One of the fundamental principles of modern criminal procedure is that evidence acquired in violation of the law is not admissible in court, even if it is reliable in every other way. The so-called “exclusionary rule” is designed to prevent police and prosecutors from bending the rules in order to obtain a conviction, even in cases where all the evidence points to the guilt of the defendant.
In order to conduct a lawful, warrantless search of a suspect, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the search will produce evidence of a crime. If the officer conducts a search without reasonable suspicion, even if the search produces incriminating evidence, the fruits of that search will be inadmissible in court. Generally, if a suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that expectation is infringed upon without reasonable suspicion, the Constitution has been violated.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects against unlawful searches and seizures, while Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides for even stronger protections for residents of the Commonwealth. The exclusionary rule often comes up in drug arrests, in which officers find drugs on suspects and charge them with violating drug possession laws. Occasionally, in a twist on the usual scenario, the question arises as to whether one suspect has standing to challenge the search and seizure of another suspect.
That is the issue that the Massachusetts Court of Appeals had to address last week in Commonwealth v. Negron. The defendant was charged with distribution of a controlled substance after a police officer witnessed what looked like a hand-to-hand exchange between the defendant and an alleged buyer. The officer searched the alleged buyer, seized four bags of crack cocaine from his person, and arrested him for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Based on the drugs found on the alleged buyer, the defendant was arrested and charged with distribution.
The defendant asserted that he had standing to challenge the warrantless search of the alleged buyer, and moved to suppress the drugs found on him. Under federal and Massachusetts law, a defendant has standing to challenge the search and seizure of evidence when possession of that evidence is deemed to be an essential element of guilt. In Negron, the court analyzed the language of the statute and reasoned that possession is not an element of distribution.
Therefore, the defendant did not have standing to challenge the search and seizure of the alleged buyer. The court did not address the question of whether the defendant could suppress the evidence, since he did not have standing to challenge it in the first place. This decision, which appears to value statutory literalism over common sense, severely limits the rights of criminal defendants in the Commonwealth.
If you have been charged with a crime after what you feel was an unconstitutional search or seizure, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.
See Related Posts:
Supreme Judicial Court Rules on Criminal Procedure Question in Massachusetts Bank Robbery Case
Search and Seizure in the Digital Era: Warrantless Searches for Electronic Communication