motion to suppress hearing in Massachusetts

2016The defendant’s art. 12 claims are not waived; issues of notice are irrelevant, as art. 12 guarantees the same rights as does the Fifth Amendment, see Commonwealth v. Clarke, 461 Mass. 336, 337 (2012), and the motion judge relied on cases interpreting both the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution in denying the motion to suppress. 7 The defendant’s motion to suppress his statement did not specifically set forth the purported G.

2014Commonwealth v. Clarke, 461 Mass. 336, 340-341 (2012).

2016Lavallee, supra at 235 n.13 (probable cause hearing and sentencing); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 505, 510-511 (2011) (motion to suppress hearing).

2016Lavallee, supra at 235 n.13 (probable cause hearing and sentenc *173 ing); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 505, 510-511 (2011) (motion to suppress hearing).

2026Cf. Kennedy, supra; Santaliz, supra; Santa Maria, supra. There was likewise no evidence that either the defendants or the occupants of the Hyundai behaved in any unusual way that was especially suggestive of an illegal drug transaction.

2001See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703 , 709 n.5 (1998) (while evidence of a prior arrest of a codefendant may be admissible at a motion to suppress hearing in determining probable cause to arrest the defendant, such evidence would not be admissible at trial to establish the defendant’s guilt).

2026However, where, as here, the judge considered the recorded evidence in light of oral testimony at the motion to suppress hearing and made credibility determinations therefrom, we adhere to the normal standard of review." Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395, 399-400 (2014).

2026See Commonwealth v. Burston, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 411 , 418 n.12 (2010) (imploring counsel to 6 The docket reflects that the memorandum of support for the defendants' motions to suppress, and the accompanying expert report, were filed on January 23, 2024. 7 "level" with judge "at the earliest possible time . . . [to] request realistic accommodations" instead of requesting continuance "at a late date by which the court has reliantly set its schedule").

2026"While executing an arrest warrant, police may conduct a protective sweep, 'a quick and limited search of the premises' to protect the officers' safety, if they have a reasonable belief based on 'specific and articulable facts' that the area could harbor a dangerous individual." Commonwealth v. Matos, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 159 (2010), quoting Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990). 7 At bottom, the Commonwealth's theory that the backpack at issue was properly seized and searched as a search incident to the arrest of his companions in the hotel room suffers from a fatal flaw -- the failure

2026"While executing an arrest warrant, police may conduct a protective sweep, 'a quick and limited search of the premises' to protect the officers' safety, if they have a reasonable belief based on 'specific and articulable facts' that the area could harbor a dangerous individual." Commonwealth v. Matos, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 159 (2010), quoting Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990). 7 At bottom, the Commonwealth's theory that the backpack at issue was properly seized and searched as a search incident to the arrest of his companions in the hotel room suffers from a fatal flaw -- the failure

2025See Johnson, 461 Mass. at 48 . 6 clear error but conduct an independent review of [the] ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'" Commonwealth v. Almonor, 482 Mass. 35, 40 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645, 652 (2018).

2025See Johnson, 461 Mass. at 48 . 6 clear error but conduct an independent review of [the] ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'" Commonwealth v. Almonor, 482 Mass. 35, 40 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645, 652 (2018).

2025See Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429, 438 (2015) (improper for appellate court to engage in independent fact finding); Commonwealth v. Lugo, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 309 , 314 (2024) ("[o]ur appellate office does not equip us" to find facts or weigh evidence). 2.

2025See Johnson, 461 Mass. at 48 . 6 clear error but conduct an independent review of [the] ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'" Commonwealth v. Almonor, 482 Mass. 35, 40 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645, 652 (2018).

2024The Commonwealth argued, however, that disclosure of the CI's identity was improper because the CI was not an active participant in the offense charged against the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401, 408 (1989), nor was the CI present at the time of the defendant's arrest, see Commonwealth v. Velez, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 270, 275-276 (2010).

2024The Commonwealth argued, however, that disclosure of the CI's identity was improper because the CI was not an active participant in the offense charged against the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401, 408 (1989), nor was the CI present at the time of the defendant's arrest, see Commonwealth v. Velez, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 270, 275-276 (2010).

2023See Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 482 Mass. 850, 864 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537, 544 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 (2002) (Miranda warnings must be provided in "language which [a defendant] can comprehend and on which [a defendant] can knowingly act"). 11 The Commonwealth knew that the defendant's ability to speak English was an issue, as evidenced by its direct examination of Noyes, and thus it had a full opportunity to present whatever facts it deemed relevant at the motion to suppress hearing.

2023See Commonwealth v. Santosuosso, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 310, 314 (1986).

2023See Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 482 Mass. 850, 864 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537, 544 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 (2002) (Miranda warnings must be provided in "language which [a defendant] can comprehend and on which [a defendant] can knowingly act"). 11 The Commonwealth knew that the defendant's ability to speak English was an issue, as evidenced by its direct examination of Noyes, and thus it had a full opportunity to present whatever facts it deemed relevant at the motion to suppress hearing.

2023Then, he picked out two from the four, and finally, he selected the defendant's photograph as the person who shot him in the barbershop.21 While some of the troopers present knew the defendant, the troopers testified at the motion to suppress hearing and at trial that the trooper providing King with the photographs "had no knowledge of anybody in the photo arrays." This court has emphasized that "the absence of [a double- blind] procedure" and "the choice of a simultaneous rather than a sequential display of photographs shall go solely to the weight of the identification, not to its admissibil

2023Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 478 Mass. 820, 821 (2018).

2023See Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 482 Mass. 850, 864 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537, 544 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 (2002) (Miranda warnings must be provided in "language which [a defendant] can comprehend and on which [a defendant] can knowingly act"). 11 The Commonwealth knew that the defendant's ability to speak English was an issue, as evidenced by its direct examination of Noyes, and thus it had a full opportunity to present whatever facts it deemed relevant at the motion to suppress hearing.

2019See Commonwealth v. Rivera , 441 Mass. 358 , 367, 805 N.E.2d 942 (2004) ("Evidence adduced at trial but not before the motion judge ... cannot be determinative of the propriety of the motion judge's decision" [citation omitted] ).

2019See Commonwealth v. Rivera , 441 Mass. 358 , 367, 805 N.E.2d 942 (2004) ("Evidence adduced at trial but not before the motion judge ... cannot be determinative of the propriety of the motion judge's decision" [citation omitted] ).

2019See Commonwealth v. Buckley, 478 Mass. 861, 865-866 (2018) ("a stop is reasonable under art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] as long as there is a legal justification for it.

2017See Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135, 137 (2001) (when reviewing motion to suppress after trial, judge is limited to considering testimony at hearing on motion to suppress). 13 England did not investigate the defendant's case, instead testifying as a drug expert that eighteen individually packaged bags of crack cocaine were unlikely to have been for personal use. 22 evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, we decline to adopt it.

2017See New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business in Suffolk County, 462 Mass. 76, 82-83 (2012) (judicial records include ‘“transcripts [and] evidence”).