Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985

Commonwealth v. Spagnolo

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Decided June 19, 1985

20 Mass. App. Ct. 936; 479 N.E.2d 212; 1985 Mass. App. LEXIS 1819

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Commonwealth v. Cataldo (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)
Commonwealth v. Scott (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The motion judge now has provided the missing piece of the puzzle. The judge specifically found that “Detective Cutillo first observed the *937Lincoln while standing on the comer of Garfield Avenue.” In our earlier analysis of circumstances presented here (see Commonwealth v. Jones, 375 Mass. 349, 354 [1978]), we reasoned that “[c]ertainly, sighting the Lincoln coming from the direction which the four men and Zalenda had taken on foot, viewed in the context of a simultaneous shout — ‘They got guns’ — and a subsequent check of the area to make sure the four men were not still on foot, could reasonably be said to warrant Detective Cutillo’s ‘guess[2] that the car probably contained the four men and should, therefore, be followed.” 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 522. See and compare Commonwealth v. Johnson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 944, 945-946 (1978); Commonwealth v. Tosi, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 1029, 1029-1030 (1982). As the particular testimony to be considered on remand was found by the motion judge to be true, we have no choice but to conclude that the motion judge erred in allowing the motion to suppress. See Commonwealth v. Moon, 380 Mass. 751, 756 (1980); Commonwealth v. Spagnolo, 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 517.

Thomas J. Mundy, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Henry D. Katz for the defendants.

Order allowing motion to suppress reversed.

“The choice of the word — guess — is not dispositive. The task for the court is to determine the underlying basis of the officer’s decision. A mere ‘hunch’ is constitutionally invalid, but reasonable ‘inferences’ and rational deductions therefrom may yield a ‘particularized suspicion’ in the total circumstances” (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Spagnolo, 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 522 n.7.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.