Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title I Chapter 272
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 9 (2026)

Oath and warrant to enter place for prostitution; detention of person in control and prostitute; recognizance to appear as witness

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 9. If a person makes oath before a district court that he has probable cause to suspect that a house, building, room or place is kept or resorted to for prostitution and that a certain person owning or having or assisting in the management or control of such house, building, room or place knowingly suffers another person to be in or upon such place for the purpose of unlawfully having sexual intercourse, said court shall, if satisfied that there is probable cause thereof, issue a warrant commanding the sheriff or his deputy, or any constable or police officer, to enter such house, building, room or place and search for such owner or person in control, and take into custody both the owner or person in control and such other person as may be in or upon such place for such purpose. Said owner or person in control shall be detained for not more than twenty-four hours until complaint may be made against him, and any such other person for a reasonable time until brought before said court to be recognized with or without sureties at the discretion of said court to appear as witnesses before the next or any succeeding sitting of said court. This section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the common law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hearns, 10 N.E.3d 108 (Mass. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Hearns, 10 N.E.3d 108 (Mass. 2014). “The defendant argues that neither the warrant nor the one-party consent exceptions to the wiretap statute (G. L. c. 272, § 9) applied, and therefore his communications were impermissibly recorded.”
Benson v. Norwood Dodge Sales, Inc., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 121 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “214, §1C, intentional interference with advantageous contractual relations, assault and battery, and interception of oral communications in violation of G.L.c. 272, §9. Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.