Thе defendant was charged with (1) fraudulently obtaining telephone service; 1 (2) allowing the premises to be used for gaming; 2 and (3) allowing a telephone to be used for gaming. 3 Prior to trial 4 the defendant moved to suppress evidence alleged to have been obtained illegally. The motion was heard on a statement of agreed facts and was denied subject to the defendant’s exception.
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, the defendant moved for directed verdicts, which were denied subject to his exceptions. The case is here on the defendant’s consolidated bill of exceptions.
We summarize the events as they appear in the record. On July 22, 1969, about 2 p.m., Trooper Edward A. Pussier of the Massachusetts State Police applied for a gam
Somеtime after 2 P.M., Trooper Lussier and other police officers went to 83 Pleasant Street and were admitted by an unknown female tenant. The building has five apartments in the basement and six apartments on both the ground and top floors. Each floor has an apartment numbered three. These apartment numbers are distinguishable in that they are preceded by the appropriate floor number. Basement apartment three is numbered “B/3”; ground floor apartment three is numbered “1/3”; and the top floor apartment three is numbered “2/3.”
In the vestibule of the building, the officers executing the warrant discovered a mailbox that bore the name “Ferrante, 2/3.” The оfficers proceeded to apartment 2/3 and receiving no response to their request to open the door, they looked through the peephole but could see no movement. One officer went outside the building and placed a call to 481-1417, listed to Maurice Ferrante, which was answered by a male voiсe. Another officer stated that he heard the telephone ringing while standing outside the door of the apartment. Shortly after 2 p.m., the officers made entrance to the apartment. No one was there. 5
In
Commonwealth
v.
Pope,
In the instant case, the warrant described the premises to be searched as “the rooms of apartment number (3) of the three (3) story red brick building with whitе trim situated at and numbered 83 Pleasant Street in the town of Marlborough, Mass.” It is agreed by the parties that there “is on each ... [of the three floors] an apartment door with a number 3 preceded by either a letter B or an appropriate number.” It thus appears that there were three different apartments, all of whiсh fitted the description in the warrant.
The application for the warrant, which was attached to the warrant filed by Officer Lussier, stated that the rooms in apar-tment three at 83 Pleasant Street were “occupied by some person, whose name is to your informant un
The affidavit supporting the warrant was filed by Officer Lussier. It recited that “a reliable informant . . . told me that telephone number 481-1417 . . . was being used in a book-making operation,” and that “telephone number 481-1417 was listed to Mоrris [sic] Fer-rante of 83 Pleasant St., Marlboro [sic], Mass. Apartment number three.” If the affidavit and the warrant are read together, it is clear that the warrant described precisely the apartment to be searched, for there was only one apartment “three” purportedly occupied by Maurice Ferrante at 83 Plеasant Street in Marlborough.
We think that, in the circumstances of this case, the affidavit and the warrant may be read together. See
Dwinnels
v.
Boynton,
2. The defendant also argues that the search warrant was improperly executed. We examine this claim first as it relates to the seizure of the telephones in apartment 2/3. As we noted in
Commonwealth
v.
Laudate,
Before entering apartment 2/3, an officer went outside the building and placed a call to 481-1417 which was answered by a male voice. The officer remaining outside apartment 2/3 stated that he could hear the telephone ringing inside the apartment. When the officers entered the apartment no one was there. The warrant authorized the officers to arrest the keepers of the premises and all persons present “if any lottery, policy or pool tickets, slips, checks, manifold books and sheets, memoranda of
The officers then requested the local telephone office to send a repairman to the building. He arrived about 2:50 P.M. and checked the terminal box. He found extra wires on the terminals to apartment 2/3 which, he testified, went to another apartment in the building, but he was unable to determine to which apartment they went. The repairman supplied the officers with two receiver units which were installed by an officer in the telephones in apartment 2/3. The telephones were then operative.
We believe that, in the circumstances of this case, the investigation of the telephone terminal box prior to seizure was not unreаsonable. The officers heard the telephones ring while they were lawfully in the apartment executing the warrant. The warrant authorized the seizure of the implements of gaming, and the officers’ investigation of the telephones was carried out to ascertain that the telephones were in fact such implements. Thе seizure of the telephones was within the scope of the authority of the warrant.
3. The defendant also maintains that the telephone conversations overheard by the officers (after they had made the telephones operative by attaching receiver units) were inadmissible. He argues that the interceрtion and monitoring of the calls were beyond the scope of the warrant, and that attaching receiver units without a warrant for that specific purpose is a violation of G. L. c. 272, § 99.
We reject the defendant’s contention that the police
The word “telephone” in the statute clearly has reference to a whole instrument as furnished to the subscriber or user. In the circumstances a proper inference may be drawn that the receivers were removed by the defendant 6 to prevent the use of the telephones in his absence. 7 The defendant cannot so easily thwart the clear intent of the statute.;, Moreover such аction could be construed as an attempt by the defendant to prevent the police from securing evidence of illegal betting and thus could be regarded as consciousness of guilt. The clear and obvious legislative intent was to prevent the illegal use of devices external and extraneous to the regular tеlephone equipment. It was not to prevent the repair of a telephone or the replacement of a missing component part of the telephone in order to make it operable.
The police were lawfully on the premises by reason of
4. The defendant further argues that the information contained in the affidavit supporting the sеarch warrant for apartment 2/6 was obtained illegally, and that any evidence resulting from the execution of that search warrant should have been suppressed. We cannot agree. Most of the information contained in the affidavit concerns the content of the conversations overheard by the police officers after replacing the receiver units in the telephones in apartment 2/3. Since we have held that those conversations were not obtained illegally, it follows that the motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the warrant for apartment 2/6 was propеrly denied.
5. The defendant finally argues that his motion for directed verdicts in his favor should have been granted because there was not enough evidence linking him with the crimes charged. The owner of the premises at 83 Pleasant Street, Steven Strong, and the officers who had executed the warrants in the building supplied evidence linking the defendant with the crimes charged.
Strong testified that when he acquired the building the records indicated that apartment 2/3 was rented by one “Maurice Ferrante” and that apartment 2/6 was rented by a “Mr. and Mrs. Carey.” The rent checks for apartment 2/3 were received by mail and signed by “Maurice Ferrante.” The landlord stated that he had sеen the defendant walking a dog on a leash in the parking lot of the building. At that time he explained to the defendant that dogs were not allowed in the building. On one oc
The presentatiоn of this evidence from the landlord and the officers executing the warrant was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that the defendant was in fact either the “Maurice Ferrante” who rented apartment 2/3 or the “Mr. and Mrs. Carey” who rented apartment 2/6, or both. On the basis of any one of these conclusions, there was sufficiеnt evidence to link the defendant with the crimes charged. The defendant’s motion for directed verdicts was, therefore, properly denied.
Exceptions overruled.
Notes
G. L. c. 166, § 42A, inserted by St. 1961, c. 153.
G. L. c. 271, § 17, as appearing in St. 1968, c. 116.
G. L. c. 271, § 17A, as appearing in St. 1962, c. 440.
The defendant was first tried and found'guilty on complaints in the District Court. On appeal to the Superior Court guilty verdicts were returned.
A second warrant was obtained to search apartmеnt 2/6 after police overheard telephone conversations in apartment 2/3. The evidence permits the inference that the activities in apartments 2/6 and 2/3 were interrelated. There was testimony by Sergeant White and Sergeant O’Neil that they heard several bets being placed on the telephone.
It is cоmmon knowledge that the usual police practice after properly gaining admittance to a place suspected of conducting the illegal registration of bets is to use and test the telephone for possible illegal use. The police, upon discovery that the telephones had been tampered with, used good judgment in calling the telephone company to make the necessary repairs so they could be tested pursuant to the authority of the warrant.
It has not been argued nor do we decide whether a subscriber or user has a legal right to tamper with telephone equipment in this fashion. In the instant case the missing receivers were furnished to the police by representatives of the telephone company.