Commonwealth v. Escalera, 462 Mass. 636

Police obtained a warrant to search 449 North Main Street, apartment 2, Brockton, after confidential informant tips and surveillance showed drug activity.
Informant conducted four controlled heroin purchases from the defendant over two weeks, corroborated by field tests and surveillance showing the defendant’s pattern to the apartment building.
Affidavit linked the defendant’s activities to the apartment, noting his direct return to the building after sales and the defendant’s access to the locked basement.
Apartment search revealed cocaine, cash, a digital scale, and other drug paraphernalia; basement search uncovered heroin, two handguns, ammunition, and a cleaning kit.
Warrant originally limited to the apartment; the basement was later challenged as to whether it was within the curtilage.
The trial convictions included trafficking in heroin, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, school zone violations, unlawful firearm possession, and ammunition possession; the sole affirmed conviction on appeal was ammunition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nexus between drug dealing and residence	Commonwealth asserts nexus supported by multiple controlled purchases and surveillance.	Escalera-like claim that nexus is insufficient under Pina to infer storage at home.	Probable cause established; nexus found through patterns and corroboration.
Basement within curtilage scope	Warrant intended for apartment; basement argued outside curtilage.	Basement not within curtilage; warrant exceeded scope.	Basement within curtilage; search authorized.
Constructive possession of items in basement	Evidence shows defendant had access and control via ownership and proximity.	Possession not proven beyond reasonable doubt.	Sufficient to support constructive possession.
Admission of drug and ballistics certificates without analysts' testimony	Certificates admissible; corroborating expert opinion not required.	Sixth Amendment confrontation violation.	New trial required on charges other than ammunition.
Overall disposition and remand	Convictions appropriate if warrant and nexus established; confrontation issue unresolved.	Remand for new trial on all non-ammunition charges recalibrates due process.	Conviction for ammunition affirmed; other verdicts reversed and remanded for new trial.

Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (2009) (nexus must be more than residence; detailed corroboration matters)
Commonwealth v. Medina, 453 Mass. 1011 (2009) (home-probable-cause nexus requires specific factors)
Commonwealth v. O’Day, 440 Mass. 296 (2003) (basis-of-knowledge and veracity for informants; corroboration permissible)
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 430 Mass. 838 (2000) (drug sales near residence can support nexus to home)
Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 428 Mass. 871 (1999) (curtilage in multiunit buildings; narrow protection)