Commonwealth v. Luna
AC 16-P-1021
| Mass. App. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Springfield narcotics officer Bruno received a confidential informant tip that defendant Giovannie Luna ("Gio") would deliver heroin at Liberty St. and Denton Circle on April 15, 2015; informant gave vehicle description and plate and had a long reliable track record.
- Surveillance observed Luna leave his apartment in a black Mini Cooper, place two large containers in the Mini, drive to his Chicopee address (122 Beauregard Terrace), retrieve a softball-sized black bag from a red Honda trunk, then drive toward the predicted delivery location.
- Officers followed; Luna drove erratically in a manner suggesting counter-surveillance. Police stopped the Mini Cooper in Springfield, arrested Luna, and during a frisk recovered the black bag, Honda keys, and three cell phones.
- After arrest, officers returned to 122 Beauregard Terrace (Chicopee). After knocking and receiving no response, Springfield officers used the Honda keys taken from Luna to open the Honda’s trunk and seized bricks of heroin and a firearm. Chicopee uniformed officers were requested but had not yet arrived.
- The Superior Court denied suppression in large part. The Commonwealth sought to justify both the initial stop/arrest and the subsequent warrantless search of the Honda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Luna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were officers justified in stopping and frisking Luna? | Tip + independent corroboration and evasive driving gave reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop and arrest. | Stop and frisk lacked reasonable suspicion; evidence from frisk should be suppressed. | Held: informant reliable and corroborated; officers had probable cause to arrest; frisk/search incident to arrest lawful. |
| 2. Was the warrantless search of the Honda in Chicopee lawful? | Evidence from Honda admissible because officers had keys, exigent circumstances, automobile exception, or statutory authority. | Search was warrantless and conducted outside Springfield officers' jurisdiction; evidence must be suppressed. | Held: Springfield officers exceeded territorial authority; warrantless search in Chicopee unlawful; evidence from Honda suppressed. |
| 3. Did statute (G. L. c. 276, § 2A) or other authority permit Springfield officers to search extraterritorially? | § 2A authorizes Massachusetts officers broadly to execute searches. | § 2A applies only to searches under a warrant; no statutory authorization for warrantless extraterritorial searches. | Held: § 2A applies to warrant executions only; no authority for warrantless extraterritorial search. |
| 4. Even if extraterritorial, does inevitable discovery save the evidence? | Chicopee police would have arrived and lawfully searched the Honda; therefore evidence inevitable. | Commonwealth failed to prove inevitability; no findings or testimony at suppression hearing. | Held: Commonwealth did not meet burden; inevitable discovery not established; exclusion required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (framework for informant reliability and basis of knowledge)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (together with Aguilar for two-pronged informant test)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 403 Mass. 163 (informant's past reliability supports veracity)
- Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290 (prior purchases can show informant's basis of knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Lahey, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 606 (unauthorized extraterritorial police action requires suppression)
- Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 406 Mass. 112 (inevitable discovery standard and timing of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238 (practical, nontechnical review of investigative facts for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Blevines, 438 Mass. 604 (search incident to lawful arrest)