Rape trial in Brockton Superior Court reveals false statements in search warrant returns…

…leading to lead detective asserting a 5th Amendment privilege to give no further testimony during the trial.

I had a recent rape trial in Brockton Superior Court which involved Snapchat search warrants submitted by a Brockton Police detective. Two of the search warrants were issued on February 7, 2020, and returned to the court as executed on February 14, 2020. The third search warrant was issued on February 19, 2020, and returned to the court as executed on March 2, 2020. All 3 returns were attested to under oath by the returning detective, and swore the evidence seized pursuant to each search warrant was already taken. However, as was developed on cross examination, the evidence to be seized from Snapchat was not already taken or in police custody. On cross-examination, the detective tried to explain that the court clerk’s office instructed her that the warrant returns were to be filed within 7 days of the issuance of the search warrant.

The problem with the detective’s explanation was that her excuse for the false statement made no sense – the third search warrant was returned well over 7 days later.

As a result of the detective’s false statements, she asserted her 5th Amendment privilege and refused to testify further the following morning. The district attorney prosecuting the case elected not to immunize the detective, essentially because although immunization could protect the detective from criminal prosecution, it may prevent the detective being placed on the infamous Brady list – a list that many would argue was long overdue to develop and is never current.

In any event, the turn of events resulted in a favorable outcome for my client and, I hope, will lead to more search warrant challenges with that police department.