Thе defendant was tried on four indictments charging him with unlawful possession of cocaine, unlawful possession of cannabis, unlawful possession of heroin, and possession of heroin with intent to sell. A judge in a jury waived trial found the defendant guilty on the first three charges, and not guilty on the fourth. The defendant comes here on appеal under applicable provisions of G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, and argues assignments of error which will be severally considered.
1. The defendant first argues that the search of the apartment in which the narcotics were discovered was not conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant in that the warrant was obtained by virtue of a prior surveillance of the police which violated the defendant’s right to privacy as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It appears that on April 23, 1971, acting on a warrant, several Boston police officers entered the second floor apartment at 17 Erie Street in Dorchеster where various narcotics, and implements employed in measuring, diluting and packaging the same, were seized. Prior to trial the defendant moved to suppress the evidence which was there obtained. A police detective gave evidence at the hearing on the motion that acting on information frоm a reliable informant the police commenced surveillance in and around 17 Erie Street prior to April 22. The affidavit in support of the application for the warrant stated in part that between April 19 and April 22, 1971, a number of suspected users and sellers of narcotics had entered and left the apartment. It was further stated that during certain observations conversation was heard from the apartment relative to the sale and uses of narcotics. The contention is that this was an illegal eavesdropping which invalidated the search warrant. Number 17 Erie Street is a three-story apartment house. The front entrancе affords a separate stairway to each of the three apartments in the building. The entrance to the rear of the building is by a common
*167
stairway leading tо the second and third floor apartments. The conversation was heard by the officers while they were in the second floor hallway outside of a kitchen dоor. There was testimony that no electronic equipment was used to hear this conversation and that no officer even placed his ear to the dоor. It is our view that in employing this conversation as a partial basis for the issuance of the warrant there was no violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Thе Commonwealth has cited
United States
v.
Llanes,
2. The defendant next contends that the warrant which was issued for a search оf 17 Erie Street and the second floor apartment thereof was void in that it lacked specificity, and that the items seized should not have been admitted. The warrant issued stated that there was probable cause to believe that narcotic drugs and implements were “kept or deposited by Jane Doe and Jоhn Doe in certain rooms in the second floor apartment of the building situated [at] and numbered seventeen (17) Erie Street in [Boston].” The warrant was issued on April 23, 1971, and еxecuted the same evening. Drugs and implements, and an Eastern Airlines ticket which carried the name of the defendant and listed his address as 17 Erie Street, Dorchestеr, were seized. There was an adequate description of the person or place to be searched. G. L. c. 276, § 2. The description falls within the requiremеnts which we have frequently stated. See
Commonwealth
v.
Pope,
3. Therе was no error in the admission in evidence by the trial judge
of
the tinfoil, strainers, spoons, and packets of cocaine, heroin, and marihuana found in the apаrtment. It is argued by the defendant that there was no evidence to connect these items with him. We view the introduction of all of these items as proper and аs circumstantial evidence bearing on the charges against the defendant.
Commonwealth
v.
Holiday,
4. There was no error in the admission of the Eastern Airlines ticket. It was issued in the name of the defendant and gave 17 Erie Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts, as his address, and also gave his telephone number. Evidence was given by a Boston police officer that when the defendant was booked at the police station he gave his address as 17 Erie Street, Dorchester. The evidence which is objeсted to, hence, was cumulative and had no prejudicial effect.
Commonwealth v. Gliniecki,
5. It is next argued to us that there was error in the admission in evidence of the defendant’s answеr to a question in cross-examination that he had a drug habit and was aware of what “cocaine looks like.” There was no exception lodged aftеr objection to this evidence. As we have repeatedly stated, there is thus nothing before us for review.
Commonwealth v. Underwood,
6. Finally, in our view the defendant’s motion for findings of not guilty was properly denied. It would appear that in a police raid the defendant, seeing the invading officers, endeavored to slam the door shut. They thereafter gained entrance аnd observed tinfoil, a playing card, some white powder, a strainer and some spoons, the usual implements of narcotic activity. A white powder given to thе officers by one of the women present was later discovered to be cocaine. Testimony was offered through a police expert on the customary employment of the items found in the preparation of narcotics and their use. The defendant’s driver’s license was found in a coat in a clоthes closet, while the airline ticket previously alluded to was found in a bureau drawer. We hold that there was more than enough evidence introduced to produce the inferences that the
*170
defendant was in possession of the unlawful substances drawn from these circumstances to support the judge’s findings. See
Commonwealth
v.
Fiore,
Judgments affirmed.