Home » Blog

Blog

Mpls-Criminal-Attorney-Thomas-Gallagher-HCGC-cr-1200

Criminal Defense is an Essential Business: Coronavirus COVID-19 update

We are all doing our part to fight the Coronavirus pandemic. People are staying home as much as possible. And many businesses have changed their operations in response. Recently Minnesota’s Governor put out a stay-at-home advisory. But it makes many practical exceptions, including for any essential business. And Gallagher Criminal Defense is an essential business… Read More »Criminal Defense is an Essential Business: Coronavirus COVID-19 update

aerial marijuana grow mn

Gallagher Gets Large Marijuana Grow Charges Dismissed; Illegal Search

When will it be legal?  Not soon enough!  But for one client of Gallagher Criminal Defense facing marijuana grow charges, the nightmare is finally over. Marijuana Attorney Thomas Gallagher moved the court to Suppress Evidence based upon an illegal search.  And the result? Dismissal of all felony charges related to a “large indoor and outdoor… Read More »Gallagher Gets Large Marijuana Grow Charges Dismissed; Illegal Search

Gallagher teaches dui marijuana hemp law

Thomas Gallagher teaches DUI-marijuana & Hemp Defenses

July 18, 2019.  Thomas C. Gallagher, a Minneapolis Criminal Attorney, presented a Continuing Legal Education class on DUI-marijuana cases and hemp defenses to marijuana charges. And he presented his course to the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL), co-sponsored by Minnesotans for Responsible Marijuana Regulation (MRMR) at CLE: Up in Smoke.  The event took… Read More »Thomas Gallagher teaches DUI-marijuana & Hemp Defenses

DWI charge dismissed

Due Process Defense wins DWI & Implied Consent Cases – Dismissed & Rescinded

Today Thomas C. Gallagher was successful in getting a Gross Misdemeanor DWI Refusal case dismissed by the prosecutor a few days before the scheduled Contested Omnibus Hearing.  Gallagher had filed a motion to dismiss due to the arresting police officers violation of the drivers right to due process and failure to vindicate her right to pre-test legal counsel.  The officer interfered with her efforts to reach an attorney by phone, then answered her legal questions including giving her legal advice which included “you won’t get any jail time after you go to court if you refuse the chemical test.”