Introduction
The rule of law and individuals freedom in most New England states is well established in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Probable cause and search and seizure rules are among the most stringent rules within these states. Officer Landonio had lawfully obtained a warrant to search the residence and therefore must have satisfied a neutral judge. The warrant makes his entry into the home lawful. Narcotics fall under the category of contraband. Therefore even if the warrant only specifies that Landonio should only search for a specific stolen television set, any contraband lawfully found in the home falls under the ambit of the search warrant and can be seized (Gray, 2016). In this statement, the word lawful is crucial. A search warrant can only be extended to include contraband that was in plain view (Gray, 2016). This means that although the officers were not looking for the contraband, they could not reasonably avoid seeing it. In this case, the contraband was lying right on the table and the officers can then proceed to seize it, make a comprehensive inventory of the same and cart it away as evidence (Gray, 2016).
With regard to the officer who opens a kitchen cabinet and finds a kilogram of cocaine, not only is this kilogram of cocaine inadmissible as evidence, but also the officer involved is guilty of misuse of a search warrant (Cook, 2016). The search warrant in force is for the search and seizure of a 50-inch plasma television set. There is no way that a 50-inch television set can fit in a kitchen cabinet. Therefore, the act of the officer to open the kitchen cabinet was not supported by the warrant in force. It is, therefore, an unsanctioned act and any evidence found therein no matter how incriminating, cannot be admitted as evidence (Johnson, 2016). Further, this specific officer provides grounds for defence in any trial resulting from this search to show that the warrant was procured through misrepresentation of facts (Cook, 2016). This is based on the fact that the officers involved are from a drugs task force which clearly does not deal in theft of household goods. Then during execution, an active search for drugs, including opening cabinets was made. Even the drugs found on the table can become inadmissible under the fruits of a poisonous tree evidence rule (Johnson, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Requirements for Procuring a Search and Seizure Warrant in Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, a search warrant is procured through a written application supported by an affidavit made by an investigating officer to a neutral judge (Gray, 2016). The affidavit will provide grounds upon which the officer believes there is a probable cause for searching a specific place for a specific item or collection of items. Further, the particulars indicated in the affidavit must be accurate and precise enough to enable any other officer execute the warrant based purely on the particulars so indicated (Gray, 2016). This includes particulars of the place to be searched and the items to be searched for. When the judge is satisfied that probable cause is proven and meticulous details provided, a warrant will be issued.
Residents and Non-residents Found in the House
Unlike most other items recovered under a search warrant, drugs are strict liability offences and culpability is therefore enhanced (Kerr, 2016). Further, the drugs were found in a very open space and it was almost impossible for anyone in that house not to have known of their existence. Any adult resident in that house would immediately be arrested for possession of drugs with or without intent to distribute (Laquer, Rushin, & Simon, 2014; Kerr, 2016). The issue of with or without intent to distribute is within the discretion of the police officers conducing the search. Further, under the current circumstances, any adult non-resident found in that house an exemption can however be made they have extremely convincing reasons for being there such as seeking help for an emergency, will be arrested. However, if one individual claims ownership and responsibility for all the drugs, the police are under discretion to arrest only that individual (Laquer, Rushin & Simon, 2014).
References
Cook, J. A. (2016). The Wrong Decision at the Wrong Time: Utah v. Strieff in the Era of Aggressive Policing. University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-38. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2864592
Gray, D. (2016). Fourth amendment remedies as rights: The warrant requirement. Boston University Law Review, 96(2), 425-483.
Johnson, M. C. (2016). Discovering Arrest Warrants during Illegal Traffic Stops: The Lower Courts' Wrong Turn in the Exclusionary Rule Attenuation Analysis. Miss. LJ , 85 , 225.
Kerr, O. S. (2016). An Economic Understanding of Search and Seizure Law. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(3), 591-647
Laqueur, H., Rushin, S., & Simon, J. S. (2014). Wrongful Convictions, Policing, and the 'Wars on Crime and Drugs'. In D. Allison, J. Redlich, R. Acker, and C. Bonventre, Examining Wrongful Convictions: Stepping Back and Moving Forward ( pp. 1-16).
