In a recent case – Commonwealth v. Jones – the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the denial of the Commonwealth’s motion to compel the defendant to enter his cell phone’s password into the device in order to enable the police to search its contents. The background was as follows. “A grand…
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements that he made to the police after he was arrested for receiving a stolen motor vehicle in Commonwealth v Pridgett. The decision was based on the ground that the arresting officer’s belief that the defendant knew…
The Appeals Court reversed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress items seized pursuant to a warrantless search of his motor vehicle in Commonwealth v. Darosa. The basic facts were as follows. Detective Donahue and other detectives were on patrol in a high crime area when they saw a…
In Commonwealth v. Alexis , the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress. The Court ruled that under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights “the police cannot avail themselves of the exigency exception to the warrant requirement when it was foreseeable that their actions…
In Commonwealth v. Owens, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the dissenting justice on the Appeals Court panel below and ordered suppression of “evidence discovered when police officers ‘froze’ a house while they obtained a warrant.” The basic facts presented at the hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress were as…
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA A divided panel of the Appeals Court reversed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine and other items seized from his vehicle in Commonwealth v. Barreto on the ground that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to issue the exit order that led to the…
In Commonwealth v. Arthur, the Appeals Court reversed the suppression of the contents of cell phones seized by the police, because the judge erroneously ruled that “the police unreasonably delayed obtaining a warrant to search the contents of” the phones. The basic facts were as follows. “[T]he defendant and two…
In Commonwealth v. Jeannis, the Appeals Court reversed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress a bag of drugs seized from his rectum, because the police did not have a warrant to conduct the seizure. The basic facts were as follows. In the booking area of a police station…
In Commonwealth v. Santiago, the Appeals Court reversed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress items seized from the vehicle in which he was a passenger, because the show of force by the police during the stop of the vehicle “was sufficiently significant to convert the stop to an…
In Commonwealth v. Bones (http://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/commonwealth-vs.-leonides-bones), the Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction of possession of a class A controlled substance with intent to distribute, ruling that the judge properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The basic facts were as follows. Chelsea police sergeant Dunn “responded to a call from…