Commonwealth v. Crowley-Chester
86 Mass. App. Ct. 804
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- At ~3:00 AM officers found a Honda parked with engine running in a high‑crime area; cruiser spotlight revealed two occupants, one (defendant) slouched and made a furtive movement toward the center console.
- Officers ordered occupants to show hands; they did not comply. Officer observed a folding knife in the center cup holder and the driver dropped a white rock‑like substance later identified as crack cocaine; driver was arrested.
- Driver asked that the unlicensed defendant drive the car; a records check showed the defendant had no license. Officers decided to tow the vehicle under Springfield Police impound/inventory policy.
- During the inventory (which authorizes opening closed containers in the vehicle), officers opened a backpack in the trunk labeled with the defendant’s name and found a loaded handgun and related items.
- The District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm, finding the impoundment/inventory were not necessary. The Commonwealth appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for impoundment/inventory | Commonwealth: impoundment assessed for reasonableness based on facts, not strict necessity | Defendant: impoundment was not necessary; suppression appropriate | Court: Reasonableness, not necessity, governs; officer judgment tested by what reasonably appeared at the time — favor Commonwealth |
| Whether facts justified impoundment for public safety | Police: furtive movements, failure to comply, knife in plain view, drugs found, unlicensed would‑be driver justify concern for weapons/drugs and public safety | Defendant: car was lawfully parked; Brinson controls so no public safety/vandalism risk justified tow | Court: Facts (high‑crime area, furtive acts, knife, drugs, request to have unlicensed passenger drive) made public‑safety rationale reasonable |
| Whether risk of vandalism/theft justified tow | Commonwealth: CAD log and officer testimony showed frequent vehicle crimes and burglaries nearby supporting risk of theft/vandalism if left | Defendant: insufficient nexus to show real risk of vandalism; relied on Brinson distinction | Court: CAD plus officer knowledge established reasonable concern about theft/vandalism; justified tow |
| Lawfulness of opening closed containers during inventory | Commonwealth: department policy permits opening locked/closed containers accessible without damage to protect property, public safety, and preserve evidence | Defendant: opening backpack exceeded inventory scope because impoundment itself was improper | Court: Inventory policy permitted opening backpack; because impoundment lawful, opening container was lawful and seizure of firearm admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102 (discusses Commonwealth’s burden and reasonableness standard for warrantless inventory searches)
- Commonwealth v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609 (impoundment improper where no public safety risk or threat of vandalism)
- Commonwealth v. Daley, 423 Mass. 747 (impoundment justified by public safety or theft/vandalism risk)
- Commonwealth v. Ellerbe, 430 Mass. 769 (reasonableness is the guiding touchstone for impoundments)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 409 Mass. 675 (inventory may include closed/locked containers accessible without damage)
- Commonwealth v. Bishop, 402 Mass. 449 (discusses departmental impound/inventory procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Bienvenu, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 632 (reasonableness analysis for impoundment)
- Commonwealth v. Novo, 442 Mass. 262 (documentary findings are reviewable by appellate court)
- Commonwealth v. Dunn, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 702 (impoundment justified on public safety grounds)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 21 (upholding impoundment/inventory under safety concerns)