veracity test in Massachusetts

2024"Under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, if an affidavit is based on information from an unknown informant, the magistrate must 'be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was "credible" or his information "reliable" (the veracity test).'" Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 374-375 (1985), quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964).

2023"Under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, if an affidavit is based on information from an unknown informant, the magistrate must 'be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was "credible" or his information "reliable" (the veracity test).'" Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 374-375 (1985), quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964).

2024"Under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, if an affidavit is based on information from an unknown informant, the magistrate must 'be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was "credible" or his information "reliable" (the veracity test).'" Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 374-375 (1985), quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964).

2023"Under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, if an affidavit is based on information from an unknown informant, the magistrate must 'be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was "credible" or his information "reliable" (the veracity test).'" Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 374-375 (1985), quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964).

1992In the Pettie case the informant was present and observed the cocaine and heroin in the second floor rear apartment of 16 Hicks Street, [New Bedford].” The judge ruled that “the affiant failed to furnish any details about the role played by [the] informant in [Pettie’s] arrest, nor did Pacheco supply any ‘meaningful information’ beyond the mere fact of Pettie’s arrest.” Therefore, the judge, relying on Commonwealth v. Rojas, 403 Mass. 483, 486 (1988), ruled that the veracity test had not been satisfied.

1992Perez-Baez placed a gloss on a previous opinion, Commonwealth v. Rojas, 403 Mass. 483, 486 (1988), which stood for the proposition that confidential information which had led to prior arrests and nothing more was inadequate to pass the veracity test required of an informant.

2021See Commonwealth v. Byfield, 413 Mass. 426, 431 (1992) (informant's veracity established where prior information led to arrest and conviction).

2009Where the affidavit relies on information from confidential informants, it must provide “some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test)” and “some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’ (the veracity test).” 7 Commonwealth v. Byfield, 413 Mass. 426, 429 (1992), quoting Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 374-375 (1985).

2018See Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) ; *481 Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). 3 "Where information from an unidentified informant is relied on to supply probable cause to search, art. 14 ... requires that the affidavit apprise the magistrate of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was credible or the i

2018See Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) ; *481 Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). 3 "Where information from an unidentified informant is relied on to supply probable cause to search, art. 14 ... requires that the affidavit apprise the magistrate of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was credible or the i

2015Ruiz tried to tie all of this evidence about Jordan and his vehicle to Lee’s murder through the confidential informant’s tip that “Michael” had killed Lee because of a dispute over “drug dealing in the park.” In order for this information from the C.I. to be given any weight, the affidavit must “demonstrate (1) some underlying circumstances from which the law enforcement officials could have concluded that the information was reliable (the veracity test); and (2) some underlying circumstances which demonstrate a basis of the informant’s knowledge (basis of knowledge test).” Commonwealth v. Rob

1994The Commonwealth must “demonstrate (1) some underlying circumstances from which the law enforcement officials could have concluded that the information was reliable (the veracity test); and (2) some underlying circumstances which demonstrate a basis of the informant’s knowledge (basis of knowledge test).” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 403 Mass. 163, 164-165 (1988).

2018See Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) ; *481 Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). 3 "Where information from an unidentified informant is relied on to supply probable cause to search, art. 14 ... requires that the affidavit apprise the magistrate of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was credible or the i

2018See Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) ; *481 Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). 3 "Where information from an unidentified informant is relied on to supply probable cause to search, art. 14 ... requires that the affidavit apprise the magistrate of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was credible or the i

1992The veracity test “may be satisfied by demonstrating that the informant has provided information in the past which has proved to be accurate.” Commonwealth v. Perez-Baez, 410 Mass. 43, 45 (1991).

1992Commonwealth v. Perez-Baez, 410 Mass. at 46 . 2 Contrast Commonwealth v. Santana, 411 Mass. 661, 663-665 (1992) (recital that informant had previously provided information that led to two drug-related arrests, without more, did not satisfy the veracity test).

2018See Commonwealth v. Desper , 419 Mass. 163 , 166, 643 N.E.2d 1008 (1994).

1999An application for a warrant that depends in significant part on information provided by confidential informants must satisfy the familiar two-pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415 (1969), i.e., the affidavit supporting probable cause must inform the magistrate of “(1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of [the informant’s] knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informa

2017Affidavits that rely on information obtained through a confidential informant must satisfy the two-pronged Aguilar - Spinelli test, which requires that the judge "be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was 'credible' or his information 'reliable' (the veracity test)." Commonwealth v. Upton , 390 Mass. 562 , 566 (1983), quoting from Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 114

1998Rather, the Supreme Judicial Court, finding the “totality of circumstances” test to be “unacceptably shapeless and permissive,” Commonwealth v. Upton, 390 Mass. 562, 574 (1983) (Upton I), reversed on other grounds in Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 , 104 S.Ct. 2085 (1984), required that both prongs of the AguilarSpinellitest be satisfied: the veracity test and the basis of knowledge test.

2005See Commonwealth v. Parapar, 404 Mass. 319, 323-324 (1989) (applying the standard); Commonwealth v. Desper, 419 Mass. 163, 167 (1994) (same).

1994When an application for a warrant depends in significant part on information provided by a confidential informant, the affidavit must “apprise the magistrate of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was credible or the information reliable (the veracity test).” Id. at 88 , citing Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 375 (1985), and Commonwealth v. Parapar, 404 Mass. 319, 321 (1989).

2019See Depiero, supra at 455 ("The veracity test is more difficult for the Commonwealth to satisfy where . . . the caller was anonymous.

2019See Depiero , supra at 455, 42 N.E.3d 1123 ("The veracity test is more difficult for the Commonwealth to satisfy where ... the caller was **619 anonymous.

2017To satisfy the veracity test, the Commonwealth needs to show either that the source of information had a demonstrated history of reliability, Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385, 396-397 (2010), or the existence of “circumstances assuring trustworthiness on the particular occasion of the information’s being furnished,” 2 W.R.

2015“To establish the reliability of the information under art. 14 . . . the Commonwealth must show the basis of knowledge of the source of the information (the basis of knowledge test) and the under *110 lying circumstances demonstrating that the source of the information was credible or the information reliable (the veracity test).” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 461 Mass. 616, 622 (2012), quoting from Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385, 395-396 (2010) (other citation omitted).

2015Each prong of this test “presents a separate important consideration.” Commonwealth v. Bottari, 395 Mass. 777, 783 (1985).

1988Commonwealth v. Bottari, 395 Mass. 777, 783 (1985).

2011“We have also suggested that the reliability of citizen informants who are identifiable, but may not have been identified, is deserving of greater consideration than that of truly anonymous sources.” Commonwealth v. Costa, 448 Mass. 510, 515 (2007). “ ‘[A] tip might be anonymous in some sense yet have certain other features, either supporting reliability or narrowing the likely class of informants, so that the tip does provide the lawful basis for some police action. . . .’ Some of those features might include ‘[i]nstant caller identification,’ ‘[v]oice recording of telephone tips [that might]

2011“We have also suggested that the reliability of citizen informants who are identifiable, but may not have been identified, is deserving of greater consideration than that of truly anonymous sources.” Commonwealth v. Costa, 448 Mass. 510, 515 (2007). “ ‘[A] tip might be anonymous in some sense yet have certain other features, either supporting reliability or narrowing the likely class of informants, so that the tip does provide the lawful basis for some police action. . . .’ Some of those features might include ‘[i]nstant caller identification,’ ‘[v]oice recording of telephone tips [that might]

2005The Supreme Judicial Court has agreed that interlocking statements, sufficiently detailed, may satisfy the veracity test even though the statement by either informant does not by itself convince of its reliability. “[U]nnamed informants’ detailed statements corroborating each other in significant, detailed respects . . . could alone support a finding of probable cause by establishing the veracity of the informants.” Commonwealth v. Nowells, 390 Mass. 621, 627 (1983).

1988While tips which alone may not satisfy the veracity test nevertheless may establish reliability through cumulative reinforcement, Commonwealth v. Nowells, 390 Mass. 621, 624 (1983), they will be held to a high standard before being considered reliable.

2002See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 403 Mass. 483, 487 (explaining that a tip is not self-verifying where it did not provide “particularized distinguishing characteristics of the . . . apartment, possessions, or activities”); Alfonso A., 53 Mass.App.Ct. at 284 (noting that “this court has questioned the notion that detail, alone, uncorroborated by police investigation, is an indication of veracity”).

2002Cf. Commonwealth v. Rojas, 403 Mass. 483, 487 (1988) (explaining that a tip is not self-verifying where it did not provide “particularized distinguishing characteristics of the . . . apartment, possessions, or activities”); Commonwealth v. Alfonso A, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 284 (2001) (noting that “this court has questioned the notion that detail, alone, uncorroborated by police investigation, is an indication of veracity”).

1999Contrast Commonwealth v. Reddington, 395 Mass. 315, 324 (1985) (mere repetition of rumor, with no independent police corroboration, does nothing to meet the basis of knowledge test). 3 Informant Three, who was present at the time cocaine was sold at Russell’s residence, passes the basis of knowledge test, but fails the veracity test. 4 See Commonwealth v. Desper , 419 Mass, at 166 (personal observation of criminal activity satisfies basis of knowledge test).

1987See United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 581-585 (1971); Commonwealth v. Cefalo, 381 Mass. 319, 328 (1980); Commonwealth v. Reddington, 395 Mass. 315, 322-323 (1985); Commonwealth v. Zayas, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 931 (1978); see generally 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(a) (2d ed. 1987).

2026This information "more than satisfied both the basis of knowledge test and the veracity test." Lopes, 455 Mass. at 155 .

2025See also Commonwealth v. Lopes, 455 Mass. 147, 156 (2009) (police radio dispatch based on information provided by named reporter who was relative of the victim “more than satisfied both the basis of knowledge and the veracity test”).

2016Because the caller was anonymous, there could be no evidence regarding the caller’s past reliability or reputation for honesty.” Anderson, 461 Mass. at 622 .

2015“To establish the reliability of the information under art. 14 . . . the Commonwealth must show the basis of knowledge of the source of the information (the basis of knowledge test) and the under *110 lying circumstances demonstrating that the source of the information was credible or the information reliable (the veracity test).” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 461 Mass. 616, 622 (2012), quoting from Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385, 395-396 (2010) (other citation omitted).

2015See Commonwealth v. Depina, supra at 245 (anonymous caller passed the veracity test where she reported a shooting in her backyard and witnessed a suspect fleeing, because the circumstances suggested that she did not intend to mislead the police).

2011“As to the veracity test, our case law assigns greater reliability to an eyewitness whose identity is known to police than to one who is anonymous.” Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. at 243 .

2001In each affidavit, the information supplying the probable cause was provided by at least one confidential informant who (1) had purchased cocaine from the defendant, knew where the contraband was kept, and had made detailed observations demonstrating “special familiarity with the [defendant’s] affairs,” satisfying the basis of knowledge test, Commonwealth v. Bakoian, 412 Mass. 295, 301-302 (1992) (citation omitted), and (2) had previously provided information to police leading to the arrest, and related seizure of drugs, of named individuals, satisfying the veracity test.

1994Commonwealth v. Bakoian, 412 Mass. 295 (1992).

2024In addition, the two controlled buys supported the CI's veracity, see Commonwealth v. Perez, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 278, 281 (2015) ("controlled purchases conducted by the informant further support[] his veracity"), especially since the controlled buys 5 were arranged through the same telephone number the CI used for the earlier purchases and took place at the same location.

2023The defendant further contends that 21 proposition, he points to Commonwealth v. Melendez, 407 Mass. 53, 59 (1990), in which we stated that "[t]he fact that the informant gave information on one occasion in the past which led to the arrest of two individuals is insufficient to satisfy the veracity test." In Melendez, however, the issue was not that the informant had only provided information on one occasion.

2023"In general, the basis of knowledge prong is satisfied where the information provided springs from an informant's firsthand observations or knowledge." Commonwealth v. Arias, 481 Mass. 604, 618 (2019). "[I]n the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused's criminal activity in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a 3 casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation." Com

2023Commonwealth v. Pinto, 476 Mass. 361, 365 (2017).

2018That credibility, in turn, may be established by showing that information provided in the past by this informant has proved to be accurate." Gonzalez , 90 Mass. App. Ct. at 104 (citation omitted).

2014L. c. 276, § 2B. 6 “Under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, if an affidavit is based on information from an unknown informant, the magistrate must be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’ (the veracity test).” Id. at 374-375 (quotations and citations omitted). “[0]ur inquiry as to the sufficiency of the search warrant application

2014L. c. 276, § 2B. 6 “Under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, if an affidavit is based on information from an unknown informant, the magistrate must be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the contraband was where he claimed it was (the basis of knowledge test), and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’ (the veracity test).” Id. at 374-375 (quotations and citations omitted). “[0]ur inquiry as to the sufficiency of the search warrant application