Commonwealth v. Abdul-Alim, AC 15-P-1219

Background

Defendant Ayyub Abdul-Alim was arrested in December 2011 after his wife, Siham Stewart, told police he had a firearm; officers observed him leave his apartment, detained him, patted him down, handcuffed him, and later recovered a handgun from his groin area.
Stewart was a known, identified informant to police who had previously provided details and a photo of the defendant's gun and later received payments from the task force.
Officer Ronald Sheehan was a Springfield police officer and member of an FBI joint counterterrorism task force; the defendant alleged the arrest was part of a joint Federal‑State effort to coerce him into becoming an informant.
At trial defendant claimed the gun was planted and sought discovery from Federal authorities and delay to pursue FOIA materials; the Commonwealth denied a joint investigation and produced payments to Stewart.
The trial court denied suppression, refused further continuance for FOIA results, allowed supplemental jury instructions after reports of deadlock, and denied wholesale copying of the court file; the jury convicted the defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, and the convictions were affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Abdul‑Alim)	Held
Motion to suppress: reliability of informant tip	Stewart was a known, identified informant with demonstrated basis of knowledge and police corroboration	Stewart's tip was unreliable; arrest/search unlawful	Court: Stewart was reliable; tip and corroboration provided probable cause; search/arrest lawful
Continued detention/search after initial patfrisk revealed nothing	Continued detention and search were justified by probable cause developed from Stewart's reports and corroboration	Initial patfrisk dissipated suspicion; further search was unlawful	Court: probable cause to arrest existed before third call; search (including strip search) justified
Disclosure of Federal records / continuance for FOIA	Commonwealth produced required materials and there was no joint investigation; no further continuance warranted	Joint Federal‑State effort existed; Commonwealth withheld exculpatory FBI materials; needed continuance to obtain FOIA records	Court: record showed no joint investigation; Commonwealth met discovery obligations; denial of further continuance not an abuse; remedy is postconviction if new facts arise
Jury deadlock handling and supplemental instructions	Judge properly concluded deliberations were not "due and thorough," gave ABA and Tuey‑Rodriquez charges, and returned jury without coercion	Sending jury back after two deadlock notes and giving Tuey‑Rodriquez was coercive and improper	Court: no error; judge acted within discretion; instruction not unduly coercive

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 476 Mass. 341 (reliability of known informant)
Commonwealth v. Douglas, 472 Mass. 439 (patfrisk revealing no weapon may dissipate reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Amado, 474 Mass. 147 (patfrisk showing no weapon ends safety exigency; probable‑cause standard for strip searches)
Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238 (arrest/search without warrant require probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Ilges, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 503 (search incident to arrest beyond patfrisk when probable cause exists)
Commonwealth v. Daye, 411 Mass. 719 (discovery obligations extend to evidence in possession of those acting on government’s behalf)
Commonwealth v. Lykus, 451 Mass. 310 (prosecutor duty to disclose favorable evidence known to government agents)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor's duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 416 Mass. 736 (limitations on returning jury after two deadlock reports)
Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 364 Mass. 87 (Tuey‑Rodriquez jury charge and amendments to avoid coercion)
Commonwealth v. Winbush, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 680 (factors for determining "due and thorough" deliberation)