In a decision issued yesterday, a judge of the Bristol County Superior Court denied the motion of former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant for his residence in North Attleboro on June 18, 201boxes_icon_023.   While the decision itself was, I’m sure, unwelcome news to the accused murderer of Odin Lloyd, it was far from a definitive decision and Hernandez’ attorneys preserved for appeal an important, unresolved, issue relating to whether the government can use against a defendant information obtained through the violation of someone else’s constitutional rights.

The court’s decision is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which require a magistrate to determine that probable cause exists before issuing a search warrant. Com. v. Escalera, 462 Mass. 636 (2012).  By statute, a person seeking a search warrant must appear before a person authorized to issue search warrants, usually a clerk magistrate, and make application, in the form of an affidavit, which must contain the facts, information, and circumstances upon which the person relies to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.  M.G.L. c. 276, § 2B; See Com. v. Welch, 420 Mass. 646 (1995) (to justify search warrant, a magistrate must examine the facts and circumstances presented and determine whether probable cause exists). To establish probable cause, the affidavit must contain a substantial basis for concluding that the items sought are related to the criminal activity under investigation and may reasonably be expected to be located in the place to be searched at the time the search warrant issues.  Com. v. Kaupp, 453 Mass. 102 (2009).

When a defendant challenges the factual sufficiency of a search warrant application, as Hernandez did, the analysis is limited to “the four corners of the affidavit”, meaning no facts other than those in the affidavit can be considered to determine whether probable cause exists. Com. v. Clagon, 465 Mass. 1004 (2013).  Further, a defendant can ask that the court strike from the affidavit any evidence obtained due to prior constitutional violations, thereby limiting the universe of facts the court can consider.  Com. v. DeJesus, 439 Mass. 616 (2003) (court will strike from search warrant affidavit information gained from prior constitutional violation).

Hernandez attempted to have excised from the affidavit any information provided by his girlfriend, Shayanna Jenkins, claiming that police obtained it as the result of an unconstitutional seizure of her person. Specifically, in the evening following the early morning murder, Jenkins dropped Hernandez at the North Attleboro police station to be interviewed.  As she drove off, a State Police Trooper followed Jenkins out of the parking lot of the police station in his cruiser and flashed his blue lights on and off, causing her to pull over adjacent to the station.  According to the affidavit, upon questioning, Jenkins provided Hernandez’ cell phone number and that of her sister, who dated Lloyd; information about the surveillance system in Hernandez’ home; and, most importantly, information that Hernandez’ was not home ‘all night’ the previous night.

With regard to the stop of Jenkins, the court noted that “activation of a police cruiser’s blue lights behind a citizen’s vehicle is a display of authority, equivalent to a command to stop, which signals to a reasonable person that she is not free to leave.” Com. v. Smigliano, 427 Mass. 490 (1998) (a reasonable person, on the activation of a police cruiser’s blue lights, would believe that he or she is not free to leave).  Because the officer was investigating a crime, Jenkins was “seized” in a constitutional sense and must have had legal justification for the stop.  In Massachusetts, a police officer can conduct an investigatory stop of a vehicle only if he has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that an occupant committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.  Com. v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725 (2000).  As there were no ‘articulable facts’ in the affidavit suggesting that Jenkins had committed a traffic violation or was otherwise involved in a crime, the stop was clearly unconstitutional, but the consequences to Hernandez’ case were not as clear.

Recognizing that the Fourth Amendment and art. 14 rights are personal rights that cannot be asserted vicariously, the court stated that “Hernandez … is not entitled to have the information obtained from Jenkins excised from the warrant affidavit unless he has standing to raise the violation of Jenkins’s constitutional rights.”  Com. v. Kirschner, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 836 (2006).  Based on the current state of the law, the court rejected Hernandez’ attempt to apply the doctrine of “target standing”, which allows one who is the target of a police investigation to challenge the use against him of evidence obtained as a result of unconstitutional conduct toward a third party. See Com. v. Scardamaglia, 410 Mass. 375 (1991).   The court noted, however, that the Supreme Judicial Court has not ruled out the possibility of recognizing target standing as a remedy for egregious police misconduct because, as the SJC has stated’ “[u]nconstitutional searches of small fish intentionally undertaken in order to catch big ones may; have to be discouraged by allowing the big fish, when caught, to rely on the violation of the rights of the small fish, as to whose prosecution the police are relatively indifferent.” Com. v. Manning. 406 Mass. 425 (1990).

In the event that Hernandez is convicted, his attorneys have identified and properly preserved one of what is sure to be many issues for appeal.

Andrew is a trial attorney representing criminal defendants and parties to civil actions – both plaintiffs and defendants – in the Massachusetts State, Federal and Appellate court systems.  He can be reached through his website,, or by email at

  • Andrew is an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney who represents individuals in all criminal matters, including…


    Attorney Berman represents individuals and businesses in all civil matters, including…

    • Personal Injury
    • Product Liability
    • Premises Liability
    • Social Host Liability
    • Automobile Accidents
    • Attorney Malpractice
    • Business Disputes and Contract Actions
    • Contractor and Homeowner Construction Disputes
    • Fiduciary Trustee and Estate Litigation
    • Commercial Lease Disputes
    • Property Damage Claims
    • Construction Site Injuries
    • Dram Shop Liability
    • Wrongful Death
    • Victims of Sexual Assault
    • Victims of Assault and Battery
    • Commercial Vehicle Accidents
    • Negligent Security
    • G.L. c. 93A (Consumer Protection)Negligent Security
    • Prospective Client Calls

      Individuals considering retaining Attorney Berman can contact the firm through the Contact form or by calling 617.723.4163. Please include in your message a short statement of the reason for contacting the office, as well as the best method and time to contact you.  Attorney Berman will return your message promptly to learn more about your case and, if appropriate, schedule an initial consultation.


    • The Initial Consultation

      The goal of the first meeting is for Attorney Berman to gain a clear understanding of the situation and for both attorney and client to determine whether to enter into a longer, more substantial attorney-client relationship. You should bring with you any documents and paperwork relevant to your case or, if possible, provide them beforehand. During this session, Andrew will gather relevant information, ascertain your objectives and provide you with a preliminary assessment of your situation, including possible strategies and tactics. If the decision is made to move forward, future fee arrangements and a retainer agreement (if applicable) should then be discussed.

      The initial consultation will generally last 30 to 60 minutes and is free of charge.

    • Fee Agreements

      Below is a general description of the various types of fee agreements considered by Attorney Berman. Ultimately, the type of agreement entered into, and the amount charged, depends on the nature of your case.

      Flat Fee

      A flat fee is a set amount of money that is decided upon at the beginning of the representation, before any work is done on the case. This type of agreement is generally used for certain criminal offenses or in situations that require a limited number of court appearances.

      Hourly Rate

      To state the obvious, in an hourly case, the fee you pay is calculated by multiplying the hourly rate by the number of hours the attorney spends working on your case. Hourly rate agreements are generally used in serious criminal matters, civil defense (representation of an individual or company being sued in Civil court) and certain plaintiff cases (representation of an individual or business suing someone else in Civil Court). The hourly rate and the required retainer will vary depending on type and complexity of the case.

      Contingency Fee 

      A contingency fee agreement is standard in personal injury matters (where an individual brings claims in Civil court for his or her personal injuries) and may also be used in certain other types of plaintiff cases.  The fee your attorney earns is, as the name suggests, contingent upon there being a monetary recovery in your case and there is no fee due unless we win your case.   A fairly standard percentage for a contingent fees is one-third of the total recovery.   These types of agreements are not ethically permitted in criminal cases.

    • Client Bill of Rights

      1. You are entitled to be treated with courtesy and consideration at all times by Attorney Berman and the other lawyers and non-lawyer personnel in the office.

      2. You are entitled to have Attorney Berman and any other attorney handle your legal matter competently and diligently, in accordance with the highest standards of the profession.  If you are not satisfied with how your matter is being handled, you have the right to discharge your attorney and terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time.

      3. You are entitled to Attorney Berman’s independent professional judgment and undivided loyalty uncompromised by conflicts of interest.

      4. You are entitled to be charged reasonable fees and expenses and to have Attorney Berman explain before or within a reasonable time after commencement of the representation how the fees and expenses will be computed and the manner and frequency of billing. You may refuse to enter into any arrangement for fees and expenses that you find unsatisfactory.  In hourly cases, you are entitled to request and receive a written itemized bill at reasonable intervals.

      5.  You are entitled to have your questions and concerns addressed promptly and to receive a prompt reply to your letters, telephone calls, emails, faxes, and other communications.

      6.  You are entitled to be kept reasonably informed as to the status of your matter and are entitled to have Attorney Berman promptly comply with your reasonable requests for information, including your requests for copies of papers relevant to the matter.  You are entitled to sufficient information to allow you to participate meaningfully in the development of your matter and make informed decisions regarding representation.

      7.  You are entitled to have your legitimate objectives respected.  In particular, the decision of whether to settle your matter in a civil case, or enter into a plea agreement in a criminal case, is yours alone.

      8.  You have the right to privacy in your communications with Attorney Berman, and anyone working for him or on his behalf, and to have your confidential information preserved to the extent permitted by law.

      9. You are entitled to have Attorney Berman, and anyone working for him or on his behalf, conduct himself or herself ethically in accordance with the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility.

      10.  You may not be refused representation on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or disability.

  • Please include in your message a short statement of the reason for contacting the office, as well as the best method and time to contact you. Attorney Berman will return your message promptly to learn more about your case and, if appropriate, schedule an initial consultation.