Possession with Intent

Possession Of A Controlled Substance With Intent To DistributeDistribution Of A controlled Substance

Possession of Illegal Substances with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of a controlled substance is a much more serious crime than possession for personal use. Attorney Kathleen McCarthy is an aggressive attorney who will fight to win your drug case or have charges reduced to a lesser charge. Attorney McCarthy’s experience as a district court and superior court prosecutor prior to specializing in criminal defense allows her to have a unique perspective on how to successfully defend a drug case. Call Kathleen M. McCarthy at 978-975-8060 or e-mail her right now if you need to fight these types of charges. She is a relentless and aggressive Criminal Drug Defense Attorney who has successfully represented clients in Possession with Intent and Distribution cases. Her practice is focused on district courts across Massachusetts, including Concord District Court, Somerville District Court and Ayer District Court. Concord District Court is located right off of route 2 at 305 Walden Street, Concord MA. Somerville District Court can be easily accessed off of route 93 or the Fellsway at 175 Fellsway West, Somerville MA. Ayer District Court is also easy to locate at 25 East Main Street, Ayer MA.

For first offenders, it is particularly important to fight these charges so that you do not have a criminal record for the rest of your life. For second and subsequent offenders, how your case is defended will make the difference between freedom and a long prison sentence.

Your attorney must get started quickly to investigate the arrest before memories fade, witnesses forget and evidence disappears. Was the search and seizure legal? Did the police have probable cause to do a search? Did they have a search warrant? All of these facts must be quickly investigated.

The crimes of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute or distribution of a controlled substance are felonies in Massachusetts. Because these crimes are felonies, there is a potential sentence of serving time in state prison if you are convicted. Ordinarily, a first time offender is not sentenced to state prison unless there are extenuating circumstances or he or she has a lengthy record of convictions. The controlled substances that are associated with this possession with intent in Massachusetts include “class A," “class B," “class C," “class D," and “class E" substances. These classes of controlled substances are also associated with distribution in Massachusetts.

If you have been charged with possession with intent, police, federal agents or other law enforcement personnel believe that you were in possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crack or other controlled substance and you were going to sell or distribute the drugs. If you have been charged with distribution, typically, the police are alleging that you sold the substance to someone (often a confidential informant or an undercover police officer). Sometimes, while conducting surveillance, law enforcement alleges that they saw a defendant engage in conduct, which based on their training and experience, is consistent with distribution of a controlled substance. Based on these observations the "consumer" is often stopped by the police, a "substance" is allegedly found on the "consumer" and the defendant (seller) is arrested and charged with distribution of the controlled substance.

A strategy employed to defend this type of activity is that the police were biased and simply not telling the truth, that the confidential informant is unreliable and lying or that the police did not see what they claim to have seen. Attacking the bias and prejudice of the law enforcement witnesses is critical to prevail in this type of case. It is imperative that you have an excellent Massachusetts drug lawyer by your side defending you every step of the way if you have been charged with this type of crime.

Additionally, when a client is charged with possession with intent to distribute the government has often found scales, baggies, cutting agents, books and lists during a search to support this claim. Depending on the facts of the case, an argument may be made that these items do not belong to the defendant or they were there for another legitimate purpose. To ensure that you get the strongest defense based on the facts of your case, contact Attorney McCarthy and she will discuss your case.

Defending Distribution of Drugs and Possession With Intent To Distribute Drug Cases

The first area that an experienced Massachusetts drug attorney examines is the facts that led up to a stop, exit order and search of a defendant or a car or house. In Massachusetts, a citizen has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, if you were driving a car or were a passenger in a car that was stopped, ordered out of the car or the car was searched that led to the confiscation of contraband and criminal charges against you, it is imperative that you contact an experienced criminal defense drug attorney. In the appropriate situation, a motion to suppress the stop, exit order and seizure of the evidence should be filed.

Searches With A Search Warrant

There are two types of searches that are routinely conducted. In Massachusetts, it is preferred for law enforcement to apply for a search warrant before conducting a search. The warrant must provide probable cause to the issuing clerk magistrate for a reasonable person to believe that contraband will be found at a particular location and usually during a specific time period. In the event that a warrant is issued and a search is conducted that results in the retrieval of contraband and criminal charges against you, the application for the search warrant must be examined by an experienced Massachusetts drug lawyer. In the event the legal standard for probable cause was not met, a motion to suppress evidence must be filed. This motion alleges that a defendant’s state and constitutional rights to privacy were violated by the illegal search conducted by the state. The defendant typically files a motion, an affidavit by the attorney and a memorandum in order to proceed in this manner. In this type of situation, the defendant maintains that the affiant failed to establish probable cause with the information provided within the four corners of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant. In the event this motion is successful, the case is often dismissed against the defendant because the case cannot be proved without the drugs.

Warrantless Searches

If you are faced with a situation in which you are charged with possession with intent to distribute drugs or distribution of drugs and you were searched on the street or your home or car was searched without a search warrant, the circumstances surrounding the search must be carefully scrutinized by an experienced criminal lawyer. This type of motion requires an affidavit by the defendant alleging the circumstances surrounding the stop, exit order and search and the filing of a motion. There is no requirement for the defense to file a memorandum with this type of case, because the preferred process of applying for a search warrant was circumvented. Again, if the drug attorney is successful and the drugs are suppressed, the Commonwealth typically dismisses the case.

Attorney McCarthy has enjoyed much success with having motions to suppress drugs and firearms allowed.

Case Results » Possession With Intent
  • Client Charged With Possession Of An Illegal Substance With Intent To Distribute Receives Pre-Trial Probation

    Police were called to a multi-unit dwelling because of an alleged physical altercation. It was alleged that on the way to the building they were informed that the location was a “known drug house.” When the officers arrived, they interviewed the defendant, who appeared to be the victim of an assault. The police eventually entered the apartment and saw what they believed was illegal controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. The police sought a warrant and searched the premises. The defendant was eventually charged with possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute and related charges.

    Attorney McCarthy filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging that the entrance into the apartment and the search was illegal. She also filed a motion to dismiss the charges because there was no probable cause to charge the defendant with the criminal offenses. After lengthy discussions the defendant was placed on pre-trial probation. The case will be dismissed provided the client does not get into any more legal trouble/ The client did not have to admit to sufficient facts and was not convicted.

  • Attorney McCarthy Successfully Upholds Superior Court Suppression Of A Firearm In The Massachusetts Appeals Court

    A Detective approached and searched a citizen who was walking with two companions that the Detective believed were “gang” members and had previously been arrested for firearm offenses. The Detective claimed that this information coupled with his belief that the group was in a “high crime” area entitled him to approach and search the defendant. Upon searching the defendant the Detective found a firearm. The defendant was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and faced serving a mandatory minimum sentence of eighteen months in prison without the possibility of parole.

    Attorney McCarthy represented the defendant in the Massachusetts Appeals Court and claimed the holding of the motion judge allowing the motion to suppress evidence must be affirmed. She argued that the Detective violated the defendant's state and federal constitutional rights as he did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing, was about to commit or did commit a crime or that he was armed and dangerous when he searched him. The Appeals Court agreed and affirmed the motion judge's order allowing the motion to suppress.

  • Judge Allows Motion To Suppress Drugs And Related Evidence Seized Without A Warrant For Client Facing Mandatory Minimum Sentence For A Charge Of Possession With Intent To Distribute A Controlled Substance Within 1000 Feet Of A School Or Park

    The police report alleged that a police officer activated its blue lights and pulled a car over because of a traffic violation. The officer claimed that as he “exited the cruiser he immediately became aware of a pungent odor” of what he believed was marijuana. The defendant produced his license and registration. The officer asked the defendant what was in the car and the defendant produced a pipe and a mason jar with less than ½ ounce of marijuana. Thus, there was no probable cause to believe that there was criminal activity afoot. The officer claimed that he continued to smell a “strong odor” of marijuana and used this odor as justification for a search of the whole car, including the trunk. The illegal search of the car eventually led to the illegal search of the defendant's home. During the search of the car and home the police confiscated numerous mason jars containing marijuana, a glass pipe, a plastic baggy with alleged marijuana, unused baggies, small grinders, a wallet and money.

    Attorney McCarthy filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the warrantless search claiming that the exit order and subsequent search of the car and the defendant's home was illegal because the officer did not have probable cause to believe that the defendant was committing, had committed or was about to commit a crime. During the evidentiary hearing, Attorney McCarthy stressed that the purpose of Mason Jars is to keep the product fresh and the smell inside of the jar. Accordingly, the testimony of the police officer that there was a pugent odor of marijuana when he exited his cruiser was incredible based on the fact that the lion's share of the marijuana was inside of the jars. The judge agreed and allowed the defendant's motion to suppress.