An appeals courtroom is permitting proof to betossed from a case in opposition to an alleged marijuana supplier, ruling that cops carried out an “unconstitutional search.”
The drug and gun case in opposition to Barry Hanson goes again to July of 2023 when police in central Massachusetts executed a search warrant at his first-floor house.
Southbridge Police discovered a number of weapons, packaging supplies for the alleged sale and distribution of marijuana, a considerable amount of edible merchandise suspected to comprise THC, and pre-rolled cigarettes packed on the market suspected to be marijuana.
Hanson didn’t have a license to hold firearms and was not licensed by the Hashish Management Fee to promote marijuana in Massachusetts, as police arrested him on quite a few expenses.
However after his arraignment, Hanson pushed to toss out among the proof that was discovered in the course of the police’s search.
He argued that the cops mustn’t have gone to the second flooring in the course of the search based mostly on the warrant for the primary flooring. He claimed this violated the Fourth Modification of the Structure and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
A Superior Court docket choose agreed with Hanson, permitting his movement to suppress proof from the search. Prosecutors then referred to as on the next courtroom to reverse the ruling.
In the course of the execution of the warrant for Hanson’s first-floor house, the cops came upon that he additionally rented the second-floor house — and that he was utilizing the 2 flats as a single dwelling.
This led to the cops increasing their search to the second-floor house with out acquiring a brand new warrant.
“… The judge decided that the search of the second floor exceeded the scope of the search warrant approved by the clerk-magistrate and therefore allowed the motion to suppress,” the state appeals courtroom wrote in its ruling issued on Tuesday.
“In sum, when police extended their search to the second-floor apartment without obtaining a second warrant, they conducted an unconstitutional search,” the appeals courtroom later wrote. “Therefore, the judge correctly concluded that the fruits of that search should be suppressed.”
The affidavit supporting the search warrant famous a number of gross sales of marijuana and associated paraphernalia to an undercover cop.
Police additionally reported that they noticed Hanson leaving the primary flooring with the plastic baggage and shoebox from which he later retrieved the medication that he allegedly bought to the undercover cop.
When police executed the search warrant for the primary flooring, his girlfriend informed the cops that Hanson rented each the first- and second-floor flats — treating them as a single unit.
With out making use of for an additional search warrant for the second flooring, the police obtained the keys to the padlocks securing the 2 doorways on the second flooring, unlocked them, and searched the rooms. Throughout that search, the police discovered contraband, together with weapons.
This attraction facilities round how the Fourth Modification applies to multi-unit residential buildings.
“… The motion judge could permissibly rule that police should have obtained another search warrant for the second-floor apartment,” Affiliate Justice Marguerite Grant wrote in a concurring opinion.
Affiliate Justice Kathryn Hand in a dissenting opinion argued that the search was authorized. She wrote that the second-floor house was “part and parcel” of the identical dwelling recognized within the search warrant.
Hand wrote, “Because, on this record and on these particular facts, I believe that the search the police conducted of the second-floor apartment was within constitutional bounds, I respectfully dissent.”
