Stephen Neyman is a Worcester County drug crime lawyer who defends the criminally accused in Worcester County and throughout the state. Attorney Neyman has nearly 30 years of experience. He started his career practicing criminal defense in the San Francisco area and then became a Los Angeles prosecutor. Attorney Neyman knows how to defend his clients from every angle and from both sides of the courtroom. He works with skill and enthusiasm, and he has a results-oriented mindset. Attorney Neyman will ensure that the police and the courts respect your rights, and he will be in your corner from start to finish.DEFENDING DRUGS CRIMES IN WORCESTER COUNTY
There are several Superior and District Courts spanning across Worcester County, including in Worcester, Fitchburg, Gardner, Westborough, Clinton, Uxbridge, and Milford. If you have been charged with a drug crime in Worcester County, you need an experienced Worcester County Drug Crime Attorney on your side to represent you. Attorney Stephen Neyman has represented clients charged with drug crimes in Worcester County for over 20 years and will assist you in all aspects with the criminal charge.
No matter the charge, you will face an aggressive prosecution. Every possible state and federal law will be used. Retaining the services of an experienced Worcester County drug crimes Attorney Stephen Neyman is the first step in protecting your future and your rights. Drug charges demand an aggressive and thorough defense. You will have peace of mind in a difficult time with the right attorney on your side, knowing that your lawyer is working tirelessly on your behalf.WORCESTER COUNTY DRUG CRIME CASES
A well-known Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case occurred in Worcester County. In Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 438 Mass. 213 (2002), after a several month long police investigation, which included information collected from informants, extensive police surveillance, and execution of a controlled buy, a Sergeant with the Worcester Police Department was issued a search warrant with a no-knock provision. The no-knock search warrant was for an apartment located in the city of Worcester and sought property such as heroin, drug distribution paraphernalia, financial records, money and documents related to the occupancy of the building, as well as any persons who might be found in the apartment. During the execution of the no-knock search warrant, it was dark outside, there was no suspects acting as look outs in the apartment’s windows, and the first floor front door to the common area was opened, which resulted in the officers proceeding up to the third floor apartment and breaking into the apartment with a battering ram. The execution of the search warrant resulted in seizure of heroin, cocaine, and equipment for processing, packaging and distribution, as well as pagers, $3,099 in cash, a handgun and 37 rounds of ammunition. The defendant was charged and convicted at trial of trafficking in cocaine and heroin in the amount exceeding 200 grams each, as well as possession of controlled substances in a school zone with the intent to distribute.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the no-knock search was unlawful and therefore, excluded the illegally seized evidence and reversed the conviction for the defendant. The Court reasoned that although the no-knock search warrant was issued lawfully, the circumstance during the execution changed, and therefore invalidated the no-knock provision of the search warrant.
The knock and announce requirement is generally required for search warrants for the purpose of protecting individuals privacy interest and to minimize potential for property damage or violence during the execution of the search warrant. However, there are exceptions to the knock and announce requirement where there is probable cause to believe officer safety may be at risk or evidence will be destroyed. Normally, as in Jimenez, the showing of probable cause justifying the no-knock search will be in the affidavit submitted with the application of the search warrant. However, a showing can be made after the search warrant is issued, if exigent circumstances arise during the search justifying a no-knock entry. Additionally, if the situation the officer’s expected when applying for the no-knock search warrant is less exigent than they originally thought, the no-knock provision may turn out to be unlawful.
In Jimenez, the court found that there was no probable cause for justifying the no-knock search warrant in regards to officer safety because there was no particular evidence suggesting there were weapons located in the apartment, that the defendant was known to carry a weapon, nor that the defendant had a history with possession of weapons or violence. Although, the court found that there was probable cause to issue the no-knock search warrant originally, because the extra-time involved in knocking and announcing might afford the suspects enough time to destroy the evidence. This was based on the fact that the suspects could overlook the police entry from the third floor windows and that the first floor common area door was normally locked. However, when the Worcester police officers executed the search warrant, it was after dark, there was no lookouts in the window of the apartment, the first floor door was open and therefore, there was no evidence to suggest the suspects would have noticed the police and would be destroying evidence. Because of this, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the search of the defendant’s apartment was illegal and all the evidence obtained resulting from that illegal search must be suppressed and reversed the defendant’s conviction.
Attorney Stephen Neyman has dealt with hundreds of motions to suppress throughout his over 20 year career as a Worcester County Drug Crime Lawyer. He is frequently in Worcester County courthouses representing clients and has an excelled reputation among his colleagues. Mr. Neyman has reviewed search warrant affadvits and applications countless times over his 20 year career. He will ensure that the police investigation was conducted lawfully, and that none of your right were violated. If you have been charged with a drug crime in Worcester County, do not hesitate to contact Attorney Stephen Neyman.
If you would like to speak with Attorney Neyman, call the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C. at (617) 263-6800 or send him and e-mail through this website. As he prides himself on first-class client service, Attorney Neyman will get back to you promptly. He encourages calls 24/7, including holidays.