Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an order suppressing evidence discovered after police officers entered and cleared a house while seeking a search warrant. The court held that warrantless entry into the dwelling was not justified by exigent circumstances because the Commonwealth failed to show specific information supporting an objectively reasonable belief that evidence would be removed or destroyed. The court also agreed that the record did not establish a sufficient officer-safety basis for the entry.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether police may enter and physically surveil a dwelling while securing it during the warrant-application process based solely on generalized concerns that evidence might be moved or destroyed.
- Whether the evidence discovered in Owens's second-floor room was subject to suppression because the warrantless entry was not supported by specific information establishing an objectively reasonable belief that evidence would be destroyed or removed.
- Whether the police conduct was justified by a protective sweep for officer safety or by the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room.
Holdings
- Police officers who secure or control a dwelling while seeking a warrant may not enter the dwelling, absent specific information supporting an objectively reasonable belief that evidence will actually be removed or destroyed unless preventative measures are taken.
- The warrantless entry and observation of Owens were not justified by exigent circumstances because the Commonwealth failed to establish an objectively reasonable, specific basis to believe that evidence would be lost or destroyed.
- Owens had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the second-floor room, and the Commonwealth's contrary argument did not justify reversal of the suppression order.
- The protective-sweep rationale did not justify the entry because the record did not establish a reasonable basis to believe that anyone in the house posed a danger to police or others.
Key quotations
“there is a fundamental difference between securing or controlling the perimeter of a dwelling from the outside and the entry and physical surveillance of a dwelling from the inside.” (at 3)
“police officers who secure a dwelling while a warrant is being sought in order to prevent destruction or removal of evidence may not enter that dwelling, in the absence of specific information supporting an objectively reasonable belief that evidence will indeed be removed or destroyed unless preventative measures are taken.” (at 3)
“These generic explanations -- the only references in the testimony to the possible loss or destruction of evidence -- do not amount to "specific information supporting an objectively reasonable belief that evidence will indeed be removed or destroyed," as required by DeJesus, 439 Mass. at 621 (emphasis added).” (at 4)
Factual background
Boston police officers investigating suspected prostitution entered a Roxbury house, arrested a woman known as Cinnamon and the house's owner, and decided to "freeze" the house by removing all occupants while seeking a search warrant. An officer entered a second-floor room after hearing a noise and found Owens holding a crack pipe while seated before a plate containing white powder. The evidence was seized after a warrant was obtained and executed. The motion judge found no evidence that drugs or alcohol were being sold or that the occupants posed a danger, and found insufficient grounds to believe evidence was at risk of destruction or removal.
Procedural history
Police officers arrested two individuals at a house suspected of being used for prostitution and cleared the house of occupants while seeking a search warrant. During that process, an officer entered a second-floor room and observed Owens with suspected crack cocaine and a pipe. The motion judge suppressed the evidence, the Appeals Court reversed, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the suppression order.