Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court: Judges can dismiss complaints against juveniles to keep them from getting a record if they feel their arrests were in error

A Boston high-school student caught with five small bags of marijuana has sparked a change in the way judges deal with teens arrested on charges the judges don't feel are warranted.

Ironically, however, the decision does not help the kid, who was seeking to have his permanent court record expunged because the judge in his case dismissed the charge because he should never have been arrested in the first place. In its ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld past rulings that state law mandates court records are forever, no matter how egregious the wrong done to a defendant.

According to the SJC ruling, the teen, 15 and a student at an unnamed Boston high school, came to school late on Jan. 24, 2011 - and reeking of pot, The school's dean of discipline began to grill him:

When the dean spoke to the juvenile, the juvenile became "very defensive and agitated." An administrative search of the juvenile's person was conducted in the school nurse's office, which resulted in the recovery of "[five] plastic bags of ... what appeared to be marijuana" that was located inside the right pocket of "a second pair of shorts under his pants."

Police were called and they decided to charge him with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

The teen's lawyer asked a judge to dismiss the case before arraignment, saying that mere possession of a small amount of pot, even if divided into five bags, was not enough to warrant the charge, and that arraignment would create a permanent record that could follow the teen. The judge agreed, said the possession was not enough to warrant "probable cause," but said the teen had to be arraigned first, then have the charge dismissed.

The state's highest court, however, said that it was laying down the law for juvenile cases and that a judge has the discretion to dismiss a case before arraignment:

The application in support of the complaint noted that the administrative search of the juvenile's person revealed five plastic bags of what appeared to be marijuana, but made no mention of smoking paraphernalia. Because one would expect a police officer to have mentioned such paraphernalia if it were found, we infer that the absence of any reference to such paraphernalia in the application suggests that none was found on the juvenile's person during the search. But, applying that same inference, we conclude that the search also did not uncover a scale, a cellular telephone or pager, or empty plastic bags, each of which would be consistent with dealing drugs. Nor, applying that inference, was any cash found in his possession, which suggests both that he had not sold any marijuana on his way to school and that he was not concerned with the need to make change if he did make a sale. The absence of drug paraphernalia may be consistent with an intent to distribute marijuana, see Commonwealth v. Wilson, 441 Mass. 390, 401 (2004), but considering the totality of what was not found on his person, no reasonable inference can be made that the juvenile intended to distribute the marijuana in his possession, especially where the smell of marijuana coming from the juvenile's person suggests that he had just smoked marijuana.

The court then moves onto the issue of keeping a teen from getting a court record in such a case:

Where, as here, a juvenile files a motion to dismiss a complaint before arraignment based on the absence of probable cause, and where a judge, after reviewing the "four corners" of the complaint application, concludes that there is a substantial likelihood that the motion is meritorious, a judge does not abuse his discretion in deciding to hear and rule on that motion before arraignment to protect the child from the potential adverse consequences of a CARI record. Because G.L. c. 119, § 53, mandates that juveniles "as far as practicable ... shall be treated, not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance," we recognize that the juvenile justice system "is primarily rehabilitative, cognizant of the inherent differences between juvenile and adult offenders, and geared toward 'the correction and redemption to society of delinquent children.' " Commonwealth v. Magnus M., 461 Mass. 459, 461 (2012), quoting Metcalf v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 648, 651 (1959). ... We therefore recognize the importance of giving Juvenile Court judges broad discretion to protect the best interests of children consistent with the interests of justice.

Justice Francis Spina dissented, arguing the police did have probable cause to make an arrest:

Granted, he did not have a scale, a pager, or a cellular telephone, but he was entering a closed environment, a school, that had many sets of vigilant eyes protective of the best interests of other children in the school. He could not carry the usual items needed to set up shop. See id. Instead, he carried a small amount for distribution--just enough for the brief periods between classes when he could conduct his business without calling undue attention to himself. See id. In all likelihood, given the school environment, he could deal only with people he knew and trusted. The manner in which he concealed the marijuana suggests he might access his supply in a restroom or outdoors during a break--after satisfying himself that no authority figures were in the vicinity. Having been discovered, he became "very defensive and agitated." The totality of these circumstances paints a picture from which a reasonable person could infer that the juvenile intended to distribute the paltry amount of marijuana secreted on his person.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

With the local casino situation a bust, let me place a few bets here.

* In no time, the marijuana charge will be but a footnote on a much more "impressive" criminal record for "Humberto."

* By taking the case all the way to the SJC and billing taxpayers, Humberto's public defenders will be enjoying a very lucrative Thanksgiving.

* The school officials who did the right thing in this case will just throw their hands in the air next time. Why try?

up
Voting closed 0

Okay. Not sure what planet that happens on - a fair amount of public defense work is pro-bono - not that a leaded-exhaust damaged brain can get that.

I mean, they only ensure that people don't get fucked over by aggressive but sloppy cops and careerist DAs more interested in their "stats" than justice, and are treated fairly and proportionately. Not that they do anything important.

Not like they get paid anything near the money that certain public employees get paid to sleep in cars on double time or stare in holes while drinking dunks or anything. That's lucrative.

up
Voting closed 0

And we are still trying to find good men and women to take these "lucrative" positions. For some reason, we still can't find good qualified people to sign up for the job.

That being said Adam,

Ironically, however, the decision does not help the kid, who was seeking to have his permanent court record expunged because the judge in his case dismissed the charge because he should never have been arrested in the first place.

I think you mean he shouldn't have been charged with intent to distribute, but charged with possession instead (still arrested). It doesn't look like they challenged the search, just the intent charge.

up
Voting closed 0

Or "natural/lifestyle causes"? In either case, your losses were personal and I'm sorry to hear that.

However, it sounds like you are trying to play that tired old "dangerous work" card again. Not that public defenders don't do dangerous work.

They just don't get paid as much. $250K a year??? Nope.

How many times have uHubbers set you straight on where being a cop lands in the grander scheme of "dangerous jobs"?

How many family members have you lost to logging or commercial fishing?

Maybe people don't want to be cops because they don't want to deal with bullies - ever consider that?

up
Voting closed 0

Citations needed!

up
Voting closed 0

Your point was to belittle another job at the expense of another, with the intent of showing that people who you think do nothing (sleep and stare into holes) get paid more than someone else who you think deserves more (public defenders probably make a lot more than ADA's as most have other practices but that is another issue).

Danger has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that people don't want to be police officers, and the City (or State) still cannot get enough qualified people to sign up and take the job. Maybe they don't want to work with bullies, maybe they don't want to for other reasons but you still have no idea. The fact remains you still think you are better than them.

If you want to make $250K as a cop, go ahead. It probably means you will die in 10 years, or can do something that everyone else can't (be a great officer). I'm willing to bet you stay in your normal job.

up
Voting closed 0

I see her point as responding to O-Fish-L's attempt to besmirch the contribution of public defenders, and, as such, directed at O-Fish-L and not directed at police in general.

up
Voting closed 0

Swirly, I spent a few years working overnight at a Store 24, statistically more dangerous than being a cop and exponentially more deadly than working in a teaching hospital or whatever you do, and that experience in the real world has shown me that cops have a more dangerous job than public defenders. I'm sorry someone has to tell you this. Also, I don not think that phrase means what you think it means, at least not in Massachusetts. In MA, true public defenders are staff attorneys who work for the Committee for Public Counsel Services. They are salaried and make a little more on average than state prosecutors, and they also only represent about 10% of the indigent defense work in the state. The other 90% is done by private attorneys who are contracted cases from CPCS but bill the state by the hour in addition to taking private clients, meaning that they clean up. And no, $250K is not out of the question. In fact, it's probably easier to make $250K as a bar advocate than a cop. I don't mean this is un fair. There's a bigger investment (law school, to start) to recoup. But your weird fear/hatred of Teh Copz is leading you to make statements that are less and less grounded in reality.

up
Voting closed 0

“There’s no incentive to assess the value of the case and make a decision on how to resolve the case quickly. The only way these lawyers make money is to bill a number of hours on a case … that drives up the costs,” (District Attorney Dan) Conley said. -- (AP) Jan. 24, 2011

Swirly, Years ago, Dan Kennedy earned the Boston Globe's title for being a blogger who "bloviates beyond his expertise." Are you going for the female title? Even though you're incorrigible, take it from me that some "one or two lawyer firms" are making $500,000 to $1,000,000 each year working as public counsel. Most are excelIent attorneys who serve a valuable purpose. Some are even my ex-cop friends who make great defense attorneys because they often know better when police or prosecutors are in error. Still, I agree with D.A. Conley, they bill more hours to make more money, hence the ridiculous appeals like the one above.

up
Voting closed 0

Is this a cleaver way to keep punks with a deserving criminal record on file or just a coincidence to the result of lenient judges wanting juvies to have second (and third and fourth and fifth) chance to become model citizens? Can't tell what the original intent is of he judges

up
Voting closed 0

Probable cause is for everybody.

up
Voting closed 0

G.L. c. 119, § 53, mandates that juveniles "as far as practicable ... shall be treated, not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance,"

Of course, when you went drinking in the woods as a youth and drove home all slow and screwy THAT WAS DIFFERENT, amirite?

up
Voting closed 0

Is this an excuse to lessen punishment once they commit other crimes? "the young man already had a perm record for an once of pot so we will lessen the young mans punishment for armed robbery/assault, to balance things out"

up
Voting closed 0

This is kinda irrelevant, but do any of you get a laugh out of when a lawyer describes his client (who is on trail for something very bad/violent) as "a decent human being" I can't help but chuckle at cheesy lawyer lingo. To think that this would influence a judge or jury is humorous

up
Voting closed 0

complaints if the feel the arrests were in error. However, this is a standard that should apply to ANYONE, regardless of age. To state this practice should apply only to juvenies so "they don't get a record" is another example of giving unfair preference to a suspect solely due to an arbitrary standard (the suspect's age). Unless you don't have aproblem with a 20-something with no past criminal history "getting a record" just because they're an adult, even if the arrest may have been unjustified.

Equal justice for all means you should charge and try a suspect based on the crimes they're accused of committing, and not "juvenile" vs "adult". Want to argue the "bealding harts" nonsense (immature, impulse, didn't appreciate right from wrong, etc). Then let the suspect's defense atorney make those arguments at trial.

up
Voting closed 0

I've got no problem that juveniles get more chances to have past indiscretions chalked up to immaturity - some mistakes by teens really have little predictive power for the type of adult they become - but why should there be any record anywhere for anybody whose actions though reasonably confused with wrong-doing turned out upon examination not to be illegal?

up
Voting closed 0

David, well said.

up
Voting closed 0