Commonwealth v. Colondres (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-060-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-11725 COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHNNY COLONDRES. Hampden. December 2, 2014. – April 13, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Controlled Substances. Search and Seizure, Warrant, Affidavit, Probable cause, Search incident to lawful arrest. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Practice, Criminal, Warrant, Affidavit, Motion to suppress. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 7, 2012. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and the cases were heard by Tina S. Page, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Merritt Schnipper for the defendant. Bethany C. Lynch, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GANTS, C.J. Before trial, the defendant, Johnny Colondres, moved to suppress evidence obtained from his apartment by Springfield police during the execution of an “anticipatory search warrant.” The defendant claimed that police had executed the search before the “triggering events” stated in the affidavit had occurred, and that therefore the search should be treated as warrantless and the evidence suppressed. The motion judge denied the defendant’s motion to suppress and, after a jury-waived trial before a different judge, the defendant was convicted of trafficking in heroin and cocaine, and of unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.[1] The defendant appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review. We conclude that where, as here, the Commonwealth applies for an anticipatory search warrant and the judicial authorization to execute the search is conditioned on the occurrence of a specific future event, the search is authorized by the warrant where there is equivalent compliance with that condition precedent. Because we conclude that, in this case, there was both equivalent compliance with the warrant’s condition precedent and probable cause to search the defendant’s residence once equivalent compliance was achieved, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress and the resulting convictions. Background. The facts are not in dispute. The search of the defendant’s apartment at 250 Oakgrove Avenue in Springfield arose out of an investigation by the Springfield police department of the defendant’s nephew, Carlos Colondres.[2] As detailed in the affidavit by Officer John Wadlegger in support of the application for the warrant to search the defendant’s apartment, the police were investigating the […]