119 N.E.3d 251
Mass.2019Background
- Chelsea detectives observed Agogo near a known high-crime area; he repeatedly entered a nearby building and returned to the sidewalk, conduct officers associated with street-level "stash" behavior.
- Officers observed a brief out-of-view contact between Agogo and James Foster; upon approach, Foster had a bag containing a white substance and was arrested.
- Officers conducted a patfrisk of Agogo, found no weapons or drugs but seized a $20 bill (consistent with the street value of Foster's suspected cocaine), and arrested Agogo for drug offenses.
- At the station, officers concluded Agogo might have concealed drugs in his crotch (based on their training that dealers sometimes stash drugs there) and ordered a strip search in a cell; the officers removed his clothing and recovered a bandana from his groin containing small bags of cocaine.
- The motion judge suppressed the drugs, finding no probable cause for the strip search; the Commonwealth appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether probable cause existed for the strip search.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Agogo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had probable cause to conduct a strip search for contraband concealed in the groin/crotch | Officers argued their observations (stashing behavior, hand-to-hand contact, $20 found) plus training about dealers concealing drugs justified probable cause to strip-search | Agogo argued police had only generalized suspicion and at most reasonable suspicion; no affirmative indication of concealment in private areas | No. Court held only generalized suspicion and training-based belief existed; probable cause lacking |
| Whether patfrisk/observed demeanor supplemented probable cause for strip search | Commonwealth said bladed stance, animated conduct, and resistance justified further intrusive search | Agogo said such behavior supported only frisk for weapons, not a strip search absent indicia of concealed contraband | Held behavior justified patfrisk but was too attenuated to support probable cause for a strip search |
| Whether verbal protest at being told of a strip search can supply probable cause | Commonwealth relied on Agogo's vocal protest as corroborative of concealment | Agogo argued protest is not indicative of concealment and could be induced | Held protest is not the sort of affirmative indication that supplies probable cause; allowing it would permit induced justification |
| Standard required for strip searches under Massachusetts law | Commonwealth acknowledged art. 14 requires probable cause for strip searches incident to arrest | Agogo relied on art. 14 and precedent requiring probable cause, not merely reasonable suspicion | Held art. 14 requires probable cause to believe contraband is concealed in very private areas; reasonable suspicion is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Prophete, 443 Mass. 548 (Mass. 2005) (strip searches intrude on privacy; probable cause required to believe contraband/weapon hidden in private area)
- Commonwealth v. Amado, 474 Mass. 147 (Mass. 2016) (police experience alone insufficient; detection of hard object without corroborating facts did not supply probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Morales, 462 Mass. 334 (Mass. 2012) (strip searches must also be reasonably conducted)
- Commonwealth v. Clermy, 421 Mass. 325 (Mass. 1995) (feeling a hard object in groin during patfrisk can supplement suspicion to probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Vick, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 622 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016) (patfrisk detection of a hard object in buttocks supported probable cause for strip search)
- Commonwealth v. Thibeau, 384 Mass. 762 (Mass. 1981) (police may not induce the very conduct they later use to justify searches)