Com. v. Dolan
| Decision Date | 27 April 1967 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Robert G. DOLAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert A. Stanziani, Boston, for defendant.
Ruth I. Abrams, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
The defendant was convicted on three indictments charging him with (1) the concealing of a stolen motor vehicle, (2) the buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of a Fruehauf trailer knowing it to have been stolen, and (3) the buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of a Trailmobile trailer knowing it to have been stolen. The case was tried under the provisions of G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G and is here on appeal.
Although the defendant filed five assignments of error the argument in his brief, except for a meager reference to the exclusion of certain testimony, is directed to what he states was the refusal of the 'trial judge * * * to allow the defendant to file his proposed motion to suppress because the vehicle in question was stolen and the real estate upon which the vehicle was located was not his.'
We summarize the pertinent testimony in relation to the motion to suppress. Lieutenant Collins of the Somerville police following a conversation with the defendant visited the premises of the Granite Research Laboratories (Granite). Granite was a customer of the defendant and was using the Fruehauf trailer for storage. He was accompanied by Joseph McDonald, a special agent for the National Automobile Theft Bureau, Richard Daley and Herbert L. Burr, investigators for the Registry of Motor Vehicles. They 'obtained the serial number from the underpart of the flat-body (of the) trailer.' The 'vehicle identification number' had been removed. The number was observed on the 'strike plate' of the trailer, which is 'the part where the tractor backs into and hooks onto' the trailer. The strike plate was photographed and the photographs were introduced in evidence. Other photographs were introduced which showed the trailer standing in an open lot on the premises of Granite.
1. The judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress on two grounds. First, the trailer was on the property of a third party. Second, the defendant's title to the trailer was in dispute. In effect, the judge ruled that the defendant, for those reasons, did not have standing to raise the issue of the legality of the search.
We assume, without deciding, that the judge should have considered the merits of the defendant's claim of an unreasonable search and seizure. However there is adequate evidence in the record to show that no 'sear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Hason
...locate it. The defendant could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the VIN in these circumstances. Commonwealth v. Dolan, 352 Mass. 432, 433, 225 N.E.2d 910 (1967). United States v. Wagner, 497 F.2d 249, 252 (10th Cir. 1974). 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.5(d), at 357-358......
-
Com. v. Baldwin
...through the windows of the vehicle (at the VIN in plain view) without opening any part of the vehicle (see Commonwealth v. Dolan, 352 Mass. 432, 433, 225 N.E.2d 910 (1967)), what was done was reasonable, and in no sense such an intrusion as would require obtaining an administrative warrant ......