Commonwealth v. Fredericq (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-029-18)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-1542 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. Stanley Fredericq.[1] No. 16-P-1542. Plymouth. December 1, 2017. – March 12, 2018. Present: Agnes, Blake, & McDonough, JJ. Cellular Telephone. Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Standing, Privacy, Probable cause. Search and Seizure, Consent, Expectation of privacy, Fruits of illegal search, Multiple occupancy building, Probable cause, Warrant. Privacy. Probable Cause. Consent. Evidence, Result of illegal search, Business record. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Standing, Warrant. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 22, 2008. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Thomas J. McGuire, Jr., J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Barbara A. Lenk, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by her to the Appeals Court. Nathaniel Kennedy, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Jason Benzaken for the defendant. BLAKE, J. As a result of information gathered in connection with a homicide, an interstate narcotics investigation began, which led police to discover cocaine and cash at 220-222 Howard Street in the city of Brockton.[2] This is an interlocutory appeal by the Commonwealth from the order allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search. We reverse in part and affirm in part. We set forth detailed facts and the procedural history of this case as they are necessary to the analysis. The defendant was indicted for trafficking in two hundred grams or more of cocaine. He has twice filed motions to suppress. In his first motion, the defendant argued that the search at 220 Howard Street was conducted without a warrant and without his consent. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the first motion judge denied the motion on grounds that the defendant consented to the search. In the defendant’s second, or so-called “amended” motion to suppress, he argued that the evidence seized from 220 Howard Street must be suppressed as the tainted fruit of the unlawfully obtained cellular site location information (CSLI).[3] The same judge denied the motion after a nonevidentiary hearing and the defendant sought interlocutory review. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, while retaining jurisdiction of the case, ordered an evidentiary hearing on the motion. After […]