affirming the denial of a suppression motion because there had been “reports of drug activity” at the residence the narcotics officers were observing, the defendant made a “quick car stop and [engaged in a] hand-to-hand transaction” with the person who resided there, and upon seeing the officers, the resident threw the bag containing the drugs onto the driveway
Summary of this case from State v. AndersonNo. 98-P-2060.
July 10, 2000.
Judgments affirmed.
affirming the denial of a suppression motion because there had been “reports of drug activity” at the residence the narcotics officers were observing, the defendant made a “quick car stop and [engaged in a] hand-to-hand transaction” with the person who resided there, and upon seeing the officers, the resident threw the bag containing the drugs onto the driveway
Summary of this case from State v. AndersonFull title:COMMONWEALTH vs . ANDRES MARTINEZ
Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Date published: Jul 10, 2000
Id. ¶ 11. Anderson also cites a number of cases from other jurisdictions in support of her claim that…
Davis v. StateSee People v. Saint-Veltri, 923 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1996), overruled on other grounds by People v. Saint-Veltri,…