118 N.E.3d 131
Mass. App. Ct.2019Background
- Brockton detectives stopped Augusto Darosa's minivan at night after observing a brief bag transfer to a parked Mercedes and a lane change without signaling. Darosa was the sole occupant.
- Darosa could produce registration but not a license; a records check later showed his license was revoked and a narcotics-related criminal history.
- Because he lacked a valid license, officers ordered him out, patted him down, and had him sit near the rear of the vehicle guarded by an officer.
- Two detectives conducted a cursory search of the front driver/passenger compartments before deciding whether to arrest; they smelled marijuana and found money.
- A K-9 was summoned; the dog alerted to a bag in the rear compartment containing a large quantity of marijuana. Darosa was then arrested.
- The motion judge denied suppression, characterizing the front-compartment check as a protective sweep prior to allowing Darosa to return to the vehicle; the Appeals Court majority disagreed and ordered suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Darosa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of front-compartment search as "search incident to arrest" | Search was incident to arrest for operating with revoked license; contemporaneity satisfied or arrest could follow search | No arrest occurred until after the K-9 search; search and arrest were not substantially contemporaneous | Reversed: search incident to arrest doctrine did not apply — contemporaneity and Gant limits not met |
| Lawfulness of a protective sweep/Terry search of vehicle interior | Protective sweep prior to allowing return to vehicle was reasonable for officer safety | No reasonable belief defendant was armed/dangerous; officers lacked specific and articulable facts | Reversed: Commonwealth failed to show reasonable suspicion that Darosa was armed and dangerous; Terry/Long not established |
| Creation of a new "search incident to probable cause" exception | Officers may search if they have probable cause to arrest even if arrest is delayed | No such exception exists; would eviscerate Gant and statutory limits | Rejected: courts will not recognize a search incident to mere probable cause absent arrest or established exception |
| Application of suppression remedy | Evidence admissible under exceptions | Evidence is fruit of unlawful search and must be suppressed | Held: seized evidence suppressed; conviction vacated and verdict set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to arrestee's reach or evidence of the offense)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (discussed historical vehicle-search rule limited by Gant)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search-incident-to-arrest purpose: weapons and destruction of evidence)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable, articulable suspicion supports limited protective search for weapons)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (extends Terry principles to vehicle passenger compartment when officer reasonably suspects danger)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 449 Mass. 476 (2007) (contemporaneity requirement for search incident to arrest; no search-incident-to-probable-cause rule)
- Commonwealth v. Lantigua, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 526 (1995) (permissible limited protective sweep of vehicle to retrieve registration / check for weapons before allowing reentry)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (2009) (drug activity and high-crime area alone insufficient to presume armed and dangerous)