Commonwealth v. Rousseau

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions of John Rousseau and Michael Dreslinski for arson and related offenses arising from fires and vandalism in 2007. The court held that both defendants had standing to challenge the GPS warrant, that the warrant was supported by probable cause, and that Rousseau's probation condition restricting computer use violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. The court rejected Rousseau's sufficiency and evidentiary claims and rejected Dreslinski's claims concerning hearsay and the modified DiGiambattista instruction.

Holdings

1. Dreslinski, as the owner and operator of the vehicle, had standing to challenge the GPS monitoring. Rousseau, although merely a passenger without a possessory interest in the vehicle, also had standing under article 14 because he had a reasonable expectation that his movements would not be subjected to extended government GPS surveillance without judicial oversight and probable cause.
2. The affidavit, even after excision of allegedly overstated portions concerning a recorded conversation, contained sufficient information to establish probable cause for the GPS warrant.
3. The evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rousseau participated with Dreslinski in setting the charged fires and committing the related offenses.
4. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting testimony and physical evidence concerning Rousseau’s conduct, police-related activity, and fire-related items found at his residence.
5. The probation condition prohibiting Rousseau from using any computer while incarcerated was overly broad and violated his constitutional right of access to the courts because it effectively denied access to computerized legal research and library materials.
6. Rousseau’s out-of-court statements to the news photographer were admissible against Dreslinski as admissions of a joint venturer made during and in furtherance of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
7. The trial judge’s use of the word “waived” in a modified DiGiambattista instruction was problematic, but did not constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial under the circumstances presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rousseau and Dreslinski had standing to challenge the GPS warrant under the Fourth Amendment and article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
2. Whether the affidavit supporting the GPS warrant established probable cause after excision of allegedly overstated information.
3. Whether Rousseau’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
4. Whether the trial judge improperly admitted evidence as irrelevant or prejudicial character evidence.
5. Whether the probation condition barring Rousseau from using computers while incarcerated violated his constitutional right of access to the courts.
6. Whether Rousseau’s statements to a news photographer were admissible under the joint venturer exception to the hearsay rule.
7. Whether the trial judge’s modified DiGiambattista instruction, including reference to Rousseau’s alleged waiver of recording, required a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed