Case Results » Drug Crimes

Our client gambles for a living. In February of 2022 he was visiting a Massachusetts casino with his wife. The two began experimenting with drugs in their hotel room. Neither one had tried in the past. The wife had an adverse reaction and overdosed. Our client called 911 for assistance. The wife was taken to a local hospital. In the meantime, the police arrived on the scene and began searching the room, the closet in the room and the opened safe in the room. The officers located a significant amount of fentanyl and charged our client with distribution of a class A drug, fentanyl in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32, a felony in Massachusetts. We were able to prevail on a very ethical and experienced prosecutor to nolle prosse the case after showing him that the crime charged was not supported by the evidence. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

In May of 2022 a task force involving several Massachusetts police departments and branches of federal law enforcement executed a search warrant on a home in the early morning hours. Our client was in a bedroom on the first floor with another individual. Others were in different bedrooms and some sleeping in the basement. Officers were able to seize several large capacity firearms, ammunition and trafficking weight of cocaine and fentanyl. One of the defendants cooperated against our client and provided the grand jury with self-serving testimony that inculpated our client with these charges. Ultimately, our client was charged with trafficking fentanyl, G.L. c. 94C section 32E, trafficking cocaine, possession of a large capacity firearm, G.L. c. 269 section 10(m), improper storage of a firearm, G.L. c. 140 section 131L and possession of ammunition, G.L. c. 269 section 10(h). Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the man. The defendant was facing a mandatory 12 years in prison. Recognizing significant flaws in the grand jury presentment we filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Commonwealth v. McCarthy. The motion was successful. The district attorney's office agreed that they could not re-indict or proceed in any way the prosecution of our client and all charged were dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

In March of 2023, our client, a nurse, was pulled over for erratic driving. According to the police report, our client was angry about being stopped. She became belligerent and confrontational to the officers. As a result she was asked to exit the car. She became even more agitated and began using profane language towards the officers. Believing she might be impaired the officers conducted a pat frisk and found drugs in  her possession. Specifically, class B drugs and Class C drugs. She was arrested and charged with illegal possession of drugs under G.L. c. 94C section 34 and negligent operation of a motor vehicle under G.L. c. 90 section 24. Our office was retained to represent the woman. Today, based on constitutional violations and an inability to properly prosecute these crimes was succeeded in getting these charges dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client is a school nurse with nearly 40 years of experience. In February of 2022 she was a passenger in a car being driven by her teenage son. The son had just obtained his learner's permit and wanted to get money for concert tickets had bought for friends. The son pulled the car into a country club parking lot and made the exchange. The mother remained in the car. Unbeknownst to the mother, her son was actually selling adderall to an undercover police officer. The son was arrested and charged with distribution of a class B substance. The mother was charged with possession with intent to distribute a class B substance as a joint venturer under G.L. c. 94C section 32A. Attorney Neyman was hired. Today, we were able to get the case dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Earlier this month we succeeded in getting a default warrant removed for this client. She was charged with  trafficking G.L. c. 94C section 32E and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, a class B substance, G.L. c. 94C section 32A. Our investigation of the case, corroborated by a very fair prosecutor revealed that the prosecution of this case would not likely be successful. Accordingly, we prevailed upon the district attorney's office to nolle prosse all charges against our client. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

In July of this year our client was observed driving from an affluent town to a city saturated with narcotics distribution activities. Police took notice of his vehicle as he pulled next to another vehicle, entered that vehicle and drove away. Officers followed him and saw him park in a remote area. Several minutes later the police observed known drug users approach and enter his case. After these individuals left his car the officers formed the opinion that our client was engaged in some sort of drug distribution activities. They stopped him, searched him and found marijuana, a class D drug along with scales, baggies and a scale. All of this indicated that our client either was selling marijuana or intended to do so. He was summonsed for a clerk magistrate hearing charging him with possession with intent to distribute a class D substance, marijuana, in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32C. Due to our client's age, lack of a criminal history and remorseful behavior we prevailed on the clerk not to issue the complaint. 

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

The defendant is a physician at a well known Massachusetts hospital. In August of 2021, suffering from depression and enduring some unexpected family hardship the defendant attempted suicide. Endeavoring to do so the doctor used a patient's identification to access drugs in an effort to terminate his life. The defendant was found unconscious having deliberately overdosed from the drugs. He was revived and charged with violating G.L. c. 94C section 37, larceny of drugs from a registered person or entity. Only the Superior Court has jurisdiction over this type of criminal charge. The defendant was hospitalized and upon his release he engaged our office to represent him. We convinced the prosecution not to pursue charges given our client's exemplary employment history, the mental health issues from which he was suffering and his diligent efforts to combat his illness. The arraignment was continued and the case will not be prosecuted provided that our client refrain from any criminal activity and continue with his mental health treatments. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client deals in antique cars throughout the country. In July of 2018 he was pulled over for several motor vehicle violations. The officers made him get out of his car, searched him and the interior of the vehicle and located a significant amount of marijuana and paraphernalia that indicated the drugs were intended for sale, not personal use. We challenged the legality of the stop, search and seizure a few years ago. We were able to suppress most of what was seized. What remained of the criminal charges was possession with intent to distribute marijuana under G.L. c. 94C section 32C. This is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. Today, the district attorney agreed to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 for a 30 day period. All charges will be dismissed. More importantly, the money unlawfully seized from the defendant will now be returned to him. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

In December of 2016 police in a Massachusetts city got a call for a man breaking into a car at a particular location. They responded and found a man in the car holding a small bag of heroin. When he saw the police he ran only to be apprehended a few blocks away. He was arrested and charged with attempting to commit crime under G.L. c. 274 section 6 and possession of a class A drug, second and subsequent offense in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 34. The man had a very strong addiction. He ultimately defaulted and moved to Florida. He got help and several months ago and contacted us to remove his default so that he could travel and come back to Massachusetts to address the pending case. The man provided documented proof that he had been in a residential treatment facility for over two years. This convinced the district attorney's office to nolle prosse the case. The charges are dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client is an airline pilot flying coast to coast several times per week. Several months ago he was stopped for suspicion of having committed a domestic assault and battery. This was a case where the police had bad information. After stopping the car they conducted a search of the car including the trunk. In the trunk officers located a backpack containing drugs, a scale and multiple baggies. The drug was marijuana. A summons for a clerk magistrate hearing was issued charging possession with the intent to distribute a class D drug, marijuana. This is a misdemeanor under G.L. c. 94C section 32C. The clerk magistrate and the police prosecutor recognized the magnitude of the constitutional violations and agreed not to issue the complaint. Had the complaint issued the defendant would have lost his job. 

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

Several months ago our client was charged with possession with intent to distribute a class E drug in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32D. This is a felony in Massachusetts. We were able to get the judge to agree with pre-arraignment diversion for a period of six months under G.L. c. 276A given our client's lack of a criminal record. The district attorney's office objected to this request. Our client completed the diversion program we prepared requiring him to attend private counseling and drug test on a regular basis. As a result, all charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Possession With Intent to Distribute 

The defendant has multiple drug convictions and is known as a major cocaine distributor. In December of 2018 police had him under surveillance after receiving information from an informant that he had been delivering large quantities of cocaine to smaller scale local dealers. The informant's tips proved valuable. Our client was observed making several deliveries consistent with the predictions of the informant. After the last delivery was made surveillance officers stopped the purchaser. This individual immediately confessed to having bought from our client. Security videotape corroborated the witness statement and the police observations. Our client was stopped and searched as was his car. Officers found cutting agents, scales and money as well as cocaine residue. The packaging materials matched the packages seized from the purchase. Our client was charged with second offense distribution of cocaine under G.L. c. 94S section 32A and conspiracy, G.L. c. 94C section 40. Attorney Neyman was hired. Discovery delays and the pandemic slowed this case however today we prevailed on our motion to suppress. All drugs seized were excluded. The district attorney was then unable to proceed and the judge allowed our motion to dismiss the case. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

In October of 2020 police in a Cape Cod town were alerted to a motor vehicle accident. They arrived to find a man standing by his car. He was uninjured however the car had sustained significant damage. When officers learned that the defendant had a suspended license he was arrested. An inventory search of his car revealed brass knuckles, a dangerous weapon, and some cocaine. The man was charged with operating with a suspended license G.L. c. 90 section 23, carrying a dangerous weapon G.L. c. 269 section 10(b), possession of a class B drug G.L. c. 94C section 34 and negligent operation of a motor vehicle G.L. c. 90 section 23. Attorney Neyman was hired to defend the man. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client owns a chain of fitness centers in Eastern Massachusetts. A few weeks ago he was involved in a confrontation with a patron at one of his gyms. The police responded to the scene. Hoping to avoid any bad publicity our client got into his car and started to drive away. Believing that our client had been involved in a fight he was immediately stopped by the police and interrogated about the incident. During the discussion officers observed a large bag of a green leafy substance in plain view. They took the drugs and weighed them. The weight was just over a pound and our client was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, a class D drug. This is a crime under G.L. c. 94C section 32C. Our office was hired to defend the accused. Attorney Neyman contacted the investigating officer to discuss the matter. After some lengthy discussions the police agreed to a dismissal of all charges prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

On July 15, 2020, members of an urban Massachusetts drug task force entered our client's home with a search warrant not issued by a Massachusetts law enforcement agency. During the search drugs were found. Our client was charged with possession with intent to distribute a class B drug, a felony under G.L. c. 90C section 32A. He was also charged with possession with intent to distribute a class D drug in violation of G.L. c. 90C section 32C. The latter crime is a misdemeanor. We fought to get the affidavit in support of the search warrant provided. Inasmuch as the prosecution was unable to do we were able to have all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a business owner in central Massachusetts. In November of 2019 she was stopped for operating a motor vehicle that was unregistered and uninsured. The status of the vehicle required it to be towed. During an inventory search the police found methamphetamine, a class B drug in the center console. The operator was arrested and charged with operating uninsured G.L. c. 90 section 34J, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended registration under G.L. c. 90 section 23 and possession of a class B drug in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 34. Our office was hired to represent the defendant. We were able to get the motor vehicle crime dismissed. The prosecutor and the judge agreed to place the defendant in a diversion program under G.L. c. 276A for the drug possession crime. A successful completion of this program will result in a dismissal. 

Read More in Pretrial Diversion

The defendant is the owner of a business that has been struggling for the past year. Anonymous tips made him the focal point of a south shore Massachusetts drug investigation. The investigating department believed that the business problems provided a motive for the man to resort to drug sales. In January the officers learned that the defendant would be conducting sales of drugs at a local mall. Their source was corroborated when the defendant drove to the parking lot and met with other known drug dealers. The parties entered a restaurant in the mall and exited an hour later. In doing so all parties entered the defendant's car. The defendant drove the vehicle to a remote location in the parking lot. He stopped and retrieved a bag from the trunk. He then drove the other men back to their car and left the lot. The officers believed that they had just witnessed a drug transaction. Our client was stopped and found to be in possession of a large sum of money. The other individuals were stopped. A search of their car revealed the bag that our client had taken from his trunk. The bag contained a sufficient amount of drugs. Our client was consequently charged with distribution of class D in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32C and distribution of Class C in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32B. The former is a misdemeanor and the latter a felony in accordance with Massachusetts law. Our office was able to get pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 on each count. This case will be dismissed in a few months. 

Read More in Pretrial Probation

In August of 2019 members of a drug task force in the city of Boston were patrolling and conducting surveillance in a part of the city known for high incidents of drug distribution activity. Officers observed our client pick up a known drug user, circle around the block and drop the individual back at the same location. The incident lasted a few minutes. Believing they had just witnessed a drug transaction the officers converged on the buyer. They interrogated him. He quickly revealed that he had just purchased heroin and cocaine from our client. Other  members of the surveillance stopped our client. In plain view they observed drugs packaged identically to the drugs just seized from the buyer. Our client was arrested and charged with two counts of distribution of drugs, cocaine and heroin respectively. These are drug crimes in Massachusetts under G.L. c. 94C section 32 and G.L. c. 94C section 32A. Attorney Neyman was retained to defend this case. Today, the district attorney agreed to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed in a few months.

Read More in Drug Crimes

In September of 2020 members of a university police department were monitoring activity on campus consistent with drug sales. They contacted the city police department for assistance. Both agencies formed a surveillance operation during which they observed what they perceived to be drug transactions. During one of the deals the police saw our client, a local business owner seated in the passenger seat of a car buying drugs. After the deal was consummated, the police approached our client and found several oxycodone pills in his lap and on the floor of the car underneath where he was sitting. Our client was arrested and charged with possession of a class B drug pursuant to G.L. c. 94C section 34 and conspiracy to violate the Massachusetts drug laws under G.L. c. 94C section 40. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to defend this man. Today, the district attorney and the judge agreed with a pretrial probation disposition under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be officially dismissed in a few months. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client is a college professor, tenured and with over forty years at the same university. He has fought addiction problems over the course of his life and has on several occasions been charged with drug possession. Last spring undercover officers were monitoring an area known for high volume drug sales. They observed an Hispanic male making contact with our client who at that time was on foot. The officers lost sight of our client only to find him minutes later lighting a homemade pipe and smoking a substance they believed to be drugs. Upon further investigation the police learned that the substance was crack cocaine and our client was arrested. He was charged with possession of a class B substance in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 34. He hired Attorney Stephen Neyman immediately. Today we succeeded in getting all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a senior in college who was in Massachusetts visiting in September of 2020. Police in a Boston suburb, while on routine patrol observed a car travelling 50 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Officers ran the vehicle registration and learned that it has been revoked for not being inspected or insured. The officers confronted the driver who was alone. He made clear that he was insured and that he had an inspection appointment scheduled for a day later that week. Nevertheless he was told that he could not drive the car at that time. The police then called for a tow of the vehicle. Pursuant to a motor vehicle inventory search they located a bag of mushrooms, a class C drug in Massachusetts. The defendant was then arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a class C drug under G.L. c. 94C section 34, operating with a revoked or suspended registration pursuant to G.L. c. 90 section 23 and operating uninsured in violation of G.L. c. 90 section 34J. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes

Our client is an international graduate student in Massachusetts on a student visa. On April 30, 2020 Boston Police Officers responded to a radio call for a man trespassing in the boiler room of an apartment building. The caller met the officers and told them that the man was banging on doors and making unintelligible statements. The caller further indicated that hte man threatened him with a knife. The officers located the man in the building. Consistent with the caller's statements, the man continued with his irrational behavior. The officers handcuffed him and located a significant amount of cocaine and marijuana in his possession along with a knife. The man was charged with trafficking cocaine G.L. c. 92C section 32E, trespass G.L. c. 266 section 120, assault by means of a dangerous weapon G.L. c. 265 section 15B and possession with intent to distribute a class D drug under G.L. c. 94C section 32C. The man was immediately taken to a mental health facility. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to defend the man that day. The mental health hospitalization disclosed that the defendant had a mental break due to excessive cocaine intoxication. Attorney Neyman was able to demonstrate this to the prosecutor and the trafficking charge was reduced to possession with intent class B and kept in the district court. Further discussions with the prosecution coupled with a presentation of the defendant's academic accomplishments persuaded the assistant district attorney to agree to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. The defendant must complete a probationary period free from criminal legal problems and engage in mental health treatments and the case will be dismissed. 

Read More in Trafficking Cocaine

The defendant is facing cocaine trafficking charges in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32E. The mandatory minimum sentence is 8 years in state prison. The defendant was granted bail at his arraignment with conditions that he report to probation regularly and attend all court appearances. Several weeks ago the defendant went into default for failing to honor these conditions. The probation department and the assistant district attorney moved the judge to revoke the bail. A warrant issued for the defendant. He did not appear (call) the court on the date he was supposed to and he was defaulted. He immediately called us for help. Before any arrest was made our office was able to get the warrant recalled and have the default removed. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Default Warrant Removal

The defendant is an officer in a local law enforcement office. In early December he was seen entering and leaving the home of a known drug dealer. A drug enforcement task force had been monitoring and conducting surveillance of that location. Officers followed the defendant to a busy parking lot. They saw him park. They then watched as he opened a small plastic bag, placed a powdery substance on his console and snorted the substance with a McDonald's straw. He was confronted by the police and the remaining drug was seized. He was summonsed to court for possession of cocaine a Class B substance under G.L. c. 94C Section 34. Attorney Neyman was hired. A clerk magistrate hearing was held today. The complaint did not issue. Had it issued the defendant likely would have lost his job. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client is a professional living in a Boston suburb. Last September he was visiting with a friend. A woman arrived at the home driven by a friend. The friend did not go into the home. Rather, he waited in his car, parked near the home our client was visiting. Seeing the occupied car, a concerned neighbor called the police. They questioned the driver. His answers were evasive. He indicated that he dropped a friend off at a house next to where he was parked and was waiting for her. The police went to the house and looked into a window. They observed what they believed to be people ingesting cocaine. They entered the home. Our client was in the bathroom. The police demanded that he come out of the bathroom. He flushed the toilet before doing so. The officers observed an item going down the toilet they believed to be drugs. They were unable to collect the object and charged our client with interfering with a police investigation in violation of G.L. c. 268 Section 13E. Attorney Neyman was hired. He filed a motion to dismiss that was ultimately agreed to by the district attorney's office. The case was dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

On October 23, 2018 the defendant was pulled over for a moving violation in a central Massachusetts town. The officer ran the man's license and learned that his license had expired. He was asked to exit the car so that it could be towed. An inventory search of the vehicle was conducted within the parameters of Massachusetts State Police guidelines. Officers located eight pounds of marijuana in the vehicle. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, a class D substance. This violates G.L. c. 94C Section 32C. Today, the case was continued without a finding CWOF for six months. The case will be dismissed provided the defendant remains free of criminal activity during that time period. 

Read More in Possession With Intent to Distribute Drugs

The defendant is a case management worker for the Commonwealth who works with the elderly. Several months ago, police followed up on a tip that drugs were being dealt out of this woman's home. The police conducted surveillance of the home and noted heavy foot traffic from known local drug dealers and users. One of the customers of the defendant was actually a police informant who had been conducting several controlled buys of fentanyl from the woman. Based on this information and the observations of the officers a search warrant was issued and the home was raided. The police found a significant quantity of fentanyl in the home and charged with woman with trafficking under G.L. c. 94C Section 32E. Our client was looking at mandatory state prison time. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the woman. Today, our office was able to get these charges dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Trafficking

The defendant is a non-citizen living lawfully in this country. In May of 2001 he received a continuance without a finding on felony drug charges in a Boston court. At that time this was considered a good result and there was no expectation that people would face deportation or immigration consequences with such a result. Federal Court interpretations of the laws changed and the continuance without a finding was viewed as a conviction for immigration purposes. This made our client deportable. Deportation would be devastating for him and his family. He has been living in New York with his wife and two children, working hard and paying taxes. Consequently, the defendant contacted Attorney Neyman to see if our office could remedy this problem. We were able to get the district attorney's office to agree with our motion to vacate the conviction. The district attorney's office further agreed to nolle pross the case. Our client has no record and will not be deported. 

Read more in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a non-citizen who had been convicted of several crimes that would likely result in his deportation. Several weeks ago our office was able to vacate those convictions. However, the cases were put back on the list for arraignment for today. Attorney Neyman continued with his representation of the man who was being charged with possession of a class B substance G.L. c. 94C section 34, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle G.L. c. 90 section 10, operating uninsured G.L. c. 90 section 34J and a attaching wrong plate violation under G.L. c. 90 section 23. We were able to get all charges dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes

The defendant is a citizen of a South American country now living in California. In 2002 and 2004 he plead guilty to two crimes having immigration consequence. The 2002 case was a possession with intent to distribute class B cocaine, a felony and the 2004 case was shoplifting. For immigration purposes both of these cases are considered crimes of moral turpitude. At the time the defendant pleaded guilty he was not properly advised of any collateral consequences. He was recently facing deportation because of these convictions and he hired Attorney Stephen Neyman. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get these convictions vacated. The man will not be deported.

Read More in Possession With Intent to Distribute Drugs

In June of 2017 members of a greater Boston suburban task force were investigating high level drug trafficking activity. Their efforts led them to a home that was occupied by the defendant. Officers obtained a search warrant and executed the search. During the search large quantities of drugs were found in the defendant's bedroom and other areas of the home. He was charged with three counts of possession with intent to distribute drugs in violation of G.L. c. 94C Section 32 classes A B and C. After nearly two years of litigation our office was able to get the defendant a continuance without a finding. If he remains free from criminal legal trouble the case will be dismissed.

Read More in Continuance Without a Finding

The defendant is a private investigator licensed in several states. In June of this year state police working in an undercover capacity were watching some parking lots off of Route 495 known for frequent incidents of drug distribution activity. Acting on a tip from a known reliable informant the offers observed our client waiting in a pickup truck consistently using his phone for texting and calls. After about twenty minutes the officers observed an infamous drug distributor park and enter our client's truck. The officers observed movements consistent with the transfer of objects. The manner of this activity along with defendant's texting and calling suggested that the parties were meeting up for a drug deal. Once the dealer left our client's car the distributor and our client left, driving in opposite directions. Officers followed each. They stopped the known dealer who was found in possession of a significant amount of drugs, Class B. He indicated that he purchased the drugs from our client. The defendant was then stopped and found in possession of a large quantity of cash along with a large quantity of class D and C drugs. He was charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Class D and C in violation of G.L. c. 94C Sections 32C and 32B respectively. He was also charged with Conspiracy under G.L. c. 94C Section 40 and Distribution of Class D under G.L. c. 94C Section 32C. The defendant is a private investigator and any conviction or admission to a charge of more than simple possession would likely result in his license being suspended or revoked. He hired Attorney Neyman to defend him. Today, the conspiracy and possession with intent charges were dismissed. The distribution charge was reduced to simple possession and continued without a finding for sixty days. The case will be dismissed.

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a construction worker and union member working on some significant Boston area projects. In March of 2017 members of the Tewksbury, Massachusetts police department were alerted to the fact that the defendant was selling illegal narcotics and that he possessed illegal firearms. The defendant's step-father corroborated this and had recorded statements linking the man to drug sales. Following up on this information officers obtained consent to search the defendant's home from his parents. This led to the discovery of large quantities of drugs and the issuance of search warrants for the defendant's cell phones. The search of the cell phones provided additional support that the man was in fact selling drugs. He was charged with various drug crimes, among them G.L. c. 94C Section 34 and G.L. c. 94C Section 32C. The defendant had a significant criminal history that included drug convictions. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the man. Today, all charges were continued without a finding. These charges will be dismissed after a successful completion of a short period of probation.

Read More in Continuance Without a Finding

A few months ago the defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and taken to the hospital. His car was towed and inventoried. Inside the car the police found several ounces of marijuana, a Class D substance. The drugs were packaged for sale. Also found in the car was a scale used for weighing drugs. The defendant had a prior continuance without a finding a few years ago for the same crimes. The officers confronted the man at the hospital. He volunteered his cell phone which was searched as well. On that device was additional evidence of drug distribution and a Class C drug. The man was charged with possession with intent to distribute class C, G.L. c. 94C Section 32B and class D drugs, 94C Section 32C a felony and misdemeanor respectively. Attorney was able to get the felony dismissed and the marijuana charge continued without a finding.

Read More in Possession With Intent to Distribute Drugs

Our client was charged with heroin possession the Lawrence, Massachusetts. Police arrested him after their surveillance officers observed him purchasing heroin from a known drug dealer and then inject the drug in his car. He was placed on pretrial probation pursuant to G.L. c. 276 Section 87. He violated his probation and the case was put back on the trial list. Our office was hired and Attorney Stephen Neyman was able to get the man back on pretrial probation. The case will be dismissed.

Read More in Probation Violations

The Massachusetts State Police were involved in a protracted drug trafficking investigation in the fall of 2015. Surveillance was established throughout areas of Norfolk County where specific known drug dealers would conduct high level drug sales. Various individuals were observed driving to and from drug distribution locations. These people were seen engaging in drug activities as distributors, couriers and resale purchasers on multiple occasions. Consequently, the investigation focused on a select number of subjects among whom was our client. One of the suspected dealers was seen making multiple stops at our client's home in Braintree, Massachusetts. During one of the stops a known drug dealer entered with an empty backpack. He exited our client's home minutes later with the same backpack being full. That individual and his driver left and were stopped, searched and apprehended after the police found a significant quantity of marijuana in the backpack. Subsequently, a search warrant was obtained for our client's home. During the search marijuana, packaging materials, other drugs and cash were found. The quantities warranted superior court indictments. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get our client's drug charge continued without a finding.

Read More in Drug Trafficking

The defendant is a freshman in college. The prosecution alleged that in June of 2014 detective from the Lawrence, Massachusetts police narcotics unit observed activity consistent with drug dealing. Specifically, the defendant and two other Caucasian males were walking through a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. They seemed to be looking for someone and kept checking their cell phones in the process. Ultimately, a known drug dealer was observed meeting up with our client and his friends and engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction. Our client and his friends left in a vehicle that failed to stop at a light. Officers stopped the vehicle and saw in plain view heroin. Our client was charged with possession of heroin, a crime under G.L. c. 94C Section 34. Attorney Neyman was hired to defend the man. Today, all charges were dismissed outright.

Read More in Possession

In January of 2015 members of a joint task force involving Cape Cod police and ATF agents served and executed a search warrant on a home in Mashpee. During the course of the search officers located a significant number of marijuana plants, grow lights, packaging materials and some hash oil. Officers had been watching this operation for months and believed that the defendant was a major drug supplier in that area. He was arrested and charged with several counts of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana in violation of G.L. c. 94C Section 32C, possession with intent to distribute hash oil and manufacturing. He hired Attorney Neyman to represent him. Today, the case against the man was dismissed.

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a chef and business owner in Boston. On the date in question members of the Boston Police drug unit observed the defendant walking aimlessly in a neighborhood known for high volume drugs sales. The officers observed the man meeting up with a woman known to them as a drug dealer. After a brief conversation the defendant and the woman entered a housing project. The officers, dressed in civilian clothes followed them into the building where they saw an apparent drug transaction on a stairwell. The defendant was issued a summons for a clerk magistrate hearing charging him with possession of class B drugs in violation of G.L. c. 94C Section 34. Today, Attorney Neyman convinced the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint.

Read More in Drug Crimes

In November of 2014 the defendant was stopped for a motor vehicle violation while driving in the town of Needham. Due to  suspended driver's license the defendant was arrested. A booking search disclosed a significant quantity of a Class E controlled substance. The defendant was charged with Possession of a Class E Substance in the Dedham District Court. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get this charge dismissed.

Read More in Drug Crimes

On May 22, 2015 members of the Quincy, Massachusetts police department were dispatched to an address for a report of a suspicious vehicle. The officers arrived at the reported location and saw a man sitting in a car looking down at his lap area. They approached the car and startled the occupant who appeared confused. He was unable to respond appropriately to simply commands. He was sweating profusely and he appeared to be under the influence of narcotics. After some brief questioning the man admitted to using smoking some meth. The officers then searched the car and found methamphetamine. The defendant, a school teacher was arrested and charged with possession of a class E drug in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 34. The man hired Attorney Neyman to represent him. Knowing that an arraignment would possibly alert the school system of the man's pending case the arraignment was continued. Today, our office was able to get the case dismissed prior to arraignment.

On December 23, 2014 a Lawrence, Massachusetts drug task force was conducting surveillance on the south side of the city for the purpose of curbing street crime activity, particularly prostitution and drug distribution. During the course of the operation officers observed a vehicle with New Hampshire plates containing four occupants. Two of the occupants made contact with a known drug dealer. Officers observed an exchange they believed to be a drug transaction. The license plates of the New Hampshire were run and it was discovered that the car was registered to an address nearly an hour and an half away from Lawrence. Officers confronted the occupants of the car, one of them being the defendant. The defendant admitted to swallowing a quantity of heroin to avoid being arrested by the police. He was arrested and charged with possession of heroin and conspiracy to violate the Massachusetts drug laws. Today, Attorney Neyman secured a general continuance for three months for the defendant. He will not have a criminal record.

On August 25, 2014 members of the Stoughton, Massachusetts police department were dispatched to a local housing development for a call on a suspicious person. The caller reported that a tall individual wearing jeans and a white long sleeve shirt was in front of one of the units and alleged to be purchasing and using heroin. Officers found an individual fitting the description of the caller. The officers then saw the man enter his car and observed the vehicle to have shattered and removed windshields and windows. The officer looked into the car and saw in plain view some baggies containing what they believed to be heroin. The man, a mechanical engineer, was charged with possession of heroin. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get all charges dismissed on court costs.

The defendant is a public school teacher licensed in New Jersey and New York. On July 25, 2014 she was visiting a friend and college roommate in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The two were watching a local band and decided to go out the their car in the parking lot. According to local police, the two making furtive head movements towards the center console of the car. As the officers approached the vehicle they saw our client, a school teacher, wipe her nose. The officers were then spotted by the women and our client supposedly moved to conceal an object in her pocketbook. She was interrogated by the police and admitted to ingesting cocaine. She also consented to a search of her purse. Inside, the officers located the drugs. The woman was charged with possession of cocaine. Today, the case was continued without a finding for a short period of time. In a few months all charges will be dismissed.

The defendant is an engineer who had been arrested and charged with possession of heroin, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and resisting arrest. The incident occurred on September 3, 2014. The defendant was arraigned and released on five hundred dollars bail. A pretrial conference was scheduled for October 29, 2014 and the defendant failed to appear. He was defaulted and a warrant issued for his arrest. He hired Attorney Neyman to go into court with him, remove the default and represent him on the underlying case. Today, we went into court and had the default removed. The defendant was released on personal recognizance and another pretrial hearing has been scheduled.

The defendant was on probation in the Lynn District Court for possession of heroin. A condition of his probation was that he report regularly and be subject to random drug screens and a drug dependency evaluation. Probation was imposed in the late spring of 2014. The defendant never reported to probation nor did he comply with any of the other probationary conditions. Subsequently, in October of 2014 the defendant picked up yet another drug case, this one in Dorchester. He was ordered to report to Lynn to meet with his probation officer. He did not. Knowing that he was in default and in trouble in Lynn the defendant hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. Today Attorney Neyman brought the man into court, was able to remove his default, vacate the warrant and secure personal recognizance.

The defendant is a drug user well known to local law enforcement. He has numerous prior offenses. On September 12, 2014 Andover, Massachusetts police observed a suspicious female at a gas station on River Road. She was seated in her car, not getting gas and not going into the mini-mart attached to the gas station. Officers ran the woman's plates and found that she had numerous prior drug convictions. A few minutes later the police saw the defendant arrive and make an exchange with the woman. He provided her with some money and she gave him a small package in return. The officers recognized this activity to be consistent with drug dealing activity and approached the defendant. The officers quickly learned that the defendant had just made a purchase of heroin from the woman. He was charged with possession of heroin, a Class A drug. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the case continued without a finding. The case will be dismissed in six months.

The prosecution alleged that on November 3, 2012, while on patrol, members of the Framingham, Massachusetts police department observed two males ducking down when the officer's presence become evident. The officers circled the area and returned. Again, the two males ducked down and hid between some parked cars. The two then entered a car and drove away. The officers followed them and after observing some illegal driving maneuvers stopped the car. When they approached the passenger closed his hand to conceal an object. Protruding from his hand was a glassine bag containing what the officers believed to be methamphetamine. Our client was the operator of the car. Officers learned that he had a revoked driver's license. Based on the presence of drugs and the revoked license both the driver and passenger were place under arrest. An inventory search of the car followed during which methamphetamine and over twenty thousand dosages of LSD were discovered. Our client allegedly made several inculpatory statements as well. He was charged with possession with intent to distribute drugs, drug possession and conspiracy. Today, after some extensive pretrial litigation Attorney Neyman was able to get all charges dismissed.

On March 27,2014 Lawrence, Massachusetts police officers observed a car with New Hampshire plates occupied by two males, the driver being our client. The car parked in an area known for drug distribution. The driver was observed on a cell phone. No one got out of the car. Rather, the car left and traveled to another area in Lawrence also known for high incidents of drug sales. Again, no one got out of the car. Once again the car left for yet another heroin distribution point in the city. At this location the passenger got out of the car and made contact with known drug dealers. Officers repositioned their undercover vehicle and saw a drug deal involving the passenger and the known individual. The passenger got back into the car. A stop of the vehicle was made and the defendant and his passenger were found to be in possession of heroin. Both were arrested and charged. Attorney Neyman was able to get the case dismissed today.

Quincy District Court: According to a Braintree Police Department report on August 9, 2011, based on an informant's tip, police officers set up surveillance activities on a Braintree, Massachusetts street. At approximately 1:35 p.m. officers saw a particular vehicle enter the area of concern. The car had been identified by the informant as the vehicle used by the defendant to deliver drugs. Surveillance continued. Officers saw the driver, the defendant, deliver drugs to known drug users. One of the users to whom the accused sold drugs was stopped by the officers. This person identified the defendant as having just sold him drugs. Officers found drugs in this person's possession and recognized the package as the item the defendant passed to this person. The surveillance team followed the defendant and arrested him. In his possession the police found proceeds from the drug deal. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get all charges dismissed.

South Boston District Court: The defendant is a chemist with a masters degree in chemistry from a prestigious local university. The prosecution alleged that on August 5, 2012 members of the Boston Police Department Drug Control Unit were monitoring a parking lot where an abundance of drug activity had been occurring. The defendant was observed engaging in behavior consistent with drug trafficking activity. Officers observed him making several phone calls and looking around the parking lot. They eventually saw him enter a car and participate in a drug transaction. The defendant was observed leaving that car and entering another car where yet more drug activity was seen. An arrest was made charging the defendant with Trafficking Class B and Trafficking Class A drugs. Attorney Neyman was able to keep the case in the district court where the trafficking charges were dismissed and reduced to felony distribution charges. Today, our office succeeded in getting all charges continued without a finding.

Lynn District Court: The prosecution alleged that on September 15, 2012 shortly after midnight police officers observed a known Heroin user soliciting males in Lynn, Massachusetts. The woman was seen getting into a car being driven by our client, a local businessman. The police followed the car and saw it park in a remote section of a parking lot adjacent to a Dunkin Donuts. The officer then saw the defendant and the woman getting into the backseat of the car. He approached and found our client with his pants down to his knees getting oral sex. He was charged with Unnatural Acts, a felony in Massachusetts. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the case dismissed.

Framingham District Court: The defendant is a chef at a restaurant in Quincy, Massachusetts who, after being arrested and charged with Felony Drug Crimes in Framingham hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. In January of this year our office won a Motion to Suppress an illegal Search and Seizure in this case. As a result, today the district attorney had no choice but to nolle prosse the case. All charges have been dismissed.

Framingham District Court: Natick, Massachusetts Police alleged that on August 13, 2012 one of their officers was dispatched to a local car dealership for a call of a burglary in progress. One of the store employees reported that he saw some Asian males stealing car parts. The officer arrived, gun drawn and ordered the defendant and his accomplice to the ground. He then searched the suspects and the car that they had arrived in. Found in the car's console was a quantity of Marijuana consistent with distribution. Attorney Neyman filed and argued a Motion to Suppress. The motion was allowed and all drugs found as a result of the unlawful search were suppressed.

Lawrence District Court: The prosecution alleged that in the fall of 2011 members of the Lawrence, Massachusetts department observed a woman trespassing in an area of the city saturated with drug activity. The officers inquired and realized quickly that the woman's story was irrational. The woman was unable to provide accurate identification and for officer safety purposes she was pat frisked. During the search officers found a quantity of heroin in her possession. She was subsequently charged with Possession of Heroin, a Class A substance. All charges are going to be dismissed in six months.

Brookline District Court: The prosecution alleged that on August 6, 2011 a Brookline, Massachusetts police officer was conducting surveillance in a park associated with recent disturbances. The officer observed two males meet up in the park. He overheard them discussing what he believed to be a drug transaction. He then saw one of the males open a ziplock bag that contained what marijuana. After that he saw a transfer of the substance from that man to another person. The officer effectuated an arrest. He interrogated the individuals and quickly learned that they had just been supplied by another man, a local college student whom surveillance saw driving in the area. Police were dispatched to this person's home. He was apprehended in a parking lot adjacent to his home. In his possession the police found a large quantity of money and drugs consistent with being possessed for the purpose of sale. The defendant, our client admitted to selling the drugs. Earlier today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the School Zone charge and a Conspiracy charge dismissed. The remaining charge was continued without a finding. If the defendant remains free from criminal trouble for the next six months the case will be dismissed.

Lawrence District Court # 93-6752. The prosecution alleged that in September of 1993 a Methuen police sergeant pulled over a car being driven by our client claiming the manner of operation was "erratic". During the course of the stop the rear passenger made furtive movements. Upon contacting the occupants the officer notice the odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle. The occupants were removed from the car and searched. The rear passenger was in possession of a knife. .22 caliber ammunition was located in plain view. The defendant, our client gave evasive answers to the police officer's questions as well as a fictitious name. An inventory search of the car was conducted during which officers located a .22 caliber revolver. Some marijuana was found in the car as well. The charge carried a mandatory minimum one year jail sentence. The defendant defaulted. He eventually got convicted of unrelated federal charges for which he served time. Upon his release he retained our office to resolve the outstanding firearm case. Today, Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the gun carrying charge dismissed along with the marijuana charge. The defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of possessing a firearm and placed on probation, concurrent with his federal court probation.

Hingham District Court # 09-2647. The police report claimed that on December 19, 2009 the defendant was the passenger in a car that was pulled over at a Sobriety Checkpoint. When the car window went down officers immediately detected the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car. They observed the defendant, our client with bloodshot, glassy eyes, possibly under the influence of marijuana. Our client and the driver were arrested. The car was searched and a quantity of marijuana was located in the glove compartment and other areas of the vehicle. The defendant admitted that it was his, that he had paid for it and that he intended to distribute some of the drug. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the charges dismissed.

Orleans District Court # 09-1035. On July 7, 2009 in the late afternoon a Provincetown, Massachusetts police officer on duty at the Municipal Airport received information from a TSA employee that a bag she was screening had in it an assortment of drugs. The officer quickly determined that the bag belonged to a physician visiting from out of state. The officer searched the defendant's bag and found the following items inside: two glass pipes with crack cocaine residue, methamphetamine, ecstasy pills and cash. The defendant was charged with five counts of drug possession total. Today Attorney Neyman was able to negotiate pre-trial probation for our client.

Woburn District Court # 08-3542. The district attorney alleged that on December 4, 2008 Burlington Police along with members of a DEA task force conducted a controlled buy of oxycontin in Burlington, Massachusetts. It was reported by a confidential informant that the defendant, a local insurance executive was selling large quantities of this drug in the suburban Boston area. While under surveillance the informant met with the defendant at a local mall. He provided our client with $1,100 in exchange for fifteen oxycontin pills. Once the deal was consummated the police descended on the defendant and made an arrest. He was charged with Distribution of Oxycontin, a felony. The defendant, who had a record in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire hired Attorney Stephen Neyman. Earlier today Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the case continued without a finding. Provided the defendant remain free from criminal legal troubles for the next eighteen months the case will be dismissed.

Fall River District Court Docket Number: 09-4095. On July 5, 2009 just before 2:00 a.m. Massachusetts State Police were called to the scene of an accident. Upon arrival they observed the defendant's car on its roof. It was reported that the driver, our client had fallen asleep at the wheel of his car. While investigating the crash the officers located over forty grams of marijuana and nearly four thousand dollars cash. They questioned the defendant who admitted to selling the marijuana and he was charged with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, a class D substance. Today Attorney Neyman was able to get the case continued without a finding for one year with unsupervised probation. All charges will be dismissed in one year if you client remains free of criminal legal problems.

Woburn District Court. The prosecution alleged that on May 17, 2009 a Massachusetts State Trooper observed our client's vehicle swerving from lane to lane while the driver was on his cell phone. The officer pulled the car over and smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from inside the car. The officer had the defendant get out of the car. In doing so he noticed a large bulge in the defendant's pants. The trooper searched him for weapons. He then located and seized a pill bottle containing Vicodin, a Class C substance. Our client was arrested and charged with possession of drugs. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed at a Clerk's Hearing.

Peabody District Court Docket Number: 09-0661. The district attorney alleged that on April 9, 2009 officers were dispatched to a store after a 911 caller observed the defendant and another covering their faces with bandanas and hoods. The officers located both individuals. Once they realized they had been detected the two fled. The police located both suspects and placed them under arrest. During questioning our client admitted that the two intended to rob a store and that only after police intervention were their plans interrupted. Our office was able to get the district attorney to agree to continue this case without a finding for one year with unsupervised probation. If you client remains free from trouble for the next year the case will be dismissed.

Boston Municipal Court # 09-0872. On February 1, 2009 at around 2:50 a.m. Boston police observed a motor vehicle drive through a red light at the intersection of Kneeland Street and Harrison Street. As the officers approached the vehicle they saw the defendant and his passenger lean into the middle of the console appearing to conceal an object. The police approached the vehicle, asked the occupants to get out of the car and conducted a pat down frisk. In the process of doing so officers observed a small plastic bag with a rock-like substance on the passenger side floor. The substance turned out to be methamphetamine. The defendant stated that the passenger had done nothing wrong insinuating that he was responsible for the drugs. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed against the defendant on the arraignment date.

Dorchester District Court # 08-0955.   The prosecution alleged that on February 11, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. Boston Police Drug Control officers began to monitor activities of an individual they knew to be a drug dealer.  During a surveillance the officers observed the defendant in a car driving through the suspect's neighborhood and talking on his cell phone.  Subsequently the officers saw the target suspect approach the defendant's car.  A drug transaction followed after which the defendant drove away in his car.  Police followed the defendant and effectuated a stop a few blocks away.  Officers detected the odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's clothing and vehicle.  Officers subsequently located marijuana on the defendant and he was arrested.  Our office was engaged in the summer of 2008.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting a judge to agree to continue the case without a finding for one year notwithstanding the defendant's criminal record.  The case will be dismissed in one year provided the defendant remain free from criminal legal problems.