Commonwealth v. Douglas, 472 Mass. 439

Background

Around 3 A.M., Boston police conducting surveillance followed a car from a nightclub after observing it make turns without signaling; officers stopped the vehicle for the civil motor-vehicle infraction.
Four occupants: driver (female), front passenger Jason Douglas, and two rear passengers including Wayne Steed; officers knew Douglas had prior firearm convictions and that the group had attended a party tied to a violent rivalry.
Officers ordered the rear passengers out and pat-frisked them after observing movement and a hand-in-pocket; no weapons were found and the judge found those frisk suspicions dissipated.
Douglas exited the vehicle unasked, was ordered back inside, then moved the gear shift from "park" to "drive" while the driver kept the brake engaged; officers ordered him out, frisked him (no weapon), then performed a protective sweep and found a loaded firearm under the front passenger seat.
Superior Court allowed motions to suppress; the Appeals Court reversed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted review and reversed the suppression order (i.e., held the search was lawful) but on narrower grounds tied to Douglas's conduct.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Were exit orders and pat-frisks of rear-seat passengers lawful?	Officers had reasonable suspicion based on movements and prior knowledge to order exits and frisk.	Movements were innocuous (e.g., removing seatbelt, hand in pocket) and frisk revealed no weapons; suspicion dissipated.	Even if initially reasonable, suspicion dissipated after negative frisks; protective sweep not justified on that basis.
Did negative frisks of rear passengers taint later search of vehicle?	Any earlier suspicion was severed by later events and officer observations; subsequent search could be justified.	Negative frisks eliminated reasonable suspicion and tainted further searches.	Negative frisks dissipated suspicion as to those occupants; court declines to uphold vehicle sweep based solely on those earlier frisks.
Did Douglas's conduct (exiting unasked and shifting to "drive") provide reasonable suspicion to frisk him and sweep vehicle?	Douglas's unbidden exit and shifting to "drive," combined with context (party tied to violent rivalry, Douglas's firearm history), justified frisk and limited protective sweep of area he occupied.	The shift back to "park" and lack of observed weapon meant no reasonable belief Douglas was armed or that a vehicle sweep was necessary.	Held for Commonwealth: Douglas's conduct and contextual facts supplied reasonable suspicion that he was armed or that a weapon was within reach; frisk and limited sweep of area under his seat were permissible.
Were defendants' procedural defects in suppression affidavits fatal?	Commonwealth argued Rule 13 infirmities warranted denial without hearing.	Defendants relied on merits; hearing occurred.	Commonwealth waived objection by not seeking dismissal prior to hearing; procedural defect not fatal.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Santana, 420 Mass. 205 (1995) (traffic stop lawful despite officers' subjective intent)
Commonwealth v. Torres, 433 Mass. 669 (2001) (limits on ordering occupants from vehicle; need reasonable belief of danger)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 454 Mass. 159 (2009) (pat-frisk of vehicle occupant requires reasonable suspicion person is armed and dangerous)
Commonwealth v. Daniel, 464 Mass. 746 (2013) (limited protective search for weapons allowed when officer reasonably suspects danger)
Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402 (1974) (protective searches for weapons permissible even without probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Moses, 408 Mass. 136 (1990) (protective sweep must be confined to discovering weapons)
Commonwealth v. Almeida, 373 Mass. 266 (1977) (protective sweep limited to area within suspect's access)
Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 450 (2002) (intervening acts during stop can remove taint of earlier illegality)
Commonwealth v. Fredette, 396 Mass. 455 (1985) (circumstances may justify renewed intrusion when officer reasonably perceives threat)