Comments on: Massachusetts Exigent Circumstances exception to warrant requirement clarified, also “community caretaking” http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/ Thoughts and Conversations about Criminal Defense, Public and Private, by a Criminal Defense Attorney in Massachusetts Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:56:54 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: nofBagsseasphamreop http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/#comment-10248 nofBagsseasphamreop Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:27:27 +0000 http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/#comment-10248 xygmiamrgaufhnewwell, hi admin adn people nice forum indeed. how's life? hope it's introduce branch ;) xygmiamrgaufhnewwell, hi admin adn people nice forum indeed. how’s life? hope it’s introduce branch ;)

]]> By: hestone http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/#comment-1411 hestone Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:14:36 +0000 http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/#comment-1411 Police had to go into the back yard to see the marijuana roach. They had no justification for going into the back yard. Could not see the roach, which was on a table on the unenclosed porch, from the road. So they had to mke an illegal entry onto the curtilage, which has same protection as interior of house, to see the roach. Furthermore, even if it was permissible for them to be in the back yard, the presence of a marijuana roach outside the house, by itself, does not give probable cause to enter the house itself. Decision does not say what would be the ruling if the roach had been inside the house, and theypolice had seen it through a window from a vantage where they were legally. However, based on the language of this opinion, I would argue that a single roach alone, even if seen inside the house, would not support a warrantless search of the house. Not that any of our judges would rule that way. They customarily rule in favor of the Commonwealth knowing that the defendant will probably plead out and the ruling wil never be reviewed. I'm sure you are familiar with that. Police had to go into the back yard to see the marijuana roach. They had no justification for going into the back yard. Could not see the roach, which was on a table on the unenclosed porch, from the road. So they had to mke an illegal entry onto the curtilage, which has same protection as interior of house, to see the roach.
Furthermore, even if it was permissible for them to be in the back yard, the presence of a marijuana roach outside the house, by itself, does not give probable cause to enter the house itself.
Decision does not say what would be the ruling if the roach had been inside the house, and theypolice had seen it through a window from a vantage where they were legally. However, based on the language of this opinion, I would argue that a single roach alone, even if seen inside the house, would not support a warrantless search of the house. Not that any of our judges would rule that way. They customarily rule in favor of the Commonwealth knowing that the defendant will probably plead out and the ruling wil never be reviewed. I’m sure you are familiar with that.

]]> By: Jamie http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/#comment-1403 Jamie Mon, 01 Jan 2007 04:05:06 +0000 http://hestone.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/massachusetts-exigent-circumstances-exception-to-warrant-requirement-clarified/#comment-1403 In Texas, this search would have been upheld as lawful under the "offense committed within presence or view" doctrine (which is statutory, in our COde of Criminal Procedure). You mean to tell me that a police officer observes the presence of an illegal drug, marijuana, but can't enter the house based on that alone? Is possession of marijuana an arrestable offense up there? I'm all for the ruling. I guess I'm just used to our watered down constitution in these parts :) In Texas, this search would have been upheld as lawful under the “offense committed within presence or view” doctrine (which is statutory, in our COde of Criminal Procedure).

You mean to tell me that a police officer observes the presence of an illegal drug, marijuana, but can’t enter the house based on that alone?

Is possession of marijuana an arrestable offense up there?

I’m all for the ruling. I guess I’m just used to our watered down constitution in these parts :)

]]>