Commonwealth v. Augello

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Augello

896 N.E.2d 1261, 452 Mass. 1021, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 781

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 896 N.E.2d 1261 (Commonwealth v. Augello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Augello, 896 N.E.2d 1261, 452 Mass. 1021, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 781 (Mass. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In Commonwealth v. Augello, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2008), the Appeals Court affirmed a District Court judge’s order allowing the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of their apartment. Specifically, the court rejected, as did the motion judge, the Commonwealth’s claim that a certain suitcase found by the officers inside the apartment had been abandoned by the defendants — thereby eliminating any reasonable expectation of privacy they may have otherwise had in the suitcase and its [1022]*1022contents — when they denied to the officers that the suitcase was theirs. We granted the Commonwealth’s application for further review.

Joseph A. Pieropan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Jeremía A. Pollard for Christopher E. Augello. David A. Pixley, for Roger J. Arigoni, III, was present but did not argue.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments and agree with the Appeals Court’s analysis. The order allowing the motion to suppress is affirmed.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Commonwealth v. Augello, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2008), the Appeals Court affirmed a District Court judge’s order allowing the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of their apartment. Specifically, the court rejected, as did the motion judge, the Commonwealth’s claim that a certain suitcase found by the officers inside the apartment had been abandoned by the defendants — thereby eliminating any reasonable expectation of privacy they may have otherwise had in the suitcase and its [1022]*1022contents — when they denied to the officers that the suitcase was theirs. We granted the Commonwealth’s application for further review.

Joseph A. Pieropan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Jeremía A. Pollard for Christopher E. Augello. David A. Pixley, for Roger J. Arigoni, III, was present but did not argue.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments and agree with the Appeals Court’s analysis. The order allowing the motion to suppress is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 N.E.2d 1261, 452 Mass. 1021, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-augello-mass-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack