Commonwealth v. CarterCommonwealth v. Carter
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Dreben
Nоtified that the defendant, for whom an arrest warrant was outstanding,1 might be at 158 Bradford Street in Pittsfield, Detective David Granger and other members of the Pittsfield policе department went to that location.2 Although the defendant attempted to elude the police, Granger eventually arrested him and escorted him, hаndcuffed, to a police cruiser. Prior to the defendant’s arrest, Granger had seen him crouching in a corner of an enclosed second-floor porch. After placing the defendant in the cruiser, Granger reentered the house and went to the corner of the second-floor porch where he had seen the defendant. There, among a pile of boxes containing empty bottles and debris, he saw a wallet, later determined to be the defendаnt’s, and a plastic bag. In the bag were thirty-nine smaller bags containing white chunks, later determined to consist of 4.81 grams of cocaine. The defendant was subsequently indicted and convicted of possession with intent to distribute a class B substance.
In his appeal from that conviction, the defendant argues that Granger’s wаrrantless reentry of the house to search the porch after the defendant had been arrested was illegal and that the drugs, the fruits of the illegal searсh, should not have been admitted in evidence. He also claims error in the exclusion of the defendant’s statement to a witness that she should not use cocaine. We affirm the defendant’s conviction.
1. Suppression of drugs. Although the defendant sought by motion prior to trial to suppress his inculpatory statements, he did not move to suppress the drugs. At trial he claimed this failure was because the police report indicated that the search took place at the same time as the arrest, and he only discovered through Granger’s testimony at trial that the search of the porch occurred after the defendant’s arrest and placement in the cruiser. Contrary to the Commonwealth’s contention, a review of the police report and the
We need not pass on the defendant’s claim that the judge’s reasons for denying the defendant’s attempt to exclude the evidence were insufficient5 as there is another valid basis for the admission of the drugs. See Commonwealth v. Signorine, 404 Mass. 400, 403 n.l (1989) (“Although . . . neither the Commonwealth nor the judge relied on this theory, the general rule is that, if the evidencе is admissible, ‘it is of no consequence whether the reason assigned by the judge was accurate’ ”). See also Commonwealth v. Osorno, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 327, 332 n.8 (1991); Commonwealth v. Dise, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 701, 705 (1991).
In contrast to the Federal rule, see United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 90-92 (1980), which abolished the
Even if the defendant may have had a subjective expectation of privacy in the second-floor porch, that еxpectation was not reasonable. The building was a four-family house with two apartments on the second floor and two on the first floor. The defendant did not own the place involved, was not a tenant, and was not an invitee of the second-floor apartment dweller. He had merely visited a friend on the first floor. Since the defendant had no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the second-floor porch, the conduct of the police did not constitute a search as to
2. Exclusion of witness’s statement. During the direct examination of a defense witness, the friend whom the defendant had visited, the judge sustained the Commonwealth’s objection to defense counsel’s questioning about the conversation the defendant had had with the witness. In reply to thе judge’s inquiry as to what he expected from the witness that would not be hearsay, defense counsel stated: “Well, I expect they ha[d] a conversation аbout her use of cocaine, and he told her not to use it.”
At trial, defense counsel did not state the precise legal grounds for his objection, see
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The arrest warrant was for breaking and entering in the nighttime and malicious destruction of property.
The defendant had beеn visiting someone in an apartment on the first floor.
Granger’s police report states: “Carter came down off of the house roof and was arrested. As he was brought out for transport I went up and looked on the area of the porch where I had seen him. I went to the outside corner of the porсh where I had first saw him and almost immediately located his wallet and a bag of Crack Cocaine next to it.”
In his trial testimony Granger stated that he went to the back porch after he had placed the defendant in the cruiser.
That rule provides: “A defense or objection which is capable of determination without trial of the general issue shall be raised beforе trial by motion.”
The judge made no findings. In rejecting the defendant’s repeated requests to exclude the evidence and to strike it, the judge appears to have considered that the evidence was abandoned or obtained incident to an arrest. The defendant argues that the drugs were not abandoned and, citing Commonwealth v. Pena, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 201, 206-207 (1991), claims that, even if they were abandoned, the Commonwealth must show that the police were legally entitled to enter the private porсh. He also relies on
The defendant relies on Commonwealth v. Frazier, 410 Mass, аt 245, to allow him to challenge the search. In that case, the defendant was convicted of trafficking based upon cocaine seized from a handbag of a woman with whom he was acting in concert. In Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238, 240 n.5 (1992), the defendant was charged on the basis that he had joint and constructive possession of the drugs with onе Torrez. As a result, it was held that he could challenge her arrest and the search and seizure from her of the drugs. Frazier and Santaliz depend on the relationship the defendant had to the drugs possessed by the other persons. See Commonwealth v. Garcia, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 386, 390 n.5 (1993). See and compare United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 81-82 (1993).