Case Results
Commonwealth v. R.C.
Norfolk Superior Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF A POLE CAMERA AIMED AT THE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Defendant was under investigation by the Massachusetts State Police for the crimes of Possession of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29C) and Dissemination of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29B). Police obtained evidence that an IP address associated with a residence, a large apartment building, was used to commit the crimes of possession and dissemination of child pornography. Police installed a pole camera across the street from the apartment building to conduct surveillance. After viewing the pole camera footage, State Police obtained a search warrant to search apartments within the apartment building. After executing the search warrant, police seized electronic devices containing illegal evidence.
Result: At the time of the Defendant’s arrest, there were no reported court cases in Massachusetts dealing with the government’s use of pole cameras because this kind of technology was new. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan found a recent case in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, United States vs. Moore-Bush, 381 F. Supp. 3d 139 (D. Mass 2019) in which Judge Young found that the government’s use of a pole camera was a search in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant on the grounds that law enforcement’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search. At the suppression hearing, nearly 100 exhibits were introduced and numerous witnesses testified. After the hearing, the U.S. District Court reversed Judge Young’s decision, holding that the use of the pole camera was not a violation of the Federal Constitution. However, Attorney Noonan argued that the use of the pole camera was a search in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. After the hearing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a new decision in Commonwealth v. Mora, 485 Mass. 360 (2020) where the SJC held that the government’s use of pole cameras was a search in violation of the State Constitution. After the SJC’s decision in Mora, the Superior Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the government’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search in violation of the State Constitution. Presently, this case is still being litigated on the issue of whether the illegal search should result in the suppression of evidence. Stay tuned.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING
Defendant was charged with Shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A) stemming from an incident at Walmart where the Defendant took printer ink, placed it in his waistband, and exited the store without paying for it.
Result: At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the Defendant took the printer ink because he needed it for school, as he was attending a local college, and he didn’t have enough money to pay for the item, and this was a split-second decision where the Defendant impulsively took the printer ink without thinking and instantly regretted it. Defendant was working full-time while attending college and he played on the college’s soccer team. He was having difficulty with his finances and difficulty paying bills and he was struggling to pay his rent, pay his student loans, and make ends meet. After the hearing, the clerk decided to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, Defendant does not have a criminal record due to this incident.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Hingham District Court
IN PERHAPS THE FIRST CASE DECIDED BY THE COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS, A DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES IS EXPUNGED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF DEMONSTRABLE ERRORS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A LIVE EXPLOSIVE DEVICE.
Expungement of a criminal record is extremely rare in Massachusetts. Recently, in October of 2018, the Legislature passed new legislation regarding the expungement of criminal records. G.L. c. 276, §100K states that the Court may order the expungement of a criminal record if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the record was created as a result of demonstrable errors by law enforcement. As of the date of this case, Attorney Noonan has not found one reported case in Massachusetts in which a Court has expunged a criminal record due to errors committed by law enforcement.
Result: Police were called to the Defendant’s home after wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making suicidal threats. Upon arrival, police sectioned the Defendant and had him transported to the hospital for an evaluation. As the Defendant was committed for mental illness and substance abuse, his License to Carry Firearms was suspended and the police went to his home to seize all his firearms. In the Defendant’s home, they recovered a hand grenade in a gun locker. The police incorrectly concluded that it was a live grenade. Defendant told the police that he purchased the grenade online and that the grenade was “fake.” A K-9 alerted to the presence of explosives in the grenade. The Bomb Squad inspected the grenade and erroneously concluded that it was a live grenade and contained explosive material. The Bomb Squad brought the grenade to a site where they detonated the grenade. According to the Bomb Squad, the grenade detonated as designed; another incorrect conclusion. It was the opinion of the Bomb Squad that this was a live grenade with explosive material in it. Laboratory testing showed that the grenade did not contain any explosives. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the evidence reviewed by an explosives expert, who formed an expert opinion that the Bomb Squad should have known that this was not a live grenade. The grenade had a distinctive marking, which indicated that it was a practice grenade and not live. The Bomb Squad could have scraped any explosive material out of the grenade and tested it. If the grenade did contain explosives, any explosive material would have a very distinct odor readily identifiable to an expert. The detonation of the grenade was unnecessary because a trained explosives expert would have been able to conclude that it was not a live grenade. When the Bomb Squad detonated the grenade, they introduced their own explosive material to cause the explosion and the grenade did not detonate, as designed. After the hearing, the Court found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendant was charged with this crime due to demonstrable errors committed by law enforcement.
Commonwealth v. C.M.
Taunton District Court
PROBATION DEPARTMENT MOVES TO DETAIN THE DEFENDANT IN JAIL FOR COMMITTING A NEW CRIME WHILE ON PROBATION, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT RELEASED
Defendant was on probation in the Taunton District Court after having admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on two charges of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). While on probation, Defendant was arrested by the Rehoboth Police for Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Child under 14, a felony. The Probation Department requested that the Defendant be detained, or held in jail, pending a hearing on his Probation Violation. However, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the judge to release his client pending the Probation Violation Hearing. Stay tuned.
Jermaine Hood vs. Lowell Police Dept.
Lowell District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS DUE TO ARRESTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.
Plaintiff had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was suspended by the Lowell Police Department because he was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. According to the police department, the Plaintiff’s arrest made him an “unsuitable person” to possess a firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision of the police department to the Lowell District Court. The Police Department opposed the appeal and maintained that the Plaintiff was an unsuitable person.
Result: At the hearing in the Lowell District Court, the firearm licensing officer for the Lowell Police Department testified that the facts and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s arrest for OUI and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated justified the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the officer and pointed out that the Plaintiff was found not guilty of OUI and the firearm offense was dismissed by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the Lowell Police Department felt that the facts surrounding his arrest supported the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that the OUI should not be considered as a basis for a suspension because a jury, upon hearing the facts of the case, determined that the Plaintiff was not guilty of committing that offense. The Police Department maintained that the Defendant’s possession of a firearm while arrested for an OUI made him unsuitable. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer never investigated, or determined, why the prosecution decided to dismiss the firearm offense. The Court inferred that the firearm offense must have been a weak case if the prosecution decided not to prosecute him for that offense. Moreover, the licensing officer did not contact the Plaintiff to interview him to learn about outcome of the criminal case. The Court found that the Lowell Police Department should have conducted further inquiry before deciding to suspend the LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that it was unreasonable to suspend the LTC because the arrest occurred a long time ago, and the decision to suspend his license was not based on any recent evidence of unsuitability. Attorney Noonan had his client testify and he presented evidence of his suitability, which the Court credited. After the hearing, the Court reversed the decision to suspend the LTC and found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving that the decision by the Defendant was an abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST AIR FORCE ACADEMY PREP SCHOOL CADET DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client was a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy Preparatory School in Colorado. She graduated from high school in Massachusetts as an exemplary student and athlete. Due to her hard-work, strong work ethic, and impressive background, she was accepted to the U.S. Air Force Academy Prep School. Upon her graduation, she will apply to the United States Air Force Academy with aspirations of serving a career in the United States Air Force. She was alleged to have shoplifted items from a department store, and the police department filed an application for criminal complaint against her for larceny under G.L. c. 266, §30.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint for larceny, which was a huge win for this client, as a criminal record would virtually destroy her dreams of serving in the United States Air Force. The client will have no criminal record as a result of this incident.
Boston Security Guard Assault Settlement – Black Eye
23 year old client sustained black eye in an altercation with another customer at a bar in Boston. Client’s only medical treatment was a visit to his primary care physician’s office.
Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan settled the claim.
Barroom Assault and Battery Settlement
On October 6, 2012, Client was a patron at a night club in Boston. Bouncers ejected him from the establishment and one bouncer punched him in the face, causing him to sustain a black eye.
Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan settled the case.
Bar Bouncer Assault – Rear Naked Chokehold Settlement
Bouncer at a Boston Bar administered rear naked choke hold to remove client from bar. Client did not receive medical treatment.
Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan settled the claim.