# Commonwealth v. Upton

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · April 1, 1985 · 394 Mass. 363

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522777

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth vs. George L. Upton
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** April 1, 1985
- **Citations:** 394 Mass. 363; 476 N.E.2d 548; 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lynch
- **Judges:** Lynch, Hennessey, Wilkins, Liacos, Abrams, Nolan, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 345 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522777

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting “totality of the circumstances” test set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [1983], and concluding that “principles developed under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 [1964], and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), if not applied hypertechnically, provi…
- discussing Leon but concluding that state statutes bar any judicial consideration of admitting evidence seized pursuant to search warrant issued in the absence of probable cause
- holding that “art. 14 provides more substantive protection to criminal defendants than does the Fourth Amendment in the determination of probable cause”
- reaffirming Sees, and, noting that “[t]he Constitution of the Commonwealth preceded and is independent of the Constitution of the United States,” listing numerous cases where the two constitutions have been read to diverge

## Opinion text

Lynch, J.
(dissenting, with whom Nolan, I., joins). For the reasons stated in my earlier dissent, Commonwealth v. Upton, 390 Mass. 562, 578 (1983), I believe probable cause existed here under the test of Illinois v. Gates. Furthermore, I find nothing in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or G. L. c. 276, § 2B, that mandates a stricter standard for determining whether probable cause exists than is found in the United States Constitution. Because I believe probable cause exists, I would not reach the issue whether G. L. c. 276, § 2B, provides a statutory prohibition against the admission of evidence seized under a warrant issued without probable cause. I therefore respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522777. Public record. Not legal advice.