MASSACHUSETTS V. SHEPPARD 468 U.S. 981 (1984) CASE BRIEF

MASSACHUSETTS V. SHEPPARD

468 U.S. 981 (1984)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the status of items seized under a subsequently invalid warrant due to technical reasons.

FACTS: A badly burned body was found. Sheppard (D) was the boyfriend and he immediately became a suspect when it was discovered that there were holes in his alibi. When the police tracked down the leads to the story, they discovered that D had borrowed a car and in the car were bloodstains and pieces of hair along with strands of wire similar to those found near the burned body. Based on this evidence and the testimony of the car owner that those items were not on the car before D borrowed it, an officer drafted an affidavit for an arrest warrant. Because it was Sunday, the local court was closed and the police could not find a warrant application form, one from a prior case was used. That warrant application was for controlled substances and although the officer deleted the first reference thereto he failed to delete the reference to controlled substances in the part that constituted the warrant application. When presented to the judge, the officer showed the judge the admin problems with the warrant. The judge even searched for a more suitable form but could not find one but told the officer he would authorize the search and that he would make the necessary changes to provide a proper search warrant. The judge took the form, made changes to the form, signed it, and dated it. The judge did not change the substantive portion of the warrant that authorized the seizure of controlled substances. The judge then informed the officer that the warrant was sufficient. The officer then took the warrant and other documents and went to D's residence. The search was limited to the items listed in the affidavit. Evidence was uncovered and D was charged with first-degree murder. At pretrial, despite the defects, the judge allowed the evidence in because the police had acted in good faith. D appealed; the evidence should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agreed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner