Commonwealth v. Perkins, SJC-12256

Background

State police and Framingham police wiretapped a drug network; intercepted calls showed Hairston arranging to buy cocaine from a supplier through a middleman (Nasean Johnson).
On April 23, 2014, intercepted calls set a 2:00 PM meet at the Natick Mall; surveillance observed a black male in an orange hooded sweatshirt (later identified as Perkins) at the lot, on a phone, and later driving a Nissan Altima with Johnson as passenger.
Police stopped the Altima ~20 minutes later, found $5,200 (the agreed purchase price) in the glove compartment, and intercepted calls indicating the buyer complained the cocaine was "wet" and that the supplier would "make good."
Based on the wiretap, surveillance, and phone calls, a Suffolk Superior Court judge issued a warrant to search Perkins’s Allston apartment for drug records, proceeds, paraphernalia, cellular telephones (including devices showing contact with Johnson’s number), and the orange hoodie.
Execution of the warrant yielded multiple cellphones, ~3 bags of cocaine and paraphernalia, ammunition, a stun gun, and cash; no orange sweatshirt was found.
The Superior Court suppressed the evidence, finding the affidavit failed to show Perkins’s role in the sale and failed to link the apartment to the crime; the SJC reviewed the warrant affidavit de novo.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Perkins's Argument	Held
Whether affidavit established probable cause that Perkins participated in the April 23 sale	Intercepted calls, surveillance placing Perkins at the meet, his presence in the Altima with Johnson, and $5,200 in the glove compartment supported an inference that Perkins was Johnson’s supplier and participated in the sale	Affidavit lacked particularized facts about Perkins’s role; police offered no direct proof tying him to the sale	Held: Probable cause existed to believe Perkins participated (court inferred Johnson was middleman and Perkins the source)
Whether affidavit established nexus between apartment and cellular telephones used in the transaction	Specific intercepted calls plus observation of Perkins using a phone at the meet supported searching his residence for phones and call/contact lists showing contact with Johnson	General assertions insufficient to support searching phones; reliance on generalized expectations of phone usage was improper	Held: Probable cause supported seizure/search limited to phone call logs and contact lists to identify the phone that contacted Johnson; not a license for unrestricted rummaging
Whether affidavit supported seizure of the orange sweatshirt from the apartment	The hoodie was observed at the meet on the seller; Perkins lived at the apartment, so it was reasonable to expect he kept clothing there and the sweatshirt could aid identification	Hoodie was already identified during the motor-vehicle stop, so seizing it from the apartment was unnecessary and not supported	Held: Probable cause supported searching for and seizing the orange sweatshirt at the residence (identification evidence and reasonably kept at home)
Whether affidavit supported a general search for drug records, proceeds, and paraphernalia in the apartment	Affiant’s training/experience and normal inferences about where dealers store records/proceeds justified searching for such items	Affidavit lacked particularized facts tying those categories of evidence to Perkins’s dwelling; conclusory training-based statement insufficient	Held: Affidavit did not supply sufficient particularized facts; no probable cause for a general search for drug-related records/proceeds/paraphernalia

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. White, 475 Mass. 583 (2016) (police must show particularized evidence before searching a cell phone)
Commonwealth v. Broom, 474 Mass. 486 (2016) (conclusory assertions that a phone will contain evidence are insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Molina, 476 Mass. 388 (2017) (probable cause to seize all computers where particular IP-linked evidence supported nexus)
Commonwealth v. Cinelli, 389 Mass. 197 (1983) (nexus to residence requires substantial basis to expect evidence will be found there)
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 430 Mass. 710 (2000) (review warrant affidavits as a whole; avoid hypercritical parsing)
Commonwealth v. James, 424 Mass. 770 (1997) (clothing may be seized from home where it is durable, useful for identification, and reasonably kept at home)