The defendant was a tenant in a public housing development in Nashua. Following a police undercover operation, she was arrested and charged with three counts of sale of a narcotic drug. Under federal housing regulations, the public manager was required to seek eviction of any tenant in a public housing development who engages in criminal drug related activity, and such a proceeding was filed.
A police officer testified during the eviction proceeding, and the court characterized the testimony as follows:
He testified that an officer and a cooperating individual entered the building where the tenant lives and exited a few minutes later. He testified that he also listened to "recordings" of the tenant during the investigation. While he did identify the tenant as the person on the recordings, he did not testify as to what was said on the recordings or how they related to any criminal activity. He did not identify, nor did he testify that the undercover officer or the cooperating individual identified the tenant as the person who sold the controlled substance. Indeed, he did not testify that the undercover officer or the cooperating individual ever saw or spoke to the tenant at any time while in the building. Although Sullivan's testimony corroborated the claim that a sale of a controlled substance occurred, he offered no testimony that the tenant sold the substance or was even in the building when the sale of the controlled substance occurred. In other words, Sullivan's testimony failed to show that this particular tenant was in any way involved in the sale of a controlled substance.
Because the housing authority failed to prove that the tenant had engaged in the prohibited conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, the eviction finding was reversed. The case shows the care that must go into the preparation of any case presented to a fact finder, to assure that the right information is presented to justify the relief that is sought.