{"id":8283,"date":"2013-03-09T10:29:39","date_gmt":"2013-01-26T02:44:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-01-25T23:27:02","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8283","title":{"rendered":"MA: Civil court order satisfied warrant requirement; entry also on exigency"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A constable had a court order he was serving to have defendant tenant\u2019s gas turned off because others in the apartment building could smell the gas, and it was feared dangerous. When the constable came to the apartment with a gas technician to deal with it, defendant at the door acted like he had a gun in hand, and a gun was seen behind him. His actions accentuated the sense of emergency, and the constable and gas company representative lawfully entered defendant\u2019s house to neutralize the gas issue under exigent circumstances. The civil court order satisfied the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and state constitution. The officers had to call for an experienced firearms tech to neutralize all the guns. In the course of that he found a bomb. <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.wl?rs=MAOR1.0&amp;ss=CNT&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;method=TNC&amp;service=Search&amp;fn=_top&amp;sskey=CLID_SSSA58611194018251&amp;db=MA-ORSLIP&amp;fmqv=c&amp;action=Search&amp;origin=Search&amp;vr=1.0&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT95204204018251&amp;query=TO(ALLAPP+ALLAPPRS)&amp;mt=Westlaw&amp;rlti=1&amp;n=3&amp;rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&amp;sp=MassOF-1001&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB70595194018251&amp;eq=search&amp;sv=Split\">Commonwealth v. Cantelli<\/a>, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 982 N.E.2d 52 (2013).<\/p>\n<p>During defendant\u2019s recorded police interview played for the jury, it came out that he refused consent of his cell phone. Agreeing that refusal of consent shouldn\u2019t come before the jury, this was an isolated reference and the court isn\u2019t convinced it was prejudicial. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/3\/2013\/2013-ohio-141.pdf\">State v. Pellegrini<\/a>, 2013 Ohio 141, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 116 (3d Dist. January 22, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8283\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}