Preview
* SS AcBUsETT
16-2349
ox SUPERYG,,
oO
WEALTH.
comMo! DLE!
IpDu!
ESEX,
ee WES
(vic,
as
BEX CHSS 805
2 yea V® Ch
ne!r
viN
CURRENCY
N
$867.00 I ant
ONE
TELEPH
LUL-
ONE CEL
OF LA
MEM! RANDUM
fet ture of PORT?
wns the for
ws ¢ 940
§ 47 gove
! General La
Massachuse
in part
ve to th is case, states
relati re to the
al l be su b ject 0 forfeitu
i in
sh
he fo ll ow in g Pt operty er ty 1S ) ts therel in Si af t,
‘T th ant d all prop r
m o n w e a l t ! an ce s, inclu ding, aire
co m co nv ey to transpor
t,
' ealth, All n ded for use,
{the commonw se d, or in te
Ve ssels u ma nufactor tent to
vehicles or rw is e fa c ilitate the yn with in
! ¢ possessio
0 rth ne
conceal, or
dispensing,
;g tr ib ut io n of !0
ib ut e, 4 © co nt ro lled substance
distperise or rd ai
tr icty=
manufacture, n of se ct ion thirty wo, th
of privy 108
any prov is io
in violation of , ty -t wo C, th ir ty -t wo
B th ir
two A, thirty -two L. 6. 94¢ $41(a)3
violation of this ¢ apte
r. M.G.
wi
At question here is the intervener, Nicole Cent, and hep
motion for fe i
MH
Commonwealth has filed the requisite
"Ng 4 My
‘%
the owner of said property, “shalj then ha Ne the buy
forfeitable pursuant to Spare 7
» Ma J
"tf Vy
4)
» /
4,
c jj
or real properly *
«No convey such
gon to state that jnown that
MGL-¢ gAc g Ate) 8° ot should have
thereof knew ¢ unlawfully
sg the owner
forfeiture Ne ed inand for the busin
ess 9 Ms. Centola.
pe subject a ust Attrial
pr operty was
substance
eyance OF real controlled
conv!
ring, dispensine
or distributing
sit ¢ intent requl
red by the stare
manufac
have the yequi
ecause she didn ne 2012 Honda
met her burden bv jdence that the O
rth ev
did not put fo
Commonwealth testified that
At trial, the all th ree offi cers
proceeds. Furthermore;
Civic W'
ae purchased with drug
Ce mn tola, that co
mpleted @ drug
, no t Ms .
Mz. Metz
wit nes sed, it was
pased on wh at the y
thi a t she should
not have, nor had
sh ow
a only must
ac ti on . Th er ef ore Ms. Cer ntol
wledge
on the evidence at tial, this kno
transi
an sa ct io n. Ba se d
tz drug tr
knowledge of Mr. Me
can not be found.
First, other than the closed center — the only drug or drug paraphernalia
evidence that was in Ms. Centola’s immediate area, was the lotery ticket that contained
white residue.’ At trial, Sergeant O’ Toole testi that the manner in which it was
folded, in his experience, shows that it was used fo Scoop the drugs from the ain
found on Mr. Metz, into the sma
bag
ller bag that was>ventually Sol
d to Mr, McCay, s
all of the officers testified that they did not’ see ince
i Centolg no
Ving si
down, in a manner similar to Mr. Metz, it follo de to S
whay she ide, 4,
Therefore, any inference
|
that she used the lottery "hep “ot Chao:
drugs, is without merit, \S6 and ete,fore
Say cy Ugs,
\ , "aboy th
Second, only
one witness,
Off, icer Patriarca,,
there was 2-3 mi
nute s from the
time Mg Ce "tay,
This white ntola en
Tesidue was
NEVer testeg
by the drug
lab,
Mi PO thy
Gey,
My.
.
ficers
all thre e of
M c C : ay . However
to give the
drugs to Mr. not go to
t ou t of th e ca r
th at Ms . Centola did
Metz go so testifie d
Al l th re e offic ers al the
th at ti me fr am e.
Ms . Ce nt ol a reach into
di d not see
testified to
an d that they
io r to en tering the ca r,
at th e so il she p' urchased
back s eat pr ce she ‘ows, th
te st if ie d, an d the eviden calls
se at . Yet Ms. Ce
ntola
se at . Th is discrepancy
as in her back
ba ck
st or e mi nu tes before W' ti ime frame
Tree ony aS to the
from the Dollar fi ce r’ gs’ te st im
cy and suffic
iency of the of
time to
hout sufficient
th e ac cu ra
into question ex it ed . W jt
e Mr. Metz
be en in the car b efor
a yy ha ve rfeit her
Ms. Centola m i ite kn ow le dg e necessary to fo
requis !
t have the
r, Ms . Cento: la can no ng her in
testifi ed to witnessi
be in th e ca
no ne of th e of fi ce rs
the statute, bec ause
vehi: cle according to moving side
the vehic! le, at which time he began
the car when Mr. Me
tz initially entered
drugs.
esumab ly packaging the
to side, up and down, pr
, “property, like life and liberty, is a value of -
Finaly, it is worth noting that
n Automobile, 73 Mass.
» Commonwealth v. One 2004 Audi Seda
constitutional dimension.
8) Amendment to the
App. Ct. 311, 323 (200 (concurring); See, e.g., The Fourteenth
United States Constitution; arts. 10, 11, 14, 15, 29 of the Massachusets Declaration of
Rights; See also, Austin v. United States, S09 U.S. 62, 6214622 (1 993) (¢ ivi forfeiture §
“punishment” that implicates the Eighth Ame
ndment's CrCee !
this court to disagree with Ms, Centola’s
ij
Position this “ly
this court to recogn
ize that a forfeit ey
My
Amen
te fh naling would by ip
My
dment Tights
, At Mos
t, the ‘om
been i,
‘ y,
‘aguely a
ware ofy
y Oneal
12" iN
gal
M sh
[Eve‘kse;n aig
Vis
i a siimple Png
yj S no,
tal, Would
‘ig
\ 4,
W the Soif “the at y
"iy, “Dlg
Wy
Oy Mi on, py
Way "Of
by"
4
COMMONWEALTH eon.
MIDDLESEX, SS. MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. NO.: 16-2349
COMMONWEALTH
Vv.
ONE 2012 HONDA CIVIC,
Vin:2HGFB2F8XCH582865
ee
and
$867.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY ger 10 OT
and
ONE CELLULAR TELEPHONE fue Ceo
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Massachusetts General Laws c . 94c § 47 governs the forfeiture of property, and,
relative to this case, states, in part :
The following property shall be subject to forfeiture to the
commonwealth and all property rights therein shall be in
the commonwealth...All conveyances, including aircraft,
vehicles or vessels used, or intended for use, to transport,
conceal, or otherwise facilitate the manufacture,
dispensing, distribution of or possession with intent to
manufacture, dispense or distribute, a controlled substance
in violation of any provision of section thirty-two, thirty-
two A, thirty-two B, thirty-two C, thirty-two of privy to a
violation of this chapter. M.G.L. c. 94¢ §47(a)3
At question here is the intervener, Nicole Centola, and her. 2012 Honda Civic. The
Commonwealth has filed the requisite motion for forfeiture, and once this has been done,
the owner of said property, “shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not
forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3).” M.G.L. c. 94¢ §47(d).
M.GLL. c. 94¢ §47(0)3 goes on to state that “No conveyance or real property shall
be subject to forfeiture unless the owner thereof knew or should have known that such
conveyance or real property was used in and for the business of unlawfully
manufacturing, dispensing, or distributing controlled substances.” At trial, Ms. Centola,
met her burden because she did not have the requisite intent required by the statute.
At trial, the Commonwealth did not put forth evidence that the One 2012 Honda
Civic was purchased with drug proceeds. Furthermore, all three officers testified that
based on what they witnessed, it was Mr. Metz, not Ms. Centola, that completed a drug
transaction. Therefore Ms. Centola only must show that she should not have, nor had
knowledge of Mr. Metz drug transaction. Based on the evidence at trial, this knowledge
can not be found.
First, other than the closed center console, the only drug or drug paraphernalia
evidence that was in Ms. Centola’s immediate area, was the lottery ticket that contained
white residue.’ At trial, Sergeant O’Toole testified that the manner in which it was
'
folded, in his experience, shows that it was used fo scoop the drugs from the niain bag
found on Mr. Metz, into the smaller bag that was eventually sold to Mr. McClay. Since
all of the officers testified that they did not see Ms. Centola moving side to side, up and
down, in a manner similar to Mr. Metz, it follows that she was not packaging any drugs.
Therefore, any inference that she used the lottery ticket, and therefore knew about the
drugs, is without merit.
Second, only one witness, Officer Patriarca, indicated in his police report that
there was 2-3 minutes from the time Ms. Centola entered the vehicle, to the time Mr.
| This white residue was never tested by the drug lab.
Metz got out of the car to give the drugs to Mr. McClay. However all three officers
testified to that time frame, All three officers also testified that Ms. Centola did not go to
back seat prior to entering the car, and that they did not see Ms. Centola reach into the
back seat. Yet Ms. Centola testified, and the evidence shows, that the soil she purchased
.
from the Dollar Tree store minutes before was in her back seat.” This discrepancy calls
into question the accuracy and sufficiency of the officers’ testimony as to the time frame
Ms. Centola may have been in the car before Mr. Metz exited. Without sufficient time to
be in the car, Ms. Centola can not01 have the requisite knowledge necessary to forfeit her
vehicle according to the statute, because none of the officers testified to witnessing her in
the car when Mr. Metz initially entered the vehicle, at which time he began moving side
to side, up and down, presumably packaging the drugs.
Finaly, it is worth noting that, “property, like life and liberty, is a value of
constitutional dimension.” Commonwealth v. One 2004 Audi Sedan Automobile, 73 Mass.
App. Ct. 311, 323 (2008) (concurring); See, e.g., The Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution; arts. 10, 11, 14, 15, 29 of the Massachusetts Declaration of
Rights; See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 621-622 (1993) (civil forfeiture is
"punishment" that implicates the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause). Even were
this court to disagree with Ms. Centola’s position thus far, she would respectfully urge
this court to recognize that a forfeiture finding would be a violation of der Eighth
t
Amendment rights. At most, the Commonwealth has shown Ms. @entola could have
:
been vaguely aware of Mr. Metz’ illegal activity. Not profited.‘from, not involved in,
2 Bven if this court is not satisfied that the photographs clearly indicate soil is in the
evidence at
backseat, a simple viewing of the vehicle, which was to Jarge to enter into
trial, would show the soil in question.
merely in or near her car when a drug transaction took place. To grant forfeiture of her
vehicle, purchased with her deceased grandfather’s inheritance money, because she was,
or should have been, remotely aware of Mr. Metz’ drug dealings’, is a violation of her 8"
Amendment right to be protected against excessive fines. ’
For the foregone reasons, the inter'véner respectfully requests this Honorable
Court deny the forfeiture of One 2012 Honda Civic.
Submitted on
Behalf of the Defendant,
oo,
2 Pike
=f
a
attorney,
“Péter O’Karma
8 Faneuil Hall, 3“ Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Ph: (617)973-5176
admin@MyBostonLaw.com
Date: April 10", 2017
3 Mr. Metz, against his own interests, admitted the drugs were his, not Ms. Centola’s, and
this was corroborated at trial by the arresting officers.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on April 10%, 2017, a copy of the foregoing document was served, in ,
hand, to:
AD.A. Kevin Ryle
GE
Middlesex District Attorney's Office
os,
===:-_u“_
Peter O’Karma, Esq.
Preview
* SS AcBUsETT 16-2349 ox SUPERYG,, oO WEALTH. comMo! DLE! IpDu! ESEX, ee WES (vic, as BEX CHSS 805 2 yea V® Ch ne!r viN CURRENCY N $867.00 I ant ONE TELEPH LUL- ONE CEL OF LA MEM! RANDUM fet ture of PORT? wns the for ws ¢ 940 § 47 gove ! General La Massachuse in part ve to th is case, states relati re to the al l be su b ject 0 forfeitu i in sh he fo ll ow in g Pt operty er ty 1S ) ts therel in Si af t, ‘T th ant d all prop r m o n w e a l t ! an ce s, inclu ding, aire co m co nv ey to transpor t, ' ealth, All n ded for use, {the commonw se d, or in te Ve ssels u ma nufactor tent to vehicles or rw is e fa c ilitate the yn with in ! ¢ possessio 0 rth ne conceal, or dispensing, ;g tr ib ut io n of !0 ib ut e, 4 © co nt ro lled substance distperise or rd ai tr icty= manufacture, n of se ct ion thirty wo, th of privy 108 any prov is io in violation of , ty -t wo C, th ir ty -t wo B th ir two A, thirty -two L. 6. 94¢ $41(a)3 violation of this ¢ apte r. M.G. wi At question here is the intervener, Nicole Cent, and hep motion for fe i MH Commonwealth has filed the requisite "Ng 4 My ‘% the owner of said property, “shalj then ha Ne the buy forfeitable pursuant to Spare 7 » Ma J "tf Vy 4) » / 4, c jj or real properly * «No convey such gon to state that jnown that MGL-¢ gAc g Ate) 8° ot should have thereof knew ¢ unlawfully sg the owner forfeiture Ne ed inand for the busin ess 9 Ms. Centola. pe subject a ust Attrial pr operty was substance eyance OF real controlled conv! ring, dispensine or distributing sit ¢ intent requl red by the stare manufac have the yequi ecause she didn ne 2012 Honda met her burden bv jdence that the O rth ev did not put fo Commonwealth testified that At trial, the all th ree offi cers proceeds. Furthermore; Civic W' ae purchased with drug Ce mn tola, that co mpleted @ drug , no t Ms . Mz. Metz wit nes sed, it was pased on wh at the y thi a t she should not have, nor had sh ow a only must ac ti on . Th er ef ore Ms. Cer ntol wledge on the evidence at tial, this kno transi an sa ct io n. Ba se d tz drug tr knowledge of Mr. Me can not be found. First, other than the closed center — the only drug or drug paraphernalia evidence that was in Ms. Centola’s immediate area, was the lotery ticket that contained white residue.’ At trial, Sergeant O’ Toole testi that the manner in which it was folded, in his experience, shows that it was used fo Scoop the drugs from the ain found on Mr. Metz, into the sma bag ller bag that was>ventually Sol d to Mr, McCay, s all of the officers testified that they did not’ see ince i Centolg no Ving si down, in a manner similar to Mr. Metz, it follo de to S whay she ide, 4, Therefore, any inference | that she used the lottery "hep “ot Chao: drugs, is without merit, \S6 and ete,fore Say cy Ugs, \ , "aboy th Second, only one witness, Off, icer Patriarca,, there was 2-3 mi nute s from the time Mg Ce "tay, This white ntola en Tesidue was NEVer testeg by the drug lab, Mi PO thy Gey, My. . ficers all thre e of M c C : ay . However to give the drugs to Mr. not go to t ou t of th e ca r th at Ms . Centola did Metz go so testifie d Al l th re e offic ers al the th at ti me fr am e. Ms . Ce nt ol a reach into di d not see testified to an d that they io r to en tering the ca r, at th e so il she p' urchased back s eat pr ce she ‘ows, th te st if ie d, an d the eviden calls se at . Yet Ms. Ce ntola se at . Th is discrepancy as in her back ba ck st or e mi nu tes before W' ti ime frame Tree ony aS to the from the Dollar fi ce r’ gs’ te st im cy and suffic iency of the of time to hout sufficient th e ac cu ra into question ex it ed . W jt e Mr. Metz be en in the car b efor a yy ha ve rfeit her Ms. Centola m i ite kn ow le dg e necessary to fo requis ! t have the r, Ms . Cento: la can no ng her in testifi ed to witnessi be in th e ca no ne of th e of fi ce rs the statute, bec ause vehi: cle according to moving side the vehic! le, at which time he began the car when Mr. Me tz initially entered drugs. esumab ly packaging the to side, up and down, pr , “property, like life and liberty, is a value of - Finaly, it is worth noting that n Automobile, 73 Mass. » Commonwealth v. One 2004 Audi Seda constitutional dimension. 8) Amendment to the App. Ct. 311, 323 (200 (concurring); See, e.g., The Fourteenth United States Constitution; arts. 10, 11, 14, 15, 29 of the Massachusets Declaration of Rights; See also, Austin v. United States, S09 U.S. 62, 6214622 (1 993) (¢ ivi forfeiture § “punishment” that implicates the Eighth Ame ndment's CrCee ! this court to disagree with Ms, Centola’s ij Position this “ly this court to recogn ize that a forfeit ey My Amen te fh naling would by ip My dment Tights , At Mos t, the ‘om been i, ‘ y, ‘aguely a ware ofy y Oneal 12" iN gal M sh [Eve‘kse;n aig Vis i a siimple Png yj S no, tal, Would ‘ig \ 4, W the Soif “the at y "iy, “Dlg Wy Oy Mi on, py Way "Of by" 4 COMMONWEALTH eon. MIDDLESEX, SS. MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO.: 16-2349 COMMONWEALTH Vv. ONE 2012 HONDA CIVIC, Vin:2HGFB2F8XCH582865 ee and $867.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY ger 10 OT and ONE CELLULAR TELEPHONE fue Ceo MEMORANDUM OF LAW Massachusetts General Laws c . 94c § 47 governs the forfeiture of property, and, relative to this case, states, in part : The following property shall be subject to forfeiture to the commonwealth and all property rights therein shall be in the commonwealth...All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels used, or intended for use, to transport, conceal, or otherwise facilitate the manufacture, dispensing, distribution of or possession with intent to manufacture, dispense or distribute, a controlled substance in violation of any provision of section thirty-two, thirty- two A, thirty-two B, thirty-two C, thirty-two of privy to a violation of this chapter. M.G.L. c. 94¢ §47(a)3 At question here is the intervener, Nicole Centola, and her. 2012 Honda Civic. The Commonwealth has filed the requisite motion for forfeiture, and once this has been done, the owner of said property, “shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3).” M.G.L. c. 94¢ §47(d). M.GLL. c. 94¢ §47(0)3 goes on to state that “No conveyance or real property shall be subject to forfeiture unless the owner thereof knew or should have known that such conveyance or real property was used in and for the business of unlawfully manufacturing, dispensing, or distributing controlled substances.” At trial, Ms. Centola, met her burden because she did not have the requisite intent required by the statute. At trial, the Commonwealth did not put forth evidence that the One 2012 Honda Civic was purchased with drug proceeds. Furthermore, all three officers testified that based on what they witnessed, it was Mr. Metz, not Ms. Centola, that completed a drug transaction. Therefore Ms. Centola only must show that she should not have, nor had knowledge of Mr. Metz drug transaction. Based on the evidence at trial, this knowledge can not be found. First, other than the closed center console, the only drug or drug paraphernalia evidence that was in Ms. Centola’s immediate area, was the lottery ticket that contained white residue.’ At trial, Sergeant O’Toole testified that the manner in which it was ' folded, in his experience, shows that it was used fo scoop the drugs from the niain bag found on Mr. Metz, into the smaller bag that was eventually sold to Mr. McClay. Since all of the officers testified that they did not see Ms. Centola moving side to side, up and down, in a manner similar to Mr. Metz, it follows that she was not packaging any drugs. Therefore, any inference that she used the lottery ticket, and therefore knew about the drugs, is without merit. Second, only one witness, Officer Patriarca, indicated in his police report that there was 2-3 minutes from the time Ms. Centola entered the vehicle, to the time Mr. | This white residue was never tested by the drug lab. Metz got out of the car to give the drugs to Mr. McClay. However all three officers testified to that time frame, All three officers also testified that Ms. Centola did not go to back seat prior to entering the car, and that they did not see Ms. Centola reach into the back seat. Yet Ms. Centola testified, and the evidence shows, that the soil she purchased . from the Dollar Tree store minutes before was in her back seat.” This discrepancy calls into question the accuracy and sufficiency of the officers’ testimony as to the time frame Ms. Centola may have been in the car before Mr. Metz exited. Without sufficient time to be in the car, Ms. Centola can not01 have the requisite knowledge necessary to forfeit her vehicle according to the statute, because none of the officers testified to witnessing her in the car when Mr. Metz initially entered the vehicle, at which time he began moving side to side, up and down, presumably packaging the drugs. Finaly, it is worth noting that, “property, like life and liberty, is a value of constitutional dimension.” Commonwealth v. One 2004 Audi Sedan Automobile, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 311, 323 (2008) (concurring); See, e.g., The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; arts. 10, 11, 14, 15, 29 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 621-622 (1993) (civil forfeiture is "punishment" that implicates the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause). Even were this court to disagree with Ms. Centola’s position thus far, she would respectfully urge this court to recognize that a forfeiture finding would be a violation of der Eighth t Amendment rights. At most, the Commonwealth has shown Ms. @entola could have : been vaguely aware of Mr. Metz’ illegal activity. Not profited.‘from, not involved in, 2 Bven if this court is not satisfied that the photographs clearly indicate soil is in the evidence at backseat, a simple viewing of the vehicle, which was to Jarge to enter into trial, would show the soil in question. merely in or near her car when a drug transaction took place. To grant forfeiture of her vehicle, purchased with her deceased grandfather’s inheritance money, because she was, or should have been, remotely aware of Mr. Metz’ drug dealings’, is a violation of her 8" Amendment right to be protected against excessive fines. ’ For the foregone reasons, the inter'véner respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny the forfeiture of One 2012 Honda Civic. Submitted on Behalf of the Defendant, oo, 2 Pike =f a attorney, “Péter O’Karma 8 Faneuil Hall, 3“ Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Ph: (617)973-5176 admin@MyBostonLaw.com Date: April 10", 2017 3 Mr. Metz, against his own interests, admitted the drugs were his, not Ms. Centola’s, and this was corroborated at trial by the arresting officers. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on April 10%, 2017, a copy of the foregoing document was served, in , hand, to: AD.A. Kevin Ryle GE Middlesex District Attorney's Office os, ===:-_u“_ Peter O’Karma, Esq.