Commonwealth v. Barbosa
91 N.E.3d 682
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Police investigating a Backpage.com ad for suspected human trafficking arranged to meet the person who answered the listed number at the Park Plaza Hotel.
- Officers found a distressed, agitated woman in room 540 who said “he’s coming,” and a target of the trafficking investigation (Barbosa) arrived on the fifth floor shortly thereafter.
- Detective Bartkiewicz identified himself and attempted to speak to Barbosa; Barbosa fled, was tackled, subdued, Mirandized, and frisked; officers recovered a hotel room key, a knife, about $500 cash, and prepaid cards from his pockets.
- Barbosa said the key was for room 540 and requested a lawyer; the judge found the arrest and frisk lawful and that the defendant voluntarily waived Miranda for the statement.
- The trial judge suppressed Barbosa’s statement that the key was for room 540 under G. L. c. 276, § 1 and Commonwealth v. Blevines, concluding the key could not be used for investigatory purposes because it was unrelated to the assault charge.
- The Appeals Court reversed the suppression as the officers had reasonable suspicion of separate criminal activity (human trafficking) linking the key to that investigation, so the key and the resulting statement were admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Barbosa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the room key seized during a frisk and the defendant’s statement about it could be used investigatively given G. L. c. 276, § 1 and Blevines | Key was lawfully seized during frisk incident to arrest and, given the trafficking investigation, was immediately evidentiary for another crime | Under Blevines, a seized key unrelated to the arrest crime cannot be used investigatively; the key was unrelated to assault on an officer | Reversed suppression: officers had reasonable suspicion of human trafficking connecting the key to separate criminal activity, so using the key investigatively was permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Blevines, 438 Mass. 604 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (limits on using items found in patfrisk for investigatory searches absent suspicion connecting item to other criminality)
- Commonwealth v. Dessources, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 232 (Massachusetts Appeals Court) (G. L. c. 276, § 1 does not bar admission of evidence immediately apparent as contraband or of other crimes)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 413 Mass. 598 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (search-incident-to-arrest exceptions when evidence is immediately apparent)
- Commonwealth v. Clermy, 421 Mass. 325 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (patfrisk revealing items immediately evidentiary of other crimes is admissible)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 439 Mass. 616 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (reasonable suspicion standards discussed in context of investigative inquiries)
- Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (appellate review standards for factual findings from suppression hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Keefner, 461 Mass. 507 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Cassino, 474 Mass. 85 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) (independent review of legal conclusions on suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Sullo, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 766 (Massachusetts Appeals Court) (police may consider context and cannot be required to ignore information linking seized items to other crimes)
- United States v. Henry, 827 F.3d 16 (First Circuit) (cash and prepaid cards can support nexus to prostitution/trafficking activity)