Commonwealth v. Charley, AC 16-P-501

Background

Police received a 7:29 PM 911 report of an armed robbery with a shooting at a Dorchester convenience store; dispatch described a black male in a dark patterned hoodie and blue jeans.
Officer Quinonez, four blocks away ~8:00 PM, observed defendant walking from the store’s direction wearing a blue zip-up hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans and sweating heavily on a cool evening.
Quinonez viewed the store’s color surveillance video (~8:15 PM), concluded the robber’s clothing/build matched the man she had seen, and notified other officers of the defendant’s location.
Officers found the defendant on a porch ~8:30 PM; after brief contact and a patfrisk, they told him there had been “an incident up the street.” The defendant unprompted said, “I had nothing to do with the shooting.”
Officers transported the defendant to the station for questioning (court treated that as an arrest); at the station, detectives compared stains on the defendant’s sweatshirt to the surveillance frame and then formally arrested him; later searches (with warrants) recovered additional evidence.
The Superior Court suppressed evidence obtained after custody, concluding police lacked probable cause at the time they brought the defendant to the station; the Commonwealth appealed and the Appeals Court reversed.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Charley’s Argument	Held
Whether transporting the defendant to the station for questioning was an arrest requiring probable cause	Transportation was supported by probable cause based on proximity to scene, matching clothing/build, sweating, and his unsolicited reference to a “shooting”	Transporting him was an arrest absent probable cause; defendant’s reference to a shooting could be explained by media exposure or innocent explanation	Reversed suppression: probable cause existed when police took him to the station
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to patfrisk on the sidewalk	Yes: match to broadcast, coming from scene, sweating, video corroboration created reasonable suspicion he might be armed	Patfrisk was unjustified because clothing was common and not distinctive	Patfrisk was reasonable and supported by the corroborated description
Whether the defendant’s unprompted reference to a “shooting” was sufficiently incriminating	It was inculpatory and increased officers’ belief he was involved	It may have been explained by contemporaneous media reports; not inherently suspicious	Court credited the statement as adding to probable cause; inference of media exposure was speculative
Whether suppression of station statements and warrant fruits was required	Suppression was improper because arrest/transport was supported by probable cause	Evidence was fruit of an unlawful arrest and thus should be suppressed	Evidence was admissible because arrest/transport was supported by probable cause; suppression reversed

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 461 Mass. 616 (2012) (standards for appellate review of factual findings on suppression)
Commonwealth v. Narcisse, 457 Mass. 1 (2010) (officer safety concerns can support limited intrusions based on matching descriptions)
Commonwealth v. Garner, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 350 (2003) (use of descriptions and circumstances to justify police investigative actions)
Commonwealth v. Melo, 472 Mass. 278 (2015) (distinguishing investigatory stops from arrests requiring probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 271 (2011) (collective knowledge/imputation among officers in assessing suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Storey, 378 Mass. 312 (1979) (probable cause defined as facts that would lead a prudent person to believe an offense was committed)
Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. 891 (1990) (probable cause assessed on practical probabilities, not technicalities)
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959) (probabilities and common-sense judgments underpin probable cause analyses)
Commonwealth v. Cheek, 413 Mass. 492 (1992) (clothing descriptions that are generic may be insufficient to distinguish suspects)