Commonwealth v. Hines

The defendant appeals from the denial of her motion to withdraw guilty pleas, asserting ineffective assistance of her counsel for failure to file and press a motion to suppress. She also alleged that all evidence against her was taken in violation of her rights and, as such, would have been excluded.

The circumstances of the police warrantless entry into the defendant's home are carefully narrated by the judge who, in effect, conducted a suppression hearing on this motion. There appears to be no substantial disagreement as to the facts as narrated by the judge. The judge ruled that the police were justified in entering the defendant's home, without a warrant, on the basis of the emergency or community caretaking exceptions to the general rule prohibiting warrantless entries into a dwelling.

The facts support the judge's conclusion, with which we independently agree. There were “compelling reasons, supported by specific and articulable facts,” that led to the reasonable belief of the police that an occupant of the dwelling was in “dire, life-threatening distress and in need of immediate assistance.” Commonwealth v. DiGeronimo, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 714, 723 (1995). See Commonwealth v. McDermott, 448 Mass. 750, 766 (2007). We rely upon the reasoning and authorities on pages five through thirteen of the Commonwealth's brief. The order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is affirmed.

So ordered.