investigators | business fraud | criminal defensemassachusetts
Lawyers Weekly Poll: Nardizzi Inc. is top investigative firm in state
Aug.27.2018
The readers of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly voted Nardizzi & Associates Inc. the best private investigations firm in the state of Massachusetts - THANK YOU! Honored to have earned your trust over the past 15 years.
MA high court: high court rules warrant needed for cell phone search
Feb.24.2014
In an interesting cell phone data privacy case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before using a suspect's cell phone data to track his movements via GPS. SJC held a warrantless search violated Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures.
The plaintiff in the case, Shabazz Augustine, was a suspect in a 2004 homicide of his girlfriend. Police obtained his cell phone records from Sprint that showed what towers were used as he traveled in Boston. Police relied on a federal law that only requires “information to be relevant to an investigation” in order to get the data, as opposed to requesting a search warrant (and having a judge find probable cause regarding the target’s involvement in the case).
Practically speaking, the case is somewhat dated: police in most criminal cases now request warrants for such data anyway.
The plaintiff in the case, Shabazz Augustine, was a suspect in a 2004 homicide of his girlfriend. Police obtained his cell phone records from Sprint that showed what towers were used as he traveled in Boston. Police relied on a federal law that only requires “information to be relevant to an investigation” in order to get the data, as opposed to requesting a search warrant (and having a judge find probable cause regarding the target’s involvement in the case).
Practically speaking, the case is somewhat dated: police in most criminal cases now request warrants for such data anyway.
Massachusetts medical malpractice
Aug.27.2012
The state of Massachusetts recently passed a health care bill that has an intriguing medical malpractice angle: the disclosure, apology and offer clause, which prompts health care providers to give information to patients about medical errors in a timely manner and offers a timeframe for an apology and offer of damages. An apology has been shown to be an incredibly important part to a process that too often lacks any emotional depth. One intriguing section in the bill might be an area for future litigation: a doctor's (or hospital’s) apology is inadmissible in future court proceedings unless the doctor says something later that contradicts the apology.
Reduce your Massachusetts alimony payments
Mar.08.2012
Massachusetts reputation as the only state where alimony never ends is over as of March 1, 2012. The Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act has addressed the issue of changing financial circumstances, and places time limits on payments.
Judges can now reduce or terminate alimony to your ex-spouse if he / she is living with another person and receiving financial support from that person.
Cohabiting is defined as keeping a common household with another person for a continuous period of at least 3 months. The law does not limit co-habitation to sexual relationships. Reinstatement of alimony is possible if cohabitation ends however.
If you need evidence to prove that your ex-spouse is living with someone, supporting them financially, paying rent and groceries, then we can help. Ensure that you pay only your fair share. Call us for further details.
SJC melts old snow/ice accumulation standard
Aug.13.2010
The SJC in Papadopoulos v. Target Corp abandoned the bizarre Mass. distinction between "natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice" which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care.
The new standard: "We now will apply to hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors as to all other hazards: a duty to act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk. … If a property owner knows or reasonably should know of a dangerous condition on its property, whether arising from an accumulation of snow or ice, or rust on a railing, or a discarded banana peel, the property owner owes a duty to lawful visitors to make reasonable efforts to protect lawful visitors against the danger.
Bottom line: start shoveling.
The new standard: "We now will apply to hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors as to all other hazards: a duty to act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk. … If a property owner knows or reasonably should know of a dangerous condition on its property, whether arising from an accumulation of snow or ice, or rust on a railing, or a discarded banana peel, the property owner owes a duty to lawful visitors to make reasonable efforts to protect lawful visitors against the danger.
Bottom line: start shoveling.
Governor Patrick signs CORI Reform
Aug.06.2010
The new Criminal Offender Record Information law (CORI) prohibits employers from asking on an “initial written application form” about an applicant’s “criminal offender record information,” which includes information about criminal charges, arrests, and incarcerations. The term “initial written application" in the new text may allow employers to continue to question applicants about felony and certain misdemeanor convictions later in the process. Moreover, the law does not address classic court docket research conducted by investigators.
Privacy, surveillance & civil litigation: a Massachusetts guide for private investigators
Apr.05.2018
The Massachusetts Bar Association hosts a good summary of privacy laws as they apply to video surveillance in Massachusetts civil litigation, including insurance cases. One of the leading cases in Mass. is DiGirolamo v. D.P. Anderson & Associates, Inc., The court wrote that investigators may generally observe, or photograph a person in public places. A gray area arises when a person enters the privacy of their own home. The court looked at 4 scenarios as to whether a private investigator violates a person's statutory right to privacy:
~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision;
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy.
The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
Written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David Viens, this article has some good information on Massachusetts state laws applicable to video surveillance, audio recordings, pretext interviews and pretrial discovery.
~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision;
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy.
The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
Written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David Viens, this article has some good information on Massachusetts state laws applicable to video surveillance, audio recordings, pretext interviews and pretrial discovery.