hypertechnical test in Massachusetts

2011We must consider the affidavit in its entirety “and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone.” Stewart, supra at 751 .

2008Their sufficiency is to be decided “on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone.” Commonwealth v. Burt, 393 Mass. 703, 715 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 751 (1971).

2017The sufficiency of an affidavit "is to be decided 'on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each 9 The affidavit does not describe the defendant's haircut or skin color, but it does state that the man near the defendant's residence in the video recording "matched the physical description of the suspect." 17 resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone.'" Santiago, 452 Mass. at 576 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Burt, 393 Mass. 703, 715 (1985).

2008Their sufficiency is to be decided “on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone.” Commonwealth v. Burt, 393 Mass. 703, 715 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 751 (1971).

2023Rather, its sufficiency "is to be decided 'on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone.'" Commonwealth v. Jordan, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 743 , 752 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Santiago, 452 Mass. 573, 576 (2008).

2017The sufficiency of an affidavit "is to be decided 'on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each 9 The affidavit does not describe the defendant's haircut or skin color, but it does state that the man near the defendant's residence in the video recording "matched the physical description of the suspect." 17 resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone.'" Santiago, 452 Mass. at 576 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Burt, 393 Mass. 703, 715 (1985).

2018See Donahue , 430 Mass. at 712 .

2011Moreover, given a strong preference for the “informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates,” United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452,464 (1932), courts reviewing warrants “will accept evidence of a less ‘judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.’ ” Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111 , quoting from Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270 (1960). “[T]he information in the affidavit must be adequate to establish a timely nexus between the defendant and the location to be searched and to permit the determin

2011Moreover, given a strong preference for the “informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates,” United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452,464 (1932), courts reviewing warrants “will accept evidence of a less ‘judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.’ ” Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111 , quoting from Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270 (1960). “[T]he information in the affidavit must be adequate to establish a timely nexus between the defendant and the location to be searched and to permit the determin

2008See Commonwealth v. Ortega, 441 Mass. 170, 176 (2004) (facts in affidavit must be examined “together, rather than in isolation”); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 44 (2002), quoting Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541, 545 (1991) (factors “innocent of themselves,” when combined may amount to probable cause).

2008See Commonwealth v. Ortega, 441 Mass. 170, 176 (2004) (facts in affidavit must be examined “together, rather than in isolation”); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 44 (2002), quoting Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541, 545 (1991) (factors “innocent of themselves,” when combined may amount to probable cause).

2008See Commonwealth v. Ortega, 441 Mass. 170, 176 (2004) (facts in affidavit must be examined “together, rather than in isolation”); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 44 (2002), quoting Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541, 545 (1991) (factors “innocent of themselves,” when combined may amount to probable cause).

1991See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 751 (1971) (“The sufficiency of the affidavit is to be decided on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone”); Commonwealth v. Saleh, 396 Mass. 406, 412 (1985). *175 2.

1989See Commonwealth v. Atchue, 393 Mass. at 347 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 751 (1971) (“sufficiency of the affidavit [in support of the search warrant] is to be decided on the basis of a consideration of all of its allegations as a whole, and not by first dissecting it and then subjecting each resulting fragment to a hypertechnical test of its sufficiency standing alone”); Commonwealth v. Burt, 393 Mass. at 715 .

1985See also United States v. Fooladi, 703 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 1983) (“we do not consider each individual item of information separately; we evaluate the ‘laminated total’ of available facts”); United States v. Brown, 584 F.2d 252, 256 (8th Cir. 1978) (“the issuing magistrate may properly rely on normal inferences drawn from the surrounding circumstances and allegations of fact as well as the type of the crime”).

1985See also United States v. Fooladi, 703 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 1983) (“we do not consider each individual item of information separately; we evaluate the ‘laminated total’ of available facts”); United States v. Brown, 584 F.2d 252, 256 (8th Cir. 1978) (“the issuing magistrate may properly rely on normal inferences drawn from the surrounding circumstances and allegations of fact as well as the type of the crime”).