MA: Exclusionary rule not applied to MJ discovered during entry after 911 call

Police were called to an apartment because of noise then a water leak into their place. The officer went to look for the cause and found a mason jar with marijuana. The grant of the motion to suppress is reversed because there was no misconduct justifying the exclusionary rule. Commonwealth v. Suters, 2016 Mass. App. LEXIS 144 (Oct. 7, 2016):

Moreover, even though the police lacked justification for opening the door leading into the second room, there is no evidence of flagrant misconduct or bad faith, especially considering that they were invited to enter the basement to assist in mitigating a genuine emergency. See Commonwealth v. Fredette, supra at 461-463; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 12, 14-15, 787 N.E.2d 610 (2003). In sum, the third factor of the analysis set forth in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. at 603-604, which is especially significant because it is tied to the purpose underlying the exclusionary rule, does not favor suppression of the evidence. See United States v. Fazio, 914 F.2d 950, 958 (7th Cir. 1990).

Conclusion. Although Officer Lemieux’s entry into the second room was unlawful, that illegality does not require the exclusion of evidence concerning the mason jar filled with raw marijuana, and all that followed from that observation. The nexus between the unlawful entry and the evidence observed in plain view during the course of the subsequent lawful arrest was dissipated by an independent and intervening act of free will by the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Borges, 395 Mass. at 795.