Commonwealth v. Baker (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-052-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-783 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMIE BAKER. No. 16-P-783. Plymouth. March 8, 2017. – May 4, 2017. Present: Grainger, Blake, & Neyman, JJ. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Roadblock by police. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Roadblock by police. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Complaint received and sworn to in the Brockton Division of the District Court Department on May 27, 2014. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Julieann Hernon, 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. Keith A. Garland, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Bethany J. Rogers for the defendant. GRAINGER, J. Defendant Jamie Baker, charged in the District Court with operating while under the influence of alcohol, see G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), and negligent operation, see G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a), moved to suppress evidence of his intoxication, arguing that the evidence was secured from a sobriety checkpoint not conducted in strict and absolute compliance with the written operational plan (the plan). After his motion was allowed, the Commonwealth was given leave by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to pursue this interlocutory appeal. The Commonwealth argues that the motion judge erred in suppressing the evidence and we agree. We recite the pertinent facts found by the motion judge. Police Captain Thomas Majenski was directed by police Major Anthony Thomas to conduct a saturation patrol and sobriety checkpoint with a detail of State troopers and police officers from the town of Abington (the town). The plan stated that the roadblock would begin at 11:30 P.M. Major Thomas directed that all officers report for the training and briefing session prior to the checkpoint. Captain Majenski was directed to command the detail for the roadblock. Three officers[1] arrived after the roadblock commenced. Upon their arrival, Captain Majenski briefed them. During the roadblock, the defendant was pulled over and greeted by Sergeant Kevin Cutter of the town police. Sergeant Cutter observed signs of intoxication in the defendant and directed him to the “pit” area. The defendant refused “to drive the vehicle.” He then was escorted from the […]
Commonwealth v. Baker (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-052-17)
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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-783 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMIE BAKER. No. 16-P-783. Plymouth. March 8, 2017. – May 4, 2017. Present: Grainger, Blake, & Neyman, JJ. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Roadblock by police. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Roadblock by police. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Complaint received and sworn to in the Brockton Division of the District Court Department on May 27, 2014. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Julieann Hernon, 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. Keith A. Garland, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Bethany J. Rogers for the defendant. GRAINGER, J. Defendant Jamie Baker, charged in the District Court with operating while under the influence of alcohol, see G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), and negligent operation, see G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a), moved to suppress evidence of his intoxication, arguing that the evidence was secured from a sobriety checkpoint not conducted in strict and absolute compliance with the written operational plan (the plan). After his motion was allowed, the Commonwealth was given leave by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to pursue this interlocutory appeal. The Commonwealth argues that the motion judge erred in suppressing the evidence and we agree. We recite the pertinent facts found by the motion judge. Police Captain Thomas Majenski was directed by police Major Anthony Thomas to conduct a saturation patrol and sobriety checkpoint with a detail of State troopers and police officers from the town of Abington (the town). The plan stated that the roadblock would begin at 11:30 P.M. Major Thomas directed that all officers report for the training and briefing session prior to the checkpoint. Captain Majenski was directed to command the detail for the roadblock. Three officers[1] arrived after the roadblock commenced. Upon their arrival, Captain Majenski briefed them. During the roadblock, the defendant was pulled over and greeted by Sergeant Kevin Cutter of the town police. Sergeant Cutter observed signs of intoxication in the defendant and directed him to the “pit” area. The defendant refused “to drive the vehicle.” He then was escorted from the […]