Commonwealth v. Matos
78 Mass. App. Ct. 156
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Thirteen Springfield police officers execute an arrest warrant for Andre Matos at 165 Princeton Street early in the morning, wearing camouflage uniforms and armed.
- Team leader Lieutenant Daniel knew the defendant had prior firearms offenses, and other officers were informed of those prior offenses before entry.
- The plan was to conduct a protective sweep of all floors to determine if any threats or confederates were present, with a belief the defendant, his mother, and his seven-year-old niece lived there.
- During the sweep, on the third floor attic area, an officer observed in plain view a bag of marijuana, crack cocaine, other drugs, paraphernalia, and a black safe.
- An officer later sought and obtained a search warrant based on the attic observations, which led to seizure of the safe, firearms, cocaine, marijuana, scales, currency, and packaging materials.
- Before the warrant, an officer allegedly coerced the mother into consenting to a house search by threatening the Department of Social Services for the niece; the mother’s consent was therefore coerced per the motion judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective sweep was justified by articulable facts | Commonwealth | Matos | Yes; sweep supported by prior firearms-related knowledge |
| Whether plain-view observations during the sweep were admissible | Commonwealth | Matos | Yes; items discovered in plain view admissible when lawful in sweep |
| Whether the coerced consent tainted the search | Commonwealth | Matos | Coercion immaterial; warrant based on plain-view observations valid |
| Whether the search was properly supported by a warrant despite the sweep | Commonwealth | Matos | Warrant supported by observed plain-view items; admissible |
| Whether the pre-warrant pre-entry conduct invalidates the later seizure | Commonwealth | Matos | Invalidity of consent and pre-warrant concerns do not render warrant-based evidence inadmissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep requires articulable facts to justify danger to officers)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 439 Mass. 616 (2003) (plain-view observations during lawful sweep may justify seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 370 Mass. 548 (1976) (protective sweep and related doctrines discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Nova, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 633 (2000) (limits on cursory searches beyond immediate arrest scene)
- Commonwealth v. Streeter, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 430 (2008) (pre-warrant evidence and plain-view considerations carried into warrant-based seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, 457 Mass. 300 (2010) (plain-view doctrine applied to items observed during lawful conduct)