Hey, there! Log in / Register

Prosecutors can't use gun in gun case against Dorchester man because cops entered his house without a warrant

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that officers pursuing a man they found in a car full of apparent marijuana smoke were wrong to follow him into his own house, where they frisked him and found a gun in his pocket, because he displayed no signs before he fled that would lead them to think he had a gun or of being an immediate threat to anybody inside his home.

In its ruling, the court noted that the offense for which the officers were investigating Dequan Martin and two other men on the evening of April 11, 2012 was not even a criminal one - since voters in 2008 had made possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil offense punishable only by a ticket.

Officers patrolling Gallivan Boulevard that night had stopped on Gallivan Boulevard near Adams Street to investigate a parked car occupied by three men and apparently full of marijuana smoke. When they ordered a passenger out and began to frisk him, Martin bolted and ran into his house, roughly 40 to 50 feet away.

Officers followed him into the house and when they questioned him there, he admitted he had a gun in his pocket, which they seized. He was then arrested on gun charges.

But, the appellate court ruled, the officers had no probable cause to suspect Martin had a gun and so no reason to enter his house without a warrant.

Police are allowed to rush into houses without a warrant in emergency situations - for example, during a hot pursuit of somebody with a gun or where they think somebody inside might be in immediate danger. But Martin, the justices wrote, showed no signs of packing a gun - for example, he didn't clutch at his waist - and police presented no evidence that anybody inside the house was in any danger from Martin, including his mother, who, in fact had come out and asked police what was going on. Also, that stretch of Gallivan Boulevard is not a "high crime" area that can be another reason for police to go after somebody, the court continued.

So without probable cause, the cops should not have entered the house without a warrant, which means the gun was the product of an illegal search and has to be tossed as evidence, the court concluded.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling in Martin case161.43 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Was he the driver? If so seems to me they had reasonable suspicion of OUI and thus pursuing the man is not unwarranted. OUI is still criminal.

up
Voting closed 0

Within the first two paragraphs, the opinion makes clear that the defendant was a passenger in a legally parked car and that the stop was for a civil infraction of marijuana possession.

up
Voting closed 0

That the car was legally parked.

up
Voting closed 0

Am unable to open links like that at work. Thanks.

up
Voting closed 0

Am unable to open links like that at work. Thanks.

up
Voting closed 0

are the cops involved in ANYTHING marijuana related when we have a heroin epidemic? Let people smoke and focus on the drug that is killing people.

up
Voting closed 0

You realize this was 5 years ago right?

up
Voting closed 0

Except this case kind of advances the arguments of people like me that the demon weed somehow is around when other kinds of malfeasance is going on. You know, like illegal possession of a firearm.

Of course, some want ganja treated like alcohol. You can't drink in public, so why is Mary Jane okay?

(And yes, the courts have ruled that the search was illegal, tossing the charge, but that don't make the gun legal.)

up
Voting closed 0

Wait a minute -- being in a high-crime area, however that's defined, is now in itself suspicious? So you lose your constitutional rights if you live in a poor neighborhood, and cops can follow you into your house for no reason?

And running away from police after they order you out of your car is not suspicious?

How do judges come up with this stuff?

up
Voting closed 0

By itself, being in a high-crime area is not reason for a warrantless search, such as a pat frisk (which is why New York no longer does stop and frisk - a federal judge put an end to that). For that matter, even running from police - by itself - is not enough of a reason, our SJC has ruled.

BUT ...

There are a series of things that, when combined, can be enough reason for a warrantless search if you present no other signs of demanding immediate police attention (for example, if a cop sees you waving a gun around, you're about to see some major trouble). So if you're in a high-crime area AND you start running from officers who had just approached you AND you're clutching at your waist as if you were trying to keep a grip on a gun, the combination of circumstances can combine to make an emergency search, um, warranted.

up
Voting closed 0

As long as being in a high-crime area can tip the balance to making the search legal, poor people have fewer constitutional rights.

up
Voting closed 0