Posts tagged "1106316"

Commonwealth v. Locke (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-063-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   15-P-552                                        Appeals Court 15-P-553   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  ANDREW K. LOCKE (and a companion case[1]). Nos. 15-P-552 & 15-P-553. Worcester.     February 4, 2016. – June 7, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Wolohojian, & Neyman, JJ. Controlled Substances.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Threshold police inquiry.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Investigatory stop.  Threshold Police Inquiry.     Complaints received and sworn to in the Dudley Division of the District Court Department on December 19, 2011.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Gerald A. Lemire, J., and motions for reconsideration were considered by him.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Robert J. Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court.     Ellyn H. Lazar-Moore, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Barry A. Bachrach for Andrew K. Locke. Sean J. Gallagher for Tanik S. Kerr.     CYPHER, J.  Complaints issued in the District Court charging the defendants, Andrew K. Locke and Tanik S. Kerr, with trafficking in fifty pounds or more of marijuana, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E(a), and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, G. L. c. 94C, § 40.[2]  The Commonwealth appeals from the allowance of the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence and from the denials of its motions for reconsideration, arguing that the judge committed legal error when he concluded that “the odor of marijuana does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause to believe that more than one ounce of marijuana” was present in the defendants’ vehicle.  We are constrained to affirm the orders of suppression.  See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459, 472 (2011) (Cruz); Commonwealth v. Overmyer, 469 Mass. 16, 17 (2014) (Overmyer); Commonwealth v. Craan, 469 Mass. 24 (2014) (Craan). We summarize the facts found by the judge after an evidentiary hearing, at which State police Troopers Scott Driscoll and Christopher Coscia both testified, supplemented by uncontested facts in the record.  Craan, supra at 26.  On December 17, 2011, Trooper Driscoll saw a white minivan make an erratic lane change on Route 84 in Sturbridge, nearly causing a collision.  Trooper Driscoll continued to watch the minivan and clocked it in excess of the posted speed limits as it approached the tollbooths on Route […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,