Steven J. Topazio - Attorney At Law

The defendant, who was living in Hawaii, could not renew her license when she found out there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest in the Brookline District Court, hired Attorney Topazio to represent her. Attorney Topazio went to the Brookline Court and discovered the warrant was for defaulting on a probation case. Attorney Topazio met with the Probation Officer assigned to his client’s case to see if the case could be resolved without his client having to appear because she was stuck in Hawaii and could not travel without identification. Today, Attorney Topazio appeared in the Brookline District Court and caused the Court to recall the outstanding warrant against his client in her absence, and caused fines to be paid so as to allow the court to close the case against his client.

The defendant, who was a recovering addict, suffered a drug relapse after he lost his job of several years; experienced the trauma of his substance abuse counselor dying two weeks prior to his arrest, then relapsed when his girlfriend left him with their infant daughter and obtained a restraining order against him. During the drug relapse, the defendant was arrested for violating the restraining order after threatening to kill his girlfriend. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Due to the strength of the Commonwealth’s cases, on June 17, 2010 the defendant plead guilty to dockets 1066CR0676 alleging, among other things, a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of ch. 209A § 7 and 1066CR0687 alleging, among other things, a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of ch. 209A § 7. Following the defendant’s plea, the Commonwealth brought an additional charge against him alleging stalking in violation of G.L. c. 265, §43(b), a violation of which carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year. "To establish the crime of stalking in violation of G.L. c. 265, §43(a), the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant '(1) willfully and maliciously engage[d] in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarm[ed] or annoy[ed] that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) [made] a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury.' To establish the aggravated form of stalking at issue in this case, §43(b) (stalking in violation of court order), the Commonwealth must prove both a pattern of conduct constituting stalking under §43(a) and that the conduct violated (in this case) a 209A order that was in effect.” Attorney Topazio filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge and submitted a memorandum of law in which Attorney Topazio alleged that his client cannot be tried on the new charge due to double jeopardy grounds. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy in life or limb. The constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy has been held to consist of three separate guarantees: (1) "It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Attorney Topazio argued that to establish the aggravated form of stalking, §43(b) (stalking in violation of court order), the Commonwealth must prove both a pattern of conduct constituting stalking under §43(a) and that the conduct violated (in this case) a 209A order that was in effect. Attorney Topazio pointed out to the Court that the Commonwealth, however, is relying on the same conduct previously the subject of his client’s convictions of violating the 209A order under dockets 1066CR0676 and 1066CR0687, and could not be tried on the aggravated offense because it violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court took the motion under advisement.

The defendant, a professional mother of a young child, was arrested after making a false report that her motor vehicle was stolen, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio discovered that his client made the false report because her boyfriend pressured her into doing so when he was allegedly seen by police abandoning her car which he had been using, which later was found to contain 34 plastic bags of cocaine. At his client’s arraignment, Attorney Topazio met with the District Attorney in an attempt to resolve his client’s case, arguing that his client was coerced into breaking the law by her boyfriend and thus not responsible. Attorney Topazio pointed out that his client, who had no criminal record, allegedly confessed to the police as to what she had done and took responsibility for her actions. Attorney Topazio pointed out that his client’s boyfriend pressured his client to report the car stolen so he wouldn't get arrested. Today, after several court appearances, Attorney Topazio convinced the District Attorney to place his client on pre-trial probation for a period of six months, instead of having his client plead guilty or admit to sufficient facts, thus preserving her record and career.

The defendant, with criminal case entries in several courts on his CORI but with no convictions, hired Attorney Topazio to seal his criminal record. Attorney Topazio filed a motion to seal in court and argued that in order to advance his client’s career his client needed a clean record. Attorney Topazio argued that if his client's CORI cauased him to lose employment then he might fall onto the welfare of the state. Attoreny Topazio request to seal his client’s record was allowed by the court.

The defendant, who was on probation, wanted to terminate his probation early, and hired Attorney Topazio. On May 12, 2009, the defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of Assault and Battery and was placed on probation for two (2) years to May 12, 2011, with conditions of probation that included, among other things, random alcohol and drug testing, and counseling. Attorney Topazio contacted his client’s therapist and learned that his client completed all the behavior modification and parenting skills that he had worked on with his therapist during his therapeutic sessions and obtained a report confirming same. Attorney Topazio contacted his client’s probation officer and negotiated with her and reached an agreement that she would not oppose his client’s motion to terminate. Attorney Topazio filed a motion to terminate his client’s probation and argued in court that his client had met all the terms of his probation and was in compliance with the terms of his probation since May 12, 2009 and that all the goals of probation were met and requested that his client’s probation be terminated early. Despite the lack of opposition form probation, the court took no action on the motion to terminate probation and suggested that the motion be argued at a later date because the court reasoned that not enough time had gone by to allow the motion at that time. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged the defendant’s progress and rewarded him by vacating all conditions of probation, and further ordered that the supervised probation be changed to limited supervision, with no reporting and vacating all remaining payments.

The defendant, who had been divorced for several years, received notice of an Abuse Prevention Order filed against him by his ex-wife, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio obtained a copy of the supporting affidavit which supported the Temporary Restraining Order and learned that the complainant was placed in fear from phone calls attributed to the defendant. Attorney Topazio had his client compile six months of his phone records and verification of his whereabouts for the time in question, in anticipation of the Court hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Topazio was effective in persuading the court to rule that there was insufficient evidence in the plaintiff’s affidavit to support issuance of the permanent order.

The defendant, who operates a courier service, was given a citation for speeding and not wearing his seat belt, hired Attorney Topazio to represent him at a Magistrate’s Hearing. Today, Attorney Topazio argued that his client, who was nervous when stopped by police, instinctively went to remove his seatbelt which he thought was on, and was accused of being untruthful by the officer when questioned on that point. Attorney Topazio convinced the Magistrate to give his client the benefit of doubt and requested that his client be found not responsible, and the Magistrate agreed.

The defendant, while away at college in the State of Rhode Island was convicted in 2007 of OUI and had his license suspended. After serving his license suspension the defendant had his license reinstated by the State of Rhode Island as a result of the OUI conviction. After several years, the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts notified the defendant that he needed to bring documentation verifying that there were no suspension in Rhode Island otherwise the RMV would not renew the defendant’s MA license. After providing the requested documentation, the Massachusetts RMV suspended the defendant’s right to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts for one year due to the RI OUI conviction, hired Attorney Topazio to restore his driving privileges. Attorney Topazio obtained verification from the State of Rhode Island that his client’s right to operate a motor vehicle in the foreign state was restored. Attorney Topazio appealed the suspension directly to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles but was unsuccessful. Attorney Topazio next appealed the suspension to the Division of Insurance Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle and argued before the Board that it was unfair to suspend his client’s license following the initial Rhode Island suspension, and the Board agreed. Following a hearing, the Board voted to modify the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and voted to issue his client’s license fulltime forthwith

The defendant, a local taxicab driver, received a citation for speeding. The citation indicated that the defendant was allegedly caught on Radar traveling 66 mph in a 45 mph zone. The client hired Attorney Topazio. A basic summary of how radar works is that a pulse is transmitted and any return or echo is listened for. If a return is sensed, the timing between the transmission and the reception of the echo is used to determine how far away an object is. However, there are many shortcomings to traffic radar. First of all, radar is prone to interference. The radar's antenna will accept any microwave that it is able to "hear". The antenna might not be "hearing" the waves which originated from its own unit. High voltage power lines, telephone lines, power stations, even neon lights emit electromagnetic waves. The specific source of the wave cannot be identified. Secondly, radar cannot determine which target reflected off the waves. If there are two cars both travelling in a close proximity, either car could be responsible for the resulting radar reading. Identifying the target is a job left to the radar operator, who frequently makes mistakes. At a distance of 200m, the width of the radar beam can usually cover all 4 lanes of traffic travelling in both direction, causing a large error in determining which car is responsible for the radar reading. Even if there is only one vehicle on the road, radar has a typical range of approximately 400m (1200 feet), which is beyond the visual range of most human eyes. The radar might be clocking a speeder at a distance of 300m, but the officer can only see an innocent driver coming towards him at a distance of 100m. Today after a Clerk’s hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced a Clerk Magistrate to find his client not responsible.

The defendant, a taxicab driver and owner of a taxi medallion, was arrested on April 15, 2010 for operating under the influence of alcohol (also known as OUI or DWI) when he was observed by a private citizen who informed local police that the taxicab was operating erratically. When the police arrived, the taxicab was observed to cross the double yellow line and was pulled over. The officer who detected an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant had him step out of his vehicle. After failing several field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested. The defendant attempted a breathalyzer but intentionally did not provide a sufficient volume of breath for the test to complete which resulted in a refusal. As a result, his driver’s license was suspended for 180 days for the breath test refusal. At his arraignment, the defendant was appointed a court attorney and his case was continued for two months for pre-trial conference. With mounting expenses, no driver’s license or ability to earn an income from his taxicab, and with a court date over two months away, the defendant hired Attorney Topazio. Taking direction from his client to get him his driver’s license back as fast as possible so he could work again, otherwise risk losing his taxi medallion, Attorney Topazio explained that he could get him a twelve hour license or Cinderella license. Attorney Topazio contacted the District Attorney, immediately negotiated a resolution of the case whereby his client would admit to sufficient facts, lose his license for 45 days, and agree to attend an alcohol education program. Once a resolution was reached, Attorney Topazio contacted the Court and advanced the case for a change of plea. Under the law, Attorney Topazio pointed out to his client a provision whereby a defendant may immediately upon entering a program apply to the registrar for consideration of a limited license for hardship purposes. The registrar, at his discretion, may issue such license under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Any such license shall be valid for an identical 12 hour period, 7 days a week. This provision shall also apply to any other suspensions due to the same incident that may be in effect. Consequently, the defendant could receive a hardship license despite the 180 day suspension for the breathalyzer refusal.