Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a search warrant for a safe found in a vehicle lacked probable cause because the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the safe and criminal activity. The court ordered suppression of the firearm, magazine, ammunition, and other evidence recovered from the safe. It also held that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to the grand jury that the defendant's prior robbery conviction qualified as a violent crime for armed career criminal sentence enhancements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress was timely when the trial judge granted two thirty-day extensions to file the application for leave to appeal.
- Whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause connecting the safe to criminal activity and therefore justified the search of the safe.
- Whether evidence that the defendant had been convicted of robbery, without evidence of the circumstances of the robbery, established probable cause that the prior conviction was for a violent crime qualifying as a predicate offense under the armed career criminal statute.
Holdings
- A trial court judge has discretion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15(b)(1) to grant a reasonable extension of time for filing an application for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and the rule imposes no express thirty-day limitation on that extension.
- The search warrant for the safe was invalid because the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the safe and suspected criminal activity; therefore, the evidence seized from the safe had to be suppressed.
- A prior robbery conviction, without evidence of the circumstances establishing the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, does not provide probable cause that the conviction was for a violent crime qualifying as a predicate offense under G. L. c. 269, § 10G(b).
Key quotations
“Simply put, there is no express limitation in the rules on a trial court judge's authority to grant an extension of time for filing the application for leave to appeal.” (477 Mass. at 408-409)
“As the affidavit failed to provide a nexus between any suspected criminal activity and the safe, the warrant was invalid and the fruits of the search must be suppressed.” (477 Mass. at 413)
“Because the grand jury in this case heard only that the defendant had been convicted of robbery, without evidence that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical force, there was no reasonable basis to find probable cause that he had committed a "violent crime."” (477 Mass. at 416-417)
Factual background
During surveillance of an apparent drug dealer at a convenience-store parking lot, police observed the defendant arrive, interact with the dealer, and drive away with the dealer and another person. After police stopped the vehicle, they found hypodermic needles and drug paraphernalia, as well as a small safe marked "Fort Knox" behind the driver's seat; no narcotics were found. Police obtained a warrant based on the safe's design, the presence of a heavy object inside, and the officer's general statements about drug dealers using safes, and the search revealed a handgun, magazine, ammunition, pill bottles bearing the defendant's name, and needles. The grand jury later heard that the defendant had prior convictions for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and robbery, but it heard no evidence concerning the circumstances of the robbery.
Procedural history
A Superior Court judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a safe pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant timely filed a notice of appeal and obtained extensions to apply for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. A different Superior Court judge denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the armed career criminal enhancements, after which the defendant petitioned the county court under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The single justice reserved and reported both matters to the full court.
Remand instructions
In No. SJ-2016-275, the county court shall enter judgment reversing the Superior Court order denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered pursuant to the search warrant. In No. SJ-2016-276, the county court shall enter judgment allowing the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and reversing the Superior Court order denying the motion to dismiss the armed career criminal portions of the indictments.