Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides parolees greater protection than the Fourth Amendment but less protection than probationers. A warrantless search of a parolee's home is permissible under article 14 when supported by reasonable suspicion that the home contains evidence of a parole violation; a warrant is not required. Applying that standard, the court vacated the allowance of the defendant's motion to suppress drugs and related items seized from his apartment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What privacy protections does art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights afford a parolee against a warrantless search of the parolee's home?
- Whether reasonable suspicion that a parolee has violated or is about to violate a condition of parole is sufficient under art. 14 to justify a warrantless search of the parolee's home without a warrant or traditional exception to the warrant requirement.
- Whether the facts known to the parole officer established reasonable suspicion that evidence of a drug-related parole violation would be found in Moore's apartment.
Holdings
- Article 14 affords parolees greater protection than the Fourth Amendment but less protection than it affords probationers because a parolee's expectation of privacy is diminished beyond that of a probationer.
- Under art. 14, reasonable suspicion that evidence in a parolee's home will show that the parolee has violated or is about to violate a condition of parole is sufficient to justify a warrantless search of the home; a search warrant is not required.
- The parole officer had reasonable suspicion that a search of Moore's apartment would reveal evidence of drug-related parole violations.
Key quotations
“Therefore, where a parole officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there is evidence in the parolee's home that the parolee has violated, or is about to violate, a condition of his parole, such suspicion is sufficient to justify a warrantless search of the home.” (473 Mass. at 483)
“However, because the need to supervise parolees weighs heavily against that backdrop, reasonable suspicion that there is evidence in the parolee's home that the parolee has violated, or is about to violate, a condition of his or her parole, is sufficient to justify a search of the parolee's home without the need for a warrant.” (473 Mass. at 491)
Factual background
Lawrence Moore was serving a New Hampshire sentence on parole, with conditions requiring him to submit to parole supervision and refrain from drug-related conduct. After receiving an anonymous tip that Moore was dealing drugs, his parole officer reviewed GPS data showing brief trips between New Bedford and Boston and several short stops in New Bedford. Following a traffic stop during which officers observed marijuana and Moore's girlfriend produced cocaine, the parole officer and police searched Moore's apartment without a warrant and found seventeen bags of crack cocaine, a digital scale, and a gun lock.
Procedural history
The defendant was indicted in the Superior Court for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The motion judge allowed his motion to suppress, ruling that the warrantless search violated art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights even though it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Commonwealth pursued an interlocutory appeal, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.