Commonwealth v. Colon
80 Mass. App. Ct. 162
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Colon is charged in 2001 with cocaine trafficking and two firearm offenses as a habitual criminal; suppression motion denied, trial delayed due to defendant’s default; after subsequent denials and reconsiderations, suppression of physical evidence and statements occurred in 2009, leading to interlocutory appeal granted by the Commonwealth.
- An affidavit by Trooper LeVangie, based on two confidential informants and three controlled buys in 2001, connected the defendant to a cocaine delivery operation operating from 88 South Leyden Street in Brockton.
- Affiant documented that the target location served as the base for deliveries, with deliveries routed from the residence to neutral delivery sites and back to the residence.
- Surveillance linked the defendant to the green Mazda and identified him through photographs; a Rhode Island–style “stash” and proceeds rationale were advanced for nexus.
- A warrant sought for the first floor of the target residence and related items, and the resulting search recovered cocaine, cash, an electronic scale, and a firearm; those items were initially suppressed but the Superior Court later ordered suppression of certain items and statements, spurring the Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit shows probable cause to search the defendant’s residence. | Commonwealth | Colon | Probable cause established |
| Whether the nexus between drug activity and residence is sufficiently particularized. | Commonwealth | Colon | Sufficient nexus found |
| Whether information was stale given time since last observation. | Commonwealth | Colon | Warrant timely; not stale |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cinelli, 389 Mass. 197 (Mass. 1983) (probable cause and nexus in search warrants)
- Commonwealth v. O’Day, 440 Mass. 296 (Mass. 2003) (reliability and corroboration of informants)
- Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (Mass. 2009) (drug delivery nexus to residence; implied evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hardy, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 210 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (pattern of operation supports residence nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Alcantara, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 591 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (delivery service pattern supports probable cause)