Commonwealth v. Amado
474 Mass. 147
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Police in unmarked car followed a green Acura after recognizing Amado as a recent firearm arrestee; they stopped the vehicle for an unlit registration plate light.
- Four officers approached; as they neared, Amado reached his left arm behind his body and then brought it forward; officers noted extreme nervousness.
- Officers ordered Amado out for safety, conducted a patfrisk, and felt a hard object behind his testicles; Donahue concluded it was not a weapon.
- Another officer pulled back Amado’s waistband and observed a plastic bag protruding from his buttocks; officers later pulled Amado aside, again pulled back his underwear/shorts, shone a flashlight on his bare buttocks, and removed a bag containing ~24g crack cocaine.
- Amado moved to suppress the bag; the trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court granted review to decide whether the genital-area search was a strip search and, if so, whether it met Morales probable-cause and reasonableness requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Amado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of vehicle stop | Stop lawful—officers developed independent basis (unlit plate) | Stop pretextual and challenged | Stop valid (independent traffic violation justified stop) |
| Validity of exit order / scope of patfrisk | Exit order and frisk justified by safety concerns and suspicious movement | Exit order and inner-thigh patfrisk unreasonable and exceeded scope | Exit order justified by safety; initial patfrisk permissible but safety exigency ended when frisk showed no weapon |
| Whether pulling back waistband was a strip search and required probable cause | Not a strip search or, alternatively, justified by probable cause; viewing was minimal and private | It was a strip search requiring probable cause, which police lacked | Pulling back underwear/shorts and exposing bare buttocks was a strip search under Morales and required probable cause; police lacked probable cause |
| Reasonableness / privacy of search location and manner | Search was limited, only officers viewed area; moved between buildings to reduce exposure | Search was public/ humiliating; conducted without probable cause | Even assuming probable cause absent, search was unreasonable because it exposed intimate area in a location observable by others; moving to alley did not make it sufficiently private |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morales, 462 Mass. 334 (2012) (defines strip search as moving last layer of clothing to expose intimate area and requires probable cause for strip/visual body cavity searches)
- Commonwealth v. Prophete, 443 Mass. 548 (2005) (prior definition of strip search tied to removal of last layer of clothing)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer safety justifies limited frisk for weapons)
- Commonwealth v. Clermy, 421 Mass. 325 (1995) (patfrisk that revealed container in groin area supported inference of contraband in limited circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 441 Mass. 390 (2004) (scope limits on Terry searches; plain-feel doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402 (1974) (search must be strictly tied to circumstances justifying it)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (U.S. Supreme Court permitting officers to order passengers out of vehicle for safety)