Commonwealth v. Martin
AC 15-P-403
| Mass. App. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Two undercover officers approached a legally parked, smoke-filled car with three occupants; strong odor and visible smoke gave officers probable cause to believe marijuana was being consumed (civil infraction).
- Officer Beliveau ordered the defendant back into the vehicle, conducted questioning, observed drug paraphernalia and green leafy matter, and obtained the defendant’s name and DOB; backup was called.
- While officers were confirming identification and pat-frisking a rear passenger (about 7–8 minutes after the encounter began), the defendant fled on foot approximately 40–50 feet to a side door of 440 Gallivan Boulevard and entered the residence without using force or a key.
- Three officers chased the defendant into the residence and tackled him in the hallway; during the arrest one officer asked why he ran and the defendant said he had a firearm in his pocket; police seized the gun.
- Defendant was charged with firearm offenses and resisting arrest; he moved to suppress the gun arguing the stop and the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment and art. 14. Trial judge denied suppression; Appeals Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Martin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial stop for marijuana smoking | Odor, visible smoke, condensation and paraphernalia gave probable cause to detain for a civil citation | Stop was only based on odor and thus insufficient for seizure | Stop lawful: officers had probable cause to detain for civil marijuana possession |
| Scope/duration of investigative stop | Questioning and short delay to confirm identity were reasonable and brief | Questions about criminal history and delay exceeded scope for civil citation | Length/nature of stop did not unreasonably exceed time needed to issue citation |
| Warrantless entry into home under hot-pursuit exigency | Pursuit of fleeing suspect justified following into residence; possible trespass arrest supported entry | Pursuit arose from civil infraction (nonjailable) and there was no probable cause defendant entered unlawfully | Hot-pursuit exception inapplicable: civil stop and lack of evidence defendant entered unlawfully defeated exigency |
| Warrantless entry under emergency-aid exception | Entry reasonable given flight and nervousness (community safety concern) | No objectively reasonable basis to believe anyone inside was in imminent danger or that defendant was armed | Emergency-aid exception not met; no reasonable belief of imminent harm or that defendant was armed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (establishes hot-pursuit exception to warrant requirement)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (discusses exigent-circumstances exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624 (Massachusetts discussion of hot pursuit and limits on warrantless home entry)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 472 Mass. 767 (limits on stops to enforce civil marijuana possession)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (treatment of civil marijuana possession and limits on Fourth Amendment stops)
- Commonwealth v. Peters, 453 Mass. 818 (emergency-aid exception and its requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Sykes, 449 Mass. 308 (factors supporting reasonable suspicion of weapon possession)
- Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 477 (additional factors supporting suspicion of weapon possession)