Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Search, Consent and Firearm Licensing in Commonwealth v. Verde
Loading...
Summary
Appellant counsel Ian Kahanowitz told the Appeals Court the trial judge erred denying a motion to suppress after officers entered an apartment and seized a gun, arguing consent was coerced; the Commonwealth countered that the record shows the defendant was calm and cooperative. Justices pressed both sides on whether consent occurred while weapons remained pointed at the defendant.
Boston — The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument on Feb. 4 in 25P502, Commonwealth v. Christian Verde, over whether the trial judge erred by denying a motion to suppress and whether the unlawful-possession verdict must be vacated because of defects in the state’s pre-2022 licensing scheme.
Ian Kahanowitz, attorney for the appellant Christian Verde, told the panel he presented two issues: the denial of the suppression motion and a challenge to the conviction under G.L. c. 269 § 10(a) tied to the nonresident licensing scheme in effect in 2021. "They did not have . . . the right not to consent," Kahanowitz said, arguing police failed to advise his client of the right to refuse and that officers’ conduct — including multiple armed officers with ballistic shields — rendered any consent coerced.
Assistant District Attorney Rob Kidd defended the judge’s factual findings, saying the record shows the defendant was "calm" and cooperative and that officers did not point weapons at the defendant when consent was given. "The evidence is what it is," Kidd told the court, citing the motion-record and the videotape seen by the motion judge.
The panel pressed both sides on precise factual points. Justice Massing asked for citations in the trial transcripts to support the appellant’s claims about yelling and screaming during the encounter; Kahanowitz pointed to testimony and the motion record. Justices also focused on whether consent occurred after the defendant was handcuffed and secured — a time that Kidd said the officers then holstered their weapons. Kahanowitz replied that the shields and rifles remained raised until the arresting officer restrained the defendant.
On the licensing question, Kahanowitz argued that the nonresident scheme in effect at the time was rendered unconstitutional by Supreme Judicial Court precedent and that his client, who produced Florida purchase documentation, had standing to raise an as-applied challenge. The panel questioned how the Donald/Darnell line of cases applied to a defendant the parties disputed as a resident or nonresident for statute purposes.
The court heard extensive back-and-forth on the totality of the circumstances standard for consent, and whether the judge’s factual findings were entitled to deference. After argument and questioning from the panel, both sides rested and the case was submitted for decision.
The panel did not announce a ruling at the hearing.
