Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that an affidavit supporting a warrant to search the defendant’s apartment did not establish probable cause because it failed to provide a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s drug-selling activity and his residence. The court affirmed the order suppressing cocaine, marijuana, cash, and other items seized during the search.
Holdings
- The affidavit did not establish probable cause to search the defendant's apartment because it failed to provide a sufficient nexus between the defendant's drug-selling activity and the apartment.
- The warrant lacked probable cause because the affidavit did not establish a timely and substantial nexus between the apartment and the suspected drug activity.
Questions Presented
- Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the defendant's apartment for cocaine, marijuana, cash, and related evidence.
- Whether the defendant's residence, his drug sales, and one observation of him driving from the residence to a drug transaction supplied a sufficient nexus between the residence and the suspected drug activity.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (14)
- Commonwealth v. Donahue, 430 Mass. 710 (2000)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. James, 424 Mass. 770 (1997)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Jean-Charles, 398 Mass. 752 (1986)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. O'Day, 440 Mass. 296 (2003)(applied and distinguished)
- Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 (1985)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Cinelli, 389 Mass. 197 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 860 (1983)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Stegemann, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 292 (2007)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Chongarlides, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 366 (2001)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Laughlin, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 926 (1996)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Olivares, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 596 (1991)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…