Commonwealth v. Levy, 459 Mass. 1010

A Brockton police detective surveilled public telephones outside Rice’s Market known for drug activity.
At ~10 p.m. a Ford occupied by a man and two women pulled up; the man made a 20-second call and left.
The detective followed the Ford to a residence where the man began pacing; a Pontiac with three occupants arrived and the man got in the back seat.
The Pontiac drove around the block; the man then returned to the Ford area; the detective suspected a drug transaction despite no observed exchange.
After confirming the Pontiac owner had a suspended license, police stopped the Pontiac and searched the driver and defendant.
Twenty-eight bags of crack cocaine were found in the defendant’s boot and $350 in cash was found on the driver; the District Court suppressed the drugs, and the Commonwealth appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to arrest/search the defendant's boot?	Levy argued sufficient probable cause based on observed activity and circumstances.	Levy contends the facts fall short of probable cause for arrest/search.	Probable cause was lacking; the search of the boot was improper.
Did the stop for questioning rest on reasonable suspicion?	Commonwealth contends the observed conduct supported a stop for questioning.	Defendant argues the facts did not justify a stop beyond a mere hunch.	Stop for questioning was supported by reasonable suspicion, but it did not justify the subsequent search.

Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703 (Mass. 1998) (observed exchange factored into probable cause; not controlling here)
Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238 (Mass. 1992) (exchange in high-drug-activity area; supports probable cause emphasis)
Commonwealth v. Coronel, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 906 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (brief call and pocket-stuffing in area known for drug activity)
Commonwealth v. Levy, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 617 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (appeals panel on suppression ruling in similar context)