In 2021 a man in North Attleboro allegedly brandished a gun towards an employee at his apartment complex.
Several police arrived. They were armed with rifles and handguns.
Officers ordered the defendant to come out of the apartment building.
He complied and officers placed him under arrest.
While still surrounded by heavily armed police, one officer asked the defendant for permission to enter his apartment and retrieve the firearm.
The man consented and the gun was allegedly retrieved along with ammunition.
Police charged the man with possession of a firearm without a license.
His attorney sought to suppress the evidence, arguing that the threatening presence of well-armed police negated the voluntariness of the defendant’s consent.
The trial court judge denied the motion and the matter was appealed.
Last week the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the lower court’s decision.
According to the Appeals Court,
When the police rely on consent to justify a warrantless entry, under both the Fourth Amendment and art. 14, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given…To demonstrate consent for a warrantless entry, the Commonwealth must show consent unfettered by coercion, express or implied, and also something more than mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority…Here, the presence of five to eight armed, fully uniformed officers did not in itself create an overly coercive environment that rendered involuntary the defendant’s permission to enter his apartment. There is no indication that the officers threatened the defendant or brandished their weapons for any longer than necessary to secure the scene, and the judge did not find the police response to be disproportional to the call for service. In response to the detective’s request for permission to enter his apartment — after the scene had been secured, and after having been informed of his Miranda rights — the defendant told officers they could enter and search his unit and then instructed them on how to use his apartment key and where to find the firearm and ammunition inside the unit. The officers “did not utilize trickery or threats to gain entrance to the dwelling,” cutting against any claim of coercion. In fact, during his postarrest interrogation, the defendant admitted to telling an officer the location of the ammunition and to “absolutely” giving the officer permission to retrieve it. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.