Commonwealth v. Entwistle
463 Mass. 205
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Defendant, a British citizen, was extradited from the UK for the murders of his wife and nine‑month‑old daughter in Hopkinton, MA; convictions for two first‑degree murders based on deliberate premeditation.
- Police conducted two warrantless searches of the Entwistle home while seeking missing occupants and potential evidence; the searches occurred Jan. 21 and Jan. 22, 2006.
- DNA on the stepfather’s .22 revolver and related surfaces matched the defendant or his wife; keys to the house and trigger locks were recovered or missing after the murders.
- Defendant claimed the first motion to suppress and the second search were unlawful; he also challenged jury impartiality due to pretrial publicity.
- The trial court denied suppression and denied change of venue; convictions were affirmed on appeal after a full record review.
- Probationary issues included the potential applicability of emergency aid, community caretaking, and inevitable discovery defenses, which the court ultimately did not reach for the latter two.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrantless home entry was permissible | Commonwealth | Entwistle home entry was not supported by emergency aid | Yes; entry justified under emergency aid exception |
| Whether the second warrantless entry violated protections against unreasonable searches | Commonwealth | Second entry was improper or beyond emergency aid scope | Yes; second entry justified by ongoing emergency aid; even if invalid, harmless error as to evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Peters, 453 Mass. 818 (2009) (review of suppression with emergency aid standard; factual findings deferential to judge)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency aid exception to entering a home without a warrant)
- Townsend, 453 Mass. 413 (2009) (emergency aid and reasonableness standards for warrantless searches)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (emergency aid doctrine in searches for victims)
- Peters, 130 S. Ct. 546 (2009) (reemphasizes objective basis for emergency aid entry; relevance to missing person cases)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (plain-view observations within search; limits on expanding searches during emergency aid)
- United States v. Fisher, 130 S. Ct. 546 (2009) (reiterates lack of subjectivity in emergency aid determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Magee, 423 Mass. 381 (1996) (emergency aid rationale and scope in searches for victims)