Com. v. Stewart
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | QUIRICO |
| Citation | 267 N.E.2d 213,358 Mass. 747 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Allan W. STEWART, Jr. (and five companion cases 1 ). |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1971 |
Page 213
v.
Allan W. STEWART, Jr. (and five companion cases
1).
Decided March 1, 1971.
[358 Mass. 748]
Page 214
Reuben Goodman, Boston (Alexander Whiteside, II, Boston, with him), for defendant.Stanley L. Cummings, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before [358 Mass. 747] SPALDING, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.
[358 Mass. 748] QUIRICO, Justice.
The defendant, Allan W. Stewart, Jr., was convicted on a complaint charging him with being present where a narcotic drug was illegally kept. The defendant, Richard K. Garon, was convicted on five complaints charging him with the following crimes: unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, unlawful possession of harmful drugs, unlawful possession of hypodermic needle and syringes, being present where a narcotic drug was illegally kept, and concealing stolen property.
The drugs, hypodermic needle, syringes and allegedly stolen property had been seized by the police in the execution of a search warrant. The sole issue raised by each bill of exceptions is the sufficiency of the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant. The defendants seasonably moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. Their motions were denied and they excepted to such denials.
The warrant involved in these cases authorized a search of an apartment occupied by the defendant Garon. The [358 Mass. 749] articles described in the warrant as the objects of the search were 'marijuana, hypodermic needles and syringes, parking meter head--property of the Town of Greenfield.' The 'magistrate' issuing the warrant was the clerk of a District Court.
A basic limitation on the issuance of search warrants is the requirement that there be a showing of probable cause before one may issue. This limitation by its very terms recognizes the vast difference between proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the one hand and proof of probable cause to believe a fact or facts on the other hand. 'In dealing with probable cause * * * as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicans, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved. 'The substance of all the definitions' of probable cause 'is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.' * * * And this 'means less than evidence which would justify condemnation' or conviction.
Page 215
* * * Probable cause exists where 'the facts and circumstances within * * * (the officers') knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information (are) sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that' an offense has been or is being committed.' Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175--176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Commonwealth v. Lillis, 349 Mass. 422, 424, 209 N.E.2d 186.Applying this general rule to the present cases, the burden on the Commonwealth in applying for a search warrant was not to provide an affidavit which convinced the issuing magistrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there were narcotic drugs, hypodermic needles and syringes and a parking meter head in the defendant Garon's apartment. If the affidavit provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that any of such articles was probably present in the apartment, that is sufficient. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 533, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887.
[358 Mass. 750] The defendants do not contend that the affidavit may not be based on hearsay information or that it must reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant. Jones v. United States, supra, 362 U.S. 269--271, 80...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Melendez
...in favor of finding probable cause, United States v. Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. at 108-109, 85 S.Ct. at 745-746; Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 750, 267 N.E.2d 213 Proper analysis of the affidavit should begin with Detective O'Connor's statement that the informant "has given inform......
-
Merrick v. State, No. 111
...938, 96 S.Ct. 1671, 48 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (unidentified); State v. Gamage, 340 A.2d 1 (Me.1975) (unidentified); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971) (unidentified); Commonwealth v. Vynorius, 336 N.E.2d 898 (Mass.1975) (unidentified); People v. Wolzer, 41 A.D.2d 679,......
-
Com. v. Alvarez
...test of its sufficiency standing alone." Commonwealth v. Burt, supra at 715, 473 N.E.2d 683, quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 751, 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971). Here, the search warrant was based on: (1) the information from the juvenile; (2) the results of the 828 Hampden Street se......
-
Com. v. Hall
...(footnote omitted). See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415--416, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 750, 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971); Commonwealth v. Stevens, --- Mass. ---, --- d, 283 N.E.2d 673 (1972); Commonwealth v. Kane, --- Mass. ---, --- ......
-
Com. v. Melendez
...in favor of finding probable cause, United States v. Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. at 108-109, 85 S.Ct. at 745-746; Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 750, 267 N.E.2d 213 Proper analysis of the affidavit should begin with Detective O'Connor's statement that the informant "has given inform......
-
Merrick v. State, No. 111
...938, 96 S.Ct. 1671, 48 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (unidentified); State v. Gamage, 340 A.2d 1 (Me.1975) (unidentified); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971) (unidentified); Commonwealth v. Vynorius, 336 N.E.2d 898 (Mass.1975) (unidentified); People v. Wolzer, 41 A.D.2d 679,......
-
Com. v. Alvarez
...test of its sufficiency standing alone." Commonwealth v. Burt, supra at 715, 473 N.E.2d 683, quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 751, 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971). Here, the search warrant was based on: (1) the information from the juvenile; (2) the results of the 828 Hampden Street se......
-
Com. v. Hall
...(footnote omitted). See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415--416, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 358 Mass. 747, 750, 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971); Commonwealth v. Stevens, --- Mass. ---, --- d, 283 N.E.2d 673 (1972); Commonwealth v. Kane, --- Mass. ---, --- ......