January 24, 2011

• Steven Topazio wrote this April 27, 2014 at 11:44 am

The defendant, a chef from Boston, hired Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio to represent him after he was arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and possession of cocaine. Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio attacked the sufficiency of the complaint filed against his client and filed a motion to dismiss with the court. The defendant was arrested when police responded to a bar called Las Pupusas in Chelsea for a fight in the bar. When the police arrived they observed no one fighting but were informed by the bartender that the defendant, who was seated at the bar, was cut off and asked to leave. The police report stated that the police officer told the defendant to leave the bar and grabbed him by the arm to escort him out of the establishment but when the defendant pulled his arm away from the officer he was taken to the ground. After being arrested, cocaine was found in the defendant’s wallet.
Courts generally do not inquire into the competency or sufficiency of the evidence in support of a criminal complaint. However, despite this general rule, a court may properly review the evidence presented to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, or to determine whether the acts which the defendant is alleged to have done constitute a crime. In the Municipal and District Courts, the charging document is the complaint, rather than the grand jury indictment, but a determination of probable cause is similar. Once a complaint issues, a motion to dismiss is the appropriate and only way to challenge a finding of probable cause.
Today, Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio argued that the charges against his client should be dismissed because the police report did not establish probable cause to believe his client committed those offenses. Attorney Topazio argued that according to statute, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew that the officer was attempting to arrest him to be charged with resisting instead of only trying to escort the defendant out of the restaurant, (which was empty), which also did not establish that defendant disturbed the public tranquility, or alarmed or provoked others, so as to be charged with disorderly conduct. Despite the Commonwealth’s opposition, the court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.