Commonwealth v. Derek Arruda, Appeals Court No. 22-P-0054 

The Defendant was convicted of trafficking in over 200 grams of cocaine. This appeal stemmed from the denial of his second motion for new trial.

The defendant argued that his appeals lawyer failed to argue that the motion to suppress evidence in his case, before trial, was improperly denied.  The defendant argued that his motion to suppress had merit because the trash can where drugs were located was not within the curtilage of his apartment and thus the police needed consent to search it.

The Appeals Court rejected this argument.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trash can was located in a fenced-in yard that was exclusively controlled by the defendant. The court thus concluded that the police properly searched the trash can pursuant to a search warrant for the defendant’s residence.