98 Mass. App. Ct. 789
Mass. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Police received an eyewitness ID of the assailant and the street address; eyewitness said the suspect lived on the third-floor back right apartment.
- Sergeant Murray went to the multiunit, three-story building, knocked at the defendant's apartment; a woman answered and the defendant came toward the door.
- Murray asked the defendant to step into the common hallway; the defendant complied and was arrested without a warrant; officer observed a bandage and later a laceration on the defendant's finger.
- On direct appeal the defendant conceded probable cause but raised (for the first time) that the arrest occurred in the apartment’s curtilage; that argument was waived on appeal.
- Defendant then moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to move to suppress evidence from the warrantless arrest; the motion (and a reconsideration motion) was denied by the trial judge.
- The Appeals Court affirmed, holding the common hallway was not curtilage and that asking the defendant to step into the hallway did not, by itself, constitute a seizure.
Issues:
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Sorenson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress on curtilage grounds | Counsel not ineffective because the hallway was not within the apartment’s curtilage; suppression motion would fail | Counsel ineffective for not litigating that the arrest occurred within the apartment’s curtilage, rendering the warrantless arrest unconstitutional | Not ineffective: hallway was a common area, not curtilage, so a suppression motion would not have succeeded |
| Whether Murray’s request that defendant "step out in the hallway" constituted a seizure inside the home | No seizure: police may knock and ask questions; request alone did not objectively communicate coercion | The request transformed the encounter into a seizure inside the residence | No seizure: under the circumstances a reasonable person would not have felt they were seized by the officer’s request alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Saferian v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 89 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Dunn v. United States, 480 U.S. 294 (four-factor test for curtilage)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (definition of curtilage as protecting intimate home activities)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (property-rights baseline for home and curtilage protection)
- Commonwealth v. Escalera, 462 Mass. 636 (curtilage applied narrowly in multiunit buildings)
- Commonwealth v. Leslie, 477 Mass. 48 (usefulness of Dunn factors in multifamily contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Johnston, 467 Mass. 674 (ineffective-assistance claim fails if suppression motion would not have succeeded)
- Commonwealth v. Barros, 435 Mass. 171 (seizure inquiry: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (seizure defined by objective coercion standard)
- Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 428 Mass. 871 (common areas serving all tenants not curtilage)
- United States v. Trice, 966 F.3d 506 (hallway of apartment building not curtilage under Dunn)