Case Results » Search & Seizure

In March of last year our client's mother drove past his house and observed him acting peculiar and on the roof of his home. She called her husband who in turn called the police. The police arrived to conduct a "wellness" check. When they got to the home the woman said that her son was fine and that the situation had abated. That notwithstanding, the officers went upstairs and observed the defendant with a large bag of drugs on his chest. He was arrested and charged with trafficking fentanyl, a Class A drug in Massachusetts. This is a violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32E. Our client was facing significant mandatory state prison time. Attorney Neyman filed a motion to suppress the search claiming that the police had no right to conduct this search. Our client's mother testified that she never gave consent for the search and that the officers, without her consent, searched the home. A judge allowed our motion and the search and seizure was found to be unlawful. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

Our client is a well known professional throughout Massachusetts. On August 11, 2023 he was driving a rental car. He was unfamiliar with the dashboard of the vehicle and did not know that he was running out of gas. As the car started to sputter he realized the problem and pulled over on an off ramp. He called AAA for assistance. While waiting for AAA to arrive, two police officers approached him. They wrongly accused him of drunk driving. They violated his constitutional rights by searching his car without probable cause and over his expressed objection to them doing so. The officers decided to arrest him for OUI in violation of G.L. c. 90 section 24. He hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. Today, the judge allowed the motion to suppress the unlawful search and unlawful questioning of our client. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

In June of 2022 a police officer in a Boston suburb was patrolling an area near a movie theater when he observed a parked car with no front plate. The officer looked to see if someone was in the car. As he did so the defendant left the driver's side rear door opened and the defendant exited the car. He smelled like he had been smoking marijuana. The defendant presented the police officer with a valid driver's license. The officer asked if there was any contraband in the vehicle. The defendant said there was marijuana in the vehicle. The officer searched the car and found marijuana, a scale and a gun under the driver's seat. The defendant was arrested and charged with carrying a loaded firearm without a license, G.L. c. 269 section 10(n), possession of a large capacity firearm, G.L. c. 269 section 10(m), improper storage of a firearm, G.L. c. 140 section 131L, carrying a firearm without a license to carry (LTC), G.L. c. 269 section 10(a), possession of ammunition, G.L. c. 269 section 10(h) and possession with the intent to distribute a class D drug, G.L. c. 94 section 32C. Our office filed a motion to suppress arguing that the search and seizure was unlawful. The judge agreed and allowed the motion. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Gun Charges

Our client deals drugs for a living, typically marijuana. Over a year ago a police officer observed him driving a car in a parking lot known for its drug activity. The officer approached in an unmarked vehicle. Our client left, driving out of the parking lot at a high rate of speed and recklessly. The officer pulled him over. The officer proceeded to search the vehicle, the trunk, the occupants and anything that he could find in the car. Our client's girlfriend videotaped and audio recorded the incident. The officer located trafficking weight marijuana and charged our client with trafficking marijuana under G.L. c. 94C section 32E. The recording of the motor vehicle stop was presented to the judge during a hearing on a motion to suppress the search and seizure. That video recording convinced the judge to allow our motion. All marijuana has been suppressed. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

Our client was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of G.L. c. 269 section 10A. If convicted he faced a minimum mandatory eighteen months in jail. From the day we were retained on this case we strongly believed that the man was targeted by the police and unlawfully stopped and searched. We contended that the initial stop constituted a seizure and was unlawful, that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, that the stop was unreasonably prolonged, that the defendant's movements were not furtive, that there was no need for an exit order and that the pat frisk was unreasonable. The judge hearing the motion agreed with us and the motion was allowed. The case will be dismissed soon. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

Our client owns a large car dealership in a Boston suburb. A few years ago he was charged with three counts of distribution of a class B drug in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32A and possessing a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 269 section 10(b). Attorney Neyman prevailed on a motion to suppress an illegal search and seizure and the prosecution was unable to proceed with its case. The district attorney's office filed a nolle prosse. Our client asked us to petition to seal his case under G.L. c. 276 section 100. We filed the petition on Monday. A hearing was scheduled for today and the judge agreed to allow the petition. The matter is now sealed. 

Read More in Sealing Criminal Records 

On July 20, 2018 the defendant was driving his girlfriend's car in an upscale Boston suburb. Police officers pulled him over for driving twelve miles per hour over the speed limit. Officers asked the driver if he had any weapons or if there were drugs in the car. He responded "not that I am aware of". This heightened the officer's suspicions. The defendant then made furtive movements causing further alarm prompting the officers to have him exit the car. The officers then conducted a pat frisk of the defendant and found several thousand dollars cash in his pockets. The police then searched his car and found drugs. Our client was arrested, the car was seized as was the defendant's cell phone. A search warrant was applied for and issued permitting the police to search the phone. On the phone was a significant amount of evidence of our client's drug dealing. Attorney Neyman filed a motion to suppress challenging the lawfulness of the search warrant. Today, the judge agreed that the search was illegal. Consequently, all evidence in the phone linking our client to the drugs was suppressed. The prosecution will not be able to proceed with the case and all charges will be dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Several weeks ago Attorney Neyman won a motion to suppress after challenging the validity of a stop, search and seizure. In particular we believed that the exit order was unconstitutional and required suppression of all evidence seized. That included drugs sufficient to charge possession with intent to distribute class B and distribution of class B under G.L. c. 94C Section 32A. It also included the knife charged as a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 269 Section 10(b). Today, the prosecution agreed that without the evidence it was unable to proceed. The case was nolle prossed. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

Nearly one year ago our client was observed parked illegally in his car appearing to be engaged in a drug deal. Experienced drug enforcement officers determined that their observations necessitated a confrontation with the driver and passenger. Upon approaching the car the driver, our client, made furtive gestures giving the officers concern that a drug deal was under way. When questioned by the officers the driver and passenger appeared nervous. The officers issued and exit order. Our client was searched and found in possession of a knife. The car was searched and drugs were located. Our client was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon, a felony under G.L. c. 269 Section 10(b) and two counts of possession with intent to distribute class B substances, oxycodone and cocaine, also felonies. Attorney Neyman was hired and filed a motion to suppress what we contend was illegal activity by the officers. The judge allowed the motion. All charges will be dismissed at the next court date. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

The defendant has been charged with a felony drug charge, G.L. c. 94C Section 32B in Massachusetts. Over a year ago he was stopped by the police for speeding. After producing his license and registration the officers conducted what we believe to be an unlawful search of our client and his car. During the search of the car a cell phone was located and twenty-six days later the officers obtained a search warrant allowing them to access the contents of the phone. Our office moved to suppress the stop, search and seizure in all aspects. Today, Attorney Neyman argued that the search warrant was unlawfully issued. The judge agreed and the search of the phone and all evidence seized as a result has been suppressed. The remaining issues are being argued separately. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

On February 7, 2018 a Sturbridge Police Sergeant stopped a vehicle being driven by our client for a marked lanes violation and an expired inspection sticker. The officer observed our client and his passenger make furtive movements prior to the stop suggesting to him that the occupants were either retrieving or concealing weapons or illicit substances. The driver and passenger were ordered to exit the car. They were searched. The car was searched. The passenger's pocketbook was searched. The trunk was searched. The officer found a knife and drugs in the pocketbook and trunk of the car. Both individuals were charged with possession with intent to distribute a class C drug, G.L. c. 94C Section 32B and conspiracy to violate the Massachusetts drug laws, G.L. c. 94C Section 40, both felonies. Attorney Neyman filed a motion to suppress challenging the legality of the stop, search and seizure. The grounds for the motion were the illegality of the exit order, the unlawful pat frisk of the defendants and the unlawful search of the vehicle and its contents including the pocketbook. Today, the judge allowed the motion. The evidence cannot be used against the defendants.

Read More in Search and Seizure

Worcester District Court: On June 2, 2011, police were patrolling a parking lot as a result of several reports of drug activity. While doing so, officers saw a truck pull into the lot and noticed that no one exited the truck for about 5 minutes. The officers then saw another car pull into the lot and park to the left of the truck. One officer recognized the car as belonging to our client, claimed by the officer to be a known drug dealer. The officer had observed our client in the past conducting brief transactions in parking lots consistent with the appearance of drug deals. An occupant of the truck entered the passenger's side of our client's car, and police approached the two. The officer saw our client holding a $100 bill and ordered him to put his hands on the wheel, after which he saw drugs in the passenger's lap and in the center console and control panel. After search of our client and the car, our client was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, distribution of oxycodone and oxymorphone, possession of cocaine, a school zone violation, and conspiracy. Denise Dolan of our office moved to suppress on the grounds that the search and seizure was in violation of our client's constitutional rights. The motion was allowed and the drugs were suppressed.

West Roxbury District Court: On July 30, 2010 members of the Boston Police Department applied for, obtained and executed a search pursuant to a warrant. Their target was a local college student. The officer who applied for the search warrant had information from one of his informants that the student was selling cocaine out of his apartment. At the direction of the police, the confidential informant engaged in some controlled purchases of cocaine. The identity of the seller was quickly learned as was his apartment location. The police believed that he kept a supply of drugs at the apartment. The search was conducted. During the course of the search police officers found cocaine, packaging materials and marijuana. The defendant was charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class B and Class D drugs and a School Zone Violation. Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the judge that the search was unconstitutional and the fruits of the search were suppressed. The case will likely be dismissed next month.

Lowell District Court: The prosecution alleged that on January 18, 2011 a Tewksbury Police officer followed a vehicle driving erratically for about two miles. The officer stopped the vehicle. He saw the driver and front seat passenger (our client) turn around to the back seat passenger in a suspicious manner. The officer had the driver exit the vehicle to determine whether he was in any way impaired. During the course of the officer's discussions with the driver the latter admitted to there being marijuana in the car. The officer then asked the remaining occupants to get out of the car. The car was searched. Inside police located marijuana, a bong, a pipe and some ecstasy. The occupants were interrogated. Our client admitted that the drugs were his. Attorney Neyman challenged the legality of the stop and subsequent search and seizure. He was successful on the motion and the Search and Seizure was declared unconstitutional by the judge. The drugs and our client's statement were suppressed.

Lawrence District Court: On Friday, September 3, 2010 members of the Andover, Massachusetts police department drug unit were patrolling parking lots off of Route 93. The officers had been involved in several investigations involving narcotics activities in that area. At around 7:00 p.m. the officers saw a car parked with the defendant in the driver's side. For several minutes he remained in the car, never going into the establishment adjacent to the lot. Another car arrived. The defendant's vehicle signaled by pumping brake lights several times. The driver of the second vehicle entered our client's car. Officers believed a drug transaction was occurring. They exited their car and approached our client and the person seated in the passenger seat. The police officers demanded that they get out of the car and conducted a search. Our client was found in possession of cocaine and marijuana. Attorney Neyman moved to suppress on the grounds that the Search and Seizure was a violation of our client's constitutional rights. The motion was allowed the drugs were suppressed.

Essex Superior Court # 09-0118. Our client, a Maine man was charged with Trafficking Cocaine in Excess of 200 Grams. He was facing a minimum mandatory 15 years in state prison if convicted. The prosecution alleged that on June 22, 2008 on officer patrolling Route 1 in Danvers, Massachusetts pulled into a Friday's parking lot and observed what he believed was a drug deal. He claimed that our client and his co-defendant were parked in a remote section of the parking lot, sitting in our client's car. The co-defendant's car was left unattended and running. The officer approached the defendants. He claimed they became aggressive with him. He then pat frisked both individuals and once he learned that the co-defendant's license had been suspended and that he had outstanding warrants called for backup. Officers arrived and searched both vehicles. They found about two hundred fifty six grams of cocaine in our client's car. We successfully moved to suppress the search on Fourth Amendment grounds. It is expected that the case will be dismissed sometime next month.