The Appeals Court found no reason to suppress alleged drugs found during a warrantless search of a former police officer’s home in New Bedford.
Police had reason to believe the former officer stole city property which included a dartboard.
It must have been a really nice dartboard, because three officers (including the police chief) took part in the investigation.
They informed their former colleague of the allegations and asked if he would permit them to search his home.
If consent were not given, investigators threatened to apply for a warrant.
The former officer agreed and brought investigators into his house.
While in the basement, they saw a safe and asked the suspect to open it.
He refused, saying the safe contained photos that he didn’t want them to see.
Again, they threatened to get a warrant and the ex-cop acquiesced and opened the safe.
Investigators aver that they found steroids, suboxone, and ammunition inside the safe.
The ex-officer filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that his consent to the search was not given freely.
The trial judge allowed the motion and excluded the evidence.
The Commonwealth appealed and the Appeals Court reversed the decision.
In their slip opinion, the justices write,
[W]hile it is undisputed that the police officers told the defendant that they “could” obtain a warrant or, alternatively, he “could” consent to a search of his home, this statement by itself was not sufficient to support the judge’s finding that the defendant’s consent was involuntary. Most importantly, because the defendant was a former police officer, he would have known both that he could refuse to provide consent to search his home and that, if he did so, the police could apply for and obtain a warrant.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.