SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

was the normal means of access to the house. There was no
gate separating the driveway from the public road; there
were no trees, fence or shrubbery shielding the driveway
from the public road; and there were no "No Trespassing"
signs posted. See Simmons, 392 Mass. at 47. Accordingly,
the search warrant for the house did not authorize a
search of the car.29 As the motion judge correctly
concluded, 8. 951, a motion to suppress the evidence
obtained as a result of the search of the Avalon would
have been meritorious.
2. counsel was deficient in failing to f ile
a motion to euppreas.
Once Detective McDermott testified that the towel
she saw in the Avalon was not the Ritz-Carlton towel,
defense counsel should have moved to suppress the fruits
of the search of the Avalon and to strike her testimony.
Counsel claims he had hoped Mcnermott's testimony would
be helpful in corroborating Greineder's story. But once.
it was clear that McDermott's testimony about the search
was harmful to the defense, counsel's failure to move to
suppress and strike was grossly negligent. Under the
29 While automobile searches axe often performed without a
warrant under the "automobile exception," the prosecution muat
establish that the officers had probable cause to believe that there
was contraband or evidence in the car and chat there were exigent
circumstances that made obtaining a warrant impracticable. Here,
neither requirement was met. There was no reason to believe that
there was anything relevant to the alleged murder in the car, as the
car had not been at the Bcene and had no known connection to the
crime. Moreover, there were no exigent circumstances justifying a
warrantless aearch.
62