Commonwealth v. Morales
462 Mass. 334
| Mass. | 2012Background
- In November 2009, Lowell police investigated drug dealing by informant-reported defendant Carlos, based on prior CI reliability and observed Explorer activity.
- Defendant was detained after a traffic stop of the tan Explorer, with officers observing him concealment cues and a lump at the rear of his shorts.
- During a pat-down, an exterior sweep, and a move to a secluded area, officers found a lump and then, by lowering waistband, retrieved a bag from between buttocks.
- The search exposed the defendant’s buttocks publicly as drugs were seized, with no exigent circumstances justifying public exposure.
- A private-room requirement was not observed; the Lowell police policy prohibited strip searches outside a station.
- Defendant moved to suppress the drugs, arguing Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and related Massachusetts provisions; the judge suppressed the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the on-scene strip/visual body cavity search was reasonable. | Commonwealth argues continued search justified by probable cause. | Defendant asserts the search was an unconstitutional strip/visual body cavity search. | Unreasonable strip search under both state and federal constitutions. |
| Did lifting the waistband to inspect and then retrieve drugs constitute a strip search? | Prophete allows last layer removal; drugs retrieved from buttocks does not require full unclothing. | Lifting waistband to inspect buttocks constitutes strip search. | Yes, it was a strip search under both constitutions. |
| Was the search reasonable given the location and lack of exigency? | Search could be justified by probable cause and necessity. | Search occurred in public view and lacked exigent justification. | Unreasonable due to public exposure and inappropriate location. |
| What standards apply for strip/visual searches under state vs. federal law? | Probable cause standard governs state law; no conflict with federal standard. | Federal standard of reasonableness governs; state standard aligns with Prophete/Thomas. | Probable cause required under state constitution; reasonable standard under federal law considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Prophete, 443 Mass. 548 (Mass. 2005) (definition and limits of strip search; last layer of clothing concept)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403 (Mass. 1999) (probable cause standard for strip/visual body cavity searches)
- Florence v. Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (U.S. 2012) (visual inspections in jail contexts; strip search imprecision acknowledged)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (reasonableness balancing test for detainee searches; privacy vs. institutional needs)
- Spencer v. Roche, 659 F.3d 142 (1st Cir. 2011) (considerations for private vs. public search settings; health and dignity factors)
- United States v. Hambrick, 630 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2011) (privacy and intrusiveness in searches; private inspection preferred)
- Rodrigues v. Furtado, 410 Mass. 878 (Mass. 1991) (manual body cavity search standards; need high probable cause)
- Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341 (Md. 2007) (public exposure of buttocks rendered search unreasonable)
- Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1991) (visual inspection scope and strip-search concepts)