Commonwealth v. Villagran (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-145-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12239 COMMONWEALTH vs. JONATHAN VILLAGRAN. Norfolk. March 7, 2017. – August 29, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[1] Firearms. Controlled Substances. Disturbing the Peace. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Reasonable suspicion, Probable cause. Search and Seizure, Reasonable suspicion, Protective frisk, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Complaint received and sworn to in the Quincy Division of the District Court Department on March 26, 2015. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Diane E. Moriarty, J., and the cases were tried before Robert P. Ziemian, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Mathew B. Zindroski for the defendant. Laura A. McLaughlin, Assistant District Attorney (David M. Ringius, Assistant District Attorney, also present), for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. After a jury trial in the Quincy District Court, the defendant, Jonathan Villagran, was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a); carrying a dangerous weapon on school grounds, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (j); possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h); disturbing a school, G. L. c. 272, § 40; and possession of a class D substance with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, 32C.[2] The complaint issued after a police officer, responding to a report of an unauthorized person on the property of Milton High School (school), searched the defendant’s backpack and discovered a firearm, money, and marijuana. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress statements and physical evidence seized during the search of his backpack, arguing that the police officer lacked a constitutionally permissible basis for the patfrisk and the subsequent search. A judge of the District Court denied the motion. The defendant appealed, asserting that the denial of the motion to suppress violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.[3] He also challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction of disturbing a school. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion and take this opportunity to reaffirm the distinction between the traditional standard applicable to a police officer’s conduct implicating the Fourth Amendment and the less stringent standard applicable to a school official who does […]