June 03, 2013

• Steven Topazio wrote this May 5, 2014 at 3:05 am

The client, a 34 year old musician, was arrested for dissemination of child pornography, two counts of possession of child pornography, possession with intent to distribute class D and C substances and cultivation of marijuana, hired Boston Criminal Defense Attorney to defend him. Attorney Topazio learned that his client was the subject of an undercover investigation of peer-to-peer file sharing computer software (such as LimeWire and FrostWire) networks to identify those possessing and/or sharing child pornography. Once the client’s computer was identified by law enforcement as one that possessed and shared child pornography, a search warrant was issued and the client’s house was searched and his computers seized. According to the police report, police found child pornography in the form of DVDs, as well as in the form of files on two computers, 36 marijuana plants, large amounts of marijuana and mushrooms. Attorney Topazio attacked the search warrant of his client’s home by attacking the warrantless entry into his client’s computer by law enforcement. Attorney Topazio based his attack on Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which protects against warrantless intrusions upon privacy interests. That protection covers the obvious disruption caused by police who enter a defendant’s house in search of criminal actors and evidence of their activities. Article 14’s protections also cover less obvious invasions, like the use of electronic devices or human ears to eavesdrop on private conversations. In evaluating the likelihood of success, and evidence against his client, the client decided to forgo the motion to suppress in favor of a change of plea. Knowing the maximum sentence for dissemination of child pornography was 10-20 years in state prison, the Commonwealth recommended a 4-5 State Prison sentence on a change of plea for the charge of possession of child pornography. In preparation of a change of plea, Attorney Topazio presented the court with a sentencing memorandum outlining mitigating factors. Attorney Topazio pointed out that his client was also a victim, being sexually abused by his father and sister starting at the age of three. Attorney Topazio pointed out to the court that his client’s father was a sex offender and was addicted to child pornography as well as drugs and alcohol, and that his client grew up in that environment, being abused and exposed to child pornography. Attorney Topazio encouraged his client to undergo sex abused therapy, which the court took into consideration. Today, despite the Commonwealth’s recommendation of imprisonment of 4-5 years in state prison, Attorney Topazio argued that his client did not require the strict security of state prison and persuaded the court to commit his client to 2 ½ years to the house of correction, followed by a term of probation.