Com. v. Melendez
Citation | 551 N.E.2d 514,407 Mass. 53 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Jorge MELENDEZ (and two companion cases 1 ). |
Decision Date | 19 March 1990 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Sean J. Gallagher, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com.
Andrew L. Mandell, Worcester, for Jorge Melendez.
Charles P. Ball, Worcester, for Nereida Cruz, was present but did not argue.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
A judge in the District Court allowed the defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a search conducted by Worcester police on May 7, 1987. The Commonwealth's application to pursue an interlocutory appeal was allowed. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), 378 Mass. 883 (1979). We agree with the motion judge that the affidavit in support of the search warrant in this case failed to establish probable cause.
On May 6, 1987, Detective Daniel F. O'Connor of the Worcester police department's vice squad applied for a warrant to search apartment 3 at 19 Great Brook Valley Avenue in Worcester. The following are relevant portions of the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant:
A magistrate issued a warrant to search the apartment, and on May 7, 1987, the police seized, among other things, plastic bags and paper packets containing white powder believed to be cocaine. The judge granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized, ruling that the affidavit failed to meet the requirements of Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985).
"Under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, a magistrate, before issuing a search warrant, must determine that probable cause exists." Commonwealth v. Rojas, 403 Mass. 483, 485, 531 N.E.2d 255 (1988), citing Commonwealth v. Upton, supra. "In Upton, we held that, under art. 14 ... the test for determining probable cause in cases involving unnamed informants incorporates the principles developed under Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964)" (footnote omitted). Commonwealth v. Saleh 396 Mass. 406, 409, 486 N.E.2d 706 (1985). " Commonwealth v. Upton, supra 394 Mass. at 374-375, 476 N.E.2d 548.
The affidavit in this case failed to satisfy the veracity test. 2 The Commonwealth, in arguing that the informant was reliable, relies principally upon certain statements in the affidavit which indicate that he (or she) purchased and used cocaine. The Commonwealth asserts that these remarks constituted statements against penal interest and thus buttressed the informant's veracity. We disagree.
In order for a statement to be considered by the magistrate to be a statement against penal interest, there must be information in the affidavit which tends to show that the informant would have had a reasonable fear of prosecution at the time that he made the statement. See 1 W.R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.3(c), at 645-646 (2d ed. 1987); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439 (1985); Comment, The Supreme Court, 1970 Term, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 53, 60 (1971); Note, Probable Cause and the First-Time Informer, 43 U.Colo.L.Rev. 357, 367 (1972). "Courts ... should not utilize the admission against-penal-interest concept in a blunderbuss fashion, but instead should assess in a more careful fashion, preferably upon a full disclosure by the police of all relevant circumstances, what the significance of that admission is in the context of the particular case." 1 W.R. LaFave, supra. 3 See People v. Johnson, supra (). Statements may be more credible if there is a threat of police retaliation for giving false information. See 1 W.R. LaFave, supra at 649-650.
For example, in Commonwealth v. Parapar, 404 Mass. 319, 534 N.E.2d 1167 (1989), immediately after being arrested for cocaine trafficking and after the police had made three undercover cocaine purchases, the informant told the police where he had obtained the cocaine. In these circumstances, one could infer that the informant had an actual fear of being prosecuted. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Vynorius, 369 Mass. 17, 336 N.E.2d 898 (1975), the affiant police officer caught the informant red-handed, his pockets stuffed with marihuana. After the informant confessed his drug purchase, he turned over the contraband to the police officer and gave him the information that the officer used as the basis for the affidavit.
In contrast, the statement in this case did not indicate any circumstances which would cause the informant to have a reasonable fear of prosecution. The statement was unaccompanied by any physical evidence. Indeed, it is likely that the uncorroborated confession, in and of itself, would have been insufficient to prove guilt. Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470, 472, 517 N.E.2d 157 (1988). The likelihood of prosecution was rather remote. One might infer in a case like this that the informant was a "protected stool pigeon" whose inaccuracies or indiscretions are tolerated on a continuing basis in exchange for information. See 1 W.R. LaFave, supra at 647. See also Comment, The Supreme Court, 1970 Term, 85 Harv.L.Rev., supra at 60. In such a case, he would have little to fear from giving false information. See 1 W.R. LaFave, supra at 647. 4 See Note, Probable Cause and the First-Time Informer, 43 U.Colo.L.Rev., supra at 367. 5
The Commonwealth additionally argues that the fact that the defendant had once pleaded guilty to cocaine possession corroborated the informant's veracity. We disagree. "A defendant's criminal history may be factored into a probable cause determination as corroboration of an informant's tip, but only if the history is sufficiently recent and similar to the crime charged to demonstrate that 'the defendant was not averse' to committing such a crime." Commonwealth v. Allen, 406 Mass. 575, 579, 549 N.E.2d 430 (1990), quoting Commonwealth v. Germain, 396 Mass. 413, 418, 486 N.E.2d 693 n. 7 (1985). In Germain, the defendant had a record of crimes similar to that of armed robbery, for which he was charged, including theft, possession of a .32 caliber gun, and possession of burglarious tools. We stated that this criminal history showed "conduct from which the inference may be drawn that the defendant was not averse" to committing the crime for which he was under investigation. Id. at 418 n. 7, 486 N.E.2d 693. In contrast, in this case, the sole guilty plea for a possession offense did not show conduct which demonstrated the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Cast
...by Agent Lemon some six to ten times in regard to the investigation into the defendant's activities. See Commonwealth v. Melendez, 407 Mass. 53, 58 n. 4, 551 N.E.2d 514 (1990) (no indication that police knew informant's name or address or indeed would have been able to reach him); Commonwea......
-
Com. v. Alvarez
...that the informant would have had a reasonable fear of prosecution at the time that he made the statement." Commonwealth v. Melendez, 407 Mass. 53, 56, 551 N.E.2d 514 (1990). Pizzaro concedes that the juvenile had a reasonable fear of prosecution for his statements regarding David Soto, but......
-
Com. v. Grinkley
...because she did not leave a telephone number and presumably could not be contacted by the police. See Commonwealth v. Melendez, 407 Mass. 53, 58 n. 4, 551 N.E.2d 514 (1990). Contrast Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. at 898, 556 N.E.2d 69; Commonwealth v. Va Meng Joe, 425 Mass. at 103-104, 68......
-
Com. v. Ilges
...a finding that the statement of either informant was against penal interest and therefore worthy of belief. See Commonwealth v. Melendez, 407 Mass. 53, 56, 551 N.E.2d 514 (1990). Instead, the Commonwealth contends that the interlocking nature of the informants' statements, buttressed by pol......
-
Independent state constitutional adjudication in Massachusetts: 1988-1998.
...N.E.2d 1008 (Mass. 1994). The two dissents were in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (Mass. 1995), and Commonwealth v. Melendez, 551 N.E.2d 514 (Mass. 1990). He authored a concurring opinion in O'Connor v. Police Commissioner, 557 N.E.2d 1146 (Mass. (247) See App. 2. (248) See, e.g.,......