463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases

with CSB, shows an indisputable nexus between the
defendants' drug dealing activity and their residence.
Therefore, Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438
(2009), the case principally relied upon by Ronald
Mendes (see RonM.Br. 47-48), is inapposite. In Pina,
"the only particularized information contained in the
affidavit connecting the defendant's observed drug
activity with the apartment in which he lived was a
single observation of the defendant driving from the
apartment to a location where he sold an unspecified
quantity of cocaine to the informant." Pina, 453 Mass.
at 442. But in this case, there was far more evidence
that drugs were being stored in the home. There were
not only the direct observations of CSA but also CSB's
statements about his prior drug purchases from the
defendants, close by their residence, which were later
confirmed by two controlled buys where the defendants
left the apartment and went directly to the arranged
location. (I.R.A .. 7-8.) See Blake, 413 Mass. at 829.
Accordingly, Ronald Mendes's motion to suppress
was properly denied.
21