Commonwealth v. Tatum
466 Mass. 45
Mass.2013Background
- State police, possessing three active arrest warrants for Tatum, obtained a “no‑knock” search warrant to search a third‑party residence for him after surveillance and a confidential informant tip.
- An officer (Gilmore), in utility disguise, approached the rear porch and observed and spoke with a man matching Tatum’s description through a bathroom window; this observation was not disclosed in the affidavit as a trespass.
- Police executed the no‑knock warrant early next morning, found and arrested Tatum in the basement, observed suspected drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view, and then obtained a second search warrant to seize narcotics and related evidence.
- Tatum was indicted and convicted of trafficking in cocaine (200+ grams) and possession with intent to distribute marijuana; he appealed asserting Fourth Amendment and art. 14 challenges to the searches and a Franks claim for omissions in the first warrant affidavit.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held that a person who is the subject of a valid arrest warrant and arrested in a third‑party home may insist police have a reasonable belief the person will be there, but—where the arrestee disclaims any connection to the home—may not insist on a search warrant or challenge the basis for it; convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of entry into third‑party home to arrest suspect with arrest warrant | Police had probable cause/reasonable belief Tatum was present based on CI, surveillance, and Gilmore’s ID; arrest warrant sufficed for entry to arrest | Entry relied on trespass (Gilmore’s curtilage intrusion); affidavit omitted that fact, tainting warrant and subsequent search | Court: Arrestee with no residence connection cannot insist on search warrant; focus is whether police reasonably believed suspect would be present — here they did; warrant valid for arrest and evidence admissible |
| Franks hearing request (alleged material omission) | Commonwealth: affidavit provided sufficient facts; omission not cognizable by arrestee | Tatum: affidavit omitted material fact (trespass) made intentionally/recklessly, entitling him to Franks hearing | Denied: because Tatum lacks standing to challenge the warrant on trespass ground, no Franks hearing required; omission claim not reached substantively |
| No‑knock warrant and exigency | Commonwealth: affidavit supported no‑knock issuance based on safety and risk of evidence destruction | Tatum: no probable cause/insufficient basis for no‑knock authorization | Court: affidavit supported issuance of no‑knock warrant; claim rejected |
| Sufficiency of evidence / constructive possession / joint venture | Commonwealth: plain‑view observations and seized items support constructive possession and joint venture | Tatum: insufficient proof he lived there or exercised control over drugs | Court: evidence sufficient to support convictions under both theories |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (arrest warrant authorizes entry into suspect’s own dwelling when officers reasonably believe suspect is inside)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (police generally need a search warrant to enter a third‑party home to search for the subject of an arrest warrant)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (defendant may obtain an evidentiary hearing if affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions that are material)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (overnight guest has legitimate expectation of privacy and may challenge warrantless arrest in third‑party home)
- Commonwealth v. Silva, 440 Mass. 772 (Massachusetts recognition that arrest warrant allows entry into suspect’s own home when officers reasonably believe suspect is present)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (physical intrusion onto private property to obtain information is a Fourth Amendment search)