When it comes to drug search warrants in Massachusetts, an important requirement is something called “particularity.” According to the Fourth Amendment, all search warrants must describe the specific items that authorities expect to seize in their searches. If the search warrant does not describe these items in detail, the search warrant could be challenged in court – and the resulting evidence may be inadmissible. This became clear after a recent drug case in Massachusetts.
Authorities Fail to Describe the Specific Drugs They Wanted to Search For
In December of 2024, the Commonwealth announced that a search warrant issued in 2019 lacked particularity. The case stemmed from an incident involving a man who was allegedly selling drugs from his second-floor apartment. A police detective claimed to have received information from a confidential informant about the suspect, and this detective later provided a sworn affidavit that drug transactions were taking place at the address. However, the affidavit failed to identify the specific substances the suspect was allegedly selling – and this later proved to be a major flaw.
The confidential informant later made a controlled buy from the suspect, but the police detective only described these substances as “narcotics” in his affidavit. As most people know, the term “narcotics” encompasses relatively minor drugs like marijuana – all the way up to hard drugs like heroin. The detective later stated that he described the drugs in intentionally vague terms to protect the identity of their confidential informant.
Based on this information, the court issued a search warrant with equally vague terms – allowing police to search for “all” drugs, cash, weapons, and essentially any other incriminating evidence inside the apartment.
The defendant faced numerous drug trafficking charges, and he quickly argued that the search warrant lacked particularity. The Superior Court first denied the motion, and a second judge made the same ruling when the defendant filed a second motion. Next, the defendant entered guilty pleas on the condition that he would have the right to appeal both denied motions.
The appeals court then heard the defendant’s argument, ultimately agreeing that the search warrant lacked particularity. The court found that by describing “all controlled substances” in the search warrant, constitutional and statutory rights had been violated. They noted that search warrants must specifically name the substances that police believe to be present. They also noted that the police saw the substances purchased by the confidential informant, and they had no real excuse for failing to name this specific substance.
Can a Drug Defense Lawyer Help Me Challenge Search Warrants in Massachusetts?
If you believe that authorities searched your premises, property, or person without a valid warrant, you may be correct. An experienced drug defense lawyer in Massachusetts may be able to help you review the details of the warrant and uncover various issues – including the lack of particularity. To learn more about potential defense strategies, contact Edward R. Molari today.