Commonwealth v. Maingrette (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-155-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   13-P-1532                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BRIAN MAINGRETTE. No. 13-P-1532. Suffolk.     June 3, 2014. – December 3, 2014.   Present:  Cypher, Brown, & Agnes, JJ.   Search and Seizure, Fruits of illegal arrest.  Practice, Criminal, Warrant.  Evidence, Result of illegal arrest. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Arrest.  Police, Unlawful arrest.  Arrest.  Firearms.  Receiving Stolen Goods.       Complaint received and sworn to in the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on September 11, 2012.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kathleen E. Coffey, 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.     Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Winston D. Kendall for the defendant.      CYPHER, J.  The defendant, Brian Maingrette, was charged with carrying a firearm without a license, unlawful possession of ammunition, carrying a loaded firearm without a license, and receiving stolen property, after he was stopped, and subsequently arrested, on an outstanding warrant.  He filed a motion to suppress, arguing that his arrest was invalid because the warrant on which it was based had been recalled and, therefore, the incriminating items found in the trunk of his motor vehicle that were the basis for the pending charges must be suppressed.  After a hearing, a judge of the Boston Municipal Court allowed the motion.  The Commonwealth sought leave from a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to pursue an interlocutory appeal of that ruling.  The single justice allowed the Commonwealth’s application and directed the appeal to the Appeals Court. Motion hearing.  Boston police Officer John Burrows was the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing.  Because the motion judge’s findings are soundly based on Burrows’s testimony and are not in dispute, we quote from them here. “On September 10, 2012, officers assigned to the Youth Violence Task Force received information from a superior officer within the Boston [p]olice department that the defendant had been involved in a domestic incident the night before and he had brandished a gun.  The defendant was known to the officers of the Youth Violence Task Force due to prior criminal investigations.   “Officer Burrows checked the warrant management system […]

Read more...