463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases
463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases 463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases
cellular telephone during booking without a warrant); Commonwealth v. Eason, 427 Mass. 595, 596-601 (1998) (wiretap statute not violated by officer listening on extension phone); Crosland v. Horgan, 401 Mass. 271, 274 (1987) (telephone was not an "intercepting device'' under G.L. c. 272, § 99 [B] [3]). CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the judgments should be affirmed. DATED: September 30, 2011 Respectfully Submitted For the Commonwealth, GERARD T. LEONE, JR. _ DISTRICT ATTORNEY Assistant District Attorney Middlesex District Attorney's Office 15 Commonwealth Avenue. Woburn, MA 01801 Tel: (781) 897-6831 BBO # 553352 50
- Page 7 and 8: Cases Commonwealth v. Todisco, 363
- Page 9 and 10: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPRE
- Page 11 and 12: The defendants moved to suppress ev
- Page 13: in a primarily residential neighbor
- Page 17: informants are used in drug investi
- Page 20 and 21: (an eighth of an·ounce of cocaine)
- Page 23: etween the defendants' drug dealing
- Page 26 and 27: 431 (1992), or the informant has pr
- Page 28 and 29: Blake, 413 Mass. 823, 828 (1992). N
- Page 31 and 32: Fifth Amendment violation can be ha
- Page 34 and 35: This test has been applied repeated
- Page 36 and 37: factors call for the reviewing Cour
- Page 38 and 39: at 554, If the overall strength of
- Page 40: counsel for Ronald Mendes actually
- Page 43 and 44: This circumstance fits comfortably
- Page 45 and 46: seized. But the testimony of the de
- Page 48: client is going to concede that he
- Page 51 and 52: Westbrooks, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 417,
- Page 53 and 54: of the statements made by the calle
- Page 55 and 56: phones were used as instrumentaliti
- Page 57: In factually analogous cases, the A
cellular telephone during booking without a warrant);<br />
<strong>Commonwealth</strong> v. Eason, 427 <strong>Mass</strong>. 595, 596-601<br />
(1998) (wiretap statute not violated by officer<br />
listening on extension phone); Crosland v. Horgan, 401<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>. 271, 274 (1987) (telephone was not an<br />
"intercepting device'' under G.L. c. 272, § 99 [B] [3]).<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgments<br />
should be affirmed.<br />
DATED: September 30, 2011<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
For the <strong>Commonwealth</strong>,<br />
GERARD T. LEONE, JR. _<br />
DISTRICT ATTORNEY<br />
Assistant District Attorney<br />
Middlesex District Attorney's Office<br />
15 <strong>Commonwealth</strong> Avenue.<br />
Woburn, MA 01801<br />
Tel: (781) 897-6831<br />
BBO # 553352<br />
50
Change language