Commonwealth v. Hession

18 Mass. L. Rptr. 97
Massachusetts Superior Court·Decided July 14, 2004·No. No. 0372CR001015·Published

Opinion

Connon, J.

The credible evidence before me is that the Yarmouth Police knocked and announced who they were and that they had a search warrant on two occasions before breaching the front door with a so-called “battering ram.” The rule in Commonwealth v. Cwidrtff, 382 Mass. 137, 140-47 (1980), is that “before attempting forcibly to enter a private dwelling to execute a warrant, police must knock, announce their identity, and state their purpose . . .” The police in these matters did exactly that. The time lapse between the first knock and the forcible entry was 20 seconds, not unlike the facts in Commonwealth v. Antoine, 417 Mass. 637, 638 (1994). MOTION IS DENIED.

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

Commonwealth v. Hession, 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 97 (Mass. Ct. App. 2004).

18 Mass. L. Rptr. 97 (Commonwealth v. Hession) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Cundriff
415 N.E.2d 172 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Commonwealth v. Antwine
632 N.E.2d 818 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1994)