A defendant convicted on a drug possession charge challenged the legality of using drug-sniffing dogs for probable cause for a strip search. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the conviction of the defendant and the use of the drug-sniffing dog alert as probable cause to strip search in Commonwealth v. Elijah Judge.

Defendant was spotted by police with a group of people in a downtown Hyannis hotel parking lot. Police considered this spot a “problem property,” and knew it to be a location where police had previous narcotics investigations. Police watched the defendant for about an hour, and approximately 3 AM, the officer saw a woman and the defendant standing by the trunk of his car and looking around as if they were “conducting counter surveillance.”  The officer also saw the defendant and the woman took something out of the trunk and put into the front of the car.

Believing he witnessed a drug transaction, the police officer called for backup. While waiting for backup, the police officer went to the car and turned on his lights. When approaching the car, he saw a “white powdery substance” on the center console of the car.

Under the Fourth Amendment, police cannot search a person’s home with a warrant, with limited exceptions. When there is a warrant issued, it must be particularized and specific. Officers are typically not allowed to search outside the limits of the warrant. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently looked at the case of Commonwealth v. Campbell, where police ventured outside the scope of their warrant. 

What happened in the Campbell case?

The police obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home. At the time of the search, there were three cars parked in the gravel parking lot in front of the detached three-car garage located ten feet away from the house. The search warrant made no reference to the vehicles in the parking lot. While in the home executing the warrant, the police located the keys to the defendant’s car. The car was parked the furthest from the house, about twenty feet away. The officers searched the car and found thirty-two small bags containing a total of approximately fifteen grams of crack cocaine. 

Massachusetts Appellate Court Decides Stop and Frisk Case 

The controversial police method of stop and frisk had been heavily debated since its inception. However, some courts have held stop and frisks to be legal so long as there is a reasonable justification. The Massachusetts Appellate Court looked at this issue in Commonwealth v. Privette. 

What happened in the Privette case?

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that pretextual inventory searches do not comport with the Fourth Amendment in the case of Commonwealth v. Lek. In the Lek case from Lowell the police detective conceded that he was using traffic infractions in order to detective gang activity.  In other words, traffic stops were being made not to enforce the traffic laws but with the hopes that guns, drugs or other evidence of gang activity would be discovered during the stop.

What happened in the Lek case?  

The Detective and his partner were in plainclothes in an unmarked police car. According to the Detective, he and his partner were looking for motor vehicle violations to address gang suppression through motor vehicle stops. the Detective testified that he was not required to do traffic enforcement that night and was doing it by his own free will.

Do You Have A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Basement of a Multifamily Home That You Do Not Own?

The Fourth Amendment protects against places in which they have a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy. But when is this expectation unreasonable? The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Bristol answered this question in Commonwealth v. DeJesus.

What happened in the DeJesus case?