Commonwealth v. Meneide
89 Mass. App. Ct. 448
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Around 10:30 P.M., three state troopers in an unmarked car followed a small sedan after observing traffic and driving irregularities; defendant was the lone driver, speaking on a cell phone and driving slowly through a residential area and an apartment complex.
- Troopers observed the defendant turn right on red without fully stopping and then saw him lift himself about six inches in a manner consistent with concealing something beneath him.
- Trooper smelled a strong odor of unburnt marijuana and air fresheners; the defendant admitted to having a small amount of marijuana.
- Defendant was ordered out of the car and a protective patfrisk was conducted; two small packets of marijuana (less than one ounce total) were found on his person.
- During a protective search of the vehicle area where the defendant had been seated, the trooper opened the rear door and lowered the back center armrest and discovered a gun; motion judge suppressed the gun and statements derived from it while denying suppression of the marijuana.
- Motion judge found exit order and patfrisk justified by safety concerns but concluded the protective search exceeded its permissible scope after only noncriminal marijuana was found.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Meneide's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the exit order and patfrisk justified by safety concerns? | Safety concerns from furtive movement and other facts justified ordering exit and patfrisk. | Exit order and patfrisk were unjustified; routine stop should end once papers were in order. | Held: Yes. The furtive lifting created an objectively reasonable safety concern. |
| Could a protective search extend into the car interior (rear armrest) on these facts? | Protective search could reach areas within defendant's reach (small car, armrest within wingspan). | Search of backseat armrest exceeded protective scope absent evidence of danger there. | Held: No. Searching the armrest was beyond the scope; no evidence connected armrest to the safety risk. |
| Did discovery of only noncriminal marijuana dissipate safety suspicion? | Commonwealth did not argue reasonable suspicion/probable cause but argued safety concerns nonetheless persisted. | Once patfrisk revealed only small marijuana, suspicion dissipated and officers should have issued citations and released him. | Held: Yes — after patfrisk revealed only small marijuana and no weapon in immediate area, safety concern was dissipated. |
| Should fruits of the armrest search (gun and statements) be suppressed? | Commonwealth argued safety justified the search so fruits admissible. | Fruits should be suppressed because armrest search was unconstitutional. | Held: Fruits suppressed — search of armrest unlawful and its fruits excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658 (establishes that modest facts can justify exit orders when safety concerns are reasonable)
- Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402 (Terry-type protective searches may extend into car interior but must be limited to areas from which suspect might access a weapon)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search incident-to-arrest limits and rationale for area-based searches for weapons)
- Commonwealth v. Daniel, 464 Mass. 746 (intrusiveness of a protective search must be proportional to the suspicion prompting it)
- Commonwealth v. Stampley, 437 Mass. 323 (furtive movements can heighten safety concerns justifying protective measures)