Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. DePeiza
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided June 2, 2006No. 06-P-356PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGrasso, J.
At issue is the propriety of a stop and patfrisk of the defendant. On appeal from his convictions of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition, the defendant maintains that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress the loaded handgun found by the police. We conclude that the stop, frisk, and seizure exceeded constitutional bounds.
1. Facts. We take the facts from the motion judge’s findings *399and the undisputed testimony.1 See Commonwealth v. Hinds, 437 Mass. 54, 55 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1205 (2003). Shortly after midnight on April 27, 2005, Officers John Conway and…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- California v. Hodari D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Commonwealth v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Commonwealth v. GrandisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DePeizaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
- Commonwealth v. Nestor N.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
- Commonwealth v. DarosaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2019
- Commonwealth v. MartinMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
- Commonwealth v. Nestor N.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.