Commonwealth v. Ramos, 25 N.E.3d 849

Indictment in Suffolk? No; Essex County case charging Ramos with receiving a stolen motor vehicle; codefendant charged with receiving stolen vehicle and property.
Motion to suppress all evidence obtained from a warrantless garage search was denied; judge rejected an accomplice-sweep theory not adopted in MA.
LoJack tracked the stolen Honda Civic to a garage behind a Gardiner Street address in Lynn; officers observed activity and fled suspects, then secured the area for a warrant.
Defendant was hiding inside the house when police obtained the warrant; the vehicle and VIN were located in the garage.
Evidence at trial included recordings of jailhouse calls between Ramos and his codefendant; issues on suppression, admissibility, and sufficiency were appealed.
Court upheld the denial of suppression, admission of jailhouse calls, and sufficiency of the evidence to convict Ramos.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry	Commonwealth contends exigency existed	Ramos contends no exigency; 'accomplice sweep' not recognized	Exigent circumstances justified entry
Whether jailhouse calls were admissible	Prosecution admissible for impeachment	Bruton/Moran concerns limit admission	Admissible; Moran controls, not Bruton
Whether evidence proved Ramos possessed the stolen vehicle	Evidence showed possession and control	Presence near vehicle insufficient without more	Sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence supported possession
Whether admission of camera jailhouse tapes violated Confrontation or Moran	Evidence admissible for impeachment of co‑defendant	Confrontation rights violated	Admissible; Moran governs; no Bruton violation
Whether the conviction is supported beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficiency to establish possession	Insufficient showing of possession	Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction

Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 439 Mass. 616 (Mass. 2003) (exigency justifies warrantless entry when needed to prevent destruction of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Young, 382 Mass. 448 (Mass. 1981) (exigencies and scope of warrantless entry; dangers of destruction of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Moran, 387 Mass. 644 (Mass. 1982) (mutual antagonism; severance relevant to Bruton-like concerns)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (nontestifying codefendant’s statement violations of confrontation if admitted)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (S. Ct. 2011) (exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement)
Commonwealth v. Huffman, 385 Mass. 122 (Mass. 1982) (exigency and entry into a residence to prevent destruction of evidence)
Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 439 Mass. 616 (Mass. 2003) (exigency justifies warrantless entry when needed to prevent destruction of evidence)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (broad statement on exigent circumstances and justification for warrantless searches)
Commonwealth v. Viriyahiranpaiboon, 412 Mass. 224 (Mass. 1992) (considerations for determining exigency and probable cause)
Moran (Moran), 387 Mass. 644 (Mass. 1982) (see above)