Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers Badge
Avvo Badge
Massachusetts Bar Association
Top-Rated Lawyer

Search & Seizure

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protects all citizens from unlawful and unwarranted searches and seizures. This means that law enforcement officials are prohibited from conducting a search and seizure of your body, home, or property unless:

  1. They have probable cause to believe an illegal activity is occurring, or
  2. They have a court-issued search warrant

If a police officer, state trooper, or a state or federal law enforcement official searches your property without a valid search warrant or without probable cause, any evidence he/she collects cannot be used against you in court.

If you have been arrested after a law enforcement official conducted a search and seizure of your home, body, or property, and you were consequently arrested, it’s important to contact an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible. In these types of situations time is of the essence! Massachusetts criminal defense attorney Stephen Neyman will review your case and immediately begin investigating the actions leading up to your arrest. If he suspects the police or investigative agency acted illegally or unlawfully in searching you or your property he will bring it to the attention of the judge, and argue to have the evidence dismissed from court.

Motions to Suppress: The Best Weapon You Have to Attack an Illegal Search and Seizure in Massachusetts

Any experienced criminal defense lawyer will tell you that there is not better tool for attacking the district attorney’s case than through a motion to suppress evidence. Anytime there is a stop, or a search, or a seizure that first thing that we think of is the legality of the police action. If the search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant we find ways to attack the affidavit that was filed to obtain the search warrant. If there was no warrant we look to see if one should have been applied for. We will visit the scene to determine if the representations of the police officer are supported by the surrounding environment; i.e. could he really have seen what he says he saw or was he in fact lying and conducting his search improperly? Successful motions to suppress result in the exclusion of evidence. Usually, without that evidence the district attorney cannot proceed with his case. In other words, the case will get dismissed.

Contact Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney

The right you have against unlawful searches and seizures should never be violated! If state or federal law enforcement officials have violated your constitutional rights, Attorney Stephen Neyman will stand up for your rights and vigorously defend you in court. Mr. Neyman is has over 20 years of experience handling cases involving search and seizure law, and has successfully defended countless clients with cases of this nature throughout his career. As a highly skilled and experienced Boston criminal defense attorney, Mr. Neyman will aggressively contest any evidence submitted by the prosecution that was obtained during an unlawful search and seizure. Mr. Neyman is 100% committed to protecting your rights, fighting your charges, and helping you win your case!

If you require the services of an experienced, dependable, and knowledgeable Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer with a thorough understanding of state and federal search and seizure laws, please contact the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman for a free consultation at 617-263-6800 or contact us online.

Case Results » Search & Seizure
  • Motion to Suppress on Felony Gun Charge Case Allowed and Case Dismissed

    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

  • Motion to Suppress Unlawful Search and Seizure of Trafficking Weight Drugs Allowed

    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

  • Motion to Suppress Gun Seized After Motor Vehicle Stop Allowed

    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

Client Reviews
"We went to trial and won. He saved me fifteen years mandatory in state prison for this case." A.C. Boston, Massachusetts
"I hired him and he got the case dismissed before I had to go into a courtroom. My school never found out and if they had I would have lost my academic scholarships. He really saved my college career." Melissa C. Cold Spring, New York, October 2013
"My union rep told me to call Steve Neyman. From the get go I felt comfortable with him. He took the time to talk to me about my case whenever I needed .... He even gave me his personal cell number and took all my calls. We won the case and I kept my job." Bart L. S.
"The best criminal defense lawyer in Massachusetts. Takes all of his client's calls at any time of the day or night. He was always there for me and my family. Steve saved my life." Jacquille D. Brockton, Massachusetts
"In less than two months Stephen Neyman got my old conviction vacated. I now have no criminal record." Paul W. Boston, Massachusetts