges in future, Motion to DISMISS to be considered by court

March 18^th 2015
Larceny by Single Scheme
Credit Card False over 250
Identity Fraud
Client was a polite, bright young man who had a drug problem. According to police, he was involved in several schemes to defraud people. First, gaining access to their credit cards and eventually using those credit cards for exorbitant purchases. Police investigated and made an identification of his co-defendant. Attorney Barabino sought an evidentiary hearing, filing a motion with the court with a supporting legal memorandum outlining the reasons why the court should not permit the “I.D.” to be allowed, since it was suggestive. The court agreed. The motion to exclude the ‘I.D.” was allowed and little evidence remained in the case for the prosecution. After nearly a year of preparation, the case resulted in a dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

July 24^th 2014
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Leave Scene of Property Damage
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working, truck-driving grandfather. According to police, he smashed into another motor vehicle and a road sign at a parking lot and left without informing anyone. The police investigated and interviewed the defendant at his home. When they interviewed the defendant, he had slurred speech, smelt of alcohol and had a hard time standing up. Attorney Barabino filed a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant, but the judge at an earlier date did not allow the motion. After viewing the scene and interviewing the witnesses, who gave a much different account than the police, a trial was requested. At trial, a judge declared that the Defendant is not guilty. A prior agreement for leaving the scene was generally continued for six months with no admission of any wrongdoing. Client had been an immediate threat and unable to drive since the beginning of the case, but could immediately seek reinstatement from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF OUI/DWI.

April 24^th 2014
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was in a one-person car accident. He was interviewed by state police and eventually arrested and charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and a Non-Criminal charge of Marked Lanes Violation. Since being charged, the defendant's motor vehicle insurance skyrocketed and he faced a mandatory future license loss, fines and fees, and shockingly, a potential two year sentence in a house of correction. After interviewing client and examining the scene and related materials, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Suppress the statements made by defendant at his hospital bed. Once the motion was filed, a hearing date was scheduled and all the parties, including police, were required to appear before a judge to hear evidence. Fortunately for the defendant, an experienced district attorney had reviewed the file and after speaking with the officer and reviewing all the facts, allowed a straight dismissal of the criminal charge and a "not responsible" for the civil charge of a Marked Lanes Violation.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED, Criminal Case DISMISSED. Civil Violation Declared, NOT RESPONSIBLE.

January 21^st 2014
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Client had been accused of dealing drugs from his motel room. According to police, they had credible information that client was dealing and proceeded to obtain a search warrant for evidence of drug dealing. The police were successful in obtaining the warrant and initiated a raid on what they thought was a drug compound. The result was that the young couple was caught in possession of drugs--not distributing them. They were arrested and Attorney Barabino reviewed the warrant in great detail and upon recognizing a defect, filed for a hearing to throw out the evidence. That hearing was granted, his motion allowed, and the drugs were not allowed to be used against the defendant. As a result, the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Search Warrant, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 5^th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property
Malicious Destruction of Property
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
The defendant was at his home when police came and began an investigation into an allegation that he shot an elderly man with a BB gun, twice. When police interviewed the mother of defendant she declared that they were just out on the roof of their home shooting. Police recovered the BB gun and defendant and his mother made statements that were not helpful. Moreover, police had received other complaints of a similar nature the day before from this location, relating to the gun. A Motion to Suppress the statements made by the defendant's was filed. The judge allowed the defense's motion. After nearly a year, the case came to trial, and the limited evidence resulted in a full dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Statements, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

June 18^th 2013
Firearm on School Grounds, Carrying Chapter 269 Section 10(j)
Client, a building contractor, was found armed with a loaded .380 weapon on his person at a local university. Although licensed to carry the firearm, state law forbids such carrying without specific written permission from the campus police department, which he did not have. As a result, client was charged with the above offense. Client’s main concern was how a potential conviction could impact his license to carry in the future. After several court appearances, a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Suppress were filed, and a hearing was scheduled. On the day of the hearing and after all the parties discussed the issues, a resolution of simply dismissing the case after six months of unsupervised probation would close the matter.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress FILED, Deal Made, Six Months of Probation, CASE DISMISSED.

June 12^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was a retired US Air Force officer with over twenty year of service. Client had been attempting to assist his girlfriend’s daughter in her struggle with drug addiction. Client and girlfriend were making attempts to detoxify daughter and purchased drugs so they could monitor her detoxification. While they were picking her up at a drug house, police surprised the group and arrested all three. The police based their arrest on the High Crime Area where they were, statements made, and an admission of drugs in their possession and other factors. Despite the reasons for being there, the police were not interested in any reduction of the charge. Attorney Barabino sought a full evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionally of the arrest. Today, the court issued their legal analysis indicating that Attorney Barabino’s argument was correct and that the drugs could not be used in the prosecution of the case---meaning the drugs seized were “suppressed”, or thrown out. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.