Commonwealth v. Greenwood
941 N.E.2d 667
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Indictment included kidnapping, breaking and entering, and armed robbery as habitual offender; pretrial suppression motions filed.
- Motion judge denied suppression; showup and in-court identifications admitted; defendant convicted on kidnapping, burglary and unarmed robbery.
- Officers responded to Dorchester Ave call; found a black book bag, paper bag with beer, and a purse in hallway; caller could not identify owners.
- Defendant exited building carrying the bag and purse; police stopped vehicle and detained him; frisk revealed no weapons.
- Purse and bags were opened by an officer; prescription bottles with victim’s name and address found; defendant detained.
- Victim identified the defendant at a showup after police located him; victim later identified him in court as the robber.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial stop and exit order supported by reasonable suspicion? | Greenwood no probable cause; stop invalid without reasonable suspicion | Officers had reasonable basis given description and vicinity to crime | Yes; reasonable suspicion justified the stop and exit order |
| Was the patfrisk and search of the purse, book bag, and cooler bag permissible? | Searches exceeded Terry and lacked arming/dangerousness basis | Searches were valid extensions of investigative stop | No; searches were improper and must be suppressed |
| Are showup identifications admissible when based on unlawful searches? | Showup tainted by unlawful search; must be suppressed | Showup legitimate despite prior searches | Suppressed; tainted by unlawful search |
| Is the in-court identification admissible despite showup taint? | In-court ID tainted and fruit of poisonous tree | Independent basis for identification exists | Admissible; independent source shown; not suppressed |
| Were the tainted identifications harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Unlawful evidence could have affected verdict | Taunted evidence might have swayed jurors | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; overwhelming admissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bostock, 450 Mass. 616 (Mass. 2008) (vehicle stop and exit order may be based on reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 780 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (aggregate innocent conduct can create reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (Mass. 2009) (Terry patfrisk requires danger to safety; evidence search not justified)
- Commonwealth v. Netto, 438 Mass. 686 (Mass. 2003) (search incident to arrest requires independent probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238 (Mass. 1992) (probable cause requires more than a mere suspicion)
- United States v. Crews, 455 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1980) (in-court identification not automatically excluded when tainted evidence exists)
- Commonwealth v. Crowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 456 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986) (exclusionary rule and in-court identifications; independent source considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725 (Mass. 2000) (unplausible answers can support probable cause when combined with other facts)
- Commonwealth v. Dagraca, 447 Mass. 546 (Mass. 2006) (balancing factors for assessing tainted evidence in harmless error analysis)