Commonwealth v. Broom

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Eldrick Broom's convictions for murder in the first degree and aggravated rape. The court held that the defendant's challenge to the warrantless acquisition of thirty-one days of cellular site location information was not retroactively available because the issue had not been preserved at trial, and admission of the limited CSLI evidence did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. The court nevertheless concluded that the warrant authorizing a search of the defendant's cellular telephone lacked probable cause and was overbroad.

Holdings

1. The new rule requiring a search warrant supported by probable cause to obtain cellular-site location information for a substantial period applies only when the conviction was not final and the warrant issue was raised before or during trial. Because Broom did not challenge the acquisition of his cellular-site location information before or during trial, Augustine's warrant rule did not apply retroactively to his case.
2. The information known to police, including Broom's DNA on the victim and his residence in the same apartment complex, supplied probable cause to believe that CSLI for November 20 and 21 would assist in determining his location in the hours before, during, and after the homicide.
3. The warrant authorizing the search of the defendant's cellular telephone was unsupported by probable cause and was overly broad. A warrant affidavit concerning a cellular telephone with extensive storage and Internet capabilities must provide a particularized basis to expect that evidence relating to the crime will be found in the specific data files or electronic locations to be searched.
4. The denial of the motion to suppress the fruits of the cellular-telephone search was constitutional error, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require reversal.
5. The trial judge erred by preventing counsel from reading a juror's note at or near the time it was delivered and from participating meaningfully in shaping the response, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth's warrantless acquisition of thirty-one days of cellular-site location information violated article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and, if so, whether the issue was preserved sufficiently to receive retroactive application of Commonwealth v. Augustine.
2. Whether the search warrant for the contents of the defendant's cellular telephone was supported by probable cause and satisfied the particularity requirement.
3. Whether the search of the cellular telephone was invalid because police did not begin the search within seven days after issuance of the warrant.
4. Whether the trial judge deprived the defendant of his right to participate in shaping a response by withholding a juror's note and responding without first allowing counsel to review it.
5. Whether any errors required reversal of the convictions under the harmless-error standard or the court's independent review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Disposition

affirmed