On Friday night January 21, 2011 BG, a senior at a local college, went to his school's hockey game at a rink in Malden. After consuming a few beers he became somewhat rude at the game and was asked to leave. Once outside one thing led to another and BG found himself under arrest for disorderly conduct. BG contacted his father - who happened to be a lawyer - and the father understood the ramifications of his son's having a criminal record, even for a minor misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct. Attorney Lewin was contacted on Saturday, January 22, 2011. On Sunday Attorney Lewin contacted the Malden Police and began to negotiate a dismissal of the case,prior to the arraignment. The arraignment was scheduled for Monday, January 24, 2011. On Monday morning Attorney Lewin and BG appeared at court; at first the DA was reluctant to dismiss the case prior to arraignment. Eventually Attorney Lewin was able to convince the DA to agree to the dismissal prior to arraignment and the Judge went along with it. The significance of the case being dismissed prior to arraignment is that no entry will be made on BG's CORI (criminal record). The case will not show up. It is rare for a DA or a Judge to go along with this; however, there is absolutely no harm in asking for the case to be dismissed prior to the arraignment as the worst the DA or the Judge can say is no. Had the case been dismissed after arraignment then the charge would show up on BG's record and he would then have to explain to every prospective employer who checks his record what the disorderly charge was all about. Now he will be free of that entry on his record; his record is clean.
January 2011 Archives
A convicted rapist is on probation and is required to wear a GPS tracking device. As part of the GPS law he is prohibited from going to certain places; these places are called exclusion zones. On January 3, 2011 he was at home when his probation officer called him and told him that he had violated an exclsuion zone and the police were coming to arrest him. He exlaimed to his probation officer that he had not left the house and had not been anywhere near the exclusion zone (the home of the victim who lives across and down the street). Attorney Lewin called the Probation Officer and insisted that they check the accuracy of the GPS device. It turned out that the GPS device was giving off what are called "floating points"; these are points on the tracking maps that are not accurate. They are false tracking points. In this case the tracking points showed the offender literally walking across a pond. In addition the tracking points showed the offender moving a distance of 100 yards in 2 seconds. On Friday, January 7, 2011 after a full court hearing, the Probation Department admitted that the offender had not violated his GPS restrictions and the probation violation was dropped. The accuracy of the GPS tracking system can and must be called into question in these cases.