BOSTON, March 20, 2015—For the second time this week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a Boston Municipal Court judge’s error of law, this time ruling that a Hyde Park man had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he stashed marijuana and a loaded handgun in a Mattapan back yard.

HECTOR ORTIZ (D.O.B. 10/12/90) was arrested on May 31, 2013, after Boston Police watched him engage in an apparent drug transaction in the back yard and driveway area of an Almont Street residence, approached him, and found a Smith & Wesson Model 64-3 .38 caliber revolver along with a scale and marijuana in and around a “cat castle” near the back porch.

In a post-Miranda statement, Ortiz allegedly said that he sold marijuana but denied possessing the gun, which someone must have thrown there.

During a hearing in the Suffolk County Gun Court, Ortiz moved to suppress the gun, marijuana, and statement. Boston Municipal Court Judge Raymond Dougan, Jr., granted the motion and prosecutors appealed his decision.

Today, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed Dougan’s decision – the second time it’s done so in as many days. Yesterday, Dougan’s spontaneous and erroneous dismissal of a drug distribution case was also reversed as “an abuse of discretion.”

“Here, the defendant did not meet his burden to prove that someone had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area under the second-floor porch behind the two-family home, such that the entry into the backyard and the observation of items that were not visible from the surveillance area or the driveway was a search in the constitutional sense,” Justices Joseph Trainor, Ariane Vuono, and Sydney Hanlon wrote. “Furthermore, even if the defendant had met his burden and a search had occurred, the warrantless search was ‘justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances.’”

The Appeals Court also reversed Dougan’s suppression of Ortiz’ alleged statements, noting that “No additional arguments were made concerning why these statements should be suppressed.”

Assistant District Attorney Cailin Campbell of the DA’s Appellate Division argued the case before the Appeals Court.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.