112 N.E.3d 796
Mass.2018Background
- Defendant Jean Alexis was identified by a home-invasion victim as one of three intruders who beat the victim and struck his infant with a handgun; indictment followed.
- Detective Pohle prepared an arrest-warrant application the day of the crime but placed it in the court box for the next day rather than seeking an after-hours warrant.
- Sergeant Kenny of the warrant task force learned of the identification and went, without a warrant, with four officers to the defendant’s residence in plain clothes with badges displayed.
- Officers approached, the defendant saw them through a glass door and fled to the rear; officers entered, arrested him, and performed a protective sweep during which Kenny observed jewelry in plain view matching the stolen description.
- Kenny included the plain-view observations in a subsequent affidavit; a clerk-magistrate issued a search warrant and police seized clothing, jewelry, and other items; defendant moved to suppress the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless entry/arrest into home | Police argue exigent-circumstances justified entry because officers’ lawful presence prompted flight and destruction of evidence | Alexis contends officers created the exigency by going to his home without first obtaining an available warrant, so exigency exception is unavailable | Under art. 14, court held exigency unavailable where officers foreseeably created it by going to arrest without obtaining a warrant; warrantless arrest was unreasonable and observations during sweep suppressed |
| Applicability of Kentucky v. King under art. 14 | Commonwealth urges Massachusetts should follow King: lawful police conduct that foreseeably prompts exigency does not bar exigent-circumstances exception | Defendant urges art. 14 provides greater protection than Fourth Amendment and precludes reliance on foreseeable exigency created by police conduct | Court declined to adopt King for art. 14 contexts where exigency was reasonably foreseeable and officers failed to obtain a warrant; art. 14 affords greater protection |
| Plain-view observations during protective sweep | Commonwealth contends plain-view seizure during lawful sweep supports inclusion in affidavit and later warrant | Alexis argues sweep was fruit of unlawful entry so plain-view observations are inadmissible | Because the arrest/entry was unlawful, plain-view observations from the sweep were excluded; judge correctly suppressed that evidence |
| Validity of later search warrant (nexus/probable cause) | Commonwealth did not preserve argument but implied affidavit (minus plain-view items) still supplied probable cause for gun and other items | Alexis argued the warrant relied on improperly obtained plain-view observations and thus was invalid | Court found Commonwealth waived challenge to warrant’s sufficiency by failing to raise it below or on appeal, but opined that probable cause likely remained even without the plain-view observations |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798 (warrantless entry impermissible where exigency was reasonably foreseeable and police offer no justifiable excuse for failing to obtain a warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Molina, 439 Mass. 206 (art. 14 protects against warrantless home intrusions; exigent-circumstances not satisfied where exigency results from warrantless arrest)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. Supreme Court: exigency exception applies when police did not create the exigency by conduct violating the Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 470 Mass. 740 (searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable; warrant requirement subject to narrow exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Cinelli, 389 Mass. 197 (probable cause for search warrant requires nexus between items sought and place to be searched; consider type of crime and likelihood items are kept at residence)