Commonwealth v. Mauricio (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-130-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-12254 COMMONWEALTH vs. KEVIN A. MAURICIO. Bristol. April 4, 2017. – August 14, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. Firearms. Receiving Stolen Goods. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure. Search and Seizure, Search incident to lawful arrest, Inventory, Fruits of illegal search. Complaint received and sworn to in the Taunton Division of the District Court Department on July 10, 2014. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Thomas L. Finigan, J., and the case was tried before him. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Mathew B. Zindroski for the defendant. Stephen C. Nadeau, Jr., Assistant District Attorney (Shawn Guilderson, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. After a jury trial in the Taunton Division of the District Court Department, the defendant, Kevin A. Mauricio, was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a); and receiving stolen property with a value in excess of $ 250, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 60. The charges stem from a search of the defendant’s backpack after he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and breaking and entering a residence in Taunton. During the course of the search, the police discovered a digital camera, a ring, and other items. The firearm conviction was based on images retrieved after a warrantless search of the digital camera. The images depicted the defendant next to firearms later determined to have been stolen. The receiving stolen property conviction was based on the ring discovered in the defendant’s backpack. The defendant appealed from the convictions, arguing that the judge erred in denying the motion to suppress the images discovered as the result of the warrantless search of the digital camera, and that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to sustain the conviction of receiving stolen property with a value in excess of $ 250. We granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review, and conclude that the warrantless search of the digital camera constituted neither a valid search incident to arrest nor a valid inventory search. Accordingly, the images discovered in the unlawful search should have been suppressed. We conclude further that, although the […]