Commonwealth v. Vladimir Samuel (October 3rd, 2011)
Docket No. 10-P-166
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Facts: Officer working at the Chelsea Police Department got a call that he was in a room with a man who had a loaded gun and was saying that he had been hired to kill someone. The caller said he was afraid for his safety and the police officer dispatched several officers to the address. The police arrived at the address and asked if they could do a well-being check of the interior. They went to the backroom where they saw the suspect as described by the caller, found the gun and arrested the defendant. In court, in response to the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, the judge found that the entry of the police in the apartment was proper, but their search of the firearm under the pillow was an improper search because it exceeded the scope of the consent given to searching the apartment. Courts in the past have not held that there can be reasonable suspicion based just on reports of gun possession.
Issue #1: Was there reason to believe this was an emergency situation where the police were allowed to search for the firearm?
Yes. The Commonwealth claims that there was an emergency situation that justified the seizure of the firearm and the arrest of the defendant. The Commonwealth therefore has the burden of showing that an emergency existed and the search was reasonable under the circumstances. Here, the police had information that the suspect had a loaded firearm and had said that he was going to kill someone, and this had frightened the caller. Due to this information, the police had reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed and that lives were in danger. When they entered, the room matched the description the caller had given so the police had reasonable suspicion to believe there was a loaded firearm and that it was going to be used to kill someone.
Conclusion: The search under the pillow was reasonable. Reverse the order allowing the motion to suppress.
Prepared by KP
