Boston Lawyer Blog

Massachusetts SJC Holds Search Unlawful Absent Showing of Probable Cause that Defendant Was Not Registered for Use of Medical Marijuana

Published on: May 1, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

The rapid liberalization of Massachusetts marijuana policy—including decriminalization of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and legalization of medical marijuana—has had dramatic consequences for the Massachusetts law regarding search and seizure, offering even some defendants whose conduct has not become legal an unexpected avenue of defense. We have written here before about the Supreme Judicial Court’s holdings that neither smelling marijuana (in a necessarily unknown quantity), nor seeing marijuana in an amount estimated to be less than an ounce, constitutes probable cause for a warrantless search following decriminalization of possession of less than an ounce of the drug. The SJC has now made it clear that the medical marijuana ballot initiative, too, changes the landscape for law enforcement seeking to search for and seize marijuana. The Court’s April 27, 2015 decision in Commonwealth v. Canning held that following passage of that initiative, “a search warrant affidavit setting out facts that simply establish probable cause to believe the owner is growing marijuana on the property in question, without more, is insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the suspected cultivation is a crime.” To be entitled to a valid warrant, the officer must also establish that the person responsible is not registered to cultivate the marijuana for medical use.

The Gender Wage Gap Persists, But There Are Legal Solutions to Pay Inequality

Published on: March 6, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

At this year’s Academy Awards, Patricia Arquette used the platform she gained as a Best Supporting Actress winner to speak about pay inequality, saying, “It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” Persistent gender discrimination in employment is a barrier to that goal, but for women who experience pay discrimination at work, there are a variety of possible legal remedies. This post explores some of the laws available to help address wage inequality under federal and Massachusetts law and outlines some of the ways that they do–and do not–protect female workers from unfair pay.

A federal law, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), forbids employers from discriminating in the payment of wages on the basis of sex by paying employees of one sex less “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” Equal pay is required even for employees whose jobs are not identical, so long as they are substantially equal. There are numerous exceptions to the equal pay requirement: an employer can justify unequal wages if it can demonstrate that the difference results from “(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.”

Change in Federal Law Regarding Marijuana Enforcement is Important for Massachusetts

Published on: December 23, 2014 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

A new federal spending law enshrines in statutory form the policy that federal agents will no longer seek to interfere with medical marijuana retail establishments in states where they are legal. As Massachusetts law with regard to marijuana possession and use continues to evolve, this change lessens the likelihood that Massachusetts residents will find themselves federally prosecuted for the sale or possession of marijuana for medical use. However, federal prohibitions on, and penalties for, possession of marijuana remain far broader and harsher than those under Massachusetts law, and the new provision affects only medical marijuana; Massachusetts residents therefore remain vulnerable to federal prosecution for conduct that is not criminal under state law.

Massachusetts law regarding marijuana possession has undergone major changes in the last few years. First, in 2008, voters passed a ballot question (question 2) decriminalizing (but not legalizing) possession (but not distribution or possession with intent to distribute) of less than an ounce of marijuana. In 2013, a second ballot question (question 3), legalizing the medical use of marijuana, also passed. There is currently a campaign seeking to put the question of legalization of marijuana for recreational use before voters in 2016.

New Case Illustrates the Strict Limits of Wiretapping in Massachusetts

Published on: November 25, 2014 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

The image of an informant wearing a wire or secretly recording phone conversations during a criminal investigation is extremely common on television and in the movies. In Massachusetts, however, the use of a wiretap as an investigative tool of law enforcement is subject to extremely strict limits and protections that go far beyond the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. In a November 21, 2014 decision in the case of Commonwealth v. Burgos, an appeal by a defendant convicted of a gang-related killing, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) reiterated that wiretapping is only available under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 272 section 99 in order to investigate narrowly delineated categories of crime.

The statute allows police to make recordings with the consent of only one party, acting undercover or as an informant, when investigating certain serious offenses committed “in connection with organized crime,” that is, “a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services.” In Burgos, police obtained a warrant to allow the defendant’s cellmate to secretly record him and were successful in obtaining a recording of his confession to a murder committed in retaliation for the killing of a member of his gang. Burgos was convicted largely on the strength of that surreptitious recording. On appeal, the SJC reversed the conviction, granting the defendant a new trial. Although the killing was gang-related–the affidavit in support of the warrant spoke of “two rival gangs . . . both involved in selling narcotics”–the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the murder and “the narcotics or any other ongoing business enterprise of either gang.” In short, the court concluded, “A retaliatory killing alone, without a clear link to the goals of a criminal enterprise, does not amount to a connection to organized crime,” and the warrant was therefore invalid and the evidence illegally obtained.

Free Speech, Trespass, and the Massachusetts SJC’s decision in Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.

Published on: October 31, 2014 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

The Supreme Judicial Court’s October 10, 2014 decision in Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., is now the high-water mark in Massachusetts for the right to access private property, over the objection of the property owner, in order to fulfill a constitutional right. The decision addresses the right of a candidate for public office to solicit signatures for ballot access outside the entrance to a supermarket, but could have important implications for the exercise of free speech in Massachusetts. It also could have implications for certain criminal defendants; our firm has represented a defendant arrested for trespass when distributing literature or protesting on private property.

When a Roche Bros. employee told Steven Glovsky, a candidate for Governor’s Counsel, that the supermarket’s policy did not allow signature solicitation on its private property, preventing him from seeking signatures to get on the ballot, he proceeded to file suit. The SJC in Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int’l, Inc., 388 Mass. 83 (1983) (Batchelder I) previously upheld a candidate’s right under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights Article 9 to seek signatures in the common areas of a shopping mall, comparing the mall to traditional public fora like downtown areas. In Glovsky, the SJC went a step further, clarifying that whether or not a location is functionally equivalent to a traditional public forum, signature solicitation must be allowed if the interests of the candidate outweigh the interests of the property owner. The SJC found that Glovsky had a “substantial interest” in soliciting signatures on the sidewalk of the supermarket, which was the only one in town, and that allowing such solicitation would not unduly burden Roche Bros.’ property interests by, for example, disrupting its business. (Glovsky’s suit was still unsuccessful, however, because the SJC found that the supermarket had not violated the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.)