COMMONWEALTH v. SAMPSON, JR, Mass. App. Ct., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

John J. Bonistalli for the defendant. Daniel P. Napolitano, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a search warrant issued to search the defendant, Nicholas J. Sampson, Jr., based on an affidavit alleging illegal gaming activity at the Starting Gate Bar. Police officers observed activity over a period of two weeks, including one occasion where the affiant and another officer saw a white male attempting to conceal a pad of paper with numbers written on it. The defendant was present at the bar during this observation but was identified as a separate individual from the man who acted furtively. The defendant was subsequently searched pursuant to the warrant, and evidence was seized. The defendant moved to suppress this evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause to search the defendant.
Whether proximity to a person suspected of criminal activity is sufficient to establish probable cause to search another individual.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965)	Affidavits supporting warrants must be read in a common-sense, not technical, manner.	Guided the court's approach to reviewing the affidavit for probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Taglieri, 378 Mass. 196, 198 (1979)	Standards for establishing probable cause in affidavits.	Supported the conclusion that the affidavit lacked sufficient probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Labelle, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 175, 179 (1983)	Probable cause requirements for search warrants.	Used to reinforce the inadequacy of the affidavit regarding the defendant.
Commonwealth v. Reddington, 395 Mass. 315, 321 (1985)	Probable cause cannot be established by mere proximity to suspected criminal activity.	Helped establish that the defendant's mere presence was insufficient for probable cause.
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979)	Mere proximity to others suspected of criminal activity does not justify a search.	Supported the court's rejection of probable cause based solely on the defendant's proximity.
United States v. Chadwick, 532 F.2d 773, 784 (1st Cir. 1976), aff'd 433 U.S. 1 (1977)	Limits on probable cause and search scope.	Referenced to emphasize the absence of direct connection between defendant and illegal activity.
Commonwealth v. Mele, 358 Mass. 225, 227-229 (1970)	Probable cause requires some assertion linking the defendant to criminal activity.	Noted absence of such assertions in the affidavit regarding the defendant.
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 37 (1963)	Repeated presence at a crime scene may support probable cause.	Affidavit lacked evidence that defendant was repeatedly present at the bar during illegal activity.
Commonwealth v. Moran, 353 Mass. 166, 170 (1967)	Prior knowledge of defendant's criminal involvement can support probable cause.	No such prior knowledge was alleged regarding the defendant.
Commonwealth v. Alessio, 377 Mass. 76, 82 (1979)	Applicants for search warrants are given the benefit of the doubt.	Court acknowledged this principle but emphasized it cannot create probable cause where none exists.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 918-919 (1984)	Good faith exception to exclusionary rule.	Compared but did not apply due to insufficient probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 381 Mass. 301, 304-305 (1980)	Probable cause must be clearly supported by affidavit.	Affirmed that courts cannot invent probable cause missing from affidavits.
Commonwealth v. Wright, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 245, 250-251 (1983)	Affidavits must explicitly connect defendant to illegal activity.	Used to support the court's rejection of the affidavit's sufficiency.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the affidavit supporting the search warrant and found that it failed to establish probable cause specifically connecting the defendant to illegal gaming activity. While the affidavit described observations of criminal activity at the Starting Gate Bar over two weeks and identified a person furtively writing numbers on a pad, it did not link the defendant to this conduct. The defendant was merely described as being present near the furtive individual, which the court held was insufficient to establish probable cause. The court relied on established principles that probable cause cannot be based solely on proximity to suspected criminal activity without additional evidence linking the individual. The court acknowledged the need to read affidavits in a common-sense manner and to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, but emphasized that it cannot supply probable cause where the affidavit is silent. Consequently, the warrant was deemed invalid, and the motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS and SET ASIDE THE VERDICTS. The invalidity of the search warrant due to lack of probable cause meant that the evidence seized could not be used against the defendant. The decision directly affects the parties by excluding the challenged evidence and overturning the prior verdicts. The opinion did not establish new precedent but reaffirmed the requirement that affidavits must specifically link a defendant to criminal activity to justify a search warrant.

Show full summary ...

COMMONWEALTH vs. NICHOLAS J. SAMPSON, JR.

Search and Seizure, Probable cause. Probable Cause.

There may well have been articulable reasons, rising to the dignity of probable cause, for the experienced police officer to believe that illegal gaming was going on at the Starting Gate Bar and that the defendant was involved, but they do not appear in his affidavit in support of an application for a warrant to search the defendant. With due regard for the need to read supporting affidavits in a common sense fashion and not in a technical manner, we are of opinion that the warrant was bad and that the motion to suppress evidence taken from the defendant should have been allowed. See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965); Commonwealth v. Taglieri, 378 Mass. 196, 198, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 937 (1979); Commonwealth v. Labelle, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 175, 179 (1983).

We assume, without needing to decide, that the observations of the affiant and other police officers made over two weeks, were sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that criminal activity was taking place at the bar. As to the defendant, however, the affidavit said only: "On [one] occasion [the affiant and another officer] entered the premises and observed a white male, 50 yers [ sic], 5'10", 190 lbs., glasses, at a table in the bar and an unknown white male who was writing a notation of a number pool number on a 3" x 5" pad of white paper. When the white male saw the officers inside the premises he tried to conceal the pad of paper." The Commonwealth concedes that the white male who tried to conceal the paper was the one who had been writing on it and was not the defendant. The defendant was the 190 pound man, who from his account appears to have been observed merely in proximity to the man who was acting furtively.

Even if we infer that the defendant and the furtive man were seated at the same table, the image conjured up is as consistent with innocence as with criminal activity on the part of the defendant. Compare Commonwealth v. Reddington, 395 Mass. 315, 321 (1985); LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 3.2, at 483- 484, § 3.6(c) (1978 Supp. 1985) and cases cited. A person's proximity, without more, to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not establish probable cause to search that person. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979). See also United States v. Chadwick, 532 F.2d 773, 784 (1st Cir. 1976), aff'd 433 U.S. 1 (1977). Notably absent from the affidavit is any assertion that could tie the defendant to illegal activity. There is no statement, for example, that the defendant appeared to be engaged in business with the furtive man writing numbers on a pad, cf. Commonwealth v. Mele, 358 Mass. 225, 227-229 (1970); Commonwealth v. Labelle, 15 Mass. App. Ct. at 178-180, or that the defendant had been present repeatedly amidst the apparent criminal activity in the bar, cf. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 37 (1963), or that he was already known to police from prior proceedings as a taker of bets. Cf. Commonwealth v. Moran, 353 Mass. 166, 170 (1967).

Although we grant an applicant for a search warrant the benefit of the doubt, see Commonwealth v. Alessio, 377 Mass. 76, 82 (1979). Compare United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 918-919 (1984), we cannot invent links to probable cause entirely missing from the affidavit. See Commonwealth v. Taglieri, 378 Mass. at 201; Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 381 Mass. 301, 304-305 (1980); Commonwealth v. Wright, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 245, 250-251 (1983).

Judgments reversed. Verdicts set aside.

COMMONWEALTH v. SAMPSON, JR