Marlborough dentist accused of hiding cameras in staff toilets: What was said in court
Marlborough Police arrested Patrick Tu Huynh, 35, at his 5119 Timberview Way home after an investigation.
According to the Middlesex District Attorney's office, Huynh worked at New England Dental Group, 661C Boston Post Road East. A dental assistant found a camera taped to a toilet in the staff bathroom. According to a release, the staff member reported the incident to Huynh, who removed the camera and said he would try to find the person responsible.
On Aug. 14, the same dental assistant called police and found an identical camera in the same toilet, attached with dental wax and medical tape. Police began an investigation.
More: Man charged in Marlborough rape is being sought by ICE. Here's why
Footage pulled from the camera showed several victims, according to the release. It also allegedly showed Huynh adjusting and cleaning the lens while it was in the bathroom, according to the district attorney's office.
Police charged Huynh with two counts of illegal wiretapping, seven counts of photographing a person in a state of nudity without consent, and destruction of property.
What happened in Marlborough District Court
At Huynh's Marlborough District Court arraignment on Wednesday, prosecutor Caroline Evans said the destruction of property charge is because Huynh tried to remotely delete the video from other devices. She said police found a Google search seeking information on how to delete videos from other devices remotely.
Evans asked Judge Meghan Springer to hold Huynh on $25,000 bail. He had posted $10,000 bail after his arrest. She also asked the judge to order Huynh to surrender his passport.
Huynh's lawyer, Francis Doran, argued the $10,000 bail Huynh already posted was excessive. He said Huynh was a U.S. citizen, born in California, and said it appeared asking for his passport was racial profiling.
Spring rejected that argument, saying the district attorney's office routinely asks for passports to be suspended for U.S. citizens, not based on race.
More: Marlborough MA man faces child porn charges for second time this year
Doran also said his client was not a flight risk and has no criminal record.
'This is a circumstantial criminal case,' said Doran. 'He has deep ties to the area. He has no intentions to go anywhere.'
Springer did not increase the bail to $25,000, keeping it at the original $10,000. She did order Huynh to surrender his passport. She also ordered him to stay away from all of the alleged victims and the dental office.
What happens next in the case
Huynh is due back in court Sept. 25 for a pretrial conference.
No one from New England Dental Group could be reached for comment. Huynh is no longer listed on the business's website.
As of Aug. 20, Huynh's Dentist License and Dentist Controlled Substance Registration were still active, and both are slated to expire March 31, 2026. The Board of Registration in Dentistry licenses dentists in Massachusetts, and is next scheduled to meet on Sept. 10. The Complaint Committee does not have its next meeting posted on its website.
Norman Miller can be reached at 508-626-3823 or nmiller@wickedlcoa.com. For up-to-date public safety news, follow Norman Miller on X @Norman_MillerMW or on Facebook at facebook.com/NormanMillerJournalist.
This article originally appeared on MetroWest Daily News: Dentist accused of hiding cameras in Marlborough office: What to know
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
3 minutes ago
- CBS News
MBTA to crack down on fare evasion around Boston starting in September
The MBTA announced that it will begin cracking down on fare evasion starting in September. Specially trained MBTA employees called the "fare engagement representatives" will be located on trains and at T stations throughout service areas to make sure that fares are being paid. "Our riders deserve a safe and reliable mass transportation system that is available for them when they need it. With strong support, we are making significant progress, but to sustain it, we owe it to our riders and the public at large to do our part and collect all appropriate fare revenue," MBTA general manager and CEO Phillip Eng said in a statement. The company said that the staff members will begin by giving riders an official warning if they haven't paid their fare. This requires a rider to give a form of physical or verbal identification. They will then be issued a formal written warning. After that, citations will be issued, starting at $50. "If a rider refuses to cooperate with MBTA personnel, provide identification, or provide their contact information, they may be asked to exit the station at that time," The MBTA said in a press release. Citations can also be issued if someone is using another person's reduced fare card. However, if someone thinks they were unfairly given a citation, they can appeal here. Riders can pay for the train and buses with their phone, a contactless card, cash, a ticket, or a CharlieCard. The MBTA said that the representatives will be placed throughout the system based on rider patterns so that they can "avoid a disproportionate presence in any one community." They will be wearing a distinctive blue shirt with a yellow MBTA identifier on it and khaki pants. All representatives will have access to Google Translate or speak another language. They have also received training on accessibility, de-escalation, youth engagement, and more. The team members were first introduced in October of 2024 to answer questions and visually check if fares were being paid. The program will officially roll out on September 8. Future advancements of the program will see the staff on buses, Green Line and Mattapan trolleys. For more information about fare checks, click here.
CBS News
3 minutes ago
- CBS News
3 men shot, critically hurt while sitting inside vehicle in Englewood neighborhood
Three men were shot while sitting inside a vehicle on the city's South Side Thursday morning. It happened around 10:41 a.m. in the 7200 block of South Vincennes Avenue. Chicago police said the victims, ages 18, 22, and 23, were inside the vehicle when another unknown vehicle pulled up. At least two gunmen got out and shot at the victims. The 18-year-old and the 22-year-old suffered a gunshot wound in the abdomen. The 23-year-old was also shot in the abdomen and the foot. All three self-transported to St. Bernard's Hospital initially in critical condition. Police said their conditions were stabilized. As of Thursday, no arrests were made. Area One detectives are investigating.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Medical Marijuana Users Shouldn't Lose Their Second Amendment Rights, Court Rules
A federal appeals court has handed medical marijuana patients a major victory, ruling that the government hasn't shown that banning them from owning guns lines up with America's long-standing traditions of firearm regulation. In a ruling issued this week, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a lower court's dismissal and said the plaintiffs had plausibly claimed a violation of their Second Amendment rights. The dispute focuses on federal provisions that ban 'unlawful drug users' of controlled substances, including marijuana, from possessing or purchasing guns. Florida law allows medical marijuana, but the drug remains illegal under federal law. Marijuana Users Are Not Criminals Two residents, Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who use marijuana for health reasons, were denied gun purchases after disclosing their use, while a retired police officer, Neill Franklin, owns a firearm but has avoided joining the medical program despite being eligible, fearing prosecution. The Justice Department argued that marijuana users are comparable to felons or dangerous people historically barred from having guns. The district court agreed, pointing to traditions of disarming felons, alcoholics, and the mentally ill. The appeals court, however, disagreed, finding no basis, at least at this stage, for treating medical marijuana patients as criminals or dangerous. 'Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Cooper and Hansell, it appears they use rational thought in making their decision to use marijuana… Cooper's and Hansell's mental state is a far cry from that of addicts and alcoholics whose actions are controlled by their need to use,' the court wrote. The court further noted that the complaint described conduct that, at most, could constitute a federal misdemeanor, and did not include any allegations of addiction, impairment, or other criminal activity. The judges made clear, however, that the law still stands, but the plaintiffs can continue to fight their case, while the Justice Department may still try to prove later that some marijuana users pose risks similar to intoxicated or dangerous people historically barred from having guns. 'The Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation,' the court said. A Long Trend The ruling aligns with recent decisions by other federal appeals courts and adds momentum to a case challenging whether medical marijuana users can be barred under federal law from owning or buying firearms. Last year, a U.S. appeals court said a Texas woman who owned a gun and used marijuana could not be prosecuted under federal law, ruling it unconstitutional to disarm her based on past drug use. The panel said that while restrictions may apply to people who are actively intoxicated, taking away firearms from a sober, non-violent person for past or occasional use does not align with historical gun laws. In 2023, a federal judge in the Western District of Oklahoma also struck down the long-standing federal ban on marijuana users possessing firearms, calling the prohibition unconstitutional. Courts, therefore, have questioned whether automatically banning marijuana users fits with the country's long-standing tradition of firearm regulation, emphasizing that using medical marijuana doesn't automatically make someone a danger and shouldn't strip them of their Second Amendment rights without cause.
