Commonwealth v. Suters
90 Mass. App. Ct. 449
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Police responded to a 911 call reporting yelling and a possible water/electrical problem at defendants' home late at night; occupant Monique consented to police entry to help shut off water.
- Officers observed water leaking through a kitchen fan and went to the basement to locate the shut-off valve.
- Whitney Suters re-entered the basement from outside, said he knew the valve location, entered a separate closed basement room and shut the door.
- Officers followed; a scuffle ensued when Whitney pushed the door into an officer, and Whitney was handcuffed and arrested for assault and battery on a police officer.
- After Whitney was restrained, an officer observed a mason jar containing a large amount of raw marijuana in plain view; a drug investigator then obtained a search warrant, and more marijuana and paraphernalia were seized.
- The motion judge suppressed all drug evidence as fruit of an unlawful opening of the closed basement room; the Commonwealth appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Whitney's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial entry into the home lawful? | Consent by Monique justified entry; emergency risk of fire supported entry. | Consent was not involuntary; no real dispute. | Held: Initial entry lawful (voluntary co-occupant consent; emergency justified initial entry). |
| Was opening the closed basement room lawful (consent revoked)? | Monique’s consent extended to the basement and was not limited by Whitney closing the door. | Whitney’s conduct withdrawing implied consent; reasonable to treat consent as revoked when he closed door. | Held: Opening the closed room exceeded scope of consent; consent was effectively withdrawn. |
| Could the emergency-aid exception justify entering the closed room? | Water, exposed wiring, and risk of fire/electrocution created exigency justifying entry. | No ongoing emergency justification to follow Whitney into closed room; he could have turned off the valve. | Held: Emergency-aid exception did not justify entering the closed room; entry exceeded scope of the emergency. |
| Should the discovered marijuana be suppressed under the exclusionary rule (attenuation doctrine)? | The assault on officers was an independent intervening act supplying probable cause; plain-view observation during the subsequent lawful arrest attenuated the taint. | The evidence was the fruit of the unlawful entry and must be suppressed. | Held: Suppression reversed. Whitney’s intervening assault established probable cause for arrest; the plain-view discovery during a lawful arrest attenuated the taint; no flagrant police misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 457 Mass. 14 (discussing limits of attenuation where defendant's act did not influence decision to seize)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (attenuation of the poisonous tree doctrine)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (three‑factor test for attenuation)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (consent to enter by co‑occupant versus objection by present co‑occupant)
- Commonwealth v. Entwistle, 463 Mass. 205 (emergency‑aid exception scope)
- Commonwealth v. Borges, 395 Mass. 788 (attenuation does not apply merely because defendant acted after unlawful police conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 332 (defendant’s violent reaction to unlawful entry can provide independent justification)
- Commonwealth v. Fredette, 396 Mass. 455 (plain‑view seizure allowed when officers lawfully present to effect arrest)