diligent inquiry in Massachusetts

2013Diligent inquiry consists of two steps: first, “the police officer must base his conclusion of actual authority on facts, not assumptions or impressions,” and second, “even when the consenting individual explicitly asserts that he lives there, if ‘the surrounding circumstances could conceivably be such that a reasonable person would doubt its truth,’ the police officer must make further inquiry to resolve the ambiguity.” Id. at 271-272 , quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra at 188 .

2010In Commonwealth v. Porter P., supra at 271, relying on Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra , we stated that "we do not believe that art. 14 is violated if a warrantless search of a home occurs after a police officer obtains the voluntary consent of a person he reasonably believes, after diligent inquiry, has common authority over the home, but it turns out that the person lacked common authority." We went on to specify the "two basic steps" required to conduct a diligent inquiry: "First, the police officer must base his conclusion of actual authority on facts, not assumptions or impressions.

2013Diligent inquiry consists of two steps: first, “the police officer must base his conclusion of actual authority on facts, not assumptions or impressions,” and second, “even when the consenting individual explicitly asserts that he lives there, if ‘the surrounding circumstances could conceivably be such that a reasonable person would doubt its truth,’ the police officer must make further inquiry to resolve the ambiguity.” Id. at 271-272 , quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra at 188 .

2013Having satisfied the first prong of the diligent inquiry analysis under Commonwealth v. Porter P., supra, they did not need to conduct further inquiry.

2025Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-488 (1963); see Commonwealth v. Buchanon, 384 Mass. 103, 108 (1981) ("doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree ... is not implicated if the tree is not poisonous.").[7] -------------------------------------------- [6] The Court in Santos, citing Porter P., explained, " Diligent inquiry consists of two steps: first, 'the police officer must base his conclusion of actual authority on facts, not assumptions or impressions ,' and second, 'even when the consenting individual explicitly asserts that he lives there, if the surrounding circumstances coul

2025Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-488 (1963); see Commonwealth v. Buchanon, 384 Mass. 103, 108 (1981) ("doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree ... is not implicated if the tree is not poisonous.").[7] -------------------------------------------- [6] The Court in Santos, citing Porter P., explained, " Diligent inquiry consists of two steps: first, 'the police officer must base his conclusion of actual authority on facts, not assumptions or impressions ,' and second, 'even when the consenting individual explicitly asserts that he lives there, if the surrounding circumstances coul

2013Cf. Commonwealth v. Lopez, supra (in nonemergency situation, police seeking hotel manager did not gain legal consent to enter from woman not known to police and whose relationship to premises was uncertain); Commonwealth v. Rogers, supra at 239, 241 (ambiguity regarding consent to enter premises existed where officers who arrived unannounced and did not identify themselves asked where they could find defendant, and person who answered their inquiry pointed inside). b.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Carrasco, 540 F.3d 43, 49 (1st Cir. 2008) (officers acted reasonably where no information available "at the time of the search" indicated that person giving consent lacked actual authority). [18] It is unclear whether the diligent inquiry we require under art. 14 is required under the Fourth Amendment.