Commonwealth v. Cruz
459 Mass. 459
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Officers, in plain clothes in an unmarked car, observed a parked vehicle in front of a fire hydrant with a driver and Benjamin Cruz in the front passenger seat; the driver smoked a cigar that could mask marijuana odor.
- The driver and Cruz, longtime local residents, displayed nervous demeanor; no contraband was observed and no furtive movements occurred.
- The officers stopped the vehicle for the civil hydrant violation and, after backup arrived, ordered both occupants out of the car based on the odor of burnt marijuana and their conduct.
- Cruz admitted to having a small amount of crack cocaine in his pocket; no Miranda warnings were given before cocaine was seized.
- A West Roxbury judge suppressed the cocaine and the incriminating statement, concluding the exit order was not legally justified.
- Massachusetts voters decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana in 2008, converting it from a criminal to a civil offense under G. L. c. 94C, §§ 32L-32N.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does burnt-marijuana odor justify an exit order post-decriminalization? | Commonwealth argues odor can provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion. | Cruz argues odor cannot justify an exit order since possession of small amounts is civil, not criminal. | No; odor alone cannot justify exit order after decriminalization. |
| Are there any other permissible bases to justify the exit order (safety, reasonable suspicion, or pragmatic search)? | Commonwealth contends location, nervousness, and odor, plus shared cigar, support suspicion. | Cruz contends none of these facts amount to reasonable suspicion or probable cause under the new law. | None of the three bases supports the exit order; suppression affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garden, 451 Mass. 43 (Mass. 2008) (odor of burnt marijuana can provide probable cause to search)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 433 Mass. 669 (Mass. 2001) (deference to judge’s legal conclusions; standard for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658 (Mass. 1999) (exit orders may be justified by safety concerns or suspicion-based grounds)
- Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. 891 (Mass. 1990) (automobile exception and search rationale for warrantless searches)
- Commonwealth v. Motta, 424 Mass. 117 (Mass. 1997) (vehicle searches and exigent circumstances doctrine)