Com. v. Goggin
| Citation | 587 N.E.2d 785,412 Mass. 200 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Darlene GOGGIN (and three companion cases 1 ). |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1992 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Lynn C. Rooney, Asst. Dist. Atty., Rosemary D. Mellor, Asst. Dist. Atty., with her, for Com.
Daniel Solomon, Boston, for Denise Goggin.
Paul Cacchiotti, Everett, for Darlene Goggin, was present but did not argue.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and NOLAN, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
This is the Commonwealth's interlocutory appeal (transferred by us from the Appeals Court) from an allowance by a Superior Court judge of the defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained by the Somerville police as a result of searching the defendants' apartment. In allowing the defendants' motions, the judge ruled that the police had violated the "knock and announce" rule in executing the warrant which authorized the search.
The judge made the following findings of fact with regard to the execution of the search warrant. On June 8, 1990, at 7:10 P.M., eight officers of the Somerville police department arrived at a two-family house at 28 Pearson Road with a warrant to search the first-floor apartment. The warrant, which authorized an entry at night, required the officers to knock and announce their identity before entering. The two defendants, who are sisters, occupied the first floor apartment. One of the police, Officer Martha Costa, knew the defendants because she had coached them in sports years earlier.
The front door of the house led into a small common hallway. As this door was unlocked and ajar, the police entered the hallway and knocked on the downstairs apartment door. A female voice inside the apartment asked, "Who is it?," to which Officer Costa replied "Pop Warner." When no one responded, a police officer again knocked and again heard from within, "Who is it?" Officer Costa responded, "Somerville Pop Warner." The officers then heard a woman inside say, "I don't know who it is," after which one of the defendants opened the door. On seeing the police officers with badges on neck chains, she immediately attempted to close the door. However, an officer held his hand out across the threshold of the doorway and prevented the door from being closed. Before stepping into the apartment, the police announced their identity, authority and purpose. A search of the dwelling uncovered approximately fourteen grams of cocaine, some marihuana, other drug paraphernalia, and $324 in cash.
The defendants were arrested on the basis of the evidence seized during the search, and they were indicted for trafficking in cocaine in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32E(b )(1) (1990 ed.), and possession of marihuana with intent to distribute in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32C (1990 ed.). The defendants subsequently filed their motions to suppress, arguing that the police had violated the terms of the search warrant because, after using a ruse to induce one of the defendants to open the door to the apartment, a police officer held the door open and prevented it from being closed while the police announced their purpose and entered. The judge agreed with this argument, ruled that the knock and announce rule had been violated, and granted the motions to suppress. We reverse.
Our knock and announce rule is one of common law which is not constitutionally compelled. Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 406 Mass. 180, 181, 546 N.E.2d 879 (1989), and cases cited. The reasons supporting the rule are the desirability of "decreasing the potential for violence [initiated by residents in response to a sudden and unexpected invasion of their premises, provoking further retaliatory violence by the police], protection of privacy, and the prevention of unnecessary damage to homes." Commonwealth v. Cundriff, 382 Mass. 137, 146, 415 N.E.2d 172 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 973, 101 S.Ct. 2054, 68 L.Ed.2d 353 (1981). A consensual entry by the police, even if obtained by ruse or trickery, will not violate the rule. Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, supra, 406 Mass. at 182-183, 546 N.E.2d 879.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevens, 92-1557-CR
...only "by the overall reasonableness of the state's statutory scheme as applied by law enforcement officers."); Commonwealth v. Goggin, 412 Mass. 200, 587 N.E.2d 785 (1992) ("[o]ur knock and announce rule is one of common law which is not constitutionally compelled").9 See Hiller v. State, 1......
-
U.S. v. Legault
...v. Alejandro, 368 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2004) (officer posed as a gas company employee investigating a leak); Commonwealth v. Goggin, 412 Mass. 200, 202, 587 N.E.2d 785 (1992) (police misrepresented their identity to persuade occupants to open the door); Commonwealth v. Watson, 36 Mass.App.......
-
State v. Ribe
...to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1988).12 Cf. Commonwealth v. Goggin, 412 Mass. 200, 587 N.E.2d 785, 787 (1992) ("Our knock and announce rule is one of common law which is not constitutionally compelled.").13 Footnote 6 appears at ......
-
State v. Chandler
...opened the door to uniformed officers, the requirements of the knock and announce rule are satisfied. See Commonwealth v. Goggin, 412 Mass. 200, 587 N.E.2d 785, 787 (1992). Based on Defendant's own testimony, it is highly unlikely that she could have prevailed on a knock and announce violat......
-
Fourth Amendment - must police knock and announce themselves before kicking in the door of a house?
...A.2d 14, 15 (Me. 1994) (no knock-and-announce requirement); State v. Tyler, 840 P.2d 413, 427 (Kan. 1992) (same); Commonwealth v. Coggin, 587 N.E.2d 785, 787 (Mass. 1992) (knock-and-announce requirement based on the common law). The Supreme Court contributed to the confusion by referring in......