Commonwealth v. Oliveira
474 Mass. 10
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Defendants Mitchell Violet and Jemaul Oliveira were arrested for shoplifting at a department store; Violet had driven a car registered to his girlfriend and provided the keys.
- Officers used Violet’s key to retrieve a shopping bag from the parked, lawfully-parked car; after the arrests officers told defendants the car would be inventoried and towed.
- Violet asked that the car be left in the lot so the registered owner (his girlfriend) could retrieve it; officers refused, impounded the car, and conducted an inventory search.
- During the inventory search officers found a loaded firearm in the glove compartment; a bullet was discovered on Oliveira during a frisk, but officers performing the inventory did not learn of that until after finding the gun.
- The motion judge found the inventory search was a bona fide inventory and complied with department policy but concluded the initial seizure/impoundment was unreasonable because Violet had offered a lawful and practical alternative (owner retrieval) and there was no evidence of risk to public safety or theft.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: impoundment was unreasonable and the fruits of the inventory search were suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was seizure/impoundment of a lawfully parked vehicle reasonable after the driver’s arrest? | Impoundment reasonable to protect vehicle/public and because car might remain overnight; manager asked it be towed. | Unreasonable: driver was an authorized user, car was lawfully parked, and he offered the practical alternative that owner retrieve it. | Held: Unreasonable to impound; seizure unconstitutional. |
| Must police allow an alternate disposition proposed by a non-owner present driver (owner absent)? | Police need not accept alternatives unless owner is present to propose them. | A present authorized driver’s reasonable proposal (owner retrieval) can be a lawful/practical alternative and must be considered. | Held: Presence of owner not required; offered practical lawful alternative should be considered. |
| Can an inventory search be upheld if it follows department policy even when impoundment itself is challenged? | Compliance with written inventory policy makes the subsequent search lawful. | If seizure/impoundment is unreasonable, the inventory (as a fruit of illegal seizure) is invalid despite policy compliance. | Held: Inventory lawfulness depends first on reasonable impoundment; policy compliance alone cannot cure an unconstitutional seizure. |
| May the officer rely on information learned only after the search (e.g., manager’s tow request based on discovered gun) to justify the impoundment? | Later-discovered facts can justify earlier impoundment decision. | Justification cannot rely on information obtained because of the unlawful seizure/search. | Held: Cannot rely on post-search information to retroactively justify the seizure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102 (2011) (Commonwealth bears burden to justify warrantless inventory searches; reasonableness required)
- Commonwealth v. Ellerbe, 430 Mass. 769 (2000) (inventory search lawful only if impoundment was necessary or no practical alternative)
- Commonwealth v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609 (2003) (impoundment and inventory of lawfully parked car not permitted absent safety/theft risk)
- United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006) (vehicle seizure may protect public from dangerous items in vehicle)
- Commonwealth v. Thibeau, 384 Mass. 762 (1981) (seizure cannot be justified by information learned only after the seizure/search)