Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals issued an important decision upholding the requirement that a search warrant for a residence be based on probable cause to believe that the house is being used for criminal activity.

Often, Massachusetts drug crimes, like possession with the intent to distribute or trafficking in narcotics will come down to whether the police properly obtained the evidence in a case and a motion to suppress will be critical to the outcome of the trial. A search warrant under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights can only be issued if it is based on probable cause. When an officer prepares a search warrant, an affidavit is submitted in support of the warrant; this affidavit must detail for the magistrate that the items sought are related to criminal activity and are reasonably expected to be in the place subject of the search. In Massachusetts drug crimes, the Court has stressed that probable cause to believe that drugs will be found in a home is not established by the fact that the defendant lives there. This principle can be found in the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (2009).

In the case of Commonwealth v. Dillon, decided April 15, 2011, the Massachusetts Appeals Court found that the affidavit did not establish a sufficient nexus between the drug activity and the home of the defendant to justify a search. Significantly, the affidavit did contain evidence that customers came to the residence to purchase drugs and that the defendant delivered oxycodone from the residence. Further, the Appeals Court noted that the confidential informants did not provide any information relating to drug sales from the residence of the defendant. Further, the court noted that the police did not conduct surveillance or a controlled buy from the residence. Finally, the court noted that there was no inference that the defendant would leave the residence engage in a drug transaction and return to the residence to establish a pattern of repeated activities, giving rise to a reasonable inference that the residence was a base for drug sales. As a result, the Appeals Court held that the trial judge should have allowed the Massachusetts criminal attorneys motion to suppress finding that the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 were violated by the search in this case.