Court Opinion

ID: 9734129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:26:00.628143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.884196
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
(concurring). I agree fully with the views expressed in the principal opinion. I am, however, moved to comment on a matter, manifest here, that too often appears in our cases.
In the instant case the premises were raided at least three times — either five or six police officers were involved on two of those occasions. See Commonwealth v. Cadoret, 388 Mass. 148 (1983), where the Supreme Judicial Court mentions an additional instance. Apart from the unlawfulness of the activities of the law enforcement officials here, there are other troubling aspects to their improper conduct. Not only were scarce judicial resources needlessly wasted, but the allocation and use of precious law enforcement resources is shown to be peculiar. For another peculiar example, see Commonwealth v. Grant, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 203, 204 (1979) (on his seventy-sixth visit to lounge, “in the line of duty,” undercover vice officer observed an obscene act — “simulated masturbation”).
It seems strange that so many police officers, five on one occasion and six on another, were involved in raids of a building where it was believed that the occupants possibly were unlawfully dispensing food and beverages, and operating a Sunday dance without a license.
*660Without blessing in any way the activities of these defendants, I wonder how much assistance and crime prevention those police officers might have provided by patrolling in high crime areas, along violence-prone MBTA routes, and at other locations where past experience demonstrates the likelihood of great physical danger to the general citizenry.