Commonwealth v. Barry A. Hanson, Jr.

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed orders suppressing evidence obtained from the second-floor apartment of a two-family home. The court held that a warrant authorizing a search of the first-floor apartment did not permit police to search the separate second-floor apartment, even after learning that the defendant rented and used both apartments as a single dwelling, because the warrant lacked the required particularity. A concurrence agreed with the result, while a dissent would have construed the warrant more liberally under an exception discussed in Commonwealth v. Hall.

Holdings

1. A warrant authorizing the search of a specifically identified apartment in a multiunit building does not authorize a search of a different apartment in the same building merely because police later learn that the target rents and uses both apartments as a single dwelling. Absent exigent circumstances or another exception to the warrant requirement, police must obtain a separate warrant for the additional apartment.
2. Probable cause to search a second apartment is necessary but not sufficient to permit its search when the existing warrant does not particularly describe that apartment.
3. A separately identifiable second-floor apartment with its own entrance and mailing address is not part of the curtilage of the first-floor apartment merely because the defendant used both apartments as a single dwelling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a search warrant identifying the first-floor apartment in a two-family building authorized police to search the separately accessible second-floor apartment after police learned during execution that the defendant rented and used both apartments as a single dwelling.
2. Whether the second-floor apartment was within the curtilage or otherwise part and parcel of the first-floor apartment identified in the warrant.
3. Whether the Superior Court judge properly granted suppression and denied reconsideration.

Disposition

affirmed