Com. v. LaBossiere
| Decision Date | 29 April 1964 |
| Citation | 347 Mass. 384,198 N.E.2d 405 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Paul H. LaBOSSIERE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Henry Weissman, Springfield, for defendant.
Matthew J. Ryan, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Leonard E. Gibbons, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and REARDON, Jj.
The defendant has appealed his conviction upon two indictments relating to two separate dwellings, each indictment charging breaking and entering in the night time with intent to commit larceny and the stealing of described items of personal property of a total value of over $100. G.L. c. 266, § 16, as appearing in St.1943, c. 343, § 1. The trial was made subject to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, inclusive, as amended.
The five assignments of error, all concerning the admission of evidence allegedly the result of an illegal search of his automobile, are grouped in the defendant's brief in an argument which is little more than perfunctory suggestion and asserton and does not merit extended discussion. In view of the seriousness of the case from the point of view of the defendant we shall give it greater consideration than the presentation in his brief deserves.
The fundamental flaw in the defendant's position is that the evidence did not require a finding that there was a search. At the hearing of a motion to suppress held before the trial, the only testimony was by two officers of the Springfield police, Lieutenant Flanagan and Sergeant Williams. On the night of March 10, 1963, while in a police cruiser driven by Williams, they observed an automobile operated by the defendant proceed through a red traffic signal without stopping and pass a traffic island on the left, the wrong side. The speed of the automobile was excessive. The officers pursued and caused it to stop. Williams remained in the cruiser while Flanagan got out and walked toward the car of the defendant, who also had gotten out and was walking toward the cruiser. Flanagan told the defendant to show his driver's license and registration to Williams, and continued toward the car. The driver's door was open, and there were three men in the car, one on the front seat and two on the back. Flanagan did not enter the vehicle but, flashing a light, looked in from the outside and saw the occupants and 'some items,' including a camera, on the seats and on the floor. He did not put his flashlight inside the car. Flanagan asked who owned the articles, and one of the men said that they were his.
In the meantime Williams examined the defendant's driver's license and registration both of which were issued in the State of New York. The license gave a New York address, but the defendant told Williams that he lived in Springfield. Flanagan returned to the cruiser and asked the defendant who owned the camera. The latter replied that he owned it and everything in the car. He also said that he owned a hockey puck, the property of Flanagan, who exhibited it to him. When Flanagan stated that the defendant's story conflicted with that of a passenger, the defendant confessed that they had just broken into a house. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Campbell
...in the automobile and articles in the back seat constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Commonwealth v. LaBossiere, 347 Mass. 384, 386, 198 N.E.2d 405; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202; Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 305, an......
-
Com. v. Haefeli
...checks protruding on the floor of the front passenger's seat. That did not constitute a search of the automobile. Commonwealth v. LaBossiere, 347 Mass. 384, 198 N.E.2d 405. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, Mass., 276 N.E.2d 283. b Seeing the checks, when combined with all of the information whic......
-
Com. v. Cavanaugh
...of a flashlight to look into the interior of a car in such situations does not amount to a search at all. Commonwealth v. LaBossiere, 347 Mass. 384, 385--386, 198 N.E.2d 405 (1964); Commonwealth v. Haefeli, --- Mass. ---, ---, h 279 N.E.2d 915 (1972). 1 Contrast Commonwealth v. McCleery, 34......
-
Com. v. Blake
...does not, have a possible relation to the suspected criminal activity; examples of the latter situation are Commonwealth v. LaBossiere, 347 Mass. 384, 386, 198 N.E.2d 405 (1964), Commonwealth v. King, 389 Mass. 233, 236, 449 N.E.2d 1217 (1983), and Commonwealth v. Wren, 391 Mass. at 707, 46......