Commonwealth v. Dillon
79 Mass. App. Ct. 290
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant appeals after convictions for oxycodone-related offenses; movant seeks suppression of Lantern Lane evidence.
- Warrants were issued for Angle Street residence, Lantern Lane residence, and two defendant-owned vehicles based on a joint affidavit.
- Affidavit described ongoing oxycodone sales, a controlled purchase at Angle Street, and information from three confidential informants.
- Wizard, a Billerica informant, stated customers came to Lantern Lane and that drugs were kept under a vehicle hood; no house-based corroboration of proceeds.
- Registry records linked Angle Street vehicle to Lantern Lane address; affiant sought money, records, and paraphernalia, not narcotics at Lantern Lane.
- Trial court denied suppression; jury found defendant guilty on multiple counts; convictions challenged on nexus and Melendez-Diaz grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus between drug activity and Lantern Lane | Mills argues nexus supported probable cause for Lantern Lane search. | Mills contends insufficient particularized facts connect Lantern Lane to drug selling. | Nexus deficient; Lantern Lane search suppression warranted. |
| Harmlessness of suppressed evidence | Commonwealth asserts other guilt evidence renders suppression harmless. | Defense asserts tainted evidence contributed to the verdicts. | Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions vacated. |
| Remand and sufficiency of remaining offenses | Commonwealth seeks sentencing on lesser offenses if trafficking vacated. | Defendant challenges remaining viable convictions on lesser offenses. | Remand for consistent proceedings; some counts vacated while others affirmed or dismissed as appropriate. |
| Melendez-Diaz applicability | State contends reversal required for trafficking under Melendez-Diaz. | Defense relies on Melendez-Diaz to challenge lab certificate testimony. | Court does not address Melendez-Diaz claim due to suppression ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cinelli, 389 Mass. 197 (Mass. 1983) (probable cause must show nexus between activities and place searched)
- Commonwealth v. O’Day, 440 Mass. 296 (Mass. 2003) (read affidavit as a whole; avoid hypercritical parsing)
- Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (Mass. 2009) (lived at residence and routine behavior alone not enough; need particularized nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Stegemann, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 292 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (patterns of activity must show timely, substantial nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 381 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (controlled purchases and direct residence linkage scrutinized for nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 (Mass. 1985) (confidential informants: veracity and knowledge bases addressed in later analysis)