Commonwealth v. Gallagher
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtKantrowitz, J.
The motion judge allowed the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence found in their apartment, concluding that the affidavit in support of the search warrant application *57failed to establish the requisite nexus between the objects sought and the defendants’ apartment. The Commonwealth appeals. We reverse.
Facts. The facts come from Brockton police Detective Thomas E. Keating’s affidavit. See Commonwealth v. O’Day, 440 Mass. 296, 297 (2003), quoting from Commonwealth v. Villella, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 426, 428 (1995) (“[0]ur inquiry as to the sufficiency of the search warrant application always…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. O'DayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Commonwealth v. VynoriusMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Commonwealth v. DonahueMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Commonwealth v. VillellaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1995
- Commonwealth v. TaglieriMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LuthyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- Commonwealth v. YoungMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
- Commonwealth v. ForbesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2014
- Commonwealth v. PinaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
- Commonwealth v. ColonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.