Steven J. Topazio - Attorney At Law

The defendant, who was represented by Attorney Topazio, appeared in the Chelsea District Court for an arraignment for the charge of possessing crack cocaine. The case against the defendant was initially dismissed without prejudice at a Jury date because the Commonwealth did not have the drug certificate of analysis. Attorney Topazio objected to the arraignment because he alleged that the court papers indicated that after the initial dismissal the defendant must receive notice of a Clerk-Magistrate’s hearing pursuant to MGL c. 218, § 35A. Because the defendant had moved, notice to her of the Magistrate’s hearing was returned to the court and Attorney Topazio argued that it was thus ineffective. The Court agreed and the case was dismissed prior to arraignment thus preserving the Defendant’s record.

The defendant who was stopped behind a second motor vehicle at Roosevelt Circle, received a citation when he passed that vehicle on the right because the operator of the second vehicle was talking to an operator of a third vehicle and was not moving, received a citation. The client hired Attorney Topazio. Today after a Clerk’s hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced a Clerk Magistrate to find the driver not responsible, thus preserving his clean driving record.

Officers of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Police Department which were dispatched to the emergency department to remove the defendant who was verbally trespassed earlier in the night for verbally threatening staff because he believed his friend was not being treated quickly enough, was arrested. The defendant, a Marine who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney met with the prosecuting attorney in an attempt to resolve his client’s case short of trial and to preserve his record. Following several court appearances, Attorney Topazio convinced the district Attorney to dismiss his client’s case provided his client voluntarily submit to psychotherapy treatment, and the court agreed.

The defendant, who was represented by Attorney Topazio, was summonsed to court for possession with intent to distribute a class B substance, when crack cocaine was found in his motor vehicle which was being operated by a second individual who was involved in a drug sale with an undercover officer. The second individual, who was the operator of the defendant's motor vehicle, was arrested at the scene. When an additional amount of drugs were found in the motor vehicle, the defendant was summonsed to court for the crime charged because he was the registered owner of the motor vehicle. At the defendant's arraignment, Attorney Topazio objected to his client being arraigned alleging that there was no probable cause to charge the defendant on the facts alleged, arguing that the defendant could not be in constructive possession of the drugs found, and the court agreed and requested the District Attorney to further investigate this matter and the case was continued prior to arraignment. After several court appearances, the District Attorney, after fingerprinting the drugs found in the defendant's motor vehicle, moved to dismiss the charge against the defendant prior to arraignment, thus preserving the defendant's criminal record as this criminal entry would not appear on his CORI until the defendant was arraigned.

The defendant, a resident of California, and former resident of Massachusetts, recently ran into trouble with the California Registry of Motor Vehicles when the California RMV refused to renew his California driver's license due to a court default in Massachusetts. When the defendant was told that he had to appear in court in person in Massachusetts to remove the default, he hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio filed a motion in the District Court asking the court to waive his client's appearance due to financial hardship. Attorney Topazio investigated the matter and convinced the District Attorney that the case was not viable. As a result, Attorney Topazio entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth whereby it was agreed that the case would be dismissed upon court costs, in lieu of having the defendant return to Massachusetts from California. Attorney Topazio was able to recall the default warrant in the defendant's absence, enabling the client to renew his California driver's license.

The defendant, who was represented by Attorney Topazio, was arrested for operating under the influence of alcohol (also known as OUI or DWI) when he was found unconscious in his motor vehicle, with an open bottle of vodka, the keys in the ignition and with the radio on. The client informed Attorney Topazio that despite being intoxicated, he never drove while impaired but rather, after being unable to find employment, damaged the steering column of his motor vehicle when parking it, and when he was unable to remove the key from the ignition, walked to a local liquor store, bought a bottle of vodka and drank it in his disabled motor vehicle and became intoxicated instead of walking home unemployed to face his wife and kids. Attorney Topazio hired a private investigator to corroborate his client's story and to prepare the case for trial. Under Massachusetts law, "Operation" is not limited to driving a vehicle or setting it in motion, but encompasses also the intentional act of starting the vehicle's engine; that is does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which alone or in sequence will set in motion the motive power of the vehicle. Attorney Topazio argued at trial that an intoxicated driver asleep in a motor vehicle with the key in the ignition may warrant an inference of operation, but argued that the inference is rebuttable. Attorney Topazio proved that although his client was intoxicated when found by the police after conducting a well-being check, he did not drive while impaired but rather got drunk in his car. After trial the defendant was found not guilty.

The defendant a graduate of Bryant College hired Attorney Topazio to seal his criminal record which consisted of five counts, three motor vehicle violations, Possession of class D substance, and minor in possession of alcohol. The defendant who found employment overseas as a teacher of English as a second language needed to obtain a teaching certification which as a prerequisite required applicants to have a clean record. Attorney Topazio convinced the judge to seal the Client's record and now he can truthfully answer on any job or school application that he has no record despite being arrested, charged and placed on probation for these crimes.

The defendant was arrested when a Registry of Motor Vehicle check of his registration conducted by the police indicated that his license was suspended. A search of his motor vehicle revealed a bottle cap with residue that the arresting officer suspected to be heroin residue. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Attorney Topazio pushed his client's case to trial and relying on the recent case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), Attorney Topazio on August 31, 2009 was effective in getting the case against his client dismissed at trial because the Commonwealth could not prove the residue found in the bottle cap in the defendant's motor vehicle was a controlled substance without the testimony of a chemist. Prior to Melendez-Diaz, it was standard practice in drug cases for the Commonwealth to rely only upon a certified copy of a drug certificate to prove that a substance was a controlled substance. Melendez-Diaz is a Supreme Court decision which now requires that a chemist must testify in cases where a drug certificate is to be introduced at trial. In the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ruling on June 25, 2009, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that the introduction of a drug certificate without the testimony of a chemist violated the defendant's confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment. Despite the dismissal, the Commonwealth brought new charges against his client, reactivating the dismissed case and seeking incarceration upon a conviction. Today, in lieu of trying the case for fear of a conviction should the Commonwealth have a Chemist testify and certain incarceration, Attorney Topazio persuaded the court to give his client probation with level III OCC upon a change of plea, and the court agreed. Community Corrections Centers are community based, intensive supervision sites, which deliver bundled sanctions and services, including treatment and education, to high risk offenders via Intermediate Sanction Levels. Intermediate Sanction Level III is an intense level of community-based, criminal justice supervision. Sanctions and services required at this level of supervision represent a daily imposition upon the liberty of the offender. Level III participants are required to report to the community corrections center for one to four hours per day, three to five days per week. Offenders placed at Intermediate Sanction Level III may be monitored via electronic device. Level III also requires random drug and alcohol testing, and attendance at one four hour community service shift per week.

Title 730 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations prohibits passenger or commercial vehicles carrying any amount of hazardous material, excluding those materials required for the actual operation of the vehicle, to enter or to use the Tunnels. The defendant, a West Virginia paint company, received multiple citations for entering the Thomas P. O'Neil Tunnel with buckets of paint primer, finish, caulking and cans of gas. The citations charged both the driver and the corporation. The client hired Attorney Topazio. Today after a Clerk's hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced a Clerk Magistrate to find the driver not responsible, thus preserving his clean driving record, upon acceptance of responsibility of a single violation by the corporation.

The defendant, a resident of Illinois, who was in Boston for a convention, received a citation for speeding. The citation indicated that the defendant was allegedly caught on Lidar traveling 61 mph in a 45 mph zone. The client hired Attorney Topazio. LIDAR is an acronym for LIght Detection And Ranging. A police laser emits a highly focused beam of invisible light, in the near infrared region of light that is centered at 904nm of wavelength and is only about 22 inches (56cm) in diameter at 1000 feet (300m). Unlike police RADAR which directly determines a vehicle's speed by measuring its doppler shift, police laser-lidar calculates speed by observing the changing amount of time is takes to "see" reflected pulses of light over a discreet amount of time. Today after a Clerk's hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced a Clerk Magistrate to find his client not responsible.