Patrick J. Noonan (Archives)

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN INCIDENT WHERE HIS TEENAGE SON ACCESSED HIS FIREARM FROM AN UNLOCKED SAFE AND POSTED VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND THE GUN ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINDTATE HIS LTC

Client, a Brockton resident, is a 54 year-old engineer and real estate agent with no criminal record whatsoever. The client and his wife (a certified nursing assistant) emigrated from Haiti and built a great life for their family in the United States. The police department suspended the client’s LTC due to an incident where his teenage son accessed his firearm from an unlocked safe and posted videos of himself posing with the gun on social media. The videos on social media were reported to the son’s school who, in turn, contacted the police department. As a result of this incident, the police department suspended the client’s License to Carry Firearms (LTC).

Result: The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in an effort to persuade the police department to reinstate his LTC. The firearms licensing officer told Attorney Noonan that the client was extremely remorseful for the incident and took full responsibility for the incident. The firearms licensing officer was open to considering an LTC reinstatement based, in large part, on the client’s truthfulness about the incident and his genuine remorse for what happened. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client made a poor mistake but something like this would never happen again. He left the unloaded firearm out of his sight for only a few minutes, which resulted in this incident. The client immediately completed a course in firearm’s safety. The main reason why the officer was willing to entertain a potential reinstatement was the client’s genuineness and truthfulness in speaking with police about the incident, his sincere expression of remorse, and his willingness to correct the mistake. After negotiations, the client’s LTC was reinstated.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO A SHOPLIFTING ARREST BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINSTATE HIS LTC.

Client obtained a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) for his job as an armed security guard where he provided armed security for federal buildings in Boston. Client was arrested for shoplifting from the Lord & Taylor department store in the Braintree Mall. As a result of his arrest, the client’s license to carry firearms (LTC) was suspended by the police department finding him to be an “unsuitable” person to possess an LTC and firearms. Due to the suspension of his LTC, the client lost his job in armed security. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to have his LTC reinstated.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Police Department who suspended the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s LTC should be reinstated because the basis for the suspension (the shoplifting arrest) was dismissed. Even if a criminal charge is dismissed, the police department may still suspend an applicant’s LTC if the police department determines that the applicant is “unsuitable” to possess an LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client was a “suitable person” and that his shoplifting arrest was a stupid mistake. The client earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing and graduated with high honors. Attorney Noonan presented letters from the client’s co-workers in armed security attesting to his character and suitability. After the shoplifting case was dismissed, the client got a job as a health care provider at a residential facility treating of people with mental illness. The client received an award for providing life-saving assistance to a patient suffering from a medical emergency. Since the suspension, the client satisfactorily completed a firearm’s safety course. In sum, although the client was deemed to be unsuitable for his shoplifting arrest, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s suitability and the police department changed its mind and reinstated the LTC.

IN A CASE FEATURED ON THE NEWS, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN ACCUSED OF BEATING AN ELDERLY MAN AFTER A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT

The Defendant is a Brockton man with no criminal record. He has never been in trouble before. On January 2, 2019, Defendant was at a stop light in Easton. According to police, Defendant attempted to pass another vehicle when the two cars hit one another. The other driver, however, did not pull over so the Defendant followed him. The other driver eventually pulled into the parking lot of a bank. A verbal argument ensued. Defendant was accused of punching the elderly man in the face several times. Photographs were taken showing lacerations and bleeding to the alleged victim’s face. Defendant was arrested by Easton Police and charged with the felony offense Assault & Battery on Elderly or Disabled Person pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13K. On the second trial date, all charges against our client were dismissed.

“Man Accused of Punching 71-Year-old After Road Rage Incident in Easton.” https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/03/road-rage-brockton-man-assault-71-year-old-man-easton-police-arraignment/

“Police: Brockton man beats senior citizen in Easton road rage attack.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20190103/police-brockton-man-beats-senior-citizen-in-easton-road-rage-attack

CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST TAUNTON MAN FOR RECKLESSLY CAUSING A CAR ACCIDENT IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Raynham Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-vehicle car accident. On the scene, police spoke to the Defendant who stated that the vehicle traveling in front of him gave him a “brake job,” e.g., applying the brakes as the Defendant was traveling behind him. Defendant admitted that he accelerated and passed the other vehicle and, while the Defendant was traveling in front of the other vehicle, the Defendant reciprocated by giving that vehicle a “brake job.” However, the other vehicle crashed into the rear of the Defendant’s vehicle as a result of the Defendant’s “brake job,” causing significant front end damage to the other vehicle. The other driver told the police that the Defendant recklessly passed him and “locked up his brakes” causing the crash. Based on the Defendant’s incriminating statements and the significant vehicle damage, the police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal complaint giving his client an opportunity to save himself from having a criminal record before a decision was made to issue formal criminal charges. In preparation for the hearing, Attorney Noonan had his client complete a safe driving course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim’s motor vehicle damage had been paid for by insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing his client’s good character, including a character letter from the Defendant’s employer where the Defendant had worked for six-years. Attorney Noonan argued that his client made a foolish mistake but took responsibility for his actions. At the conclusion of the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, no criminal complaint issued against the client and the client has no criminal record as a result of this incident.

MBTA WORKER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED AFTER CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR UNLAWFULLY CARRYING A FIREARM OUTSIDE HIS RESTRICTION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED

The client has a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with a restriction for target shooting purposes only. The client was criminally charged in Boston with unlawfully carrying a firearm outside his target shooting restriction. At 2:41 a.m., Boston Police were patrolling a high crime area, which had been the scene of recent shootings. Officers were suspicious that the Defendant’s vehicle and another vehicle were parked in close proximity to each other (in this high-crime area) and the vehicles took off in separate directions. Officers followed the Defendant’s vehicle and their suspicious increased because the vehicle’s windows were tinted and the license plate was obstructed by some plastic covering. Officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him if he had a firearm in his possession. Defendant was truthful and stated that he had a firearm underneath his seat. His LTC was restricted to target shooting only and the police felt that the Defendant had possessed the firearm outside his restriction and charged him criminally. Following the criminal charge, the client’s LTC was suspended.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned the Police Department to reinstate his client’s LTC for the following reasons: First, the criminal charge was dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing. He was only issued warnings for the civil infractions for the tinted windows and license plate obstruction. Second, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was in that specific area in Boston because he was visiting his grandmother. The client was not doing anything suspicious. Third, the client had gone target shooting that day at the Braintree Rifle and Pistol Club with co-workers of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Fourth, Attorney Noonan presented strong character evidence. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed by the MBTA for six years. Several respectable members of the community offered letters attesting to the client’s character. Finally, the client completed a firearm’s safety course. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the police department reinstated the client’s license to carry firearms.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 209A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST BROCKTON MAN, ACCUSED OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, TERMINATED.

The Plaintiff brought a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant on behalf of his sixteen year-old daughter pursuant to G.L. c. 209A. Defendant resided on the first-floor of a multi-family home in Brockton. The Plaintiff resided on the second-floor with his two daughters who were minors. The Plaintiff-Father alleged that the Defendant engaged in some inappropriate behavior with his two minor daughters. The father alleged that the Defendant was giving money to his daughters for some inappropriate purpose, but the daughters refused to tell their father why the Defendant had given them the money, or if there was any inappropriate behavior. The father believed that something inappropriate happened with his daughters, but he didn’t know what.

Result: At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the father who admitted that he was unsure about the Defendant’s alleged misconduct because his daughters did not make actual disclosures to him. After some questioning, the father agreed to withdraw his request for a restraining order. The restraining order has been vacated.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT TERMINATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING VIOLENT OFFENSES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR VIOLATING THE RESTRAINING ORDER ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

The Plaintiff is the former girlfriend of the Defendant. Defendant was charged with many serious crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including Stalking (G.L. c. 265, § 43), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A), and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). The Plaintiff provided police with a cell phone video showing that the Defendant had jumped on her car, gained access to the inside of her car, and began driving her car, while the Plaintiff was seated in the passenger seat screaming out in fear. She provided police with photographs of injuries to her arm that were inflicted by the Defendant. She told police that she broke up with the Defendant but he continually stalked her. When the Defendant was arraigned on those criminal charges, the girlfriend obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which ordered him to stay away from her, not contact her, and not abuse her. While the Restraining Order was in effect, the Defendant violated the restraining order because he had contacted the girlfriend several times and showed up to her workplace. As a result of the violations, Defendant was criminally charged with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209, §7).

Result: A hearing was scheduled on the Plaintiff’s request to extend the restraining order against the Defendant. The Plaintiff had a very good chance of prevailing in her request to extend the restraining order because the Defendant was currently charged with a multitude of violent crimes against her, and he had violated the restraining order three different times. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to represent him on the criminal charges. Attorney Noonan is aggressively defending him on the criminal charges, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge, he has retained an expert witness, he has conducted his own investigation into the allegations, and he has been pressing for more evidence. The Plaintiff obtained an temporary extension of the 209A Order with the Court by telephone, but Attorney Noonan demanded an evidentiary hearing on her request to extend the restraining order. The Plaintiff had shown all indications that she would be pursuing an extension of the restraining order. She has been heavily involved in the Defendant’s prosecution, provided police with evidence of his crimes, including videos, photos, e-mails, and text messages. It was expected that she would appear at the hearing to request an extension of the Order, but she did not appear and the Order was vacated.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED BY BOSTON POLICE FOR BEING UNCOOPERATIVE DURING A POLICE INVESTIGATION, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED.

Client is a 30 year-old Boston man with no record of criminal convictions. He was issued a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) by the Boston Police. Client was employed in armed security, which required him to have an LTC. In 2020, client was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Hyde Park where he was shot in the leg. While in the hospital, police proceeded to question him, but the officer found that the client was being “uncooperative.” As a result, Boston Police suspended his LTC alleging that he was an “unsuitable person” to be issued an LTC because he was uncooperative with the police.

Result: The client’s livelihood depended on him having an LTC. Because his LTC was denied, he lost his job in armed security and was unemployed. The client’s career in armed security seemed bleak because his LTC was suspended. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Complaint in the Boston Municipal Court seeking judicial review and appealing the decision of the Boston Police in suspending his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that: There is no reasonable nexus between the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police and a risk to public safety – and the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police was not reasonably related to the statute’s goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of persons who would cause a risk to public safety. Shortly after the filing of the Complaint and the Appeal, the Boston Police rightly decided to reinstate the client’s LTC. Now the client can return to work in armed security.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals

98 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2020)

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY DRUG OFFENSES AFTER A TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE HIS CONVICTIONS AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS ARE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented this client since he was arrested in 2016 on two-counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In this case, a Confidential Informant (CI) provided Brockton Police with information that the Defendant was selling heroin in Brockton. The CI engaged in two controlled buys for drugs with the Defendant under the supervision of Brockton Police. In the two controlled buys, Police observed the Defendant meet the CI and engaged in a drug transaction. After each controlled buy, the drugs were field tested as positive for heroin. As a result of the information supplied by the CI, and the two controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Brockton for drugs. When executing the search warrant, police found 37 bags containing a half-ounce of heroin, and glass jars containing over 3 lbs. of marijuana. As a result of the search, Brockton Police charged the Defendant with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, and Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C(a)).

Result: In the Brockton District Court, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, which was denied. Attorney Noonan filed an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals appealing the denial of his Motion to Suppress, which was also denied. Attorney Noonan also represented the Defendant at his jury trial in the Brockton District Court, which ended in guilty verdicts. This time, Attorney Noonan was successful in his appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which resulted in the reversal of his convictions, and Not Guilty findings were entered for the Defendant.

“Police seize half ounce of heroin, 3lbs of marijuana from Brockton brothers.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20160629/police-seize-half-ounce-of-heroin-3lbs-of-marijuana-from-brockton-brothers

Read the Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Gregory Pierre-Charles.

See Video of Attorney Patrick J. Noonan arguing the appeal before the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE OFFENSE.

 Stoughton Police arrested and charged the Defendant with Resisting Arrest pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §32B. Police were called to a parking lot for a male party sitting in a vehicle “who was reported to be not acting right.” Officer approached the vehicle, and spoke to the Defendant who was mumbling and argumentative. Police observed several empty alcoholic nips bottles in the vehicle. Officers asked him about his drinking, and Defendant was argumentative. Police observed that he was very intoxicated. Police asked him to step out of the vehicle. As he exited the vehicle, Defendant lost his balance and the officer reached out to grab him to prevent him from falling, but the Defendant pulled away and tried to get away from the officers, causing officers to grab the Defendant and take him to the ground. While on the ground, Defendant continued to resist the officers, causing officers to deliver knee strikes to his body.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause arguing that: Defendant was not placed under arrest at the time he resisted officers, Officers did not have probable cause to arrest the Defendant for any crime at the time the Defendant resisted officers, and the officers never communicated to the Defendant their intent to arrest him. After a hearing, the Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY AGAINST RETIRED STATE EMPLOYEE DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE

 Defendant, a Brockton man and retired Massachusetts State employee, was charged with domestic Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13M). Brockton Police responded to the Defendant’s home in response to a 911 call from his wife who reported that the Defendant had been drinking and pushed her. Upon arrival, Defendant admitted that he pushed his wife.

Result: After the Defendant was arraigned, he hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately requested a trial date. On the trial date, the wife invoked her marital privilege and elected not to testify against her husband and the case was dismissed.

Hingham District Court

DA’S OFFICE DROPS FELONY CASE AGAINST HANOVER MAN FOR POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE DEVICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS PROOF THAT THE DEVICE DID NOT CONTAIN ANY EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL.

 Hanover Police were called to the Defendant’s residence after his wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making threats to commit suicide. Upon arrival, police observed that the Defendant had been consuming alcohol, and the Defendant confirmed that he had made suicidal threats. Police sectioned the Defendant and had him involuntarily committed due to substance abuse and mental health issues. After his arrest, Police seized firearms and ammunition from his residence. Police noticed a hand-grenade, and immediately contacted the Bomb Squad who believed that the grenade was a live explosive and contained explosive material. A K-9 alerted to the grenade as containing explosives. The Bomb Squad detonated and exploded the grenade. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession of an Incendiary Device (G.L. c. 266, §102(c)), which carries a potential State Prison sentence of not less than five (5) years.

Result:  Defendant had purchased the grenade on gunbroker.com. The grenade was shipped to him by a company in Florida. Our investigator contacted the vendor who sold the grenade to the Defendant. The vendor stated that these grenades were shipped to them from Poland, and the grenades were screened by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs before the grenades entered the U.S. The vendor stated that the grenades were dummy grenades used by law enforcement for training purposes. The vendor stated that the grenades typically have a white stripe, which indicates that it is a dummy grenade used by law enforcement for teaching purposes. Photographs of the Defendant’s grenade showed that it had a white stripe. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, which was denied by the Judge. Attorney Noonan made several requests to the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case, and provided proof from the vendor that the grenade was not live. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was a collector of old military memorabilia, which he used to decorate his home office. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant purchased the grenade, believing it was fake, to decorate his home office, which contained many old military collectables. After three requests, the District Attorney’s Office finally dismissed the case.

Plymouth Superior Court

DEFENDANT WAS FACING A MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE OF 8 YEARS FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING, BUT THE INDICTMENT WAS REDUCED TO A LOWER LEVEL OF DRUG TRAFFICING, AND THE DEFENDANT WAS SPARED FROM SERVING AN ADDITIONAL 4 ½ YEARS IN PRISON.

 Defendant was the target of operating a large scale drug trafficking operation in Brockton. The investigation consisted of information provided to the police by two (2) separate confidential informants. A confidential informant participated in several controlled buys. Under the supervision of police, the informant purchased cocaine from the Defendant, several times, at the Defendant’s residence in Brockton. Police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s residence. When the police executed the search warrant, they recovered the following evidence from the Defendant’s residence, 92.5 grams of cocaine in a closet, 19 grams of cocaine in a bureau, 503 grams of marijuana, 16 Vicodin pills, 5 Percocet pills, over $60,000 in cash, and distribution materials. Defendant was charged with: (1) Trafficking Cocaine (over 100 grams) under G.L. c. 94C, §32E(b), (2) Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana under G.L. c. 94C, §32C, and (3) Possession of Class B substance.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the evidence seized from the Defendant’s residence pursuant to the search warrant. The police obtained a No-Knock search warrant, which allowed them to enter the residence without having to knock and announce their presence. Attorney Noonan argued that, when the police arrived to the residence at 4:00 am to execute the warrant, there were no exigent circumstances present because all the occupants in the house were sleeping – and the police were required to knock and announce their presence because there was no evidence that the occupants of the home presented a threat to officer safety. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan discovered that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the police served the Defendant, in-hand, with a copy of the search warrant, which is required by law. The lead investigating officer testified that he did not have a copy of the search warrant in his possession when he executed the search warrant. The lead officer did not personally serve a copy of the search warrant on the Defendant, and the lead officer did not see any other officers serve the warrant on the Defendant. Rather, the lead officer testified that another officer had a copy of the search warrant, but the officer did not see him serve the warrant on the Defendant. Despite his efforts, Attorney Noonan’s suppression motion was unsuccessful. The indictment for trafficking 100 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory prison sentence of eight (8) years. Attorney Noonan hired an expert chemist who reviewed all the drug evidence, and Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence at trial that the Commonwealth would have difficulty proving that the police seized at least 100 grams of cocaine. The Commonwealth deserves a lot of credit because they reviewed the evidence and determined that they might have difficulty in proving that the Defendant trafficking 100 grams or more of cocaine – so the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the indictment to trafficking under 100 grams. Trafficking in cocaine under 100 grams carries a mandatory prison sentence of 3 ½ years. The Defendant pled guilty to the reduced offense, and he was spared from serving 4 ½ years in prison.

Stoughton District Court

RESISTING ARREST:                    DISMISSED

BREAKING & ENTERING:          PTP

VANDALISM:                                  PTP

DISORDERLY CONDUCT:           PTP

Defendant is 29 years old. Defendant has a history of severe alcohol abuse. On the night in question, Defendant was in his second-floor apartment in Canton and he was highly intoxicated. Defendant climbed his second-story balcony and broke into the third-floor apartment, which was unoccupied. Police were called to the third-floor apartment after receiving reports of loud noises coming from that apartment. Police entered the apartment where they found the Defendant sitting on the floor. He was intoxicated and argumentative. Defendant was experiencing hallucinations. Police were so concerned about the Defendant’s mental state that he sectioned him and had him transported to the hospital. Defendant was arrested by Canton Police and charged with: (1) Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Breaking and Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), Vandalism (G.L. c. 266, §126A) and Disorderly Conduct.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan investigated the case and determined that there was a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, also known as an insanity defense. Attorney Noonan consulted with a Psychiatrist who concluded that there was evidence of temporary insanity, and the Psychiatrist was prepared to testify as an expert witness for the defense. The proposed evidence of temporary insanity was the following: Defendant was admitted into a detox facility for alcohol dependence where he was administered several dosages of a medication known as Librium. The facility should have held the Defendant for a minimum of three days before discharging him. Defendant was able to discharge himself from the facility during the early stages of his detox. Attorney Noonan argued that the facility was negligent in prematurely discharging the Defendant because the Defendant still had the Librium in his system and it was very likely that the Defendant would consume alcohol after his discharge. After he was discharged, the Defendant returned to his apartment where he consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol. The combination of the alcohol and the Librium caused the Defendant to suffer from an acute mental reaction, as evidence by the fact that the Defendant was hallucinating when the police arrived and the police sectioned him due to his alarming mental state. When he was taken to the hospital, Defendant had no memory of what took place. The Commonwealth agreed to place the Defendant on Pretrial Probation for a period of one year with the condition that he continue with his mental health and substance abuse treatment. If the Defendant complies with these conditions, all charges will be dismissed. Pretrial Probation is an excellent outcome because the Defendant does not have to admit to any guilt or wrongdoing, and the charges are dismissed without any adverse finding against the Defendant.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHILE ON BAIL FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN ANOTHER COURT. THE COMMONWEALTH REVOKED HIS BAIL AND THE CLIENT WAS BEING HELD FOR AT LEAST 60 DAYS. AFTER CONTACTING OUR FIRM, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND THE CLIENT WAS IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

Defendant had an open criminal case in Suffolk County for Breaking & Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), (2) Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), (3) Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), and (4) Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7). While on bail for his criminal cases in Suffolk County, Defendant was arrested in Brockton for Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265,§13M); the alleged victim being his girlfriend. As a result, the Commonwealth revoked his bail, and the Defendant was ordered to be held in custody for at least 60 days under G.L. c. 276, §58A – for committing a new offense.

Result: While in jail, client hired our firm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the Brockton case. Our private investigator interviewed the witness who called the police to report the assault. The witness told our investigator that he did not witness the incident, but called the police because he heard yelling from the Defendant’s residence. Thus, there was no viable witness who would testify to the incident at trial. We were able to get the case dismissed quickly. Even though the case was dismissed, the Judge could still hold the Defendant in custody for at least 60 days. Our office convinced the judge to release the Defendant prior to the expiration of the 60 days, and the Defendant was immediately released from jail.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF SCIENTIST.

 Client is a 29 year-old. He had a Ph.D in Chemistry and he was employed as a Senior Scientist for a major, worldwide research laboratory. The client was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct stemming from an incident outside a bar in Boston where he, and his friends, were assaulted and injured by bouncers of the bar. When the police arrived, the client and his friend were suffering from injuries as a result of the bouncers’ assault. The client was in a highly emotional state, he was upset about being attacked for no reason, and he demanded that the police arrest the bouncers for assaulting them. The client was disorderly, argumentative, and combative with police, so he was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53(b)).

Result: The criminal charge on his record posed a very serious threat to his current employment and future employment. In order to get hired, the client was required to pass a very rigorous background check, including a thorough criminal background investigation. After being hired, every employee is subject to recurring criminal background checks. If his employer were to conduct a new background check, they would see that the client was charged with Disorderly Conduct, and he would most likely be terminated. Moreover, the client was considering applying for jobs with other employers in his chosen field. All prospective employers would see the charge of Disorderly Conduct when conducting a background check and the client would be prevented from obtaining future employment opportunities due to this charge. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to swiftly seal the client’s criminal record (under G.L. c. 276, §100C) preserving the client’s current employment, and giving him a clean record in applying for future jobs.

Quincy District Court

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.

The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.

Quincy District Court

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.

The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.

Roxbury District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES FELONY CONVICTION FOR DRUG DISTRIBUTION.

 In 1997, when the client was 23 years old, he was arrested and charged with Distribution of Marijuana (Distribution of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §32A), an offense carrying a punishment of 10 years in state prison. The charge stems from an incident in which the police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area. Police observed a vehicle occupied by the Defendant (the operator), a front seat passenger (co-defendant), and a backseat passenger. Police observed the vehicle pull into a McDonald’s parking lot. Police observed a white male, standing on the side walk next to the McDonald’s, continuously pacing back and forth while looking at the parked vehicle. Police observed a passenger in the vehicle, exit the vehicle, and approach the white male. Police observed the two men exchange money and an object. After the alleged drug transaction, police stopped the vehicle where they found some cash and beepers. Defendant pled guilty to the felony offense of Drug Distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the Defendant’s conviction for felony drug distribution pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 30(b). Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant, as the driver, was an accessary, accomplice, or a joint venturer in the drug transaction. Further, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant shared the mental intent of the person who committed the crime of drug distribution. After reviewing the Motion to Vacate, and the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the District Attorney’s Office agreed to vacate the conviction. Once the conviction was vacated, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi, a statement by the prosecution that they will no longer prosecute the case. In their Nolle Prosequi, the Commonwealth stated: “Following a review of the facts and circumstances of the above case, and in an effort to proceed in the interests of justice, the Commonwealth respectfully enters this Nolle Prosequi.”

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST SUSPECT IN HIT-AND-RUN ACCIDENT

 Defendant was suspected of striking a parked car on a cul-de-sac and fleeing the scene. The victim located the Defendant’s license plate next to the damaged vehicle. The victim reported the hit-and-run accident to the police who were investigating the incident. The client was facing a potential criminal charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). The client immediately contacted our firm for representation. After contacting our firm, we were able to ensure that the client was not charged with any crimes.

FIREFIGHTER’S LTC WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT’S LTC REINSTATED.

Client has been a longtime firefighter and paramedic. He is a veteran of the U.S. Navy. The client was embroiled in a bitter, contentious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife. His LTC was suspended after his ex-wife went into the police station and reported that the client had been physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive throughout their marriage. The ex-wife also called the Chief of Police and requested that the client’s LTC be suspended due to his alleged history of abuse, and she did not feel safe with him possessing weapons. As a result of the ex-wife’s allegations, allegations including a multitude of many serious criminal offenses, the police department suspended the client’s LTC.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately appealed the LTC suspension. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Attorney for the police department and presented extensive evidence of his client’s character and suitability, and Attorney Noonan pointed out issues surrounding the wife’s allegations. After months of negotiation, the police department agreed to reinstate the client’s LTC.

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST FATHER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a call for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s daughter who alleged that her father pushed her during an argument causing her to fall to the ground. Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately requested a trial date intending to prove his client’s innocence. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

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.

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.

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.

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 4^th 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.

BOSTON POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO SUIDICAL THREATS AND INTOXICATION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HER LTC REINSTATED

Client is a Boston Police Officer. Client requires a valid license to carry firearms in order to work as a police officer. The client’s license to carry was suspended because the police were called to her home for a report that the client was making suicidal statements and she was intoxicated. The police sectioned the client for mental health and substance abuse and she was transported to the emergency room for an evaluation. Because her license to carry was suspended, the client could not return to work as a police officer and her career was placed in jeopardy. If she could not have a valid LTC, she would lose her job as a police officer.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately had the client evaluated by a licensed psychologist who reviewed the police report, discharge paperwork from the hospital, and he spoke with the officers involved in the case. The psychologist performed an extensive psychological evaluation and gave his expert opinion that the client was not suicidal and she did not have substance abuse addiction. He opined that the client was stable, she was fit for duty, she was fit to return to work as a police officer, and she did not pose any danger if she were to possess firearms. The psychological evaluation, coupled with other evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, resulted in the police department reinstating and activating her LTC. Now the client can return to work as a police officer.

Brockton District Court

Plymouth Superior Court

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FINDS DEFENDANT DANGEROUS AND ORDERS HIM HELD IN JAIL UNTIL HIS TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN APPEALS AND CONVINCES THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. ON APPEAL, DEFENDANT IS FOUND “NOT” DANGEROUS AND HE IS RELEASED ON $1,500 BAIL AND CONDITIONS.

Defendant, a Brockton resident, was a passenger in a vehicle. The vehicle was wanted for being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021. State Police attempted to stop the vehicle in Boston, but the operator of the vehicle fled resulting in a car chase. The car chase went all the way from Boston into Brockton. The fleeing vehicle, traveling at a high rate of speed, crashed in Brockton. The vehicle was heavily damaged entrapping the Defendant, the passenger, and the co-defendant, operator. A team of officers ordered the defendant and co-defendant out of the vehicle by gunpoint. The co-defendant refused the officers’ commands, and police used a taser to subdue him. Police searched the glove compartment and found two handguns and large capacity ammunition. At the floor of the gas pedal, at the operator’s feet, police found a magazine. The co-defendant operator was wearing body armor underneath his jacket. Upon his arrest, Defendant had two warrants. Defendant was charged with: Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(a)), Carry a Loaded Firearm without a License, Possession of a Firearm without an FID Card (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Unlawful Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device (G.L. c. 140, §131M), and Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). The arrest was featured in the news.

Result: In the Brockton District Court, the prosecutor moved to have the Defendant held in jail until his trial on the grounds that he was “dangerous” and there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public or to assure his appearance in court. A 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Brockton District Court. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had three (3) witnesses prepared to testify. The witnesses would testify that the Defendant was not involved in the drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021 because the Defendant was at home in his father’s house in Brockton on that date. Essentially, Attorney Noonan had alibi evidence showing that the Defendant was not involved in the Boston shooting. Moreover, the witnesses would testify about the circumstances which led him to be a passenger in the vehicle on the night in question; and the proposed evidence suggested that the Defendant did not know the co-defendant-operator, and that the Defendant was a passenger in his car because he asked for a ride home. Lastly, Defendant’s father would testify that the Defendant has roots in the community and has lived with his father at the same address in Brockton for some period of time and the Defendant had a record of employment. If released, Defendant would continue to reside with his father, as he has always done. The District Court Judge did not allow Attorney Noonan’s witnesses to testify. The District Court Judge found that the prosecution proved that the Defendant was “dangerous,” and found that there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed to the Superior Court. A new 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Superior Court. After the hearing, the Superior Court Judge found that the Defendant was “not” dangerous; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. Further, the Superior Court found that there were conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public and his appearance in court; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. The Superior Court released the Defendant from jail on $1,500 cash bail and the conditions recommended by Attorney Noonan. Attorney Noonan is now preparing the case for trial.

See https://whdh.com/news/police-2-arrested-guns-and-ballistic-vest-seized-after-chase-ends-in-brockton-crash/

See https://www.boston25news.com/news/brockton-pursuit-leads-multiple-charges-arrests/LG3NGKLSLJB7HKBZHNA3C4REZY/

See https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/two-arrested-on-firearms-charges-after-fleeing-police-in-brockton/

See https://www.wcvb.com/article/three-police-departments-investigating-brockton-crash/35223556#

See https://www.masslive.com/boston/2021/01/2-men-accused-of-leading-massachusetts-state-police-on-chase-before-crashing-mercedes-into-pole-found-with-armored-vest-guns-ammo-authorities-say.html

See https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/car-crashes-in-brockton-after-police-chase/2281107/

Wrentham District Court

CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF HEROIN / FENTANYL AND ANABOLIC STEROIDS ARE DISMISSED AGAINST RECOVERING DRUG ADDICT.

 Defendant is a young man who has been struggling with drug addiction since high school. Defendant’s parents obtained a court order under Section 35 to have him involuntarily committed to a hospital due to his severe substance abuse issues. Foxboro Police went to the Defendant’s gym to execute the Section 35 order. When they arrived in the locker room, officers observed the Defendant wiping fresh blood from his forearm. Officers placed him in custody and conducted a pat-frisk finding a bag containing heroin and fentanyl in his pant pocket. Officers searched his gym bag and found anabolic steroids. Defendant was charged in the Wrentham District Court with Possession of Class A Substance (Heroin / Fentanyl) and Possession of Anabolic Steroids under G.L. c. 94C, §34.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to secure a favorable deal from the prosecution called Pretrial Probation. So long as the Defendant passed drug tests and stayed out of trouble, his case would be dismissed. However, Defendant failed two drug tests and the prosecution moved to revoke the deal. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor to reinstate the deal and give his client another chance. However, while on pretrial probation, Defendant was arrested in Quincy for Possession of Heroin. As a result, the prosecution revoked the deal and the case was placed back on the trial list. After more than a year of litigation, Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecution to give his client one more chance – if he could prove that he had a prolonged period of sobriety and was undergoing drug treatment. The Defendant had undergone opiate treatment with a licensed physician. Through a suboxone treatment program, Defendant was able to stay off heroin, fentanyl and opiates, and he passed drug tests. He re-enrolled in school and he is finishing his final credits to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering. He got married, purchased a home, and was working two jobs. After considering all the evidence, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the charges, and the Defendant is doing very well.

Brockton District Court

FALSE INSURANCE CLAIM:                              DISMISS

FILING FALSE POLICE REPORT:                    DISMISS

ATTEMPTED LARCENY:                                    DISMISS

After an investigation conducted by the Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts, Defendant was charged with the felony offense of filing a False Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim (G.L. c. 266, §111B), Falsely Reporting a Crime to Police (G.L. c. 269, §13A), and Attempts to Commit the Crime of Larceny (G.L. c. 274, §6). According to the investigation, Defendant falsely reported to the police that, while she was parked in a vehicle, she was struck by another vehicle, which fled the scene. Further, she claimed that she sustained injuries as a result of the hit-and-run accident. She filed a claim with the car insurance company for the injuries she sustained in the car accident. The insurance company conducted an examination of her vehicle, which concluded that the property damage sustained to her vehicle was inconsistent with her report of the incident. Specifically, the vehicle damage showed that her vehicle was traveling, and in motion, when it collided with another vehicle – which was inconsistent with her story that her vehicle was parked at the time she was struck by another vehicle. Further, Defendant was examined under oath by the insurance company and they concluded that her testimony and version of events was inconsistent and not truthful.

Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired by the Defendant, Attorney Noonan got all charges dismissed immediately. Attorney Noonan made arrangements whereby restitution was paid to the insurance company. Attorney Noonan persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss all charges based on the payment of restitution. The client has always worked in the medical field. Currently, she is finishing school to earn a degree in Nursing. A criminal conviction would have prevented her from getting employed as a nurse. This was a great victory for the client, as she will have no guilty finding, conviction, or adverse adjudication against her, and she will be able to pursue her career in nursing.

Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED

STALKING: DISMISSED

VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER: DISMISSED

Defendant is a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, an electrical apprentice, and small business owner. Defendant is a resident of Halifax. He was in a dating relationship with his girlfriend for several years. After she broke up with him, she went to the Pembroke Police Station to report that she had been verbally and physically abused, and stalked by the Defendant. She recounted three instances of disturbing conduct by the Defendant. In the first incident, Defendant showed up to her birthday party, uninvited and unannounced, got into physical fights with her friends, was ejected from the party and the police were called. In the second incident, Defendant showed up to a bar and confronted her, as she was on a date with another guy. She got into her truck to leave, but the Defendant jumped on the back of her truck while yelling and screaming. Defendant slammed the car door on her leg. Defendant pulled her out of the truck and proceeded driving, as she was in the passenger seat screaming. She videotaped the incident and gave it to police. In the third incident, Defendant showed up at her friend’s house, parked outside and waited for her and followed her home and she called 911, but the Defendant fled before police arrived. She also provided police with photographs showing bruises on her as a result of the Defendant slamming a door on her arm. As a result, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with: (1) Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a), (2) Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b), and Stalking pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §43(a). The girlfriend obtained a restraining order against him known as an Abuse Prevention Order under G.L. c. 209A. After she obtained the restraining order, Defendant violated the restraining order on three separate occasions by calling her, texting her, and showing up to her place of work. As a result, Defendant was charged with three counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A, §7.

Result: Immediately, Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation to defend his client. He obtained evidence to contest the stalking charges showing that the evidence was insufficient to establish three separate instances of stalking, as required by the stalking statute. The girlfriend claimed that the Defendant stalked her after she broke up with him. However, the defense obtained text messages showing that they were still dating and were very much together and a couple when the alleged incidents of stalking occurred. Although the girlfriend claimed that the police were called to remove the Defendant from her birthday party, the defense obtained evidence showing that nobody ever called the police. To contest the charge of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon charge, Counsel viewed the video of this incident showing that the Defendant never slammed the car door (i.e., dangerous weapon) on her leg, as she claimed. Finally, the defense obtained evidence of prior criminal conduct by the girlfriend to attack her credibility, as well as her efforts to change her name to conceal her criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan came to trial ready to attack the case, but the Commonwealth decided to dismiss all charges.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO A VEHICLE, AND LARCENY. 

The client is a 38 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford. He has been gainfully employed as a contractor. He has been happily married with three step-children. He even became the legal guardian of his wife’s teenaged son. He is the grandfather of two children. He dropped out of high school, but obtained a G.E.D. at the age of 38. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application because he had been convicted, as a juvenile, of several offenses, including: Breaking & Entering, Malicious Damage to a Vehicle, and Larceny from a Person. Because of his convictions, the client was automatically disqualified from ever obtaining a License to Carry Firearms.

Result: Regarding the conviction for Larceny from a Person, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction on grounds that his prior lawyer was ineffective. Sixteen (16) days after his arraignment, his prior attorney wrongly advised him to plead guilty without conducting any investigation into the case. Attorney Noonan conducted an investigation and found that the evidence was insufficient to charge him with that offense. Specifically, the client was walking with another juvenile on the sidewalk when the other juvenile decided to steal a wallet from an older man who walking on the sidewalk. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence did not establish that the client was an accessory or joint-venturer in the larceny because the client did not participate, in any way, in the larceny. Rather, the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present when the larceny happened, which is not enough to convict him as an accessory. The Commonwealth reviewed the evidence provided by the defense and decided to vacate and dismiss the charge. After numerous court appearances, Attorney Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to vacate the client’s other convictions, citing the client’s young age at the time of the offenses, and compelling evidence showing that the client completely turned his life around. After the convictions were vacated, the client was able to obtain a License to Carry Firearms.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.

The client is a 39 year-old Brockton resident and a longtime union employee; working as a glass installer for commercial buildings. The client was issued a License to Carry Firearms. However, the client attempted to purchase a firearm, but the gun shop informed him that the sale was denied by the FBI because the client had been convicted in Massachusetts of Unlawful Possession of Class D-Marijuana. Under federal law, a conviction of simple possession of marijuana disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Specifically, a person falling into the category of a Federally Prohibited Person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and 18 U.S.C. §922(g) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition, including: Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – or any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and a conviction for simple possession of marijuana renders the person a Federally Prohibited Person. The client was convicted in the Quincy District Court for Simple Possession of Class D Substance to wit: Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §34 and the marijuana conviction made him a Federally Prohibited Person rendering him ineligible from purchasing a firearm under federal law. Therefore, the client must have the marijuana conviction vacated.

Result: In the police report, the police stopped the client’s vehicle due to a civil motor vehicle infraction. Defendant was placed under arrest because his driver’s license was suspended. The client told the police that he had some marijuana in a pack of cigarettes and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and was later convicted in 2006. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction because the evidence showed that the quantity of marijuana, within the pack of cigarettes, was less than one ounce making this a civil offense under present day Massachusetts law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See G.L. c. 94C, §32L. Attorney Noonan showed that it would be physically impossible to package more than one ounce of marijuana in a pack of cigarettes. Based on the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the conviction was vacated and dismissed.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM UNTRUTHFULLY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC AFTER AN APPEAL.

The client is a 55 year-old professional truck driver. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied, because the police department determined that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. The police department alleged that the client was untruthful when answering questions about his criminal history. The police department alleged that the client failed to disclose criminal charges on his criminal record in his application.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the police department’s denial of the client’s application for an LTC arguing that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal record, but simply misunderstood the question. The client and his wife submitted statements explaining how they misunderstood the question when completing the application. During the appellate proceedings, through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the police department allowed the client to resubmit a new application and to disclose everything pertaining to his criminal record. The client resubmitted a new application and the police department issued him a License to Carry Firearms.

Chicopee District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL AND OBTAINS A COURT ORDER REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR BEING AN UNSUITABLE PERSON.

The client was issued a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions. The Chicopee Police Department suspended his LTC alleging that he was an unsuitable person to possess a license stemming from an incident in which the police were called to his residence. Upon arrival, the client was outside his residence, intoxicated, and he was about to operate his vehicle until police intervened. The client’s wife told the police that the client had been drinking at the casino, was intoxicated, and she was concerned about him driving. The client wanted to take his firearm and leave the house prior to the police being called. The police went into the client’s home to retrieve his firearm while the client remained outside. The firearm was kept in a locked safe. The wife escorted police to the gun safe, she unlocked the safe, and the police seized the firearm. The client’s wife, who did not have an LTC, knew the combination to the gun safe and she was able to access the firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he was an unsuitable person because his wife knew the combination to the gun safe, she was able to access his firearm, and she did not have a gun license, and the police department was concerned that the client was going to access his firearm while intoxicated and drive away while under the influence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the Chicopee District Court disputing that his client was an unsuitable person. At the hearing, the Judge entered an order reversing the police department’s decision to suspend the LTC. The Court entered an order directing the police department to issue the client a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED.

The police were called to the Defendant’s residence in Bridgewater in response to a call from a neighbor reporting loud yelling coming from the Defendant’s apartment. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s husband who stated that the Defendant lunged at him, grabbed his neck and shoved him. Defendant admitted to police that she lunged forward and shoved her husband, but she denied grabbing his neck. The police charged the Defendant with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a). Defendant is a Certified Nursing Assistant with no criminal record.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with background information about his client. The client is a 33 year-old woman with no criminal record. She is not a U.S. citizen, but she had a Green Card. She was born in Haiti and immigrated to the U.S. Despite her difficulties in speaking English, she took English language classes and eventually earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing. She worked at a nursing home as a Certified Nursing Assistant. She moved to Georgia where she obtained a job as a patient care technician assisting patients in dialysis treatment. She reconciled with her husband. They lived happily together in Georgia with their new baby. Her husband did not wish to pursue the charges. The husband wished to invoke his marital privilege and refused to testify against his wife. On the day of trial, the case was dismissed.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED DESPITE SUSPENSION FOR MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF INTOXICATION.

The client is a 54 year-old automobile mechanic and owner of a pet grooming business. Since 1995, the client has been issued a License to Carry Firearms with no incidents. However, the police department suspended his LTC due to multiple incidents occurring at his home. In one incident, the police were called to his home due to a verbal argument with his wife wherein the client became upset and threw a glass fruit bowl. During this incident, the wife told the police that her husband had a drinking problem and he spouts off at the mouth when he’s been drinking. In a second incident, the police were called to the client’s house in response to domestic incident between the client and his adult son, which became physical. Upon arrival, police observed that the client was intoxicated. Witnesses in the home reported that the Defendant had been drinking all day and was causing problems leading to a heated exchange with his adult son. Based on the two incidents, the police department suspended the client’s LTC finding him to be an unsuitable person to possess a firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the district court challenging the suspension. Attorney Noonan and legal counsel for the town engaged in extensive discussions, and Attorney Noonan provided additional information regarding his client’s background and the circumstances surrounding the incidents. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s successful substance abuse treatment. Through negotiations with town counsel, the police department reconsidered its decision and agreed to grant the client an LTC subject to the completion of certain conditions.

Ayer District Court

IN A CASE FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH VALID CONSENT TO SEARCH HER HOME BASED ON EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DEFENDANT’S LANGUAGE BARRIERS.

Police were dispatched to the Weston Academy High School for a report that a student sent text messages to other students with pictures of a firearm while making suicidal statements. The student admitted to the police that he sent the text messages. The student told police that he took the firearm from his parents and sent pictures of the firearm to his friends. The student told the police that the firearm was currently located in his bedroom at his parents’ home in Westford. Police went to the student’s home where they encountered his mother (defendant) in the driveway. The police showed the mother a Consent to Search Form and they asked her to sign the form giving her consent to allow the police to search her home. After she signed the Consent Form, police searched the home and found the firearm in the son’s bedroom closet. The police proceeded to search the entire home where they recovered additional firearms and ammunition – none of which were properly stored or secured, including an AR-15 assault rifle. As a result of home search, the mother and father were charged with Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm and Possession of a Large Capacity Feeding Device pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(m), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. Card pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1) and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L. The mother and father were not U.S. citizens and they faced possible deportation if convicted.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained an expert witness specializing in English Language Proficiency. The expert interviewed the mother and performed a number of tests to determine her English proficiency, including her ability to speak, read, comprehend, and understand English. The parents were from China and moved to the U.S. four years prior to this incident. The expert determined that the mother met the definition of an LEP (Limited English Proficiency Person), which is defined as an individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who has limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The expert administered a Basic English Skills Test and a Reading Comprehension Test and testified regarding the results. The expert went through the Consent to Search Form signed by the Defendant. The expert determined that the Defendant could not understand the majority of the words on the Consent Form, including: waive, search warrant, constitutional, right, refuse, and voluntary. The expert provided his expert opinion that the Defendant was incapable of reading and understanding the Consent Form. Through cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the officer did not read or explain the Consent Form to the Defendant, but merely asked her to sign the form and she acquiesced and signed the form, as she was told. The Court agreed with the Noonan Defense Team and determined that the Defendant was unable to provide valid consent for the search of her home, and the Court suppressed all evidence (all firearms and ammunition) obtained as a result of the search of the home. As a result of the suppressed evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case. The case was featured in a publication of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION, COMMONWEALTH SEEKS TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE THE PASSWORD TO HIS CELL-PHONE. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OPPOSED THE MOTION TO COMPEL. AFTER A HEARING, COURT DENIED THE MOTION COMPELLING THE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE HIS PASSWORD. 

Defendant was being investigated for a variety of crimes, including Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). The police obtained the Defendant’s cell phone through a search warrant. During the investigation, the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting the court to compel the Defendant to provide the password to his cell phone. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected and requested a hearing before the Judge. Attorney Noonan submitted a written opposition arguing that the Commonwealth has not satisfied its burden of proof to compel the password. After a hearing, and considering the arguments, the Judge denied the Commonwealth’s motion to compel the Defendant to produce the password to his cell phone.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN JURY TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Defendant, a Brockton resident, received a phone call from her boyfriend who was in custody at the police station in Middleboro following his arrest for drunk driving. She was asked to come to the police station to bail him out. When she arrived to the police station to bail out her boyfriend, the police immediately suspected that she was under the influence of alcohol. They asked whether she had been drinking, and she admitted to consuming two beers several hours ago. While in the front lobby, the police officer testified that he was immediately overwhelmed by the odor of alcohol flooding the lobby. The Trooper testified that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy. The Trooper testified that the Defendant was argumentative and uncooperative. She stated that she knew a State Trooper and implied that they should let her go. She stated that she would agree not to drive a car. At trial, the Trooper testified that she was drunk. After a vigorous and effective cross-examination of the State Trooper by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict within 10 minutes.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING AND LOSING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS CLIENT’S LTC.

The client is 46 years-old and a resident of Fall River. He married his high school sweetheart and they have two children. He works as a commercial truck driver. His LTC was suspended because he reported his firearm as missing. He stated that he brought his firearm with him to the bank, as he was withdrawing a large sum of money for a down payment on his home, and he left the firearm in his glove compartment while he was inside the bank. When he left the firearm inside the glove compartment, he affixed a lock on the firearm. He was in the process of moving and forgot that his firearm was in the glove compartment. When he went to retrieve his firearm from the glove compartment, he noticed that it was missing, and he contacted the police department to report the disappearance of his firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he failed to store his firearm properly as required by G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and presented evidence that his client stored his firearm in his glove compartment properly by using a “tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device,” which is recognized as a proper means to secure a firearm under the statute (G.L. c. 140, §131L.) The client purchased a Ruger lock for his Ruger firearm. He used the Ruger lock to lock his firearm by removing the magazine and fitting the lock through the empty magazine and empty chamber. Attorney Noonan argued that the Ruger lock was sufficient because it rendered the firearm inoperable by an unauthorized user. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the firearm was outside the client’s control for a short period of time and he immediately reported it missing to the police as soon as he discovered its disappearance. Through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the suspension status was removed from the database.

Brockton District Court

CHARGE OF MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM COMMITTED A CRIME BY ILLEGALLY RECORDING A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant damaged her car; scratching the car and carving a derogatory word on the car. Police came to the scene and observed the damage. The alleged victim reported to the police that she (alleged victim) had audiotaped a telephone conversation wherein the Defendant admitted to damaging the car. In the recording, the Defendant does not actually admit to causing the damage. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Damage to a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28(a).

Result: Based on the alleged victim’s report to the police in which she stated that she recorded her telephone conversation with the Defendant, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought a criminal complaint against the alleged victim for violating the Wiretapping Statute [under G.L. c. 272, §99], which strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by a private individual of any oral communication. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the prosecutor that if the alleged victim testifies, she would incriminate herself for violating the wiretapping the statute. After consulting with the alleged victim, the prosecutor stated that the alleged victim would not take the witness stand and the case was dismissed.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN 2ND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, as he had been previously convicted of drunk driving. Defendant was also charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). With a second offense OUI, Defendant was facing stiff penalties, including a two-year suspension of her driver’s license. In this case, Defendant refused the Breathalyzer test. She had previously refused the Breathalyzer test in her prior OUI case, and her driver’s license was suspended for three-years. A Raynham Police Officer was stationed on Route 44 when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Route 44 and the Defendant abruptly swerved over a raised median and did a U-turn on Route 44 and started heading in the opposite direction. While following the Defendant, he observed that she grazed construction barrels and swerved over the fog line multiple times. The officer activated his lights to affect a stop, but the Defendant continued driving and got onto the Route 24 onramp. After a quarter-mile, Defendant finally pulled over. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was slurred and she stated that she was coming from “West Bridgewater” and she was going to “West Bridgewater.” Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. She admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. The officer administered a Field Sobriety test known as the One-Leg Stand; the Defendant attempted to perform the test, but later stated that she did not want to perform any tests and she stopped. The officer testified that the Defendant was extremely argumentative, she was swearing at him, and calling him names. During the booking process, Defendant was asked to remove her earrings, which she did. Later on, Defendant did not remember removing her earrings. The officer formed the opinion that she was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to exclude from evidence the fact that the Defendant was instructed to perform the One Leg Stand Test; the Defendant attempted the test, and later stopped performing the test and refused any other tests. Therefore, no evidence was presented at trial regarding any Field Sobriety Tests. Attorney Noonan conducted an effective cross-examination of the police officer and requested a Not Guilty verdict from the Judge. The Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. On the Negligent Operation charge, Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a disposition not resulting in a conviction. After the acquittal, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order to restore her driver’s license. She had been without a driver’s license since her arrest.

Taunton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AGAINST 18 YEAR OLD DEFENDANT DISMISSED UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Defendant is an 18 year-old kid with no prior criminal record. He was residing with his girlfriend, at her parents’ home, when they had an argument and he left the home. The police were called to the girlfriends home in response to a call that the Defendant kicked the front door of the home, and punched a car in the driveway; damaging the property. Defendant was yelling and screaming while causing the property damage. The girlfriend provided police with text messages from the Defendant in which he expressed suicidal ideations. The police located the Defendant; the police sectioned him and brought him to the hospital for treatment. Defendant was charged with Assault on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Malicious Destruction of Property under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a bench trial. At the first scheduled bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready to prosecute, Attorney Noonan asked for the case to be dismissed, the Commonwealth objected, but the court granted a continuance. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth offered a deal which would require the Defendant to admit guilt, which the Defendant declined. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready, and Attorney Noonan again asked for a dismissal, which the Court denied. Attorney Noonan persuaded the Court to schedule the trial to be heard later in the day. At the second calling of the case, the Commonwealth was unable to go forward and Attorney Noonan’s third request for a dismissal was allowed.

Hingham District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. 

In a case publicized in the media, the Defendant was arrested and charged with Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). Defendant (along with four other Defendants) was arrested for Sex Trafficking in connection with an undercover investigation wherein police posted an advertisement online advertising sexual services in exchange for money. Allegedly, Defendant responded to the advertisement by contacting the phone number listed in the advertisement and exchanged text messages with an undercover officer (posing as a prostitute) and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex acts. Defendant agreed to meet the undercover officer at a hotel room for the exchange. Upon arrival to the hotel room, Defendant was arrested. Four other Defendants were also charged for responding to the same advertisement, agreeing to an exchange of sex for money, and showing up to the hotel.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Sex Trafficking in the Hingham District Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to support that charge. The Commonwealth objected to a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss in the District Court, as they were planning on indicting all Defendants in the Superior Court. Attorney Noonan insisted on having a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Noonan researched the case-law and Legislative intent behind the Sex Trafficking statute and argued that the Sex Trafficking statute was entirely inapplicable to the facts of this case. The District Court Judge agreed and allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss. The charge was dismissed in the District Court for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, the Commonwealth indicted all Defendants in the Superior Court. In Superior Court, Attorney Noonan intends to file another Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Taunton District Court

SECOND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CHARGE AGAINST COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

Defendant has been a longtime commercial truck driver. He resides in North Carolina. He is a long haul commercial truck driver, driving an 18-wheeler, transporting items for Amazon. He hauls throughout the United States. In this case, Defendant was driving across country to deliver items to Massachusetts. He pulled into a parking lot in Easton, Massachusetts. While attempting to park his tractor-trailer, he struck a parked car. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant and they detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant refused any field sobriety tests and was arrested. He refused the Breathalyzer test resulting in serious consequences for a commercial truck driver. He had an old drunk driving charge in North Carolina, but was not convicted. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). As a commercial truck driver, his entire livelihood was at stake. If convicted, he would undoubtedly lose his commercial driver’s license and was facing the possibility of a lifetime suspension of his commercial driver’s license.

Result: On the day of the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth of his intention to introduce a video of the Defendant’s booking at the police department. The booking video was exculpatory, as it showed that the Defendant did not exhibit any signs of intoxication or impairment. The evidence of intoxication was very slim. The only sign suggestive of intoxication was an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, and nothing more. Attorney Noonan discussed the weakness of the case with the Commonwealth and argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden to obtain a conviction at trial. The Commonwealth reviewed the booking video, interviewed witnesses, and evaluated the case, and agreed that it would have considerable difficulty proving this case at trial. All charges were dismissed at trial.

A POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO INTOXICATION AND SUICIDAL THREATS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS LTC.

The client was a police officer. His License to Carry Firearms (LTC) was suspended due to an incident wherein the client’s wife called the police to report that the client was intoxicated and threatened to shoot himself. Police located the client and brought him to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. As a result of this incident, the client’s LTC was suspended and he was forced to resign from his position as a full-time police officer. The LTC suspension, if upheld, would ruin his career in law enforcement. The client requested that the police department reinstate his LTC, but the police department denied the request and they were standing by their decision. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in hopes of getting his LTC back and resuming his career in law enforcement.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan started building a case to get his client’s LTC back. First, Attorney Noonan retained a highly reputable and credible psychiatrist to review all the records and to conduct an evaluation of the client. The psychiatrist reviewed all the pertinent records, including the police report concerning the incident resulting in the suspension and the medical records regarding the client’s hospitalization. After reviewing the records and evaluating the client, the psychiatrist formed an opinion that the client does not suffer from any substance abuse or mental health disorders and the client does not pose any danger is issued an LTC. Second, upon further investigation, the wife’s report to the police showed that the client did not actually threaten to shoot himself. Third, Attorney Noonan provided all information regarding the client’s personal background and career in law enforcement and security. After reviewing the materials provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the police department reconsidered its decision and issued the client an LTC. The client can now resume his career in law enforcement.

New Bedford District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SEX FOR A FEE CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN DISMISSED.

Defendant is a 27-year-old man from New Bedford with no criminal record. He has been employed as a Union electrician for several years. He is married. He has six children. Police were conducting surveillance in an area known for prostitution. Police observed a woman walking up and down the sidewalk when a vehicle (operated by the Defendant) pulled up to her, they engaged in a brief conversation, she entered the Defendant’s vehicle, and drove away. Police followed the vehicle, which parked a short distance away. Police approached the vehicle where they observed the Defendant with his pants down and the woman motioning into his lap. Defendant was ordered to exit the vehicle and he admitted to police that he paid the woman for oral sex in exchange for several cartons of cigarettes.

Result: The client, who had no criminal record at all, was so distraught over the incident that he required psychiatric treatment at a hospital and follow-up treatment with a therapist and was prescribed medication for severe depression over the incident. On the second court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the case dismissed.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR BEING UNTRUTHFUL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC.

Client is a retired 65 years-old resident of Rehoboth. He applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was denied because the police department determined that the client was untruthful about disclosing his criminal history in the application process.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the denial in the District Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal history. Rather, the client disclosed that he had been arrested in the past, but he could not recall the specifics about his prior criminal cases because they were very old. In particular, the client had been arrested for minor offenses; some offenses dating back over 40 years ago. Prior to submitting his application, the client did not obtain his criminal record making it very difficult to recall specific information about his old, prior criminal cases. After negotiations with legal counsel for the town, the police department reconsidered its decision and allowed the client to submit a new application. Attorney Noonan assisted the client in filling out the application to make sure the information was accurate. This time, we obtained his criminal record and accurately disclosed all the information regarding his prior cases. After reviewing the new application, the police department issued the client an LTC.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR RECEIVING A STOLEN VEHICLE, MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPE AGAINST 47 YEAR-OLD PLUMBER.

The client is a 47 year-old with no adult record of convictions and a resident of Cape Cod. He has been happily married for 20 years. For over 25 years, client has been a licensed union Plumber. He has been recognized for his volunteer charitable activities. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied because he had been convicted as a juvenile for the following offenses: Receiving a Stolen Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28, Malicious Destruction of Property pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127, and Attempted Escape pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §16. Because of his juvenile convictions, client was automatically disqualified from obtaining a License to Carry Firearms. Therefore, he needed to have all his juvenile convictions vacated, so he called Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the client’s juvenile convictions. Attorney Noonan argued that the offenses occurred a long time ago (approximately 32 years ago) when the client was at the tender age of 15 years old. Attorney Noonan cited research dealing with the development of the juvenile brain substantially affecting the child’s reasoning and judgment. At the tender age of 15, the client should have been treated as a child in need of rehabilitation instead of being treated as a criminal and punished. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client is now 47 years-old, happily married, a Union Plumber of 25 years, and has never been in any trouble since his youthful mistakes occurring over 30 years ago. The Commonwealth agreed that the client’s juvenile convictions should be vacated in the interests of justice. All convictions were vacated and all charges were dismissed. The client is now eligible to apply for an LTC.

New Bedford District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IS ALLOWED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S STATUTORY RIGHT TO A BAIL HEARING.

The Dartmouth Police Department arrested and charged the Defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1); this being his second offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant’s statutory right to an out-of-court bail hearing under G.L. c. 276, §58 was violated because the Defendant was unreasonably and unnecessarily held in custody for an excessive amount of time without ever being provided the opportunity to be bailed out by a Bail Clerk. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence showing that the Defendant was held in custody for approximately 11 hours without ever being afforded the opportunity to be bailed out and released from custody by a Bail Clerk. The Court agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint. The client was a long-time commercial truck driver.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR FELONY DRUG OFFENSE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Defendant is a 39 year-old man and aspiring police officer. Defendant took the civil service exam to become a police officer and scored very high on the exams. However, Defendant’s ability to become a police officer was adversely affected by an old felony conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §32C. Defendant’s prior attorney did not conduct an investigation or challenge the case, but advised his client to plead guilty to the felony offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the conviction. When the Defendant was 18 years-old, he was a student at Brockton High School. An undisclosed source reported to the school that one of four students sitting at a table in the cafeteria was in possession of marijuana. Defendant, one of those students sitting at the table, was searched. In his book-bag, there was marijuana. A search of his car was performed where additional marijuana was found. In total, the school recovered 17 bags containing marijuana and $400 in cash. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s prior attorney was ineffective in failing to file a Motion to Suppress Evidence to challenge the lawfulness of the search of the Defendant’s person, his book-bag, and automobile. Defendant introduced evidence that he never distributed or sold marijuana to anybody. The $400 in cash was not the proceeds of drug sales, but was earned by two jobs the Defendant was working. A witness who attended Brockton High School with the Defendant, and has known him for 25 years, attested to the fact that the Defendant never sold marijuana. The marijuana in the Defendant’s possession was not intended for any distribution, but was for the Defendant’s personal use. Based on all the evidence presented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Court vacated the Defendant’s conviction in the interests of justice.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY IN TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a car accident. Upon arrival, police observed a traffic pole in the middle of an intersection. When speaking with the Defendant, he admitted that he was distracted and struck the traffic pole. The pole was knocked down and dragged into the middle of the intersection. Police took photographs of the Defendant’s vehicle showing damage caused by the collision with the traffic pole. Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. Defendant admitted that he had consumed one beer. Defendant failed the field sobriety tests administered to him, including the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One-Leg Stand. A booking photo was introduced showing that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. In the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed nip liquor bottles. At the police station, Defendant was administered a Breathalyzer test showing a blood-alcohol-concentration of 0.09%, over the legal limit of 0.08%. At trial, the officer testified that the Defendant, in his opinion, was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s testimony concerning the Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests because the Defendant admitted that he was very anxious when performing the tests, and the Defendant weighed 300 lbs., factors unrelated to alcohol use, which can explain his poor performance. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant did not have any slurred speech and the officer was able to understand everything the Defendant was saying without any difficulty. Upon his arrival, the officer observed the Defendant safely pull into a parking lot and park his vehicle. Defendant did not attempt to flee the scene. The officer observed that the Defendant did not have any difficulty or any unsteadiness when he exited his vehicle. Attorney Noonan highlighted exculpatory portions of the booking video showing that the Defendant did not exhibit certain signs of impairment. After the trial, the Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Unfortunately, the Judge found the Defendant guilty of Negligent Operation where the Defendant admittedly was negligent in striking the traffic pole. The client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended due to this arrest. However, after his acquittal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s LTC reinstated.

Plymouth District Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES DISMISSED UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAD A 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.

Defendant’s longtime girlfriend called the police reporting that the Defendant physically assaulted her by punching her in the face multiple times. On the 911 call, the girlfriend was highly emotional, crying, and hysterical. She stated that the Defendant fled the home in his car. Upon arrival to the home, the girlfriend told the police that the Defendant pushed her into a wall. Police took photographs of a damaged wall. The girlfriend had an abrasion with dried blood on her elbow, but she did not have any marks to her face. Police located the Defendant at his place of work. Defendant stated that he never punched or struck his girlfriend. In fact, the girlfriend assaulted him, and he pushed her while attempting to escape from her. The girlfriend admitted that she pushed the Defendant first. The Defendant had visible injuries corroborating his claim that the girlfriend attacked him. Police took photos of the Defendant showing scratches on his chest, arms, neck, and back. Based on the statements of the girlfriend, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately scheduled the case for a bench trial. Attorney Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice of his intent to raise self-defense and to introduce evidence that the girlfriend was the initial aggressor. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim would incriminate herself were she to testify at trial because the evidence showed that she attacked the Defendant and inflicted injuries to his body, as evidenced by the injuries to the Defendant depicted in the photos. On the day of the bench trial, the Commonwealth dismissed all charges.

CLIENT WAS INVESTIGATED FOR STEALING OVER $100,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER. CLIENT CONTACTS NOONAN LAW OFFICE AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE FILED.

Client was employed as an armed security guard. Part of his responsibilities included transporting large sums of cash. Over the course of several months, over $100,000 in cash was stolen. His employer accused him of stealing the money. An investigator from his employer’s fraud department conducted an interview of the client. It was clear that the client was the target of the investigation. The client denied taking any money. The client provided a written statement. The investigator contacted the client and conducted a second interview targeting the client. The investigator concluded that the client had stolen the money. The client was terminated.

Result: Because the investigation determined that the client had stolen over $100,000, the client contacted Noonan Law Offices because he was concerned that he would be criminally charged. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately contacted the employer. Attorney Noonan sent several letters, and had several conversations with the employer, asserting that his client was innocent and there was insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime. As a result of the efforts by the Noonan Law Offices, the client was never charged with a crime.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND A CONVICTION FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CLIENT’S LTC REINSTATED. 

The client had a Class A License to Carry Firearms. The client was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The client traversed into a raised median, crashed into a light pole, dragging the light pole into the middle of an intersection. After his arrest, the police department suspended his LTC. The client hired the Noonan Law Offices to represent him on the criminal charges. After a trial, the client, represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, was found not guilty of OUI, but he was found guilty of Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. After the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the police department to request the reinstatement of the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the trial showing that the client was not intoxicated. After considering the evidence, the police department decided to reinstate the client’s LTC.

Supreme Judicial Court
489 Mass. 155 (2020)

IN A VICTORY FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT THAT 15 DAYS OF POLE CAMERA SURVEILLANCE TARGETED AT THE DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH.

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. Upon executing the search warrant, police arrested the defendant in the driveway and used his keys to access an apartment within the building. In the apartment alleged to belong to the defendant, police seized electronic devices, which they claimed to contain illegal evidence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued this case before the Supreme Judicial Court and convinced the SJC that 15 days of pole camera surveillance targeted at the Defendant’s home was a search under the Massachusetts constitution, which required a search warrant. The Commonwealth argued that 15 days of pole camera was not enough to constitute a search. The Commonwealth argued that a longer period of surveillance was required to constitute a search. The government was concerned about establishing a precedent where pole camera surveillance could constitute a search within a short period of time. The Commonwealth cited case-law to support its argument that prolonged surveillance was required. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the pole camera was installed across the street approximately 84-feet from the front door. Attorney Noonan introduced numerous photos from the pole camera, which provided a window into the Defendant’s daily life, habits, and routines. Attorney Noonan provided a daily breakdown of the pole camera surveillance capturing and tracking the Defendant’s daily movements around his home. Within the short time span of 15 days, the pole camera was able to generate a mosaic of the Defendant’s activities. The pole camera captured things that were otherwise unknowable. Attorney Noonan introduced specific images highlighting the intrusive nature of the pole camera surveillance, such as tracking all visitors and guests to his home. The camera was able to facially identify all guests and visitors to the Defendant’s home. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence concerning the camera’s intrusive capabilities, which created a digital searchable log, which allowed law enforcement to quickly and easily search for any footage down to the minute and second. The camera allowed police to remotely manipulate the camera by zooming in, magnifying, tilting, and rotating the camera, as well as taking still images. The decision was considered a victory for privacy rights. The case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and other publications for its significance regarding the government’s use of emerging technology infringing upon the privacy rights of Massachusetts citizens.

Brockton District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE.

The client was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a high-speed police chase. The vehicle was the subject of reports of being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the operator fled, accelerated, and a high-speed police chase ensued ultimately ending in the vehicle crashing at an intersection. Officers ordered the operator and the client (passenger) to exit the vehicle by gunpoint and to show their hands. Police alleged that the client resisted arrest by refusing to show his hands and by refusing officers’ commands to exit the vehicle. The operator refused officers’ commands to exit the vehicle, the operator resisted arrest, officers had to use a Taser and physical force to restrain and arrest the operator. Upon a search of the vehicle, officers discovered firearms and ammunition in the glove compartment. The operator and the client were charged with Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B) and various firearms offenses.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause, arguing that the client’s actions in refusing to show his hands and refusing to exit the vehicle did not amount to resisting arrest because there was insufficient evidence to show that the client used or threatened to use physical force or violence against the police officers, or that the client used any other means which created a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the police officers. The motion to dismiss was allowed.

Plymouth District Court

CHARGE OF LARCENY AGAINST 20 YEAR-OLD NURSE, WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD, DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. CLIENT WILL HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Client is a 20 year-old college student with no criminal record. She is a Certified Nursing Assistant, Personal Care Attendant, and she was accepted to the nursing program at several colleges. The client was the personal care attendant for an elderly couple. The daughter of the elderly couple went to the police department alleging that the client had stolen over $500 from the elderly couple. The client made doordash purchases on behalf of the victims. The victims’ did not have a doordash account. The client used the victims’ debit card information (with their permission) and entered said debit card information into her own doordash account and she made doordash purchases on behalf of the victims. After the client stopped working for the victims, she forgot that the victims debit card was still set to her default payment setting. As a result, when the client made personal doordash purchases, the victims were charged for the purchases, totaling over $500. The client was charged with Larceny under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to dismiss the criminal charge prior to arraignment to save the client from having a criminal record. Attorney Noonan argued that the client did not have any intent to steal any money from the victims and the client did not know that her personal doordash purchases were billed to the victims because she forgot that the victims debit card information was set to her default payment setting. Attorney Noonan presented substantial character evidence, including a letter from the daughter of an elderly woman, who the client cared for, stating that the client was always responsible, provided excellent care, and the family trusted her, knowing that the client had access to the elderly woman’s finances. The District Attorney’s Office, to their credit, considered all the evidence and agreed to place the client into the pretrial diversion program. So long as the client complies with the conditions set forth by the Commonwealth, the case will be dismissed prior to arraignment, the client will have no criminal record, and she can confidently pursue her dream career in nursing.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION IS SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

The client currently serves in the United States Navy. He enlisted when he turned 18 years-old. He is an aspiring police officer. He applied for the position of a full-time police officer with a police department in another state. Although the police department was willing to hire the client, a criminal background check showed that the client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The police department stated that they were willing to hire the client as a police officer, so long as the charge of Negligent Operation was sealed from his criminal record. The client contacted the Noonan Law Offices. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the criminal charge from the client’s record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C. After a hearing, the court entered an order sealing the criminal charge from the client’s record. As a result, the client is in an excellent position to get hired as a police officer.

IN A RARE DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OBTAINS A COURT ORDER FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT TO UNDERGO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

Defendant was charged with Assault to Rape (G.L. c. 265, §24) and Indecent Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265,§13H). Defendant is facing serious penalties if convicted. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had falsely accused another man of rape. Police investigated the prior rape allegation and obtained video footage showing that no sexual assault occurred and the accused was never charged. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had accused another man of sexual assault, but during the prosecution of the accused, the alleged victim dramatically changed her story and exhibited concerning behavior while being interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office leading to the charges being dropped. Attorney Noonan obtained various police reports showing that the alleged victim had some sort of mental disorder, which was not fully understood by investigators. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion seeking a court order to have the alleged victim psychologically evaluated pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §19. In a rare decision, the court ordered the psychological evaluation of the alleged victim. At the present time, Defendant is awaiting trial.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED PROBATION BY FAILING A DRUG TEST, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE LAB TESTING WAS INCONCLUSIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

The client was on probation after having pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. As a condition of his probation, the client was required to submit to random drug testing by appearing at an independent laboratory and providing a urine sample. The client was notified that he violated his probation when the laboratory reported that the client tested positive for opiates. For violating probation, the client was facing potential incarceration and other significant consequences. The client was adamant that he was clean and didn’t use drugs. He had been sober for 17 months. He was on track to complete his probation because he was doing extremely well. The client retained the Noonan Law Offices to represent him at the probation violation hearing.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the laboratory report of the failed test and was suspicious because the laboratory report did not identify the particular opiate detected in the urine. Attorney Noonan believed that the preliminary urine test was unreliable and a confirmatory test should be done. The lab performed a confirmatory test, which was inconclusive. Attorney Noonan contacted the laboratory to obtain information about the confirmatory test. The lab informed Attorney Noonan that the confirmatory test was neither a positive nor a negative result. At the violation hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that probation failed to meet its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated probation by testing positive for drugs. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, on his own, obtained a hair follicle test with a negative result for drugs. Attorney Noonan argued that the hair follicle test was more reliable because it detects previous drug use for up to three months. After the hearing, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated probation. The client is now on track to successfully complete his probation.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE MARIJUANA ARRESTS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE AN LTC TO THE CLIENT.

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the application was denied because the Police Department alleged that the client was an unsuitable person for failing to disclose marijuana arrests on his application. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the denial to the district court. Attorney Noonan argued that the client did not deliberately conceal the marijuana arrests because the arrests were very old. When he applied for the LTC, the client did not obtain a copy of his criminal record and he did not have the benefit of reviewing his criminal record in order to accurately disclose his past marijuana arrests. After reviewing Attorney Noonan’s appeal, the police department agreed to issue the client a License to Carry Firearms.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HAITAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN DRUNK-DRIVING CASE AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti. He is not a U.S. citizen. Client attended a wedding on Cape Cod. He was driving home to Brockton. As he was driving on Route 24, State Troopers were parked in the breakdown lane. The Trooper observed the Defendant speeding, his vehicle crossed the fog line, and he came close to striking the police cruiser. Troopers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle, as it exited the highway. Police located the Defendant’s vehicle parked in a Gas Station. It was almost 2:00 a.m., and the gas station was closed, but the Defendant approached the gas pump thinking the gas station was open. Officers observed that the Defendant’s pants were unbuttoned and there was liquid on his crotch area. Troopers administered two Field Sobriety Tests and the Trooper testified that the Defendant failed the tests. The Trooper testified that the Defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Police found a liquor bottle in his car. As a result, Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation, Obstructing an Emergency Vehicle, and Open Container of Alcohol.

Result: After a bench trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively cross-examined the State Trooper and challenged his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated and attacked his testimony concerning the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle. After the trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges, but was found response of committing a marked lanes violation.

JUVENILE CHARGES SEALED FROM CRIMINAL RECORD OF MILITARY SERVICEMAN AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Client is a 29 year-old member of the United States Navy and aspiring police officer. Client applied for the position as a full-time police officer for a police department in another state. Although he was more than qualified, the police department told him that he needed to seal juvenile charges on his criminal record. The police department was willing to hire him subject to his juvenile record being sealed. Client had charges on his juvenile record including Breaking & Entering and Larceny. The client needed the juvenile charges sealed immediately because he was close to getting hired. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to seal the juvenile charges quickly such that the client could proceed with the application process.

Barnstable District Court

PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN CASE OF CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.

The client, a longtime restaurant manager and resident of Yarmouth, was charged with Carrying a Firearm While Intoxicated (G.L. c. 269, §10H) in the Barnstable District Court. The police received a call for a wellness check. Defendant’s father reported to the police that the Defendant made suicidal statements and was in the possession of a firearm while parked in his car outside the father’s house. Upon arrival, the police officer observed the Defendant parked in a vehicle with his firearm located on the passenger seat. The officer observed numerous empty nip bottles of liquor in the vehicle. The officer determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the prosecution’s evidence that the Defendant was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol. The Commonwealth’s case rested on the testimony of the police officer and his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The case was won on Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of the police officer. After his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and that his consumption of alcohol affected his ability to safely carry a firearm.

Brockton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT TRIAL UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MISCONDUCT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER.  

Police responded to the scene of a grocery store upon receiving a report that the Defendant was disruptive, threatening an employee, and stealing from the store. Upon the arrival of police, Defendant was walking down the street. Police confronted the Defendant who provided a false name. Defendant did not want to engage with the police officers and turned his back to walk away from them. However, officers claimed that the Defendant grabbed hold of the officer’s jacket resulting in a physical altercation between the Defendant and the two police officers. The two officers used excessive force, punching the defendant numerous times in the face, and using a baton on him. The officers charged the Defendant with numerous crimes, including Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest.

Result: During his investigation and preparation of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the arresting officer had engaged in misconduct in connection with two, unrelated criminal cases. In the first case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case. In that case, the Motion Judge found that the arresting officer’s testimony was very questionable and ruled in favor of the Defendant. In this Attorney’s opinion, the arresting officer’s testimony was not credible and very misleading. In the second case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case, but his testimony was contradicted by video footage showing the officer’s actual encounter with the Defendant. Therefore, the arresting officer provided very questionable testimony in relation to two other criminal cases. Prior to this trial, Attorney Noonan notified the prosecution that he intended to introduce evidence of the arresting officer’s misconduct in the two other criminal cases. At trial, the prosecution stated that they did not intend to call the arresting officer as a witness and the case was dismissed.

Plymouth District Court

IN A HIGH PROFILE CASE, PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF STRANGULATION, ASSAULT & BATTERY, AND THREATS. CASE WAS FEATURED IN THE NEWS. 

The client, a military veteran and retired pilot with no criminal record, was charged in the Plymouth District Court with criminal complaints of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Strangulation (G.L. c. 265, §15D), and Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. 275, §2). The charges stem from an incident between the client and a teenager over a property dispute in Marshfield. The case was featured in Channel 7 News. The teenager reported to the police that the Defendant confronted him about trespassing on his property in Marshfield. The teenager reported that the Defendant grabbed him and threw him to the ground and proceeded to choke and strangle him by the neck while repeatedly threatening to kill him.

Result: At the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the alleged victim and thoroughly attacked his credibility and revealed a multitude of contradictory information and inconsistent statements. Attorney Noonan then called his client to the witness stand. The client denied assaulting, strangling, and threatening the alleged victim. After brief deliberations, the jury quickly returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.

https://whdh.com/news/marshfield-man-acquitted-in-assault-trial/

District Court

AN ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS REINSTATEMENT OF THE CLIENT’S LTC.

The client, a young man with no criminal record, was in the process of applying to become a police officer. The client was highly qualified for the position of police officer. The client progressed quite far in the application process. During the application process, a police officer interviewed the client at his residence. The interviewing officer requested to see where the client’s firearm was stored in his residence. The client escorted the officer to his bedroom. The officer observed that the client’s firearm was located in the drawer of his nightstand, but the firearm was not stored properly, as it was secured in a locked container or affixed with a trigger-lock. Due to the fact that the client failed to store his firearm properly in compliance with Massachusetts law, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended, and his hopes of becoming a police officer was destroyed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and eventually won the reinstatement of the client’s LTC restoring his hopes of becoming a police officer in the future.

Wrentham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST BANKER AND FATHER OF THREE.

The client is a banker, father of three, and a resident of Mansfield with no criminal record. At approximately 2:00 a.m., a Wrentham Police Officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle exiting the parking lot of a drinking establishment in Wrentham. The officer observed that the Defendant exited the parking lot without activating his headlights. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and stopped the vehicle after noticing some improper operation. After conducting several field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that the Defendant was intoxicated and arrested him for Operating under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Operating Negligently (G.L. c. 90, §24).The client was charged in the Wrentham District Court.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The officer testified that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Attorney Noonan introduced medical evidence showing that the Defendant was obese and suffered from a knee injury. Attorney Noonan moved to introduce portions of the booking video at the police station. Attorney Noonan provided the court with a chart highlighting portions of the booking video, which were consistent with the Defendant’s sobriety and lack of impairment. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of negligent operation was insufficient, as the officer’s observations of the vehicle’s operation was limited due to the fact that the officer stopped the Defendant’s quickly. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges, and Attorney Noonan was able to have the client’s driver’s license reinstated the next day.

Mass. Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Kaweesi Marvin

Docket No.: 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2022)

CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR AFTER TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS THE CASE ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED, AND THE CLIENT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY. CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION.

The client is an immigrant and not a legal U.S. citizen. While represented by another highly-experienced and effective attorney, the client was found guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol after a bench-trial in the Waltham District Court. Prior counsel and the client sought Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s services in appealing the conviction.

Result: On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication was insufficient, as a matter of law, and he should have been found not guilty by the trial judge. There are very few appeals finding that evidence of intoxication was insufficient as a matter of law. In a rare case, Attorney Noonan was able to persuade the Appeals Court that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient requiring reversal of the conviction. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction and the client was subsequently found not guilty.

Plymouth Superior Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF SEX-TRAFFICKING INDICTMENT IN THE PLYMOUTH SUPERIOR COURT. THE PROSECUTION HAS APPEALED THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT.

The Defendant, along with four-other defendants, was indicted in the Plymouth Superior Court on charges of Trafficking a Person for Sexual (G.L. c. 265, §50) and Sexual Conduct for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). Sex-trafficking carries a serious penalty of five-years in State Prison. Law enforcement posted an advertisement online, posing as prostitutes, advertising sexual services in exchange for fees. The advertisement contained a phone number for the customer to call. Defendant responded to the advertisement and contacted the phone number and conversed with an undercover officer, who was posing as a prostitute, and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex services. Defendant arrived at a hotel to meet the undercover officer and was arrested.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Sex-Trafficking charge in the Plymouth Superior Court arguing that there was no probable cause to support the offense. Attorney Noonan, citing a recently decided case by the Supreme Judicial Court, argued that the offense of sex-trafficking requires proof of an actual, human being victim. Here, there was no actual human being victim, as the Commonwealth identified the victim as “society.” There was no victim, but an undercover who was posing as a prostitute and no commercial sexual activity would ever occur. There was no human being victim, but an undercover officer posing as a fictitious person. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature, in enacting the Sex-Trafficking statute, did not intend to punish Johns who offer undercover officers money in exchange for sex. The Legislature intended to punish Johns under a different statute, the Sexual Conduct for a Fee statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature enacted the sex-trafficking statute to target “pimps” and those who enslave sex workers. The Superior Court allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss and the Commonwealth has appealed the allowance of the Motion to Dismiss to the Appeals Court.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION.

Client is a hard-working Haitian immigrant, a young man, newly married, who has never been in any trouble. Defendant was stopped by State Police based on the Trooper’s belief that the vehicle was being operated erratically. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol. The Defendant was nowhere near his intended destination. The Trooper requested that the Defendant submit to field sobriety tests. The Defendant attempted the first test, but stopped, and declined to participate in any other field sobriety tests, citing an old basketball injury. Defendant was placed under arrest. The passenger in the vehicle was free to leave.

Result: During the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the credibility of the Trooper’s testimony, particularly attacking his observations that the Defendant’s operation was erratic. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the Defendant committed a minor marked lanes violation, and pulled over into the breakdown lane when signaled to pull over. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant had no difficulty exiting the vehicle and no issues with his balance when standing at roadside while speaking to the officer. Attorney Noonan argued that the first field sobriety test should not be considered because the Defendant briefly attempted the test but declined to complete the test because of his basketball injury. Attorney Noonan argued that the minimal evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance of the field sobriety test did not establish that he was intoxicated or impaired. Attorney Noonan requested production of the Trooper’s body camera, which was never provided or introduced, and the defense argued that the body camera would have been helpful for his case. In addition, there was no video of the Defendant’s booking. The judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges.

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 2022-J-0555

Commonwealth v. M.T.

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A TRIAL AND SENTENCED TO SERVE 6 MONTHS IN JAIL. DEFENDANT WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES APPEALS COURT TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF HIS SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL. CLIENT IS RELEASED WHILE HIS APPEAL IS PENDING. 

Defendant was found guilty, after a bench trial, of Larceny over $1,200 by False Pretense (G.L. c. 266, §30), a felony offense. The judge sentenced the Defendant to serve six (6) months in jail, and the Defendant was immediately taken into custody when he was sentenced. Defendant’s incarceration seriously affected his life, his business, and the custody of his minor children. Attorney Noonan requested that the Trial Judge stay the execution of his sentence, which was denied. Attorney Noonan appealed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion in the Appeals Court to stay the client’s sentence and release him from custody while he appeals his conviction. After a hearing, the Appeals Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the Defendant did not present any security precautions (if released) and the Defendant had solid grounds to appeal his conviction. The client has been released. Attorney Noonan has appealed the conviction and we are awaiting a hearing in the Appeals Court.

Brockton District Court

IN A LANDMARK DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS LACK AUTHORITY TO STOP THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE, SEARCH HIM, AND SEIZE HIM. THIS CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 

Defendant was operating his vehicle in the town of Whitman. Two Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) were stationed in marked police cruisers conducting radar patrol. The APOs clocked the Defendant’s speed as 53 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The APOs stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. The APOs suspected that the Defendant had been drinking and questioned him regarding his alcohol consumption. The APOs looked into the vehicle and observed alcoholic beverages in plain view. The APOs detained the Defendant at the scene while they contacted a sworn police officer to arrive to the scene. The sworn police officer arrived, conducted an investigation, questioned the defendant, and administered field-sobriety tests. The sworn police officer arrested the Defendant for Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion-to-suppress evidence resulting from the stop of the Defendant’s motor vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) did not have authority to effectuate motor vehicle stops, to seize or detain citizens, or to conduct searches. After conducting exhaustive research, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no legal authority, which authorizes APOs to conduct traffic stops. Attorney Noonan made a request to the Whitman Police Department and the Town of Whitman for any written policies and procedures regarding APOs, but the Police Department and the Town did not produce any written policies defining the scope, duties, responsibilities, or powers of APOs. The Brockton District Court agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that the APOs lacked this authority and suppressed all evidence derived from the motor vehicle stop. This was a huge decision because many Police Departments, as part of a longstanding practice, have utilized APOs who play active roles in police investigations, but their powers were never examined. This case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. “Defense duo shines light on renegade auxiliary cops.”

Plymouth District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-DRUGS CASE ARGUING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS CONSUMPTION OF MUSHROOMS. 

Defendant, a paramedic with no criminal record, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs. At trial, the police officer testified that he noticed the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street. Defendant was found asleep in the backseat of the vehicle. Defendant admitted to the officer that he consumed “mushrooms,” a hallucinogenic drug. Defendant was acting erratically. Defendant’s mood would dramatically fluctuate from being claim to highly emotional; randomly blurting out obscenities. The officer was very concerned about the Defendant’s state and requested an ambulance. Defendant was sent to the hospital. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained a pretrial order preventing the officer from forming an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs. The officer did not have any training regarding the drug (mushrooms) and the specific effect of mushroom use on the human body. Therefore, the officer could not testify that the Defendant’s mushroom use was the cause of his impairment. Specifically, the officer could not testify that the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant were the result of mushroom use. The officer could not connect any displayed signs of impairment to the Defendant’s consumption of mushrooms. Therefore, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty. 

Department of Children & Families

Fair Hearing

THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT SEXUALLY ABUSED A CHILD UNDER HIS CARE. ON APPEAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES DCF TO REVERSE ITS DECISION.

A mandated reporter made a report to the Department of Children and Families accusing the Defendant of sexually abusing a child under his care. After conducting an investigation, DCF found that the allegations of sexual abuse were supported. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision by DCF. At DCF the hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of sexual abuse. After presenting his evidence at the hearing, DCF agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that there was insufficient evidence of sexual abuse and reversed its decision.

Brockton District Court

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION AND HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AN LTC. 

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms. The police department denied the application because the client was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from a domestic violence incident. On appeal, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim of the domestic violence incident recanted and changed the story she provided to the police. Further, the alleged victim submitted an Affidavit in support of the client’s application for an LTC. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The police department never interviewed the alleged victim. After a hearing in which the Firearm Licensing Officer and the Client testified, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the decision to deny the application was arbitrary and without reasonable ground and the court issued an order for the Police Department to issue his client a License to Carry Firearms.

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023)

Commonwealth v. C.M.

APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN THAT A NEW HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE.

Defendant, represented by prior counsel, was charged with two-counts of Assault & Battery stemming from two separate incidents in which his ex-wife accused of him physically assaulting her. The case was scheduled for trial. On the advice of his prior attorney, Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years of probation with the condition to complete the batterer’s program. Defendant instantly regretted pleading guilty and admitting to the allegations that he physically assaulted his ex-wife. While represented by new counsel, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Defendant alleged that his prior attorney made certain representations to him, which caused him to plead guilty. The issue was whether the prior attorney’s representation to the Defendant amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, which would invalidate the Defendant’s plea. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Pleas and requested a new trial, which was denied by the plea judge. Attorney Noonan appealed the plea judge’s decision to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, who found that it was error to deny the Defendant’s motion. The Appeals Court vacated the denial of the Defendant’s motion and ordered a new hearing in the District Court to determine whether prior counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. It is important to note that the Defendant has not yet proven that prior counsel was ineffective, but the Appeals Court found that the Defendant raised enough of an argument to mandate an evidentiary hearing, with testimony, to determine whether prior counsel was, in fact, ineffective..

Plymouth Superior Court

CLIENT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL OF RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at a trial in the Plymouth Superior Court on indictments charging him with Rape of Child and Indecent Assault & Battery. The jury found the Defendant guilty on all charges. One-week after the guilty verdict, Attorney Noonan came into possession of newly discovered evidence and immediately filed a Motion for New Trial. Attorney Noonan argued that the newly discovered evidence casts serious doubt on the justice of the conviction and this newly discovered evidence would have played a real factor in the jury’s deliberations. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and granted the Defendant a new trial. Attorney Noonan was able to secure his client’s release pending his new trial.

Taunton District Court

FIREFIGHTER PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT MADE INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

In 2018, Defendant pled guilty to two-counts of Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M. As a result of his guilty plea, the Defendant lost his job as a firefighter. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan for the purpose of withdrawing his plea, vacating his conviction, and awarding him a trial. Attorney Noonan interviewed the Defendant regarding his decision to plead guilty, and obtained a transcript of the plea hearing. Whenever a Defendant enters a plea of guilty, the judge is required to follow certain rules to ensure that the Defendant’s plea is made intelligently and voluntarily. After thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, Attorney Noonan believed that the judge did not follow the proper procedure in conducting the plea. The prosecution argued that the plea hearing was properly conducted. After a hearing, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the plea hearing was not conducted properly, and the court vacated the convictions. The Defendant is now entitled to a trial.

Stoughton District Court

IN 2013, DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA ON A CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A BREATHALYZER TEST. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE ONGOING LITIGATION REGARDING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF BREATHALYZER TESTS AND THE MISCONDUCT BY THE OFFICE OF ALCOHOL TESTING. AT THE NEW TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES.

In 2012, Defendant was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. At the police station, Defendant consented to a Breathalyzer test, which produced results showing that the Defendant’s blood-alcohol-concentration was 0.14%, over the legal limit. Defendant felt that he would be found guilty at trial based on the results of the Breathalyzer test showing that he was well-above the legal limit. Defendant felt that a trial was a lost cause because the Breathalyzer results would most definitely result in his conviction. The Breathalyzer test was the biggest factor in the Defendant’s decision to enter a plea. There has been a lot of litigation in Massachusetts regarding the scientific reliability of Breathalyzer tests. Further, as part of this ongoing litigation, it was discovered that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence regarding Breathalyzer tests from defendants and their attorneys. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea and for New Trial on the basis that the client’s decision to enter his plea was primarily due to the results of the Breathalyzer tests, but the client was unaware (at the time of his plea) that the results of his Breathalyzer test were inadmissible as being scientifically unreliable and the client was unaware of the extensive misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing. The client’s plea and conviction were vacated, and the case will now be proceeding to trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at his new trial on charges of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation and won not guilty verdicts.

New Bedford District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Defendant, an electrician, was operating his vehicle when he was involved in a single-car accident in which his vehicle struck a curb and striking a street light, knocking over the street light. The officer believed that the client was operating at a high rate of speed and lost control over his vehicle. The officer found that the road conditions did not contribute to the accident. At the scene, the client could not recall how the accident happened. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The client’s case was scheduled for an arraignment. With an arraignment, the criminal charge would be entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, saving him from having a criminal record.

Stoughton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH 41 COUNTS OF SECRETLY VIDEOTAPING MEN USING THE URINAL AND BATHROOM IN THE MEN’S LOCKER OF A FITNESS CENTER. DEFENDANT WALKS AWAY WITH NO CONVICTION, NO JAIL TIME, AND NO SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

Defendant, a 24 year-old with no criminal record, was charged with 41 counts of Photographing Sexual Intimate Parts without Consent pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §105. Defendant was an employee for a fitness center. Employees discovered a recording device in a shower-caddy that was positioned at the base of the urinal in the men’s locker room. Employees suspected that the Defendant was the person to have installed the camera. Whenever the cleaning crew went into the men’s locker room to conduct cleaning, Defendant would rush into the locker room and was seen removing the shower-caddy. Police obtained the Defendant’s personal emails to Amazon indicating that the camera he purchased was mechanical issues and he requested a new camera. The camera identified in the Defendant’s emails matched the make and model of the camera found in the locker room. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence and recovered numerous electronic devices, including cameras matching the camera found in the locker room. The electronic devices contained videos of men using the urinals in the bathroom. The case was indefensible, impossible to defend, and was unwinnable at trial. The issue for Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was to seek the best resolution possible for the client, which would not include a conviction, jail time, or sex-offender registration. This was a case where the goal of sentencing was aimed at treating the root cause of the criminal conduct (underlying mental health issues) and to concentrate on treating and rehabilitating the defendant, as opposed to incarcerating him, which would not get at the root of the problem.

Quincy District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST 62 YEAR-OLD BANKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client is a 62-year old woman with no criminal record. She has been working for the same bank for 42 years. On the incident in question, client was driving to her friend’s house in Weymouth. It was dark out. When she attempted to negotiate a sharp turn in the road, she struck another vehicle, causing minor damage to the vehicle. Shaken up over the minor collision, she did not stop on the dark road, but proceeded to her friend’s house who lived a short distance away. She immediately reported the incident to her insurance company. She received a phone call from a Massachusetts State Trooper where she admitted to hitting the other car and not pulling over to exchange any information with the other driver. She was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with information from the client’s car insurance company, showing that the damage to the other vehicle was very minor, and confirmation that the other driver was compensated through insurance. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, meaning that the client will not have any criminal record resulting from this incident.

Wareham District Court

CHARGE OF OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE AGAINST NON-U.S. CITIZEN DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client is a 34 year-old immigrant from Honduras where he lived in poverty and worked on a farm. He came to the U.S. and cannot speak any English. He is not a U.S. citizen. He was hired by a company as a physical laborer. The majority of the money he earns, he sends back to his family in Honduras. He has been living in a hotel with many other immigrants. On this occasion, as an isolated incident, the client drove his employer’s vehicle, because another employee was a no-show for work. He was pulled over. He did not have a driver’s license. He was charged with Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Client was scheduled to be arraigned on this criminal offense. If arraigned, the criminal offense would be entered on his criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss this case prior to arraignment, saving the client from having any criminal record.

Stoughton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY FROM 1963 AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KINGSTON MAN.

Defendant was convicted in 1963 after having pled guilty to committing an Assault & Battery on his then-wife. Defendant, now 83 years-old, applied for a License to Carry Firearms but was automatically disqualified due to the domestic violence conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to vacate the conviction in the interests of justice, and the Court agreed. Now that the conviction is vacated, the client is eligible to apply for a License to Carry Firearms.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN IS SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF 20 CRIMINAL CHARGES.

A multi-department investigation was conducted utilizing the services of a Confidential Informant (CI) – who alleged that the Defendant had sold cocaine to him in the past on numerous occasions in the town of Norwood. The Confidential Informant participated in five (5) controlled buys with the Defendant for the purchase of cocaine. In each buy, the CI claimed that it had purchased cocaine from the Defendant. Based on the information supplied by the CI and in conjunction with the five (5) controlled buys, the police applied for, and obtained, a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Easton. When the police executed the search warrant, they found numerous large-capacity firearms, large-capacity ammunition, narcotics, cocaine, plastic baggies, scales, and large sums of cash, and some counterfeit money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained in connection with the execution of the search warrant – arguing that the information in the Search Warrant Affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be located in the target premises. In particular, Attorney Noonan argued that the information supplied by the CI, and the five controlled-buys, did not establish a nexus between the Defendant’s drug-selling activities and the target premises. The Court agreed and allowed the Motion to Suppress. As all evidence has been suppressed, all criminal charges, 20 criminal charges, will be dismissed.

Quincy District Court

FELONY LARCENY DISMISSED UPON WITNESS AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT DEFENDANT RETURNED THE ALLEGEDLY STOLEN ITEM TO THE POLICE.

Defendant went to Walmart. When entering the store, there was a person sitting at a table soliciting charitable donations, and Defendant observed a cell phone on the floor in the vicinity of this person. Surveillance video shows the Defendant picking up the phone, looking at it, putting it in his pocket, and leaving the store after finishing his shopping. Defendant was called by a police officer who instructed him to return the cell phone to the police station. If he returned the cell phone to the police station, the officer stated that he would not charge the Defendant with a crime. The officer alleged that the Defendant never returned the cell phone and the officer charged him with Larceny from Person (G.L. c. 266, §25(b)).Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with an affidavit from a witness attesting to the fact that the Defendant returned the cell phone to the police station. The witness was present with the Defendant when he returned the cell phone to the police station. Based upon the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

Taunton District Court

FELONY OFFENSE OF OBTAINING DRUGS BY FRAUD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Obtaining Drugs by Fraud (G.L. c. 94C, §33(b)). Defendant’s ex-boyfriend called the police to report that the Defendant went to the CVS pharmacy and fraudulently obtained medication in his name. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the evidence, and conducted legal research, and learned that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove an essential element of the offense. To prove this offense, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the substance in question is a “controlled substance.” Attorney Noonan provided the prosecutor with evidence that the substance in question was NOT a controlled substance. As such, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove this charge at trial. The Commonwealth dismissed the felony offense prior to arraignment, and the Defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor offense of Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30(1)). Attorney Noonan is in the process of preparing this case for trial.

Lawrence District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SERIOUS FIREARMS CHARGES CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES. 

Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 269, §10(b)), and Operating a Vehicle with a Suspended License (G.L. c. 90, §23). If convicted of Carrying a Firearm without a License, Defendant faced a minimum-mandatory jail sentence of 18 months, and another minimum-mandatory sentence of 2.5 years in jail if convicted of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License.

Result: Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire. He left his home in New Hampshire to visit a friend in Lawrence. While returning home to New Hampshire, after visiting his friend, Defendant was stopped by a State Trooper in Methuen because of a non-working headlight. Upon the stop, the Trooper learned that the Defendant had a suspended Massachusetts driver’s license and placed him under arrest. While arresting him, the Trooper located a loaded handgun in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Under a new decision announced by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, in order to prove the firearm offenses, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023) At trial, the Commonwealth called a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), which is responsible for maintaining a database of all persons issued firearm licenses in Massachusetts. This witness testified that she was provided with the Defendant’s name and his Date of Birth. When the witness entered the Defendant’s first name, last name, and DOB, into the database, the results disclosed that there was no record of the Defendant having ever been issued a firearm license in Massachusetts. In a surprise attack at trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the Commonwealth did not provide CJIS with the proper name for the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license in Massachusetts because CJIS was not provided with the correct name for the Defendant. Under cross-examination, the witness from CJIS testified that she did not enter the Defendant’s correct name into the database. Further, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire, had a New Hampshire address, had a New Hampshire driver’s license, and had his motor vehicle registered in New Hampshire. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth did not conduct any record-searches to determine whether the Defendant had any firearm licenses issued to him in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant’s firearm was registered in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant was legally permitted to own and possess this firearm in New Hampshire. After two-hours of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of all charges, and the Defendant was free to leave.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SIX FIREARM CHARGES, CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES, AND ANOTHER COUNT OF RESISTING ARREST.

Defendant was charged with seven criminal offenses, including: Two-counts of Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), two-counts of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Possession of Firearm without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B). If convicted, Defendant was facing serious minimum-mandatory jail time and deportation from the United States.

Result: Defendant was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle, which was wanted in connection with a drive-by shooting in Boston. About a week after the shooting, State Troopers observed the suspect vehicle and attempted to pull it over, but a high-speed chase ensued from Milton to Brockton, which ultimately ended with the suspect vehicle crashing into an intersection in Brockton. Police observed a loose pistol magazine at the feet of the operator. In the glove compartment, located in the passenger side area where the Defendant had been seated, police found two firearms, a large capacity firearm, and ammunition. Police alleged that the Defendant resisted arrest when they commanded him to exit the passenger side of the vehicle. The operator and defendant-passenger were charged with a multitude of firearm offenses and resisting arrest. At a suppression hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan elicited evidence from the State Trooper, which would prove to be vital to the Defendant’s case at trial. The glove-compartment, where the firearms were stored, was locked and the Defendant did not have possession of the key. Troopers admitted that they did not observe the Defendant reach for or touch the glove-compartment, and Troopers did not see the Defendant attempt to hide or conceal evidence. Although they claimed that the Defendant resisted arrest, Attorney Noonan was able to get that charge dismissed for insufficient evidence. No fingerprints were lifted from the firearms or ammunition. On the day of trial, the co-defendant (operator of the vehicle) pled guilty to most of the charges, but Attorney Noonan remained steadfast that his client was innocent and refused to enter into any plea negotiations. Recognizing that Attorney Noonan was prepared, ready, willing and able to try this case, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against the Defendant.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Defendant was a 25 year-old with no criminal record. Police were called to the scene of a single-car accident. An off-duty EMT testified at trial that he observed the Defendant travel through an intersection, at a high rate of speed, and strike a curb and telephone pole. Upon arrival, the officer spoke with the Defendant, who was the operator of the vehicle. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer testified that the Defendant was unable to recall how the accident happened. The officer observed that her eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Police recovered an empty bottle of liquor in the center console. Defendant was administered the Nine-Step Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand field-sobriety test, and the officer testified that she failed these tests. Defendant admitted to consuming three glasses of champagne about two hours ago.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan emphasized that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field-sobriety tests were very understandable considering the circumstances. For example, Defendant was involved in a serious car accident. The airbag deployed striking her in the face, causing injuries to her nose and lip, which were bleeding. Defendant was emotional, crying, and was repeatedly expressing concern for her passenger, who was injured in the crash. Defendant was asked to perform these field-sobriety tests with four police officers on scene, three police cruisers on scene, and a fire truck surrounding her. The officer admitted that she was shook-up and frazzled by the accident. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant went to the emergency room after her arrest complaining of chest pain and rib pain. Despite all this, Defendant still performed relatively well on the field-sobriety tests, under these harsh circumstances. Attorney Noonan was able to suppress the empty liquor bottle from coming into evidence at trial because the prosecutor was unable to bring in the police officer who located the bottle in the vehicle, and they would be unable to authenticate this piece of evidence. Attorney Noonan aggressively argued that the Police Department was grossly negligent because they lost the video recording of the Defendant’s booking at the police station following her arrest. Attorney Noonan persuaded the trial judge to instruct the jury that they could infer that the lost booking video would have been favorable to the Defendant’s case. Attorney Noonan was successful in dismissing the unlicensed operation charge because the Commonwealth’s RMV records did not contain the date in which her license was suspended. After one-hour of deliberations, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of all charges and her driver’s license was restored.

Fitchburg District Court

CLIENT’S LTC DENIED WAS DUE TO FELONY CONVICTION AND UNTRUTHFULNESS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT. 

Client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application on the grounds that the client had a disqualifying felony conviction from Florida, and THAT the client was untruthful on the application when he denied that he had ever been convicted of a felony. On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all records relating to the client’s criminal case in Florida. In the Florida case, client was charged with Grand Theft and received a disposition known as Adjudication Withheld. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted legal research showing that a disposition of Adjudication Withheld does not constitute a conviction under Florida law or Massachusetts law. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not untruthful on the application because he correctly disclosed that he had not been convicted of a felony because, legally, the disposition in his Florida case did not constitute a conviction. After a hearing, including testimony, and after consideration of Attorney Noonan’s legal arguments, the judge reversed the decision denying the client’s LTC and ordered the police department to issue him a License to Carry Firearms.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AND OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE IS ALLOWED.

Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)) and Operating with a Suspended License Subsequent Offense (G.L. c. 90, §23), stemming from a hit-and-run car accident, which resulted in injuries to the operator and occupants of another vehicle. A witness reported to the police that he had witnessed the accident and was actively following the vehicle, which fled the scene. The witness later sent photographs to police of the fleeing vehicle. Police circulated pictures of the vehicle amongst various police departments. One police department reported being familiar with the suspect vehicle as belonging to the Defendant based on prior interactions. Police went to the Defendant’s home and observed damage to a vehicle in his driveway. Defendant denied operating the vehicle. The police noted that the Defendant had multiple prior convictions for operating with a suspended driver’s license. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause, arguing that the police report did not contain sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. After considering the arguments, the court allowed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO UNTRUTHFULNESS IN DISCLOSING HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT.

In 2016, client had his License to Carry Firearms suspended because he was arrested and charged with domestic violence, which was later dismissed. The criminal case was later sealed. Client, with another attorney, appealed the 2016 LTC suspension, and lost. In 2023, client reapplied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to appeal the denial. At the hearing, the officer testified that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. On the application, client was asked whether he had ever been arrested or appeared in court for any criminal case, and the client answered “yes.” However, the application form required the applicant to provide the details and circumstances of the criminal case, but the client did not provide any description of the criminal case. The officer believed that the client was being untruthful because he did not provide any description of the criminal case. After submitting the application, the client was interviewed by the police officer. When asked about his criminal history, the client told the officer that the criminal case was “sealed,” a truthful statement. The officer was able to obtain a copy of the police report on his criminal case. When asked about the incident resulting in his arrest, the client was truthful, not evasive and answered all the officer’s questions. Attorney Noonan argued that the client fulfilled his obligation by answering in the affirmative, on the application, regarding his criminal history. Attorney Noonan argued that the application form was vague because the application form did not state that the applicant was required to provide information on “sealed” criminal cases. To prove that the client was truthful, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the officer that, during the interview, the client was truthful when questioned about his arrest. The court agreed with Attorney Noonan, reversed the decision denying his LTC, and issued an order for the police department to issue him an LTC.

OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED

An identified civilian witness called 911. She called to report that she was driving home when her vehicle was cut off and blocked in by another vehicle. She claimed that the male operator in the vehicle pulled out his penis and motioned for her to follow him. She claimed that the male operator turned on the interior light, thrust his hips upward, opened his pants, exposed his penis, and proceeded to masturbate. She provided police with the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle. She provided police with a physical description of the suspect as being: a white male, in his late 30s / early 40s, with a long strawberry colored beard, and heavy up top. Police conducted an RMV query of the vehicle, which was registered to the Defendant. The Defendant’s RMV photograph matched the witness’s description in that the Defendant’s picture showed that he had a long strawberry colored beard. The police presented a photo array of potential suspects to the victim. She identified the Defendant’s photograph and stated that she was 100% certain that the Defendant was the suspect. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police conducted the photo array. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant’s photo “stood out” from the other photos. First, there were substantial disparities in the age of the suspects. The victim described the suspect as being in his late 30s / early 40s. The Defendant was 34 years old. The majority of the photos were of males that were in their early to mid-twenties. Second, several of the suspects had skinny builds unlike the Defendant’s build, which was heavier. Third, the most striking point of suggestion was that only two of the eight suspects had long facial hair. Fourth, the photos that were presented to the victim were in black and white, not in color. In addition to the Defendant’s photo standing out, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police presented the photos to the victim. Originally, police generated an 8-person photo array. However, when the police presented the photos to the victim, they mistakenly left out two photos, and the photo array only consisted of 6 photos. The victim went through the six photos and stated that the suspect was not in the 6 photos. Police realized that they mistakenly left the two missing photos at the police station. Police generated the same 8 person photo array and conducted a second showing to the victim. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police re-used the same 6 filler photos, which were already shown to the victim. Contrary to standard practice, the police did not shuffle the photos and presented them in the same order as they did the first time. The victim breezed through the first 6 photos because she had already looked at these same six photos in the first presentation. The suspects in the first six photos did not have facial hair. When the victim got to the seventh photo, she identified the Defendant, as his picture showed that he had long facial hair. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police did not show the victim the eighth and final photo. The last photo showed a suspect with a long beard. Other than the Defendant’s photo, the suspect pictured in the last photo had a long beard, and this photo should have been shown to the victim.

Result: At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge that the photo array procedure used by police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and therefore violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights. As a result, the judge suppressed the out of court identification from evidence and precluded the Commonwealth from presenting the victim’s positive identification of the Defendant at trial.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAWS: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED

Three 17-year-old juveniles were arrested on a theory of joint venture to distribute marijuana. A police officer conducting patrol observed three males standing in the middle of the street and the police officer detected a “strong, distinctive odor of marijuana.” The officer stopped and questioned the three juveniles. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client (Juvenile #1) had his backpack searched, which contained: a gallon zip lock bag containing marijuana, a marijuana blunt inside another zip lock bag, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and cash. The officer searched the backpack of another Juvenile #2, which contained: liquor bottles, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a glass pipe with marijuana inside. The officer searched the person of Juvenile #3 and recovered four plastic baggies of marijuana. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized from his client’s backpack. Upon examining the arresting officer, Attorney Noonan established that: the officer seized the juveniles immediately upon approaching them; the officer exceeded the scope of the threshold inquiry because possession of less than one-ounce of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and social sharing of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and most importantly, that the search of Juvenile #1’s backpack was not justified as a lawful pat and frisk for weapons. The officer testified that he searched Juvenile #1’s backpack for weapons because Juvenile #1 had a knife on him. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would not fear for his safety – as to justify a pat-frisk of the backpack for weapons.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was allowed. The judge found that the search of the Juvenile’s backpack was unlawful. As a result, the judge suppressed all evidence seized from the Juvenile’s backpack. With all the drugs suppressed from evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss all charges.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was charged with four felony counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. The allegations were that the Defendant was terminated from the Company he was employed at for over 30 years. The police report alleges that the Defendant vandalized the Company’s outdoor air chiller unit on at least four different occasions. The company told police that the equipment was vital to the day to day operation of the business. The company alleged that they had to shut down production due to the vandalism. The company claimed that the value of the damage caused by the Defendant was approximately $102,000.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report failed to present sufficient probable cause to support each element of the felony offenses.

UNLAWFUL POSS. OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

At 12:30 a.m., police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant was driving his pick-up truck and struck a utility pole. Upon arrival, police called the ambulance and the Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Upon investigation, it was determined that the Defendant operated his vehicle negligently so as to endanger the safety of others. Police observed heavy front-end damage to the pick-up indicating that the Defendant was operating at a high rate of speed. Contents in the bed of the pick-up had been scattered all over the road. Police observed extensive damage to the utility, which had been broken in half also indicating that the Defendant struck the pole at a high rate of speed. Police observed very little skid marks prior to the crash. Police searched the Defendant’s pick-up truck and found a box containing 50 cartridges of .357 caliber ammunition. Police also found 13 cartridges of .38 caliber ammunition. Defendant did not have a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or any license to possess the ammunition. Defendant was a 21 year-old male with no criminal record. He had an Associate’s Degree and planned on enrolling as a student at Bridgewater State University. He was employed as full-time construction worker. He was also employed by the city as a snow-plower. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have jeopardized Defendant’s employment for the city as a snow-plower and would have affected his ability to enroll in college.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police department and the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, no criminal charges will appear on the Defendant’s record.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: EXPUNGED

Defendant is a 30-year-old woman with no criminal record. She is college educated. She has degrees in Graphic Design and Programming. She has been gainfully employed with the same company for 12 years, progressing from payroll, to accounts manager, to human resources manager. She earned a position with an international company as a data systems analyst. Defendant was charged with a felony offense of Uttering a False Prescription. The felony was docketed on her permanent record. She has been applying for positions with several international corporations, which perform extensive criminal background checks. She has not applied for any positions due to the felony charge on her record. In Massachusetts, expungement is extremely rare and only happens in very limited circumstances. In most, if not all cases, the Defendant’s remedy is to seal the record, not expunge the record.

Result: In a very rare case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to obtain a court order permanently expunging the Defendant’s record. Expungement involves the removal and destruction of records “so that no trace of information remains.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: NOLLE PROSS
RESISTING ARREST: CWOF
STALKING: Amended to THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: CWOF

The alleged victim dated the Defendant. They dated for 9 months. She states that the Defendant was “very controlling” over the course of the relationship. He controlled what clothing she wore and he controlled what people she could talk to. They broke up. Two days after the break-up, Defendant called the alleged victim at 1:00 a.m. He called her 4 times in a row screaming at her. In the last call, Defendant threatened to burn her house down. Approximately 15 minutes after the phone call, Defendant showed up to the alleged victim’s house. He barged into the house very intoxicated. She claims that the Defendant was screaming and yelling at her. She claims that she felt that the Defendant was going to hit her. She alleges that she was in fear of her life. The alleged victim’s parents got the Defendant to leave. The alleged victim called the Defendant’s mother to come pick him up. The alleged victim looked out her window and saw the Defendant fighting and wrestling with his father (defendant’s father) in the street. She called 911. Police arrived and observed the Defendant fighting his father in the street. The officer intervened. The officer ordered the Defendant to stop fighting his father. The officer attempted to gain control of the Defendant’s right arm but he repeatedly pulled his arm away. The officer warned the Defendant that he was spray him with mace if he continued to resist. The Defendant continued resisting and the officer sprayed him in the face and placed him under arrest. The police officer observed a 5 gallon container of gasoline in the street where the Defendant and his father were fighting. The alleged victim’s mother came outside. She picked up the gas container and observed that it was less than half-way full of gasoline. Police interviewed the Defendant’s father. The father stated that he received a call from the alleged victim stating that the Defendant barged into her house intoxicated and he needed to be removed. The father, after much persistence, was able to get the Defendant in his car to drive him home. While driving the car home, the Defendant stated that he was “going to burn that shit down.” The Defendant also threatened to kill himself. The Defendant jumped out of the moving car and ran home where he went into the garage and retrieved the 5 gallon container of gasoline. His father tackled him in an attempt to prevent the Defendant from going to the alleged victim’s house to carry out his threat. The Defendant was able to wrestle away from his father and run over to the alleged victim’s house; 1-2 streets away. The father got into his car and drove to the alleged victim’s house where he confronted the defendant in the street. The father tackled the Defendant to the ground and attempted to hold him down until police arrived.

Immediately, the District Attorney’s Office filed a Motion with the Court requesting that the Defendant be held in custody for 120 days or until his trial because he was “dangerous” and posed a danger to the alleged victim and the public if he were released. After a Dangerousness Hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and her mother, Attorney Noonan was successful in obtaining the release of his client with certain conditions.

The Commonwealth was intent on finding the Defendant Guilty of all the offenses and having him serve jail time. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge arguing that the incidents of Stalking did not occur “over a period of time,” as required by statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged acts of Stalking occurred within the time-span of 45 minutes, which is inconsistent with the language of the statute, which requires three instances of stalking “over a period of time.” Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was denied but he preserved the issue for appeal.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared for trial. He obtained an arsenal of information to attack the alleged victim’s credibility at trial. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the Defendant broke up with the alleged victim – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the alleged victim initiated contact with the Defendant on the night of the incident – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan established that the alleged victim did not call the police or tell her parents when the Defendant threatened to burn her house down in the phone call. Rather, the alleged victim went back to sleep. Shortly, thereafter, the alleged victim saw the Defendant walking up the front steps to her home. Again, she did not call the police but decided to let him into the house showing that she did not take his threat to burn the house down seriously. When the Defendant was inside the house, Attorney Noonan obtained previously testimony from the mother that the Defendant did not touch anyone when he was inside the house. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the mother that there was no physical confrontation whatsoever in the home and it took less than one minute to get the Defendant to leave. After the Defendant left, the alleged victim nor her parents called 911 – but rather they all went back to sleep showing that they did not take his threats seriously. When the alleged victim looked out the window and saw the Defendant fighting with his father in the street, she told police at the scene that she obtained a gas can close by. Attorney Noonan obtained the alleged victim’s 911 call in which the alleged victim never tells the 911 dispatcher that the Defendant threatened to burn her house down or that she observed a gas can in the street. The 911 call shows that the alleged victim was not fearful, scared, crying, breathing heavy, etc. Rather, the 911 tape shows that the alleged victim was calm and unemotional. She even laughed at one point in the call, showing that she did not take the Defendant’s threat seriously. After the Defendant was arrested, the police officer interviewed the alleged victim and her parents. Attorney Noonan, in a prior hearing, established that the alleged victim and her parents declined getting a restraining order because they did not feel it was necessary. A week after the incident, the alleged victim obtained a restraining order. Attorney Noonan found a restraining order that the alleged victim filed against a previous ex-boyfriend several years before the Defendant’s case. The alleged victim applied and obtained the prior restraining order with the assistance of her mother. Attorney Noonan contended that the alleged victim was familiar with the process of obtaining a restraining and had she been in imminent fear of the Defendant she would have obtained one immediately. Attorney Noonan also argued that the alleged victim’s mother had taken precautions to protect her daughter in the past by assisting her daughter in getting a restraining order. Had the alleged victim’s mother felt that the Defendant posed a danger to her daughter, she would have persuaded her daughter to get a restraining order – as she did in the past. Attorney Noonan felt that the alleged victim’s mother did not persuade her daughter in getting a restraining order against the Defendant because she felt that the Defendant did not pose a danger to her daughter. After the alleged victim obtained a restraining order against the Defendant, Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of the alleged victim attempting to contact the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained a text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s mother. Attorney Noonan obtained another text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s friend. Attorney Noonan obtained information that the alleged victim sent a request to the Defendant’s Instagram account in an effort to contact him. When all her attempts to contact the Defendant failed, the alleged victim went into court and removed the restraining order. Attorney Noonan obtained an audio recording and transcript of the hearing. In the hearing, the alleged victim states that the real reason why she sought the restraining order against the Defendant was to give the Defendant some time to get himself together – rather than being in fear of him. When asked about the alleged incident, the alleged victim states that she did not believe that the Defendant would carry out such a threat because she knows him and she knows he is not the type of person to do such a thing. She further states that she would like to have contact with him because they were practically engaged and their relationship was not the type of thing to just throw away.

Attorney Noonan provided the Commonwealth with his discovery and the evidence he intended to introduce at trial. On the eve of trial, the Commonwealth made a proposition, which the Defendant refused. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth made another proposition. The Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on the Assault & Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The Commonwealth amended the felony Stalking to charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. The Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to continue the two charges without a finding and upon the Defendant’s successful completion of probation the two charges will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to Nolle Pross the Assault & Battery charge and the Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to amend the felony Stalking charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Noonan assured that the Stalking charge would not appear on his client’s record. Even though the Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on the remaining charges of Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to continue them without a finding. The client will not have any felonies on his record. If he complies with probation, he will get dismissals on the two misdemeanor offenses.

KEEPING NOISY & DISORDERLY HOME: DISMISSED ON 05/16/16

Client, a 23-year-old senior college student, was charged with Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly Home in connection with an off-campus party in which more than 200 students attended. Police received noise complaints due to the loud noise from the party – as there was a DJ blasting music in the backyard. When police arrived, they observed a female dancing on the roof of the garage. Many of the party-goers were yelling for her to “jump.” Seconds later, a male student pushed the female off the roof and into the crowd. Police arrested the man who pushed the female off the roof. The incident of the male pushing the female student off the roof was captured on film. The case involving the male student pushing the female off the roof received a lot of publicity.
Our client was one of three college students that were named on the lease. My client had no criminal record. He was a standout wrestler in high school and college. He is expected to graduate with a degree in Physical Education and Coaching. Our client had never been arrested and never been involved with any problems in school. After the incident, he made plans to move out of the house to avoid any potential issues arising in the future.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk-magistrate to hold the case open until his client graduates in the spring. Client does not have any criminal and will continue to have no criminal record, so long as he stays out of trouble until the spring. Client intends to become a wrestling coach.

Video shows man shoving woman off roof at Bridgewater party. Pix11.com, by Jeremy Tanner, September 1, 2015. Excerpt: BRIDGEWATER, Mass. – Cellphones came out when a woman climbed onto a roof at a party Sunday night in Bridgeport, Massachusetts — and now prosecutors are using that footage after a man allegedly pushed the woman off as cameras recorded.

Read More About This Case in the News

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Police were dispatched to the Mandarin Restaurant for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police approached the Defendant in the parking lot with his girlfriend. Police observed that the Defendant and his girlfriend were intoxicated. Police learned that Defendant’s girlfriend had an altercation with Defendant’s ex-girlfriend inside the restaurant and they were asked to leave. Officers allowed the Defendant to retrieve his personal belongings from his vehicle because a friend was on his way to pick the Defendant and his girlfriend. Police observed a leather jacket in his vehicle with a “Devil’s Disciples” patch on the back along a 1% patch and German Swastikas. Police observed a holster affixed to his belt on the small of his back with a clip. The firearm was identified as a Smith & Wesson SW40VE 40. caliber semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 13 jacketed hollow point rounds with one round loaded in the chamber. Police located another firearm on the Defendant’s right hip identified as a Smith & Wesson SW9VE 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 9 jacketed hollow point rounds and one round loaded in the chamber. Defendant also had five knifes on his person. Defendant had a valid license to carry firearms with no restrictions. Police placed the Defendant in protective custody and subsequently charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, on the first court appearance, argued a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded with rounds in the chamber, and because he was affiliated with a motorcycle gang. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose an imminent threat because: he had a constitutional right to carry his firearms, the offense was a non-violent misdemeanor, defendant was cooperative and compliant, defendant did not engage in any violent or threatening behavior, and he was not involved in the domestic disturbance. Attorney Noonan argued that the police unfairly profiled him upon learning that he was associated with a biker gang. Upon learning that he was affiliated with a biker gang, police placed him in protective custody (alleging that he was intoxicated) when they initially allowed him to leave the scene upon being picked up by his friend. Had the Defendant not been affiliated with a biker gang, police would have allowed him to leave the scene with his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Subsequently, Police requested a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint but to keep the matter on file for three-months after which time the criminal complaint will be dismissed, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new crimes.

FIREARM SUSPENSION: LICENSE TO CARRY REINSTATED

Client had a valid license to carry firearms (LTC). The chief of police suspended his LTC pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 131 because he was arrested and charged with a felony sex offense. As a result of his arrest, client was required to surrender all his firearms to the police department. After successfully resolving his criminal case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and return his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and his firearms were returned.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED

A homeowner called police to report that a male had just ripped off his mailbox. Upon arrival, police located the male matching the description. Upon spotting him, the male fled into the woods and police chased him. During the chase, police tackled him to the ground and the male flailed his arms striking the officer in the head and shoulder. The male broke away and continued to flee into the woods. The officer attempted to tackle him several times but the male pushed him away. Finally, the officer tackled the male to the ground and delivered two fist strikes to his head. Afterwards, police learned that the male destroyed nine mailboxes. The male, a juvenile, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property (felony) and Resisting Arrest. The juvenile had no prior criminal record. He was a standout athlete on the football team at his high school. The juvenile met with a Marine Corp. recruiter and signed a letter of intention to enlist. If the juvenile were convicted or given of CWOF for the felony offenses, he would be disqualified from military service. Moreover, if the juvenile were placed on Pretrial Probation, he would be disqualified from military. The only disposition that would not disqualify from military serve was an outright dismissal of the charges. After much work, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to dismiss all charges outright. Now, the client can pursue his dream of serving in the military.

Result: Charges dismissed outright and juvenile can now pursue his dream of enlisting in military.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle crash on Route 24 south in which the Defendant rear-ended a vehicle on Route 24 south. The defendant admitted that he was distracted by his cell phone. Three witnesses told police that the Defendant had been traveling over 100 mpg when he struck the other vehicle. The alleged victim sustained neck and back injuries and went to the emergency room via ambulance. After extensive negotiations with the insurance company, the District Attorney’s Office, and the alleged victim, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the criminal charge against his client.

Result: Negligent Operation charge dismissed outright after extensive negotiations.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FROM BUILDING: DISMISSED

The alleged victim and a witness went to the Middleboro Police Department to report that the Defendant entered their home without permission and stole a cell phone valued at $650. Defendant admitted to police that he did enter the alleged victim’s house but denied stealing the cell phone.

Result: Both felony charges dismissed upon restitution on the first court date.

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED

Three witnesses reported to police that they observed the Defendant in his front yard with no pants on and his genitals and bare butt exposed. A neighbor called 911 and the Defendant was placed under arrest and charged with Open and Gross Lewdness, a felony sex offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Commonwealth to reduce the felony sex offense of Open & Gross Lewdness to the lesser-included misdemeanor offense of Indecent Exposure and place his client on probation at the conclusion of which the charge will be dismissed so long as the client complies with the terms of his probation.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A civilian witness testified that she was driving on Route 3 South when she was almost struck by a large SUV driving erratically. She followed the SUV and observed that it was “all over the road” in that it almost struck the guardrail in the breakdown lane. A State Trooper observed the SUV driving erratically at a high speed and almost hit the guardrail. There was a passenger passed out in the front seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol. The Defendant failed all three field sobriety tests. At the police station, Defendant was verbally assaultive and uncooperative.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

LARCENY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Taunton Federal Credit Union filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Larceny under $250. Prior to his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Keeper of Records at the Bank and confirmed that the Bank was not seeking any restitution nor did they have any objections to the case being dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment, which was allowed, and the criminal charge will not appear on the client’s record.

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to a restaurant for a disturbance. Upon arrival, police encountered the Defendant in the parking lot. Police observed that the Defendant was intoxicated and they placed him in protective custody. Defendant had a loaded and chambered .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol in his back waistband. Defendant also had another loaded and chambered 9 mm. pistol in a holster affixed to his belt. Defendant also had five knives on his person. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the Defendant was denied his opportunity for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing under G.L. c. 218, §35A. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the level of his intoxication, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded and chambered, and because he was affiliated with a notorious motorcycle gang.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed without prejudice and the Commonwealth must request a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing in order to pursue the charge.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to a residence for a call of domestic violence in which the caller stated that he was hit by his girlfriend. Upon arrival, the alleged victim told police that his girlfriend pushed him and scratched him, leaving marks on his right shoulder. Defendant is 32 years-old and a mother of two with no criminal record. She has worked as a Home Health Aide for over four years. She graduated from Community College and, prior to this incident, applied to several nursing schools to become a Registered Nurse.

Result: No complaint issued, and client may report No Record on school applications.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense) NOT GUILTY

An off-duty sheriff testified that he was returning home from work when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut him off, travel at a high rate of speed, cross over the center line four times, travel in the opposite lane, and almost strike the shoulder of the road. The sheriff observed the Defendant slam on his brakes at a stop sign and skid to a stop with his vehicle parallel to oncoming traffic. The sheriff conducted a motor vehicle stop and radioed police. Police observed a half-empty 12 pack of beer in his car. Police observed that his speech was very slurred, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one-legged stand tests. A portable breath test gave a result of 0.19%. During booking, Defendant stated that he had stopped drinking for four years and all it takes is “a few too many.”

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

OPERATING w/ SUSPENDED LICENSE: DISMISS PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
FAILURE TO STOP / YIELD: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Client’s license was suspended for failure to pay speeding tickets. He was then pulled over by Police for a motor vehicle infraction and was arrested for Operating with a Suspended License and cited for Failure to Stop / Yield.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the charge prior to arraignment and no entry was made on the client’s clean criminal record.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR / DISMISSED

Police stopped a vehicle for speeding. There were three males in the vehicle. Officers observed the male in the backseat (defendant) reaching down at his feet. In the vehicle, police found one package of marijuana, six individual packets of marijuana, twelve empty zip-lock baggies, an empty vile, and two condoms. Defendant was in the final stages of enlisting in the United States Air Force. Client would be disqualified from enlisting in the Air Force if the felony charge was not reduced to a misdemeanor and then dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Commonwealth to reduce the felony drug charge to a simple misdemeanor and to dismiss the simple misdemeanor outright, which allowed his client to enlist in the Air Force.

RECKLESS OPERATION: DISMISSED
FAILURE TO STOP: NOT RESPONSIBLE
FAILURE TO STOP: NOT RESPONSIBLE
UNREGISTERED VEHICLE: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Brockton Police received reports of gun shots. Police observed a gray SUV traveling at a high rate of speed in the area where the gun shots were reported. The operator, already traveling at a high rate of speed, increased his speed and police attempted to initiate a stop of the vehicle. The operator continued traveling at a high rate of speed and blew through a stop sign at an intersection. The operator refused to stop for police and took a series of turns on several side streets while still traveling at a high rate of speed. The operator finally pulled into a driveway and rushed out of the vehicle. Officers ordered the operator to the ground at gunpoint and arrested him.

Result: After extensive negotiations with the Commonwealth, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained an outright dismissal of the criminal charge and Not Responsible findings on the three civil infractions. “Brockton man arrested after car chase.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from allegations that he grabbed his girlfriend’s phone and struck her repeatedly in the head with it. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant slapped her, pushed her to the ground, and threatened to kill her. After the assault, the alleged victim immediately went to the police station to report it and she obtained an emergency restraining order.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty verdict on the violent felony offense of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon.

DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS B: AMENDED TO LESSER CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: GUILTY (Min. Mandatory Sentence)
DISTRIBUTION SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE: DISMISSED

On December 18, 2012, Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover detective within 300 feet of a school zone. With regards to the Distribution indictment (Chapter 94C, §32A(a)), there was a minimum mandatory jail sentence of two and a half years in the house of correction. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Commonwealth to amend the charge to §32A(c), which does not carry a minimum mandatory sentence. In 2007, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent making the Defendant a subsequent offender. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the Subsequent Offense indictment, which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 ½ years in State Prison. With the Distribution and Subsequent Offender indictments, Defendant was facing 3 ½ to 5 ½ years in prison.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving a prison sentence of 3 ½ to 5 ½ years.

RAPE BY FORCE: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Rape by Force and Indecent Assault & Battery stemming from allegations that he forcibly raped and sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant had consensual sex with the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of two percipient witnesses that were sleeping on a futon approximately three-feet away from the bed where the rape allegedly occurred. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from these percipient witnesses that they did not hear the alleged victim screaming, crying, or yelling when they were in the futon three feet away, which directly contradicted the alleged victim’s testimony.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained Not Guilty verdicts on all indictments, which include Rape by Force and Indecent Assault & Battery, saving their client from a lengthy prison sentence and having to register as a sex offender. “East Bridgewater man found not guilty in Bridgewater Rape.”

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A gas station employee called 911 and reported that the Defendant pulled into the gas station and exited his vehicle and appeared to be very drunk and observed that the Defendant had fallen over. Police arrived and observed that the Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, that his eyes were bloodshot and red, and that he was very unsteady on his feet. The police officer testified that he could not conduct any physical field sobriety tests because the Defendant was “highly intoxicated.” The police officer testified that he did not administer any physical field sobriety tests because he was concerned that the Defendant would fall and injure himself.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

SHOPLIFTING: NO CHARGES FILED

Client, a 29 year-old special education teacher with no criminal record, was detained by loss prevention officers at Shaw’s Supermarket for shoplifting various items. The issuance of a criminal complaint for shoplifting would affect the client’s employment as a special education teacher and may affect his ability to enroll in a master’s program. After he was detained by security, client received a notice in the mail from the Loss Prevention Department. Client immediately called Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who negotiated with the Loss Prevention and Legal Department at Shaw’s and convinced them not to pursue any criminal charges against his client. On March 23, 2015, the legal department at Shaw’s sent written confirmation to Attorney Noonan that they would not pursue any criminal charges against his client.

Result: No criminal charges were filed against the Defendant and client’s clean record remains intact.

ASSAULT w/ INTENT TO MURDER: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Assault with Intent to Murder stemming from allegations that he tried to murder his wife with knives he kept throwing at her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced a 911 tape in which the alleged victim was screaming and crying that her husband was trying to kill her with knives he kept throwing. The Commonwealth also presented photographs of damage inside the couple’s home including stab marks in the wall, holes in the wall, furniture tossed over, and broken glass. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant directed all his destruction on the house (not his wife) by throwing knives into the wall, stabbing the wall, punching holes on the wall, and tossing over furniture. During the course of his destruction, the Defendant never touched his wife, and Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim did not sustain any injuries and never complained of any injuries.

Result: After a three-day trial, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Assault with Intent to Murder, the most serious of the indictments. “Trial opens in Brockton for ex-firefighter charged with assaulting late wife.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
RESISTING ARREST: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
THREATS TO COMMIT ARSON: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
STALKING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial due to the seriousness of the allegations that he attempted to burn down his ex-girlfriend’s house with gasoline until police intervened to physically stop him. After a Dangerousness Hearing, Defendant was released from custody. Upon a finding of dangerousness and a finding that no conditions of release would ensure the public safety, the Defendant would be held in the House of Correction for 120 days under the new domestic violence statute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing and thoroughly impeached and discredited the testimony of the alleged victim-girlfriend.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FALSE PRETENSE: DISMISSED

Client was charged with Receiving Stolen Property over $250, a felony offense, stemming from allegations that she stole three pieces of jewelry from the alleged victim totaling approximately $5,430, including a gold Claddagh ring (valued at $100), a diamond pendant necklace with a gold necklace (valued at $130), a 14K gold diamond anniversary band ring (valued at $2,200), and a 14K gold teardrop solitaire ring (valued at $2,000-$3,000). The client then allegedly pawned the jewelry, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property, and received payment resulting in an additional charge of Larceny by False Pretense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed outright at the second court date.

INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO NON-SEXUAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE

The alleged victim (age 16) accused the Defendant (her brother-in-law) of sexually abusing her on three different occasions beginning when she was 11 years-old. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a simple misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense. Had the Defendant been convicted of the felony sexual assault, he would have to register as a sexual offender and face the possibility of prison time. Defendant was placed on probation for the simple misdemeanor assault and battery. Defendant was placed on probation for the misdemeanor Assault & Battery. He returned to his home in Texas where he lives with his wife and child.

Result: Commonwealth reduces felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense, saving his client possible jail time and having to register as a sex offender.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED

Police responded to the breaking and entering in progress. Upon arrival to the home, police detained a man walking across the front lawn. The man confessed to breaking into the home to steal $10,000 and stated that he committed the crime with two friends named Kevin and Andrew. A short distance away, police observed two males walking on the sidewalk. They were identified as Kevin and Andrew and were placed under arrest as joint venturers in the house break. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s mere presence at the crime scene (without any other corroborative evidence of his involvement) was insufficient to charge him as a joint venturer.

Result: After Hearing, Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the felony B & E charge was dismissed.

POSSESSION CLASS A SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED and SEALED
POSSESSION CLASS A SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED and SEALED

Client, 32 year-old financial consultant, with no criminal record was arrested and charged with Possession of Class A Heroin (two counts). Police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area and observed a known drug dealer and a known drug user engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. Police then stopped Defendant’s motor vehicle and discovered heroin (Class A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion Requesting Assignment to a Drug Treatment Facility pursuant to Chapter 111E. The prosecutor objected. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence establishing Defendant’s drug dependency. Attorney Noonan presented a treatment plan to the court, which included the client’s enrollment in an outpatient program where he will be treated by a psychiatrist and a substance abuse counselor. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s treatment plan.

Result: Defendant’s case was dismissed upon his successful completion of drug treatment, and the drug charges were permanently sealed from the Defendant’s record.

THREATS TO COMMIT A & B: DISMISSED (CLERK’S HEARING)

Client, 37 year-old business owner, was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime stemming from allegations that he threatened to assault and beat an ex-employee and the ex-employee’s father. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that this was a simple verbal argument over a paycheck. The Magistrate agreed with Attorney Noonan to keep the matter open for a period of 3 months and to dismiss the case at that time.

Result: No criminal complaint issued and the client was able to complete the process of trying to become a Massachusetts State Trooper.

OUI DRUGS: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAW: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE
FAILURE TO STOP FOR POLICE: DISMISSED w/ PREJUDICE

Client, 55 year-old, professional van driver, was arrested and charged with OUI (drugs) and other charges stemming from an incident on February 16, 2012. A State Trooper observed the Defendant’s vehicle speeding in Brockton and attempted to pull him over for Speeding. A total of three state police cruisers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle in an effort to effectuate a motor vehicle stop. Eventually, one police cruiser boxed Defendant’s vehicle in. The state trooper removed Defendant from the driver’s seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant and observed that the Defendant had urinated in his pants. Defendant’s speech was slurred and his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The Defendant admitted to consuming vodka or schnapps. Defendant stated that he ingested Xanax, Percocet, and Vicodin in combination with the vodka / schnapps. Police found syringes loaded with Heroin, burn spoons, glass pipes, and soaked cotton swabs in the vehicle. Defendant was administered and failed the HGN test, Hand Eye Coordination Test, Alphabet Test, One-Leg Stand, and Nine Step Walk and Turn. For 28 years, Defendant was employed as a professional van driver transporting elderly and disabled people. After his arrest, his employer laid him off and Defendant remained out of work during the pendency of his case. Defendant collected unemployment, went on assistance, and collected food stamps.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed all charges “with prejudice,” which means that the prosecution can never pursue the charges again, and the client is able to return to work.

LARCENY OVER $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Defendant, an 18-year-old with no criminal record, was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from allegations that he stole an iPhone valued at over $250. Defendant was a freshman at the University of Maine and a walk-on player on the football team. Defendant is an aspiring civil engineer.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the criminal complaint prior to arraignment saving his client from having a felony charge on his record.

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

Police arrested three known drug dealers and obtained a search warrant to search the residence of the main drug dealer. Police discovered three cell phones in the residence, which were ringing non-stop and receiving text messages from potential drug buyers. Police answered the suspects’ phone and received requests to purchase drugs. Police arrested three individuals, including the Defendant, who made orders to purchase drugs on the telephone and arrived to the residence with money for the purchase. After Defendant’s arraignment, he retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed, and client avoids having to admit guilt.

LARCENY OVER $250: PRETRIAL PROBATION
TRESPASSING: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Client, 33 year-old warehouseman with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) and Trespassing stemming from an incident in which an identified caller reported that a person had stolen property from a National Grid. Police were dispatched to the scene and observed the Defendant tying the stolen materials to his roof-rack.

Result: On his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for six-months at the conclusion of which the charge will be dismissed and client avoids having to admit guilt. Client is found not responsible on the civil infraction of Trespassing.

RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
FORGERY OF CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
UTTERING FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
FORGERY OF CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
UTTERING FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
FORGERY OF CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
UTTERING FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, a 23 year-old woman with no criminal record, was alleged to have stolen several checks from her employer, a Real Estate Business. It was alleged that the Defendant then forged the stolen checks (making the checks payable to her and forging her employer’s signature). Defendant then cashed several of the forged checks at the bank and received payment from the bank. Defendant attempted to pass and cash another forged check, which the bank refused. The employer and the bank discovered the fraudulent transactions and contacted the police. Surveillance video from the bank showed the Defendant making these fraudulent transactions. In addition, the employer provided police with incriminating text messages sent to him from the defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses 10 criminal charges (nine of which were felonies) prior to arraignment, saving his client from having 10 criminal charges on her record.

ASSAULT with DEADLY WEAPON: DISMISSED at TRIAL

The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant pulled out a handgun, which he believed to be a Glock 9 mm. handgun, and threatened him with it in the aftermath of a heated domestic incident regarding child custody. In addition, the alleged victim claimed that the Defendant tried pulling him out his car and ripped the liner free from his driver’s side door. The alleged victim sped off in his car in fear and called 911. Today, the case was scheduled for trial.

Result: At the first trial date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully obtained an outright dismissal of the criminal charge.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL PROBATION
INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE OFFICER: PRETRIAL PROBATION
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT OF CHILD: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Stoughton Police were executing an arrest warrant for Mr. V for violent felony charges. Mr. V. also had open firearm charges and was a person of interest in a shooting. Mr. V. was known to be armed and dangerous. Police sought to execute the arrest warrant at a residence in Stoughton where Mr. V. had been known to be staying with the Defendant. Defendant refused to allow police entry into her home by shutting and locking her apartment door. Defendant held her baby in front of the door to prevent police from forcibly entering the home. Eventually, police forcibly entered the home and arrested Mr. V. who had been hiding in a closet. The Department of Children and Families took custody of the children from the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for six-month at the conclusion of which all criminal charges will be dismissed outright, and the client does not have to admit guilt.

ASSAULT & BATTERY ON PUBLIC OFFICIAL: PRETRIAL PROBATION
RESISTING ARREST: PRETRIAL PROBATION
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL PROBATION
VANDALISM: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Client, sophomore at Wheaton College, was arrested by campus police stemming from an incident in which Defendant smashed a bathroom mirror in a dormitory during an argument with his girlfriend. Upon arrival, Defendant yelled profanities at the campus police. Defendant kicked one campus police officer three times. Defendant was placed under arrest at which point Defendant pushed a campus police officer and continually resisted arrest. After his arraignment, Defendant retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. The campus police and department of public safety refused to a proposal to place Defendant on pretrial probation. Wheaton College also revoked Defendant’s scholarship and permanently suspended him from the school. As a result, the Commonwealth only offered Defendant a continuance without a finding on the charges. Attorney Patrick met with school officials and the dean of students at Wheaton College in an effort to persuade them to place Defendant on pretrial probation. Attorney Noonan eventually persuaded Wheaton College, Campus Police, and the District Attorney’s Office to place Defendant on pretrial probation.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the government to place his client on pretrial probation for two-years at the conclusion of which all criminal charges will be dismissed outright, and client does not have to admit guilt. Client may report on job applications that he does not have any convictions.

VIOLATION OF 209A ORDER: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Client’s ex-girlfriend had an abuse prevention order against the Defendant stemming from an incident in which the Defendant put a gun to the alleged victim’s head and threatened to kill her. The alleged victim claims that the Defendant violated the 209A Order by driving by her house and she positively identified the Defendant as driving by her home in his vehicle. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted extensive discovery and amassed damaging evidence to impeach the alleged victim’s credibility at trial.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains an outright dismissal of the criminal charge.

ASSAULT w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
THREAT TO COMMIT CRIME (MURDER) DISMISSED AT TRIAL
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION of AMMUNITION: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant was arrested on allegations made against him by his ex-girlfriend of four years. She alleged that the Defendant choked her. She alleges a history of abuse, alleging that two-weeks prior to the incident Defendant choked her to the point that she had visible markings on her neck. She alleges that Defendant took out a black revolver and threatened to kill her with it. Police searched the Defendant’s home and found the black revolver (matching the alleged victim’s description) loaded with four rounds of ammunition. The alleged victim claims that the Defendant called her and threatened to kill her by slicing her throat. The alleged victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order against the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted extensive discovery and amassed damaging evidence to impeach the alleged victim’s credibility at trial.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains an outright dismissal of all criminal charges, which included violent offenses, a violent felony offense, and firearm offenses.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 49 year-old, father of three with no criminal record, was charged with Assault & Battery stemming from a domestic violence incident in which his wife called 911. Wife told police that the Defendant blew up and threw a fork almost striking their infant twin babies. Wife also reported that the Defendant grabbed her around the neck and threw her to the floor. Police observed red marks around the wife’s neck.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains a dismissal prior to arraignment saving his client from having an Assault & Battery on his clean record, and client avoids termination from his employment.

SHOPLIFTING: NO CHARGES FILED

Client, a scientist on a work visa, was apprehended by the Loss Prevention Department at Shaw’s in the parking lot for shoplifting approximately $160 worth of merchandise. Client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who negotiated with the Loss Prevention Department not to file any criminal charges against his client.

Result: No charges were filed against the Defendant, which would have had possible immigration consequences because the client was on a work visa.

LEAVING THE SCENE PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED

Client, 33 year-old machine operator, was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident Causing Property Damage stemming from a hit and run incident. An off-duty detective observed the Defendant’s vehicle rear-end another vehicle at an intersection and then flee the scene. The off-duty detective pursued and apprehended the Defendant. Defendant admitted to fleeing the scene. The damage to the other vehicle amounted to $4,000.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains an outright dismissal of the criminal charge at the first court date.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 23 year-old man with no criminal record was arrested and charged with Shoplifting at Walmart. Client admitted to police that he stole the merchandise and surveillance video footage captured the client leaving the store without paying for the merchandise. At the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. Client will be applying to the Mass. School of Art in the Fall (2014) and he aspires to be a cartoonist.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades court not to issue a criminal complaint, and client may report on his school application that he has no criminal record.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 23 year-old college student with no criminal record, was detained by the Loss Prevention Department at Walmart for suspected Shoplifting. Client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who successfully dismissed the criminal complaint at the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing on April 1, 2014. Client is scheduled to graduate from college in the Fall of 2014 with a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades court not to issue a criminal complaint, and client may report on her job applications that she has no criminal record.

LARCENY: DISMISSED / RECORD SEALED

Client, 57-year-old teacher’s aide, was arrested and charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) in connection with an alleged incident in which she exited Home Goods with a shopping carriage with $667.00 worth of merchandise without paying. After the client was arraigned on the felony offense, she retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. At the first court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained an agreement with the Commonwealth that his client will be placed on Pretrial Probation for 5 months until 09/01/14 at which point the felony charge will be dismissed. On September 1, 2014, the criminal charge was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan permanently seals criminal charge on school teacher’s record.

BAIL REVOCATION: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

Client, 23 year-old construction worker, with 25 prior encounters with West Bridgewater Police was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Witness Intimidation. The alleged victim in that case was in a dating relationship with the Defendant. She alleged that the Defendant threw her down a flight of stairs, pushed, shoved, and beat her on numerous occasions. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant strangled her. On March 26, 2014, Defendant was scheduled for a pretrial conference on his open case. That morning, Defendant’s father called 911 and reported that Defendant hit him in the face and was punching holes in the wall. Defendant was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery upon his father. At arraignment, Commonwealth moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail because he committed a new offense and his release, the Commonwealth argued, would seriously endanger a person or the community.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 90 days in jail.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, a juvenile honor student at Leominster High School, was arrested and charged with Shoplifting in connection with an incident in which he allegedly stole items from the cafeteria at the Wachusett Ski Mountain. Client is a senior honor student at Leominster High School and in the process of applying to colleges in the Boston area.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades government to dismiss the case prior to arraignment and client may report No Record on college applications.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
FORGERY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, 47-year-old medical assistant with no prior criminal record, was arrested for uttering false prescription (felony) and forgery of a document (felony). Defendant was alleged to have filled large amounts of prescriptions for Percocet in other people’s names. Defendant confessed to police stating that she took blank prescription slips from her doctor and forged the prescriptions. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion Requesting Assignment to a Drug Treatment Facility pursuant to Chapter 111E. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully moved the court to have his client placed into an outpatient drug treatment facility in lieu of criminal prosecution. Client successfully completed the drug treatment program.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains outright dismissal of felony charges.

BREAKING & ENTERING for FELONY: DISMISSED
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LEAVING THE SCENE of PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED

Client, a social worker with no criminal record, was arrested on New Year’s Eve stemming from an incident in which she rammed her vehicle through the garage of her ex-fiancé’s house causing extensive damage. The homeowner called the Police who arrested the Defendant at gunpoint. Client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan after she was arraigned on the charges. Homeowner obtained an emergency restraining order against the Defendant.

Result: Through extensive negotiation with the District Attorney’s Office, the Police Prosecutor, and the Homeowner, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed at the first court date.

LARCENY OVER $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
IDENTITY THEFT: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, a social worker with no criminal record, was issued a summons to appear in court for an arraignment on charges of Larceny over $250 and Identity Theft. The alleged victim (former fiancé) alleged that the Defendant broke into his personal file cabinet and stole his personal information and established a credit card in his name and made fraudulent purchases amounting to $713.30.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed prior to arraignment, and, as a result, the criminal charges will not appear on the client’s criminal record.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

Client, 23 year old Mechanical Engineer, was charged with Negligent Operation. An identified witness contacted Police to report that a specific vehicle would drive through his neighborhood each day at a high rate of speed and fishtail off the roadway at a sharp turn in the road. Police conducted surveillance on the street and observed the Defendant accelerating at a high rate of speed and completely fishtail off the roadway when making the sharp turn. The Police Officer observed that the Defendant’s tires were completely bald.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the case upon the payment of $300 in court costs at the first court date.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 27 year old bus driver with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery stemming from an incident in which his wife alleged that he slapped her across the face in the presence of their two children. The wife reported another incident in which the Defendant attacked her but a family member intervened to prevent the assault. At trial, wife asserted her marital privilege not to testify against her husband. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Commonwealth that they lacked enough independent evidence to proceed with the case, as the 911 tape was inadmissible and the family member witness was unavailable and lives in Haiti.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains outright dismissal of domestic violence charge.

VIOLATION OF 209A ORDER: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 69 year old restaurant owner, was arrested and charged with Breaking & Entering Nighttime for Felony, Assault, and Criminal Harassment stemming from an incident with his ex-girlfriend. The alleged victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order against the Defendant in connection with the criminal charges. The alleged victim reported to Police that the Defendant called her in violation of the 209A Order, which prohibited the Defendant from contacting her. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that the Defendant mistakenly dialed the victim’s phone number by accident when he attempted to call another person.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate to not issue the criminal complaint, as it was an inadvertent mistake by the Defendant.

Somerville District Court

LARCENY: DEFAULT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED
LARCENY: DEFAULT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED
LARCENY: DEFAULT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED
LARCENY: DEFAULT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED
LARCENY: DEFAULT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED
FRAUD: DEFAULT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED

Client, 50 year-old small business owner and father of five, had eight warrants on eight criminal offenses from two different courts dating back to the late 1980s. Client moved to Washington got married, had five children, and established his own business. Upon learning of the active warrants, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan removes all active warrants and dismisses all six criminal charges outright.

INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY

Client, gas station owner and father of two children with no criminal record, was charged with two counts of Indecent Assault & Battery stemming from allegations from a former tenant in his apartment building in which she alleged that on diverse dates from 2008-2010 the Defendant sexually assaulted her including one incident where he allegedly pinned down the alleged victim and forcibly pressed his erect penis into her buttocks.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got Not Guilty verdicts on the felony sex offenses, saving their client from possible jail time and having to register as a sex offender.

POSSESSION CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Client, 45 year-old laborer, was arrested for Possession of Class B Substance (cocaine) and Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws in connection with an undercover drug surveillance operation in Quincy. Undercover officers observed the co-defendant engage in a hand-to-hand transaction with another party. Undercover officers then conducted a stop of the co-defendant’s vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger. Defendant admitted to having $20 worth of cocaine stuffed in his sock from the hand-to-hand transaction.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss all drug charges upon the payment of $200 in court costs.

DRUG DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, 27 year-old male, was indicted on Distribution of Class B Substance (subsequent offense) and Distribution of Class B Substance in a School Zone. A Brockton Detective was conducting an undercover drug sting operation in which he arranged to purchase drugs from the Defendant. The Detective testified that he arranged to purchase two forties of hard crack cocaine from the Defendant. The Detective testified that the Defendant distributed the crack cocaine to the undercover officer within 300 feet of the Huntington School on Warren Avenue. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss under Commonwealth v. McCarthy arguing that there was insufficient probable cause presented to the Grand Jury that the drug transaction occurred within 300 feet of a school zone. The Superior Court Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion and the School Zone Indictment was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and saves his client from a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 ½ years.

DRUG OFFENSE: DISMISSED & SEALED FROM RECORD

Client, 22 year-old nursing student, was pulled over for a series of motor vehicle infractions. The officer immediately detected a strong odor of fresh marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Officers searched the vehicle and found a small bag of marijuana in the cubbyhole of the passenger side door. The front seat passenger was issued a citation for possession of marijuana less than one ounce. Officers searched the Defendant’s purse and recovered Percocet. Client was charged with Possession of Class B Substance (Percocet). She was applying for nursing positions at hospitals. After arraignment on the drug charge, client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses criminal charge outright and permanently seals the drug charge from his client’s record.

LARCENY from BUILDING: CONTINUED without FINDING

Client, 33-year-old single mother of three, was charged with Improper Use of Credit Card over $250 and Larceny from Building (two counts). Client worked as a nursing assistant at an elderly residential facility. Client confessed to Police that she stole a diamond ring from one of the elderly residents (93 years old). The diamond ring was appraised at $6,800. Client admitted to selling the diamond ring at a pawnshop for $500. The pawnshop melted down the diamond ring. Client confessed to police that she stole the wallet of another elderly resident (87 years old). Client was captured on videotape using the elderly resident’s credit card to purchase merchandise. The Commonwealth recommended a “guilty finding” with two years of probation with a list of conditions, including $6,800 in restitution and an order that she no longer work with the elderly.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan secures a Continuance without a Finding, and at the conclusion of the two-year probationary period, all criminal charges will be dismissed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reduced the amount from $6,800 to $1,250, and eliminates the condition that the client no longer works with the elderly.

ABDW on PREGNANT WOMAN: REDUCED TO SIMPLE ASSAULT & BATTERY / IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES

Client, 42-year-old immigrant construction worker from Cape Verde with four children, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Pregnant Woman, which is an aggravated felony. Defendant entered Rice’s Market in Brockton. Defendant was previously prohibited from entering Rice’s Market due to a prior incident with the female cashier (verbal altercation). On this occasion, Defendant approached the same female cashier to purchase a one-quart can of cooking oil. The female clerk informed Defendant that he was banned from the premises. Defendant became upset and threw the can of cooking oil at the female cashier striking her in the stomach. The female cashier was 8 months pregnant at time and was taken via ambulance to the emergency room. Because the charge constitutes an aggravated felony, Defendant was subject to deportation from the United States. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan procured an agreement with the Commonwealth to have the aggravated felony reduced to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery. Even with the reduced charge of Assault & Battery, Defendant would be subject to deportation, if convicted, because he had a prior conviction for Assault in Battery in 2009. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan procured an agreed upon disposition of the Assault & Battery charge called “guilty file.” For purposes of immigration law, a “guilty file” is not considered a conviction because it carries no penalty.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully reduces aggravated felony charge of ABDW on a pregnant woman to the misdemeanor offense of simple Assault & Battery, and client avoids possible deportation.

CARRYING FIREARM without LICENSE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Police searched the Defendant’s home and found a Smith & Wesson 28 Special Revolver loaded with four rounds of ammunition. Defendant did not have any license to possess or carry firearms. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is a “residency exemption” in the amended statute, which applies to those possessing a firearm while “present in or on his residence.” Citing case law, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence showed that the Defendant possessed the firearm in his residence, which is not a crime, even though he did not have any gun license.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and he saves his client from serving a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months.

SEX FOR A FEE: DISMISSED

Client, 43-year-old computer engineer with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Sexual Conduct for Fee stemming from an undercover vice operation in which the Defendant agreed to solicit sexual services from an undercover police officer. After six months of negotiation with the District Attorney’s Office, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan solidified an agreement with the Commonwealth to place the Defendant on pretrial probation for one-year, a considerable win because a conviction would have resulted in automatic termination from employment. Defendant is married with three children. He works as a top-ranked system’s specialist for the Department of Interior, a federal agency. The job requires certain government clearances.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed, saving his client’s job because a continuance without a finding (CWOF) would have resulted in client’s termination from employment.

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED

Client, 18-year-old male, was driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s license and was pulled over for speeding. Police searched the vehicle with the Defendant’s consent and recovered one packet of marijuana, six small packets of marijuana, twelve zip lock baggies, an empty vile, and two condoms. Defendant was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute (felony). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought production of the certificate of analysis for the alleged substance as well as access / inspection of the alleged substance. The Commonwealth was unable to locate the alleged substance and the Commonwealth was unable to confirm whether the alleged substance was sent to the crime lab for analysis.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed felony drug charge outright.

POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL (THIRD OFFENSE): DISMISSED

Campus police charged client, 20 year-old sophomore at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, with being a minor in possession of alcohol. This was the Defendant’s third alcohol-related incident at the college. The head detective for the school’s department of safety strongly recommended that a criminal complaint issue against the Defendant because this was his third alcohol-related offense on campus. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented extensive evidence with regards to the client’s character, background, schooling, prospective employment, and ongoing substance abuse treatment.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to not issue the criminal complaint saving his client from a one-year suspension from college.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS and RECORD SEALED

Client, 19-year-old Military Police Officer with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery stemming from an allegation that he pushed and threw his girlfriend during a heated argument. After his arraignment, client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth that his cross-examination of the alleged victim would incriminate her because she committed several crimes during the night of the alleged incident, including Assault and Battery, Malicious Destruction of Property, and others. At trial, the alleged victim opted not to testify. The Commonwealth nolle prossed the charge at trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan then filed a Motion to Seal the Assault and Battery charge from his client’s record arguing that the unsealed criminal charge would pose a specific harm to his client, as he is aspiring to become a Corrections Officer.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses the case outright and the Assault & Battery charge is permanently sealed from the client’s record.

INDECENT EXPOSURE: DISMISSED

Client, 50-year-old warehouse supervisor, was charged with Indecent Exposure. An identified caller contacted the police to report a naked male party exposing himself while swimming in Charge Pond. The caller stated that the naked male party was flipping around in the water and putting on show for the other pond-goers. When the police officer arrived, he observed the Defendant’s genitals exposed, as he was lying on a floating chair in the water. At the arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss due to insufficient probable cause in the police report. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that none of the onlookers were “offended” by the Defendant’s exposure, which is a required element of the offense. Although the court denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss, the court acknowledged some of Attorney Noonan’s arguments and, as a result, recommended dismissing the charge upon the payment of nominal court costs.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charge dismissed on court costs at first court appearance.

LEAVING SCENE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED

Client, a professional truck driver of 40 years, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage. Defendant worked for a tractor-trailer company. He was dispatched to deliver a 60-foot trailer to a residence in Canton. On the way to the residence, Defendant struck a large overhanging tree limb, which remained on the top of the trailer. The tree limb then pulled down cable wires from two residences. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant was unaware that he struck the tree limb and cable wires. Photographs showed the large size of the trailer. Photos of the side mirrors show that it would have been impossible for the Defendant to see the tree limb.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against professional truck driver of 40 years.

LARCENY (two counts) DISMISSED

Client, 19-year-old high school student, was charged with two counts of Larceny over $250 (felonies) stemming from incidents where he stole packages from the doorsteps of two residences in Brighton. After the arraignment, client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, who persuaded the Commonwealth to place the Defendant on pretrial probation for six months because of his documented mental health disorders. At the conclusion of the six-month period, the charges will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses two felony charges outright.

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 18-year-old college freshman, with no criminal record was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from a shoplifting incident where she was alleged to have stolen $267.00 in merchandise from Macy’s. At the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan thoroughly described the Defendant’s background, employment, schooling, and future aspirations.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint because it would seriously jeopardize his young client’s future.

IDENTITY THEFT: DISMISSED on RESTITUTION

Client, 33-year-old single mother with no criminal record, was charged with Identity Theft stemming from allegations that she used her sister’s personal information to establish an account with Verizon. The victim claimed that the Defendant used her name and social security number to set up an account with Verizon.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses criminal charge outright upon the payment of $340 in restitution.

LEAVING SCENE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 29-year-old truck driver with no criminal record, was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage stemming from a two-car crash in North Easton. The victim identified the suspect vehicle by its registration before it fled the scene. The Defendant was the registered owner of the suspect vehicle that fled the scene after the crash. At trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the Defendant’s motor vehicle registration in order to identify him as the driver of the fleeing vehicle. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan excluded the vehicle registration from evidence on the grounds that it was not provided timely. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan then moved to dismiss the case because, without the vehicle’s registration, the Commonwealth had insufficient evidence to identify the Defendant as the operator of the fleeing vehicle.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal complaint dismissed outright at trial.

POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA (THIRD OFFENSE): DISMISSED

Client, 24-year-old male, was arrested and charged with Possession of Marijuana (over one-ounce) stemming from a motor vehicle stop in Lakeville. This was the Defendant’s third offense for possession of marijuana. Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the side of the road on a quiet side street late at night with the interior light on and the headlights off. The officer approached the operator (defendant) and conducted a wellness check. The officer smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana in the vehicle. The officer observed a plastic container (with marijuana inside) and a digital scale in plain view. The officer searched the vehicle and found a large quantity of marijuana underneath the driver’s seat along with a glass pipe with marijuana residue. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress challenging the lawfulness of the motor vehicle stop and the lawfulness of the officer’s exit order and search of the vehicle.

Result: On the day of the hearing, the Commonwealth dismisses the drug charge and decriminalized the offense to a civil infraction.

LEAVING SCENE OF ACCIDENT: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 40-year-old physician’s assistant with no prior criminal record, was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident stemming from an alleged hit and run accident. A docketed arraignment on this charge would result in the client’s termination from employment, as he is subject to mandatory background checks from his employer. A docketed arraignment on the charge constitutes a crime of moral turpitude and is grounds for termination.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses criminal complaint prior to arraignment saving client’s job as Physician’s Assistant.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 20-year-old college student at Fairfield University, varsity hockey player, and Finance major, was arrested at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro at a rock concert and charged with Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to successfully dismiss the case prior to arraignment thus preserving his client’s unblemished criminal record. The client was placed in the pretrial diversion program whereby the charges would be dismissed upon the client’s successful completion of the program.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses criminal charge prior to arraignment and no entry is made on college student’s record.

FIREARM OFFENSE: DISMISSED at ARRAIGNMENT

Oxford Police were dispatched to a domestic disturbance wherein a third-party caller reported that the Defendant and his wife were having a physical dispute. Upon arrival, officers observed items strewn about the bedroom. Defendant was in the process of packing his belongings in his bedroom to leave the house. Police observed a shotgun in Defendant’s bedroom closet, which was loaded and not trigger-locked. Police charged Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that there was insufficient probable cause to charge his client with the firearm offense because firearm was not outside the Defendant’s control because he had the shotgun sufficiently nearby him in his bedroom closet, a couple feet away, as he was packing his belongings in the bedroom. Attorney Noonan argued that the firearm was within arm’s reach of the Defendant and not outside his control.

Result: At the arraignment, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the gun charge upon the payment of $100 in court costs.

LARCENY under $250: WARRANT REMOVED / CASE DISMISSED

In 2002, Walmart filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant alleging that he wrote a check, which subsequently bounced. The Defendant was unaware of the criminal charge and he remained in default status with the criminal charge open for 11 years. Defendant became aware of the criminal charge while he was obtaining top secret clearance as a military intelligence officer for the United States Army. Upon learning of the open charge, the client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. In his Motion to Remove the Warrant / Dismiss the Case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that his client paid the monies to Walmart in satisfaction of the debt. Attorney Noonan argued that the debt was never removed the debt collection firm because they closed their business amidst several lawsuits.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and client may proceed with his job promotion at the US Army Reserve, which was postponed until the criminal matter was resolved.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 28-year-old former marine, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly slammed his wife’s head into the wall of their hotel room.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses domestic violence charge outright on his first court appearance.

INDECENT EXPOSURE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 43-year-old car salesman, was charged with Indecent Exposure stemming from an incident in which his neighbors reported that they observed him standing naked in front of his apartment window for an extended period of time. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the neighbor-witnesses and established that each witness did not observe the Defendant’s genitals exposed. The charge was dismissed on the grounds that there was insufficient probable cause to support the criminal complaint.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint due to lack of evidence.

LARCENY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 43-year-old former school teacher and nurse, was charged with Larceny under $250 stemming from allegations that she aided a co-defendant in defrauding a business. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the complaint arguing that there was insufficient probable cause to support the charges.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against nurse with no criminal record.

OAS FOR OUI: DISMISSED

Client, 25-year-old executive chef, was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol and placed on probation in Quincy District Court. While on probation, client was arrested in West Bridgewater for operating his vehicle while his license was suspended for OUI; an offense punishable up to 60 days in the House of Correction. By virtue of the new criminal offense in West Bridgewater, client was charged with violating the terms of his probation in the Quincy District Court. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to handle the Operating after Suspended License (OAS) case in the Brockton District Court. Attorney Noonan moved for an evidentiary hearing challenging the lawfulness of the motor vehicle stop where he intended to introduce evidence that the officer’s observations did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to effectuate a motor vehicle stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. The officer failed to appear for the evidentiary hearing.

Result: Attorney Noonan convinces the Commonwealth to dismiss the case upon the payment of court costs, which helped client’s probation violation matter in the Quincy District Court.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, a Systems Analyst, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly pushed his wife knocking her down some stairs causing her to call 911 and report the incident. After the arraignment, client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Commonwealth to dismiss case due to lack of evidence and issues regarding a possible 5th amendment privilege concerning the victim.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED

Client, 28-year-old woman with no prior criminal record, was charged with Shoplifting stemming from an incident at Walmart in which she allegedly passed through the sensors of the store with a shopping cart full of merchandise. Client was arraigned on the charge and subsequently hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces the Commonwealth to dismiss the case based on the client’s background and lack of criminal record.

LARCENCY BY FALSE PRETENSE OVER $250: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have defrauded three local businesses by selling them false advertising space in a newspaper publication. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the victim-businesses did not “part with their personal property,” which is a legal element needed to support the charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and felony charge is dismissed outright. “Plymouth man charged with falsely representing college.”

MINOR IN POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL: DISMISSED

Client, 18-year-old senior high school student and incoming freshman to Saint Anselm College, was arrested at a concert along with other teens and charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses charge outright at arraignment.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED

Client, 45-year-old male with no criminal record, was arrested for shoplifting one case of red bull from Market Basket in New Bedford.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses charge outright at first court appearance.

CARRYING FIREARM W/OUT LICENSE: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
DEFACING SERIAL NUMBERS: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF FIREARM WITHOUT FID: PROBATION

Client, 26-year-old male, was arrested during a raid where the gang unit task force of the Massachusetts State Police executed a search warrant of a residence in Brockton and found several large capacity firearms and ammunition. Client made inculpatory statements linking him to the firearms in the basement of the residence. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to amend the felony “carrying” charge, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of one-year in prison, down to a lesser misdemeanor simple possession charge. The Defendant pled guilty to the lesser-included misdemeanor charge and was placed on probation. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting all remaining charges dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves client from serving minimum mandatory jail sentence of one-year on gun charge.

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have possessed Heroin and Oxycodone with the intent to distribute the illicit drugs. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute the drugs, as the Defendant did not possess any accoutrements or tools of the drug trade. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence was more consistent with personal use, as opposed to distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and both felony drug offenses are dismissed outright.

LARCENY: DISMISSED

Client, 22-year-old college student with no prior criminal record, was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from a string of thefts at various Costco Stores where the Defendant would present falsified receipts to Costco and obtain expensive merchandise that he never purchased. The chain of thefts went unsolved and the suspect was placed on Massachusetts Most Wanted. Later, Defendant was identified by three independent witnesses and caught on surveillance videos presenting the fake receipts. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to obtain an agreement with the Commonwealth where the Defendant would be placed on Pretrial Probation for one-year. With this disposition, Defendant was not required to admit guilt. At the conclusion of the one-year period, the charge will be dismissed. On May 9, 2014, the criminal charge was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets larceny charge dismissed allowing client to enroll in the Engineering Program at UCLA.

LARCENY BY FALSE PRETENSE (6 counts) DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 41-year-old Realtor and Businessman, was charged with 6 counts of Larceny by False Pretense stemming from allegations that he defrauded six business by offering them false advertisement space in a publication of the Massasoit Community College newspaper. A Clerk’s Hearing was conducted in which six representatives of the defrauded businesses testified. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan examined the witnesses and established that none of the victim-businesses sustained a financial loss, as needed to support the charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate to not issue criminal complaint charging his client with six felony offenses for lack of evidence.

ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOLLE PROSS

Client, 23 year-old college student, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (felony) stemming from a domestic argument in which she allegedly threw a one-gallon container at the victim, striking the victim on the back. By way of Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the dangerous weapon portion of the offense on the grounds that the alleged object did not constitute a dangerous weapon under the law.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets violent felony offense reduced to simple misdemeanor Assault & Battery and the Commonwealth decides not to prosecute.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: NOT GUILTY

Client, 31-year-old teacher and high school basketball coach, was charged with Operating under the Influence and Operating to Endanger stemming from a three-car crash in which the Defendant lost control of his vehicle and struck two parked cars. Defendant admitted to consuming “mixed drinks” and failed all field sobriety tests. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully moved for a required finding of not guilty after establishing that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle in question. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan stated that the evidence showed two possible operators of the vehicle. When the police arrived, Defendant was standing next to the passenger side of the vehicle. The other occupant was being assisted by ambulance. The Commonwealth failed to present any evidence as to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty is allowed and client is acquitted and avoids losing his job as a school teacher.

LARCENY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
IDENTITY THEFT: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 33-year-old single mother with no criminal record, was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) and Identity Theft stemming from allegations that she used her sister’s name and identity to open accounts with gas and electric companies. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in having the arraignment continued such that the client could perform community service at the conclusion of which the criminal charges would be dismissed and no charges would be docketed on the Defendant’s criminal record. Defendant completed her community service and the criminal charges were dismissed prior to arraignment.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charges dismissed prior to arraignment saving his client from having Larceny and Theft charges entered on her record.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 25-year-old computer technician, was charged with Disorderly Conduct stemming from an incident at the Harpoon Brewery in which he was ejected from the brewery for allegedly being drunk, unruly and disorderly. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan the day before the scheduled arraignment.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses charge prior to arraignment and the Disorderly Conduct charge is not entered on client’s record.

LARCENY: DISMISSED

Client, 21-year-old college student, was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from an incident in which she was alleged to have stolen $375 in merchandise from CVS Pharmacy.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets felony charge reduced to misdemeanor charge and dismissed outright upon the payment of court costs.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 50 year-old mechanic, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic argument with his girlfriend of 16 years in which he allegedly struck her on the left side of the face and knocked her to the ground.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Commonwealth to dismiss domestic violence charge based on a change in the alleged victim’s position.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, truck driver with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic argument where he allegedly shoved his wife. At trial, the wife asserted her marital privilege not to testify against her husband, the Defendant. Without the wife’s testimony, the Commonwealth lacked evidence to prosecute the case.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed at trial.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 39 year-old machine operator, charged with Malicious Destruction of Property over $250 (felony) stemming from an altercation in which he punched and damaged the hood of the alleged victim’s Honda SUV. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained documentation from the insurance company because the alleged victim filed a property damage claim for the damage sustained to the hood of his car. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the damage to the hood was non-existent and not visible based on the photographs taken by the insurance company. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim had a motive to paint the Defendant in a negative light for purposes of a child custody battle.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint on the felony property damage charge.

PROBATION VIOLATION: NO TIME SERVED

Client was charged with Breaking and Entering and pled guilty without an attorney in the Plymouth District Court. He was placed on probation for one year out of the Plymouth District Court. During his probationary sentence, client was arrested in Bridgewater and charged with Breaking and Entering in the Brockton District Court. The Probation Department in Plymouth sought to have the Defendant imprisoned for one-year as punishment for violating his probation. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, who successfully argued at the Probation Violation Hearing that the original Breaking and Entering charge (for which he was on probation) was flawed because the Defendant’s only intent in entering the building was to retrieve some of his personal belongings. Therefore, Defendant did not have the specific intent to commit a felony when he entered the building, which is a required element of the offense. The court agreed that the original Breaking and Entering charge was flawed and did not impose any jail time.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving one-year in jail.

LARCENY: DISMISSED

Client, 22 year-old college student with no criminal record, was arraigned on charges of Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from a shoplifting incident in which she was alleged to have stolen $1,379.86 in merchandise from Kohl’s Department Store.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got the felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed outright.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 31-year-old accountant, charged with Uttering a False Prescription (felony) stemming from an incident in which she doctored several counterfeit prescriptions of Adderall and attempted to pass them at pharmacies.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got the criminal complaint dismissed prior to the arraignment saving his client from having a felony on her record.

Dedham District Court

OUI (4th Offense): REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR 2ND OFFENSE /
NO JAIL TIME

Client, 42-year-old photographer, was charged with Operating under the Influence (third offense) and Operating under the Influence (fourth offense). Defendant had two prior convictions for OUI in South Carolina and Georgia. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in attacking the validity of the prior out-of-state convictions thereby reducing both Massachusetts cases to misdemeanor second offenses. Both misdemeanor second offense cases were consolidated into one probationary sentence and the Defendant did not have to serve any jail time. Because the offenses were reduced to misdemeanors, Defendant was able to return home to California.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reduces fourth offense OUI to second offense OUI, saving his client a minimum mandatory jail sentence of one-year.

LARCENY: DISMISSED
LARCENY: DISMISSED

North Attleboro Police were dispatched to Walmart for a report of shoplifting. A loss prevention officer (who filled out a written statement) stated that he observed two males (identified as the defendants) concealing merchandise under their coats. The loss prevention officer continued to follow the males and observed them conceal more merchandise on their persons. The suspects passed all points of final sale and did not pay for the items. The loss prevention officer apprehended them outside. The defendants were charged with Larceny over $250 (a felony offense) because the merchandise was valued at $469.68. Client #1 was a freshman at Bryant College and a Finance majoring planning to pursue a career in accounting. Client #2 was a senior in college who was eventually accepted to Rhode Island College where he planned to major in education.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets felony charges reduced to simple misdemeanor Shoplifting and dismissed upon community service.

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED after HEARING

Stoughton Police were conducting undercover surveillance of a home known for firearms violations, drug violations, and overdoses. Stoughton Police followed a vehicle leaving the driveway of the residence. The vehicle pulled into the parking lot of a Gulf Gas Station. Stoughton Police set up a surveillance post across the street from the gas station. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the vehicle that had been tailed by the Stoughton Police. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the passenger side of the vehicle and engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. After observing the alleged drug transaction, Stoughton Police stopped the Defendant and conducted a pat-down frisk and recovered a plastic baggie containing 12 pills believed to be Oxycodone. After an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan established that Stoughton Police did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop the Defendant and conduct a pat-down frisk of his person. The court ruled that the stop and frisk of the Defendant was unconstitutional and suppressed all evidence, including incriminating statements made by the Defendant and all physical evidence found on his person (the Oxycodone pills).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charge dismissed outright for constitutional violations.

DANGEROUSNESS HEARING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial stemming from allegations that the Defendant assaulted, beat, choked, and threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend with a loaded revolver. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing where he established that the alleged victim was highly incredible and had a motive to lie and fabricate the allegations. Attorney Noonan also established that the police conduct a shoddy investigation. After hearing, the judge agreed to release the Defendant on bail with conditions. Eventually, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss all charges at trial.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (felony) stemming from a verbal altercation with two women during which he struck both victims with an apartment door. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony count arguing that the apartment door did not constitute a dangerous weapon based upon comparative case law. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not use the apartment door in such a way as to constitute a dangerous weapon.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the felony charge.

THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER: DISMISSED

Client, 25 year-old hospital worker, charged with Threats to Commit a Crime to wit: murder stemming from an incident in which he threatened to kill his cousin with a kitchen knife. When police arrived on the scene, they recovered a kitchen knife. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully obtained an agreement with the prosecution and procured a disposition for his client called pretrial probation. Pretrial probation is a very difficult disposition to attain because it is available only in limited circumstances and must be agreed to by the prosecution. At the conclusion of a non-supervisory probationary period, the criminal charge will be dismissed. Pretrial probation is much better than a continuance without a finding (CWOF) because the Defendant does have to admit to sufficient evidence for a finding of guilty. Therefore, it cannot be held against the Defendant as a prior offense if he is ever charged with a crime in the future. Defendant was placed on pretrial probation for one-year. On November 16, 2013, the criminal charge was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets Threats to Commit Murder charge dismissed outright.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, a juvenile, was charged with Breaking and Entering with the Intent to Commit a Felony stemming from an incident in which he allegedly smashed the window of a vacant building an entered with another youth. Through a Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the juvenile did not have the requisite intent to a commit a felony therein at the time of the breaking and entering. Rather, the juvenile’s intent was to commit the misdemeanor offense of Trespassing at the time of the Breaking & Entering.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets aggravated Felony B & E charge dismissed and amended down to Misdemeanor B & E charge.

OPERATING TO ENDANGER: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 19 year-old youth aspiring to enlist in the military, was charged with Operating to Endanger and Failure to Stop for Police stemming from a high-speed motorcycle chase where speeds reached in excess of 100 mph. At a Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case arguing that the issuance of the criminal complaint would ruin his client’s future.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint allowing his client to enlist in the military.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 24 year-old recent college graduate with no criminal record, was charged with Shoplifting over $100 stemming from an incident in which she allegedly stole two bracelets from Kohl’s Department Store. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully dismissed the charge prior to arraignment and remanded the matter for a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing at which time the case was dismissed outright.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charge dismissed prior to arraignment so no charges appear on recent college graduate’s record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 55 year-old substance abuse counselor, charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which she allegedly attacked her husband, scratching his ear, elbow and wrist. The Commonwealth had photographs showing the husband’s injuries, which included scratch marks and blood on his face. At trial, the husband asserted his marital privilege not to testify against his wife, Defendant. At that point, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the case arguing that the Commonwealth had insufficient evidence to proceed absent the husband’s testimony.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright against substance abuse counselor.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 57 year-old businessman, charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly grabbed his wife by the throat, strangled her, and head-butted her in the left eye. At trial, wife asserted her marital privilege not to testify against her husband, Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan excluded the 911 call on evidentiary grounds leaving the Commonwealth with insufficient evidence to proceed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright at trial.

POSSESSION OF CLASS D SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Client, 24 year-old salesman, was charged with Possession of Class D Substance (Ecstasy) stemming from an incident at the Comcast Center in which he was arrested for being intoxicated. A subsequent pat-down frisk of the Defendant uncovered Ecstasy tablets (Molly). After arraignment, client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. The case was immediately dismissed at the first court appearance, as Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth that the seizure of the Defendant was unlawful because police lacked the necessary probable cause to believe that the Defendant was “incapacitated” within the meaning of the protective custody statute. Under the law, it is illegal for police to place a person in custody who they believe has been incapacitated from the ingestion of drugs.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets drug charge dismissed on court costs against salesman.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was traveling on a secluded country road when he lost control of his pickup truck and crashed into a stone wall. Defendant admitted to drinking six Heineken beers at a bar and he failed all field sobriety tests. In pretrial proceedings, Attorney Noonan obtained a court-order for the prosecution to provide him with the booking video of his arrest and his color booking photo. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss because the prosecution did not provide him with the booking video or booking photo. The judge continued the trial to give the prosecution another opportunity to provide defense counsel with the discovery. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the officer responsible for maintaining the booking videos and booking photos to appear at trial. At the second trial date, the prosecution did not provide the discovery to the Defendant. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the criminal complaints must be dismissed because the Commonwealth lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence by willfully disobeying court orders and dodging the subpoena.

Result: Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all charges were dismissed outright by the judge.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 35-year government contractor and father of four children, charged with Assault & Battery and Malicious Destruction of Property stemming from an altercation in which the Defendant allegedly punched another man with a closed fist during an argument and damaged the windshield of the victim’s vehicle. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the charges dismissed prior to arraignment to preserve the client’s criminal record.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets all criminal charges dismissed prior to arraignment saving his client from having any charges entered on his record saving client’s job, as his occupation requires government clearance.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 26-year-old marine corp. veteran, charged with Disorderly Conduct stemming from a physical altercation outside of a tavern. Defendant was applying for positions with the Department of Defense and the State Department.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charge dismissed prior to arraignment and no charge was entered on his client’s record putting client in a position to pursue government employment.

MALICIOUS BURNING OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED

Client, a juvenile, was charged with Malicious Burning of Personal Property (felony) stemming from a fire that was set to a tree house with accelerant propane tanks. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully obtained an agreement with the prosecution for a disposition called pretrial probation. Pretrial probation is a very difficult disposition to attain because it is available only in limited circumstances and must be agreed to by the prosecution. At the conclusion of a non-supervisory probationary period, the criminal charge will be dismissed. Pretrial probation is much better than a continuance without a finding (CWOF) because the Defendant (or in this case, the juvenile) does have to admit to sufficient evidence for a finding of guilty. Therefore, it cannot be held against the Defendant as a prior offense if he is ever charged with a crime in the future. Here, the juvenile was placed on a probationary sentence during which time he attended a fire intervention course and performed community service. The criminal charge was then dismissed after the juvenile performed his community service and when the probationary period ended.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets Malicious Burning of Property charge dismissed outright against juvenile client.

RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
DISSEMINATION OF HARMFUL MATTER: NOT GUILTY
DISSEMINATION OF HARMFUL MATTER: NOT GUILTY

Client, Marine Corps. Veteran, was charged with 11 indictments (life felonies) stemming from allegations that he forcibly raped and sexually abused the son of his ex-girlfriend. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant started sexually abusing him at age 5 and ending when he was age 11-12. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant forcibly raped him and had anal intercourse with the alleged victim on multiple occasions. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant forced him to perform oral sex on the Defendant and vice versa. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant showed him pornographic magazine and videos of adults having sex with children. On April 28, 2010, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully argued a Motion to Dismiss all 11 Indictments, on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to disclose significant exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. The exculpatory evidence involved the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct and his juvenile criminal convictions as a sex offender. The Commonwealth re-indicted the Defendant on all 11 indictments. At the trial, the Commonwealth sought to preclude the defense from introducing any evidence with regards to the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct on the grounds that it violated the rape shield law. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct fell within an exception to the rape shield law in that the evidence was relevant to show the complainant’s bias, motive to lie, and motive to fabricate. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to allow into evidence the alleged victim’s prior convictions as a sexual offender. At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly discredited the alleged victim on the stand by showing that he accused the Defendant of rape to shine the light elsewhere and to avoid prosecution himself for committing sex offenses. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that the alleged victim was screened multiple times for sexual abuse prior to his disclosure and each time he denied being sexually abused by anyone. After a three-day trial in which the Defendant was represented by Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty on all 11 indictments.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all 11 indictments and saves his client from serving life in prison. “Man acquitted of child rape charges.”

WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 28 year-old Captain in the U.S. Army, was charged with intimidation of a witness (felony) and threats to commit a crime stemming from allegations that he threatened a witness, who was a victim in an unrelated case. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the case dismissed prior to arraignment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to identify the Defendant as the perpetrator. The formal institution of criminal charges on the client’s record would have seriously affected his military career.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charges dismissed prior to arraignment and no charges were entered on his client’s record, a Captain in the US Army.

LARCENY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 46 year-old medical secretary with no criminal record, was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from a shoplifting incident in which she allegedly stole over $250 worth of merchandise from Kohl’s Department Store.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate to not issue criminal complaint for shoplifting against medical secretary.

DRUG POSSESSION: CRIMINAL RECORD SEALED

Client, 40 year-old physician’s assistant, was charged with Possession of Class B Substance (cocaine) stemming from an arrest at a Comcast Center. After the Defendant’s case was dismissed, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Petition to Seal his client’s criminal record, arguing that substantial justice required sealing of his client’s criminal record, as he is gainfully employed as a physician’s assistant and the effect of the charge would cause him to lose his license as a physician’s assistant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets drug charge permanently sealed on Physician Assistant’s record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY (on minor) DISMISSED
AB with DANGEROUS WEAPON (on minor) DISMISSED

Sharon Police were dispatched to a domestic dispute between the Defendant (father) and his 14 year-old son (alleged victim) who told police that his father hit him across the face with his open hands and then hit him a couple of times in the butt with a frying pan. Upon arrival, Police observed that the alleged victim was visibly shaken and sobbing. Police observed red marks on the alleged victim’s upper thigh and butt.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets aggravated felony charge dismissed outright.