Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 33A (2026)

Use of telephone in places of detention

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 33A. The police official in charge of the station or other place of detention having a telephone wherein a person is held in custody, shall permit the use of the telephone, at the expense of the arrested person, for the purpose of allowing the arrested person to communicate with his family or friends, or to arrange for release on bail, or to engage the services of an attorney. Any such person shall be informed forthwith upon his arrival at such station or place of detention, of his right to so use the telephone, and such use shall be permitted within one hour thereafter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 112 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Vargas, 57 N.E.3d 920 (Mass. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Vargas, 57 N.E.3d 920 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 6× “12 right to counsel; (2) his statutory right to use the telephone, under, G. L. c. 276, § 33A, was intentionally violated; and (3) he did not make a knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver.”

Commonwealth v. Jones, 287 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. 1972). · cites it 12× “At district 1, he was informed of his statutory right to use a telephone (G.L.c. 276, § 33A) as well as of his constitutional rights, but he was never allowed to make a call.”

Commonwealth v. Hampton, 928 N.E.2d 917 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 5× “On appeal he asserts error in the denial of his motion to suppress the statement he gave to Boston police, allegedly because they violated his right under G. L. c. 276, § 33A, to make a telephone call; and in the denial of his request to obtain criminal records of jurors after…”

Commonwealth v. Dagley, 816 N.E.2d 527 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 5× “On appeal, he argues that (1) his statement to the police should have been suppressed for violation of his statutory right to make a telephone call (G. L. c. 276, § 33A) and for failure to make an electronic recording of the interrogation, and (2) that the prosecutor’s closing…”

Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 431 N.E.2d 880 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 4× “of the assistance of his family thereby depriving him [of] access of counsel,” (b) that the interrogating officers “failed to scrupulously honor the defendant’s request to terminate the questioning,” (c) that “the Commonwealth failed to show that the defendant was advised of his…”

Commonwealth v. White, 663 N.E.2d 834 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 9× “The defendant Kenneth White (Kenneth) claims the judge erred *489 in (1) denying his motion for required findings of not guilty, and (2) admitting evidence of the telephone number he called pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 33A (1994 ed.) (statutoiy right to make telephone call after…”

Commonwealth v. Harris, 916 N.E.2d 396 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “The motion judge determined that the defendant validly waived his Miranda rights after he was carefully informed of those rights, as well as the right to use a telephone under G. L. c. 276, § 33A, and the right to prompt arraignment.”

Commonwealth v. Rosario, 661 N.E.2d 71 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 5× “It concluded that the error concerning the violation of the defendant’s right to use a telephone (G. L. c. 276, § 33A [1994 ed.]) was not significant because the incriminating statements were made after the defendant was advised of his right to use a telephone.”

Commonwealth v. Upton, 476 N.E.2d 548 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 2× “497 (1972), we dealt with G.L.c. 276, § 33A, which grants to a person in custody in a place of detention the right to use a telephone to seek assistance of family, friends, or counsel.”

Commonwealth v. Bryant, 459 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 276, § 33A. The defendant asserts that inculpatory evidence, obtained from an intentional or unintentional failure to inform an arrested person of his right to use a telephone, should be suppressed.”

Commonwealth v. Smith, 593 N.E.2d 1288 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 4× “Before starting the questioning, they did not inform the defendant of his Miranda rights or his right under G.L.c. 276, § 33A (1990 ed.), to use the telephone.”

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 805 N.E.2d 942 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 3× “ts to the police should have been admitted at trial we consider the effect on the voluntariness of his waiver of Miranda rights of (a) expert evidence introduced for the first time at trial describing his schizophrenia and its effect on memory, and (b) the impact of the failure…”

Show all 112 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.