Commonwealth v. Dorelas
473 Mass. 496
| Mass. | 2016Background
- July 3, 2011: shooting in Hyde Park; witnesses described a shooter wearing a green jacket; a Glock was recovered and the defendant was found wounded nearby wearing a green jacket.
- Police seized the defendant’s apartment and an Apple iPhone pursuant to a separate warrant; Detective Walker swore an affidavit asserting the phone likely contained communications linking the defendant and another suspect to the shooting.
- Magistrate issued a warrant authorizing extraction of call/text data and "saved and deleted photographs" from the iPhone; forensic extraction (UFED) recovered photographs showing the defendant holding a gun and wearing a green jacket.
- Defendant moved to suppress the photographs; the motion judge denied suppression, reasoning that photographs can constitute communications and thus were within the warrant’s scope; defendant appealed and the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
- The Commonwealth later concluded the defendant acted in self-defense; that development did not affect the court’s analysis of the warrant’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search photograph files on iPhone | Warrant affidavit showed probable cause that the phone contained communications linking defendant to shooting, and communications can be photographic | Probable cause extended only to call/text files and photos attached to messages, not the phone’s entire photograph library | Held: Probable cause existed to search photograph files because photographic form can convey communications and evidence sought might reasonably be located in photo files |
| Particularity of warrant | Warrant plus affidavit read together authorized searching files for communications; commonsense reading sufficed despite awkward drafting | Warrant was overbroad and insufficiently particular—authorizing broad categories (e.g., all saved/deleted photos) enabled general exploratory search | Held: Although the warrant was awkward/overbroad on its face, read with the affidavit it authorized searching files for communications; court declined to reverse on particularity grounds raised belatedly |
| Execution scope / seizure of photos (plain view concern) | Once photos were opened, their evidentiary relevance (defendant holding gun, green jacket) was apparent and seizure was within warrant scope | Even if some photo-searching were authorized, the seized photos were not communications and thus outside the permitted scope; applying plain-view to digital files risks general searches | Held: Seizure appropriate—photos reasonably could be sent as threatening communications; court did not rely on plain-view doctrine and found the photos within the warrant’s subject-matter scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cavitt, 460 Mass. 617 (probable cause affidavit review limited to four corners; deference to magistrate)
- Commonwealth v. McDermott, 448 Mass. 750 (searches of electronic devices require careful, narrow scope; probable cause standard applied to devices)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (smartphone searches implicate substantial privacy interests; devices are minicomputers)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (lawful search of premises extends to areas where object of search may be found)
- Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 453 Mass. 102 (probable cause requires substantial basis that items sought relate to crime and are likely in place searched)
- United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (noting inability to determine whether an image is threatening without opening it)