Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 3 (2026)

Seizure, custody and disposition of articles; exceptions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 3. If an officer in the execution of a search warrant finds property or articles therein described, he shall seize and safely keep them, under the direction of the court or justice, so long as necessary to permit them to be produced or used as evidence in any trial. As soon as may be, thereafter, all property seized under clause First of section one shall be restored to the owners thereof; and all other property seized in execution of a search warrant shall be disposed of as the court or justice orders and may be forfeited and either sold or destroyed, as the public interest requires, in the discretion of the court or justice, except:

(a) Diseased animals or carcasses thereof, or any tainted, diseased, corrupt, decayed or unwholesome meat, fish, vegetables, produce, fruit or provisions of any kind, or the meat of any calf killed when less than two weeks old, or any product thereof kept or concealed with intent to kill, sell or offer the same for sale for food, shall be destroyed or disposed of in accordance with section one hundred and forty-six of chapter ninety-four by the board of health or by an officer designated by the court or justice; and diseased animals found to have been kept or concealed in a particular building, place or enclosure shall be destroyed or disposed of by the division of animal health and department of food and agriculture without compensation to the owners thereof.

(b) Rifles, shotguns, pistols, knives or other dangerous weapons which have been found to have been kept, concealed or used unlawfully or for an unlawful purpose shall be forfeited to the commonwealth and delivered forthwith to the colonel of the state police for destruction or preservation in the discretion of the colonel of the state police.

(c) Money seized under clause Third of section one shall be forfeited and paid over to the state treasurer.

(d) Any property, including money seized under section one, the forfeiture and disposition of which is specified in any general or special law shall be disposed of in accordance therewith.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Johnson, 119 N.E.3d 669 (Mass. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 119 N.E.3d 669 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “3 (1987), citing G. L. c. 276, § 3. Once the item is returned, the expectation of privacy is restored; to search the object again, probable cause and a warrant again are required.”

Commonwealth v. McDermott, 864 N.E.2d 471 (Mass. 2007). “The firearm must be listed in the inventory taken from the premises in the timely return of the warrant, see G. L. c. 276, § 3 A, but it may be submitted for specialized examination at an off-site forensic setting for the further extraction of evidence, such as the recovery of…”

Commonwealth v. Beland, 764 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 2002). “The defendant further alleges that his statements to police should be suppressed because there *285 is no evidence the police informed him of his right to use the telephone pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 3 3A. This claim is without merit.”

Commonwealth v. Rufo, 429 Mass. 380 (Mass. 1999). · cites it 3× “” G. L. c. 276, § 3. Better reasoned opinions recognize that a State statute of that character provides a proper basis for jurisdiction over property seized pursuant to a search warrant.”

Commonwealth v. LeBeau, 884 N.E.2d 956 (Mass. 2008). “At that time Lieutenant Smith also advised the defendant of his statutory right to a telephone call, pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 3 3A. Although the defendant first appeared not to wish to exercise this right, with Detective Decker’s encouragement, he made contact with his two…”

Commonwealth v. Davis, 384 N.E.2d 181 (Mass. 1978). “With respect to the money seized pursuant to the search warrant, we note that the trial court, with the defendant’s apparent approval, credited this amount to the codefendant’s fine of $2,969, pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 3. Although there is some question as to the present…”

Commonwealth v. Sacco, 515 N.E.2d 1185 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 2× “We have no parallel rule which is as specific as Federal rule 41 (e), but Rule 61 of the Superior Court (as amended) and the purpose behind G. L. c. 276, § 3, indicate that a similar procedure is available in this Commonwealth.”

New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Crim. Bus., 462 Mass. 76 (Mass. 2012). “See also G. L. c. 276, § 3; Rule 61 of the Rules of the Superior Court.”

Commonwealth v. Campbell, 226 N.E.2d 211 (Mass. 1967). “We further believe that the grant of power contained in G. L. c. 276, § 3, as amended through St.”

State v. Gero, 877 A.2d 201 (N.H. 2005). · cites it 2× “Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Appeals Court squarely addressed the issue of when the public interest requires forfeiture of property seized by the police, and in doing so, interpreted the term “public interest” for purposes of Mass.”

Commonwealth v. Aviles, 790 N.E.2d 1103 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “557, § 4, that articles seized pursuant to warrant be kept “so long as necessary to permit them to be produced or used as evidence on any trial” also authorizes introduction of evidence obtained as result of tests and experiments on lawfully seized items).”

Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 191 N.E.2d 873 (Mass. 1963). “” 11 *307 The Marcus case was a step in a proceeding for condemning objectionable material (in some respects like the type of forfeiture action permitted by G. L. c. 276, § 3 [as amended through St.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

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.