State v. Arbour
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple drug offenses. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the suppression court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to a search warrant, as there was a substantial basis for the finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant; (2) the suppression court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress a statement he made in the interview room at the police department before receiving Miranda warnings, as Defendant was not subject to interrogation at the time he made his statement; and (3) the evidence of drug quantity at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for aggravating trafficking of heroin.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.