Massachusetts v. Sheppard

The ruling settled controversy over whether evidence gathered with a defective warrant should be suppressed, even if the police officers acted in good faith. Because the exclusion of evidence gathered by unreasonable search and seizure was designed to prevent police misconduct, the Court determined that excluding evidence obtained in good faith would not serve the purpose of deterring police misbehavior. This ruling assures that criminals will not benefit from clerical errors in search warrants.

On Saturday, 5 May 1979, the burned body of Sandra Boulware was found in an empty lot in the part of Boston, Massachusetts, known as Roxbury. Boulware had died from multiple blows to the head. On investigating, the police questioned one of Boulware's boyfriends, Osborne Sheppard. He claimed to have last seen Boulware on Tuesday night. Sheppard stated that he had been in a gaming house from 9:00 p.m. on Friday until 5:00 a.m. on Saturday. Witnesses agreed that he had been there, but that he had borrowed a car at 3:00 a.m. to give two men a ride home. The trip should have taken 15 minutes, but Sheppard did not return until almost 5:00 a.m.

The police searched the borrowed car and found bloodstains, hair, and wire similar to that found near Boulware's body. Based on this evidence, Detective Peter O'Malley drafted an affidavit in order to get an arrest warrant and a search warrant so he could search Sheppard's residence. The affidavit listed what the police intended to look for: a bottle of amaretto liquor, two nickel bags of marijuana, a woman's jacket, wire and rope like those found near the victim, a blunt instrument, and clothing with blood, gasoline, or burns on them.

O'Malley showed the affidavit to the district attorney, the district attorney's first assistant, and a sergeant. They all agreed that probable cause existed for a search and arrest. The local court was closed because it was Sunday, and O'Malley had trouble locating a warrant application form. He finally found one that had been used in the Dorchester District regarding a controlled substance. O'Malley deleted the subtitle "Controlled Substance," substituted "Roxbury" for "Dorchester," and added Sheppard's name and address. The words "controlled substance" were not deleted from the part of the form that would become the warrant itself, once signed.

O'Malley brought the affidavit and the warrant form to the home of a judge who agreed to authorize the search. The detective explained that the present form dealt with controlled substances and he showed the judge where he had crossed out the subtitles. The judge told O'Malley that he would make the changes necessary for a proper search warrant. The judge then took the form, made some changes, and signed and dated the warrant. He had not, however, changed the part of the warrant that authorized a search for controlled substances. He also did not alter the form to incorporate the affidavit. The judge gave the affidavit and warrant back to O'Malley, stating that the warrant was sufficient to carry out the requested search.

O'Malley and other officers took the documents to Sheppard's residence, which they proceeded to search. While looking for the items listed in the affidavit, they found several pieces of incriminating evidence--bloodstained boots, bloodstains on the floor, a woman's earring with blood on it, bloody clothing, and three types of wire. They then charged Sheppard with first-degree murder.

A suppression hearing was held before the trial itself. This type of hearing is used to determine what evidence will be suppressed, or excluded, from a trial. Excluding evidence is possible because of the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence gathered during an unreasonable search and seizure cannot be used in a criminal prosecution. At the suppression hearing in the Sheppard case, the judge decided that the warrant did not conform to the Fourth Amendment because it did not describe the items to be seized. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures and states that probable cause must exist for a warrant to be issued and that the warrant must describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. However, the judge ruled that although the warrant was inaccurate, the evidence could still be admitted because the police had acted in good faith. They thought they were executing a valid warrant.

Sheppard was convicted, but appealed on the grounds that the evidence seized with the defective warrant should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agreed with this decision. The justices decided that although the police had conducted the search in good faith, the evidence should have been excluded because the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had not recognized a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.