Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Search Warrant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commonwealth defends search of 92 Sawyer and admission of clothing; defense challenges nexus and independent-source analysis
Summary
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Aaron Almeda, the parties disputed whether officers had probable cause and an independent-source justification to search 92 Sawyer and whether clothing recovered there should have been suppressed.
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Aaron Almeda, the parties disputed whether police established probable cause and an independent source for a search of a location identified as 92 Sawyer and whether clothing recovered there should have been excluded.
Defense counsel argued the affidavit lacked facts establishing why officers were present at 92 Sawyer and that the search-warrant record relied, in part, on material outside the four corners of the affidavit. The defense asked the Supreme Court to scrutinize whether the subsequent admission of clothing found at the address was supported by probable cause or by an independent-source analysis.
The Commonwealth's Ian MacLean described the investigative timeline that, in his view, supplied nexus: members of the youth violence strike force saw the defendant exit the Sawyer residence at about 10:00 a.m. and get into a car driven by his grandmother with the defendant’s child inside; officers later learned from family members that the defendant had been at the residence earlier that morning (one witness said 7:00 a.m.); after other inquiries showed the defendant in a transient living situation, officers had reason to seek a warrant for 92 Sawyer. MacLean told the court officers “immediately send officers to freeze that scene,” and that the totality of those facts supplied a reasonable inference that weapons or clothing used in the crime could be at the location.
On the question whether admitting clothing was harmless error if suppression were required, MacLean pointed to several corroborating identifications and records: a pole-camera video clip that identified the defendant, an ex-girlfriend who identified him from video footage, cell-site location information (CSLI) and call-detail records showing related phone activity, and video showing the defendant answer a phone call. MacLean said those independent identifications and electronic records would make any error in admitting the clothing harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defense counsel pressed whether the affidavit included why officers were sent to that Sawyer address and noted the judge’s margin endorsement cited “information from the database” and certain affidavit paragraphs; MacLean conceded that the affidavit did not explicitly state the reason officers initially went to that specific address but argued reasonable inferences from the factual averments supported the nexus.
The trial record shows a motion in limine to exclude the clothing was denied and that the trial judge relied on the warrant affidavit and other factual averments in denying suppression. The Supreme Court must decide whether the search and admission of the clothing were lawful and whether any evidentiary error — if found — was harmless in light of other identifications and records.
