Massachusetts allows conditional guilty pleas.

In criminal cases defendants often bring motions to suppress evidence (exclude evidence from trial) based on arguments that the evidence was seized in violation of defendant's constitutional rights. These motions typically argue that evidence was seized in violation of constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure or a confession was obtained in violation of defendant's right against self incrimination. The motion is filed in the trial court before the case goes to trial.

Previously, if the trial judge denied the motion to suppress, the defendant had a very difficult choice: either take the case to trial and preserve the right to appeal this ruling or accept a favorable plea agreement from the District Attorney which means that the defendant pleads guilty and gives up the right to appeal the ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just changed this by allowing the Defendant to make a conditional plea of guilty.

A conditional plea of guilty allows a defendant to plead guilty to take advantage of an offer of settlement from the District Attorney and still have the right to appeal the trial judge's ruling on the motion to suppress. If the appeals court rules that the evidence should have been suppressed, then the guilty plea will be vacated and the defendant will be able to have his case go to trial or have new discussions with the District Attorney for a different plea agreement. In many cases, without the evidence that can not be introduced the District Attorney may choose to drop the prosecution and dismiss the criminal case.

Allowing conditional guilty pleas is likely to cause more defendants to plead guilty thereby reducing the cost of defending the case for defendants and reducing the number of cases that go to trial. It is expected that the judicial system will save money and resources as well. If you have a criminal case you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney who can give advice on conditional guilty pleas.

Massachusetts stores can't impose shoplifting fines without a court order

Judge Douglas Stoddard, a District Court Judge in Natick, Mass. has enjoined Macy's from demanding that shoplifters pay a $500.00 civil fine to Macy's when they are caught by the store.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, Section 85R-1/2 states that shoplifters ". . . shall be liable in tort to the merchant for damages for not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars. . ."  Many stores claim that this law means that a shoplifter owes the store $500.00 if they are caught by the store.  The stores are wrong.  The law means that if the store sues shoplifters in court a judge may award civil damages of up to $500.00.  Macy's has no right to collect $500.00 until after a Judge awarded them damages.

Macy's had a practice of detaining shoplifters and telling them that "if they paid the $500 fine, they would not be civilly sued in court and some said they were told they would not be arrested."  In some cases, people paid the $500.00 and were then turned over to the police who arrested them.  When the cases came before Natick District Court, Judge Stoddard learned of the practices of the store and issued an injunction against the store.The Judge stated “I’m not sure if I have the legal authority to do what I’m doing, but I believe I do have the power to right what’s wrong.  I don’t think I’m asking for much.”

What Macy's was doing was not only wrong, it was criminal.  Massachusetts is a common law state.  This means that crimes exist that were created by English judges before the American Revolution.  Some of these crimes are still in existence.  Macy's actions constituted the common law crimes of compounding a crime and misprision of a crime.  In addition, their actions also constituted the statutory crime of extortion.  

Compounding a crime occurs when a person enters into  an agreement for one person to pay money in exchange for an agreement to not prosecute the crime.  In Massachusetts only the District Attorney or the Attorney General can agree that a crime won't be prosecuted.  Any other person who agrees that a crime won't be prosecuted is committing a criminal act.  If Macy's accepts money and agrees that a shoplifter won't be prosecuted then Macy's has committed the crime of compounding.

If Macy's, having agreed that a crime shall not be reported to the police fails to report the crime then they have committed the crime of misprision of a crime.  Every citizen has the duty to report crimes to the government.  In our society we don't prosecute people who merely fail to report crimes.  However, if a person has received money and then fails to report the crime then they may be prosecuted for misprision.  Compounding is the crime of making the agreement not to prosecute.  Misprision is the act of failing to report the crime.

When Macy's asked for money in exchange for not prosecuting the shoplifter, they committed the crime of extortion.  The elements of extortion are (1) a malicious threat (2) made to a named person (3) to accuse someone of a crime or to injure someone's person or property (4) with intent to extort money. Mass.G.L. c. 265, § 25.  This means that Macy's committed three separate and distinct criminal acts.  When they asked form money the committed extortion.  When they agree to not prosecute they committed compounding of a crime.  If they took the money and then failed to report the shoplifter they committed the crime of misprision.  

When settling a civil case that has the potential for criminal charges, parties want to eliminate the ability to be criminally prosecuted.  This can't be done without violating criminal laws.  When I have encountered this problem in my practice I have agreed to a "gag order" as part of the settlement.  A gag order typically states that neither party can talk about the facts of the case or the settlement without creating civil penalties.  However, I always include language that states that the gag order shall not apply if there is a duty to disclose the information including, but not limited to, disclosure to law enforcement officials.  This exception means that the gag order does not violate any criminal laws.  An attorney who understands the common law crimes should always include language of this nature.  

Macy's practice of demanding a civil penalty without a judgment from a court should cease immediately.  Since the cost of going to court is more than the potential $500.00 recovery this means that it is unlikely that any shoplifters will ever pay the civil penalty.  However, it also means that Macy's will stop violating criminal laws.   

Death and Facebook. The Legacy Feature.

A friend of mine died and his wife posted his death and funeral arrangements on his Facebook page. In this era of social media, Facebook is a natural and expected forum to notify friends and relatives of such information. Unfortunately, use of his Facebook account was unauthorized by Facebook and constituted criminal behaviour under both Massachusetts and Federal law. At the time of his death, his wife had no other way to use his Facebook account to provide notice. Since that time, Facebook has changed its policies and now has a Legacy feature for memorization of Facebook pages after death.

Facebook's Terms of Service states: “You will not share your password let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.” In other words, the only authorized user of a Facebook page is the registered owner. There is no exception for family members after death. Authorization is important because both Massachusetts and Federal law make it a crime for any person who is not an authorized user to access a computer. Since using Facebook means that a user accesses Facebook's computer, any person who is not authorized by Facebook and uses another person's account is committing a crime. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 266, section120F punishes unauthorized computer access by up to thirty days in jail and a one thousand dollar fine. United States Code Title 18Section 1030 punishes unauthorized computer access by up to twenty years in prison and fines. Permission to use a Facebook account by the registered owner of the account is still a crime because Facebook doesn't allow such permission. A widow posting information about her husband's death is unauthorized and a criminal act.

Facebook has recognized people's desires to use Facebook accounts after death and has created a new feature called Legacy. During a person's life, they can designate a person as a “Legacy Contact.” This person will have limited rights to access a Facebook account after a person dies. The Legacy Contact can post a final message and Memorialize the account. Memorialization freezes the account, indicates that the owner died and may allow others to share memories on the account.

Every individual with a Facebook account should consider a legacy contact. This should become part of estate planning and become just as routine as writing a will or making pre-death funeral arrangements. Unauthorized computer access can have serious criminal consequences. A lawyer can help understand how to avoid violating the law and still enjoy social media.

In Massachusetts, search warrants are required to obtain Cell Phone Location Data.

If you watch police shows on tv you have seen episodes where the police go to their computer and pull up a suspect's cell phone's number and then access cell tower information and show the physical location of the suspect. This scenario is somewhat different from real life in that law enforcement needs a court order to obtain this information. However, under theFederal Stored Communications Act (SCA) 28 U.S.C. § 2701, it is very easy for law enforcement to obtain this information. If the police show a reasonable suspicion, then under the SCA, they can obtain a court order to obtain access to cell phone location information (CSLI). As of February 18, 2014, in Massachusetts, police need more than reasonable suspicion. They need probable cause. This is the same standard that police need to obtain a search warrant to search a person's home.

In the case of Commonwealthv. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014), police, investigating a murder, sought and obtained an order for production of CSLI under the Federal SCA to "possibly include or exclude" the defendant "as a suspect.” The Court ruled that police must obtain a search warrant based on probable cause to obtain CSLI.

CSLI data is collected and maintained by cell phone companies in their ordinary course of conducting business. As a third party, the police may request the company to produce the information and, if they comply, would not violate any defendant's rights. However, companies don't have to produce this information as the SCA provides that companies can require court orders before producing this information. When police seek a court order, then the government is compelling the company to provide this information. Under these circumstances, the government is intruding into the private lives and expectations of people and need a warrant based on probable cause.

The Massachusetts court recognized that cell phones have become "an indispensable part of modern [American] life. It is also clear that cell phones act as GPS devices and track the movements of the user of the phone as they travel. The court wrote that “there is no question that it tracks the location of a cellular telephone user.” Americans should not have to worry about the government, as Big Brother, tracking their every movement. As such, at least in Massachusetts, police need a search warrant if they want to use cell phone data to track the movements of a suspect.

Any person who is arrested for a crime and it appears that the police used CSLI to gather evidence should hire an experienced criminaldefense lawyer to defend them.

Threats to publish nude pictures resulted in conviction for extortion.

According to an article in The Valley Dispatch, a man was convicted of extortion as a result of texting threats to publish nude pictures of the victim. In this case, a the victim got a restraining order against the Defendant. He then sent texts and made calls to the victim's cell phone threatening to publish nude pictures of the victim on Facebook. Besides violating the restraining order, these threats also constituted the crime of extortion.

The elements of the crime of extortion are (1) a malicious threat (2) made to a named person (3) to accuse someone of a crime or to injure someone's person or property (4) with intent to extort money or something of value. In this case, a threat to publish nude photos is a malicious threat. He made the threats to a named person, the woman who took out the restraining order. While publishing nude photos is not accusing someone of a crime, it would constitute an injury to the person of the woman. Harm to reputation or ability to obtain employment is harm to a person. Extortion is not limited to physical harm. It includes emotional and psychological harm. The element of intent to extort something of value means of value to the Defendant. It does not have to be money. In the case of Commonwealth v. Miller, 385 Mass. 521 (1982) the value obtained was sexual intercourse.

When a restraining order issues, the person who is restrained should consult an experienced attorney to understand the requirements of the restraining order to avoid going to jail.

Changes in Massachusetts Marijuana Laws.

Most residents of Massachusetts know that marijuana laws have changed but don't seem to understand the changes. Many people think that it is now legal to possess small amounts of marijuana. This is not correct. Massachusetts has decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. However, just because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is no longer a crime that doesn't mean that it is legal. It is still illegal to possess small amounts of marijuana. Instead of being punished by a jail sentence, possession is only punished by a fine of $100.00. This means that in Massachusetts, possession of any amount of marijuana is still illegal. An act that is punished by a fine and not by the possibility of jail is an offence and not a crime. It is comparable to a speeding ticket. It is illegal to drive faster than the speed limit and can be punished by a fine just as possession of small amounts of marijuana is punished by a fine.

Massachusetts voters voted to allow the medical use of marijuana. Under this initiative, it will be legal for people with a doctor's prescription to purchase and possess marijuana for medical use. At this time, Massachusetts has not passed regulations to allow the sale of marijuana and no facilities have been authorized to sell it. I expect that in the next year or so, that the sale of medical marijuana will start in the state. As of today, there is no lawful sales of marijuana.

These two changes in statutes have caused other changes in criminal law. The highest court in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court has issued three recent opinions interpreting marijuana laws. Two of these cases changed the way that the state will interact with people who use marijuana in Massachusetts.

Before the change in the law, the smell of marijuana or burnt marijuana was probable cause for law enforcement to search the premises. Commonly, police smelled marijuana when making motor vehicle stops. The subsequent search of a car frequently lead to an arrest for other crimes. However, possession of marijuana is not necessarily a crime. The smell of marijuana is probable cause for a police officer to believe that the offense of possession of marijuana was committed. However, an offense is not a crime and the police can't search when they believe that an offense has been committed. In the case of Commonwealth v Daniel, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the smell of marijuana or burnt marijuana does not constitute probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

In Commonwealth v. Jackson, the court defined the crime of distribution of marijuana in light of the recent change decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. In this case, police observed people sharing a marijuana cigarette. The passing of a joint had previously constituted the crime of distribution of a drug. The court ruled that the social sharing of small amounts of the drug was within the scope of the new law and intended to be an offense and not a crime. This ruling is a sensible interpretation of the law. If possession of less than one ounce of pot is no longer a crime, why should the sharing of a joint, without the exchange of money be a crime? The Court found that social sharing of joints is no longer a criminal act.

The third case looked at cultivation of marijuana in light of the new law. In the case of Commonwealth v. Palmer the Court held that the growing or cultivation of marijuana was still a crime even if the amount grown is less than an ounce and grown for personal use. The Court found that the new law does not contain an exception for cultivation.

Based on these three cases, it appears that in Massachusetts possession and use of less than an ounce of marijuana is an offense and not a crime. The social sharing of such small amounts of marijuana is also not a crime. However, possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, growing marijuana, and selling marijuana are still crimes in Massachusetts. The interpretation of the changes in the law have limited the ability of police to search and arrest when they find evidence of marijuana use.

The law that decriminalized marijuana has changed many legal proceedings in Massachusetts. However, possession is still illegal. In particular, the illegal use of marijuana can still be the basis for loss of custody in a divorce proceeding. An experienced Massachusetts lawyer can help advise on the changes of the new law and what has not changed in Massachusetts.