Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 3A (2026)

Time for return of search warrant

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 3A. Every officer to whom a warrant to search is issued shall return the same to the court by which it was issued as soon as it has been served and in any event not later than seven days from the date of issuance thereof, with a return of his doings thereon; provided, however, that a justice of the superior court may at any time receive complaints and issue search warrants returnable in seven days before a district court named in such warrant and in that event the officer shall make his return to such district court as directed.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1969–2014 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 899 N.E.2d 809 (Mass. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 899 N.E.2d 809 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 4× “the denial of his motion to suppress child pornography found on his computer because (1) the warrantless seizure of his computer was unlawful; (2) the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not furnish probable cause to believe that his computer contained child…”

Commonwealth v. Ocasio, 746 N.E.2d 469 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 4× “Faced with the requirement of making a return pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 3A, but lacking the warrant, the officer photocopied the back of a blank search warrant, attached it to the inventory return, and filed them with the clerk-magistrate.”

Commonwealth v. Connolly, 913 N.E.2d 356 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 2× “276, § 1, which provides authority to issue search warrants, contains no specific provision authorizing installation of GPS devices or monitoring of data from such devices, 16 the defendant asserts that the tracking warrant here was issued pursuant to that statute and,…”

Commonwealth v. Bryant, 852 N.E.2d 1072 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “The defendant appealed, arguing that a Superior Court judge erred in denying a motion to suppress computer files seized from the law firm for which the defendant worked because the analysis of the electronically stored files (computer data) took more than seven days in violation…”

Commonwealth v. Ericson, 10 N.E.3d 127 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “” Five years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court considered whether “failure to complete forensic examination of [a] defendant’s computer within seven days constitutes a violation of G. L. c. 276, § 3A, and requires suppression of the results of the search of [the] computer.”

Commonwealth v. Krisco Corp., 653 N.E.2d 579 (Mass. 1995). “The warrant could have been executed within seven days after its issuance and thus could have been obtained even though the paint cans were not in the dumpster at the time of issuance.”

Commonwealth v. DiGeronimo, 652 N.E.2d 148 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “218, § 35; G. L. c. 276, § 3A, as amended by St. 1962, c.”

New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Crim. Bus., 462 Mass. 76 (Mass. 2012). “See G. L. c. 276, § 3A. The warrants were lawfully executed on or about March 31, 2011.”

Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 495 N.E.2d 328 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “G. L. c. 276, § 3A. S&& Commonwealth Cromer, 365 Mass.”

Commonwealth v. DeMasi, 283 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 1972). · cites it 2× “The final argument of the defendant is that the goods should have been suppressed because Detective Walsh did not comply with G. L. c. 276, § 3A, as appearing in St. 1964, c.”

Commonwealth v. Ierardi, 457 N.E.2d 1127 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). “In executing the search warrant, the police seized certain items from the trunk of the defendant’s car which they failed to list on the return of the warrant, as required by G. L. c. 276, § 3A. Upon the defendant’s objection, the trial judge refused to receive those articles in…”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 429 N.E.2d 47 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “We do not consider whether the failure to list these documents on the return of the warrant, see G. L. c. 276, § 3A, required their exclusion from evidence, see Commonwealth v.”

Show all 17 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.