Commonwealth v. Demirtshyan
87 Mass. App. Ct. 737
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Officer Reen stopped Demirtshtyan's car for an invalid inspection sticker; defendant produced license and registration and the stop was otherwise routine.
- Officer observed small clumps of marijuana on the console; defendant admitted prior use but the officer did not issue a citation for the minor possession.
- Officer asked to search the vehicle; defendant refused. As the officer and a second officer were on scene, the defendant suddenly lunged toward the rear passenger-side area where a backpack sat.
- Officer Reen reached through the open window, grabbed the defendant's shoulder to prevent access to the backpack, instructed him to turn off the ignition and exit the vehicle; defendant complied.
- Officer removed the backpack and found an electroshock weapon in an open compartment in the driver’s door; the weapon, and statements about its ownership, were later suppressed by the motion judge.
- Procedurally: the Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal and later sought leave for an interlocutory appeal after scheduling and filing delays; a single justice allowed the Commonwealth’s application and the Appeals Court reached the merits despite timeliness issues in light of Commonwealth v. Jordan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer could order driver out after the driver lunged toward backseat | Commonwealth: sudden lunge into rear where backpack sat created an objectively reasonable safety concern justifying an exit order | Defendant: the reach was insufficient to create heightened danger; exit order unlawful under Gonsalves | Held: Exit order valid — the sudden, unexplained lunge into area that could conceal a weapon justified protective measures and an exit order |
| Whether weapon and statements should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful search/seizure | Commonwealth: the weapon was discovered after a lawful protective response to defendant’s movement; discovery gave probable cause for full search | Defendant: discovery was tainted by unlawful exit/search so evidence must be suppressed | Held: Evidence admissible — defendant’s independent, intervening act (the lunge) justified the officer’s actions and led to lawful seizure and subsequent probable cause |
| Whether interlocutory appeal was timely / procedural defects barred review | Commonwealth: single justice allowed leave, curing timeliness concerns; appellate court should reach merits | Defendant: Commonwealth’s application for leave was untimely and dismissal was proper | Held: Appeals Court reached merits under Jordan — discretionary suspension of procedural rules for good cause where warranted; reversed suppression on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 469 Mass. 134 (2014) (explains interplay of rules for interlocutory appeals from suppression orders and single-justice authority to extend/suspend deadlines)
- Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658 (1999) (officer may order occupants to alight when facts create heightened awareness of danger)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (Terry-style protective sweep doctrine applies to vehicle interiors where officer reasonably fears weapon retrieval)
- Commonwealth v. King, 389 Mass. 233 (1983) (defendant’s independent intervening act can break causal chain for exclusionary rule)
- Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 286 (1986) (protective searches of vehicles confined to scope reasonably designed to discover weapons)