Posts tagged "1108017"

Commonwealth v. Saywhan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-080-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   16-P-1098                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BENJAMIN B. SAYWAHN, JR.     No. 16-P-1098.   Hampden.     April 13, 2017. – June 15, 2017.   Present:  Kafker, C.J., Grainger, & Kinder, JJ.     Firearms.  Search and Seizure, Protective sweep.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure.     Complaint received and sworn to in the Springfield Division of the District Court Department on February 4, 2016.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by William P. Hadley, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Francis X. Spina, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court.     David L. Sheppard-Brick, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Thomas C. Maxim for the defendant.     KAFKER, C.J.  During a protective sweep of the home of the defendant, Benjamin B. Saywahn, Jr., conducted during the execution of a warrant for his arrest, police discovered a firearm.  The defendant was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition without an identification card, G. L. c. 269, § 10(h), improper storage of a firearm, G. L. c. 140, § 131L(a) & (b), and receiving stolen property, G. L. c. 266, § 60.[1]  The defendant moved to suppress “the fruits of the sweep” on the ground that the protective sweep was not justified by the officers’ reasonable belief that a dangerous individual in the home posed a threat to the officers.  The motion judge agreed and granted the motion.  The Commonwealth appeals pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996), claiming that the protective sweep was justified.[2]  We affirm. Background.  “We summarize the pertinent facts from the judge’s findings on the motion to suppress, supplemented where appropriate by uncontroverted testimony from the suppression hearing.”  Commonwealth v. Matos, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 157 (2010) (quotation omitted).  On February 1, 2016, a warrant issued in the State of Connecticut for the defendant’s arrest.  Because the defendant resided in Springfield, a member of the Windsor, Connecticut police department contacted Detective Christopher Bates of the Springfield police department with regard to the warrant.  Detective Bates learned that the defendant was wanted in connection with a shooting that had occurred during the course of a marijuana sale in Windsor.  He learned that the victim, the defendant, and an unidentified third person were involved in […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 16, 2017 at 11:30 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,