59 N.E.3d 394
Mass.2016Background
- On Aug. 17, 2013 Trooper Hannon stopped defendant for failing to stop at a stop sign; defendant produced a valid license and a rental agreement listing only his mother as renter and stating no other drivers permitted.
- Hannon concluded the defendant might be using the rental vehicle without authority under G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a), decided to impound the car, and initiated an inventory search while the defendant sat in the cruiser.
- During the inventory search officers found a loaded handgun and ammunition; officers then Mirandized the defendant and obtained inculpatory statements.
- The defendant was also subject to a default warrant for failure to appear for jury duty (timing of officers’ knowledge of the warrant was unclear).
- A municipal court judge suppressed the gun, ammunition, and statements, finding absence of the defendant’s name on the rental agreement alone insufficient to justify impoundment; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police had probable cause to impound the rental vehicle for "use without authority" under G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a) | The rental agreement expressly forbade other drivers; absence of defendant’s name gave probable cause to believe unauthorized use and justify impoundment | The renter (mother) can grant permission; absence of defendant’s name alone does not establish unauthorized use | No probable cause; impoundment was improper because renter’s permission can provide "authority" and the rental company’s nonauthorization alone is insufficient |
| Construction of "authority" in § 24(2)(a) for rented vehicles | "Authority" should be determined by rental agreement terms; only those listed by rental company are authorized | "Authority" may be provided by the person in lawful control (the renter) during the rental period | "Authority" can be granted by the renter; using a rental car with renter’s permission does not violate § 24(2)(a) even if rental company hasn’t expressly authorized the driver |
| Whether the inventory search was a lawful inventory (not a ruse) following impoundment | If impoundment was lawful based on unauthorized use, the inventory search and seizures were lawful | Because impoundment lacked probable cause, the inventory search was unlawful and evidence must be suppressed | Inventory search was unlawful because the impoundment lacked probable cause; seized gun and ammo suppressed |
| Inevitable discovery via default warrant for failure to appear | Even if impoundment was improper, officers would have executed the default warrant, arrested defendant, impounded vehicle, and inevitably discovered the gun | There is no proof officers would have executed the warrant or intended to impound on that basis at the time of the stop | Inevitable discovery not established — record does not show it was certain officers would have executed the warrant and impounded the vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Giannino, 371 Mass. 700 (1977) (construction of elements of "use without authority")
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory searches must not be a ruse to uncover incriminating evidence)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause protects against unfounded intrusions; standard for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 474 Mass. 10 (2016) (lawfulness of inventory search depends on propriety of impoundment)
- Commonwealth v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102 (2011) (touchstone of reasonableness for impoundment; must follow written procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (2015) (statements made directly in response to unlawful searches must be suppressed)