Commonwealth v. Perkins
465 Mass. 600
| Mass. | 2013Background
- May 2008 Worcester traffic stop; Hendricks and Cherry, passengers, exit vehicle and walk toward building after stop; officer orders them back, they flee; Perkins driver has learner’s permit but no valid license and is arrested; officers search interior and find firearm, marijuana, crack; defendants charged with drug and firearm offenses.
- Perkins is searched after he is handcuffed outside the car; the car is searched for contraband after Hendricks and Cherry were not restrained.
- The suppression judge ruled warrantless automobile search unlawful; Commonwealth appealed and case is before the court on appeal from suppression order.
- The issue on appeal is whether the warrantless search of the automobile was permissible under any exception to the Fourth Amendment.
- The court concludes the search was unlawful and the evidence must be suppressed; plain-view, search-incident-to-arrest, and abandonment arguments fail; order suppressing evidence is affirmed.
- The court notes a potential bright-line rule about detaining passengers post-stop is not decided and left for another day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether firearm was in plain view when seized | Commonwealth contends firearm in plain view justifies seizure | Hendricks/Cherry argue firearm not in plain view | Not plain view; suppression affirmed |
| Whether search was valid as a search incident to arrest | Commonwealth argues search incident to Perkins’s arrest justified | Perkins handcuffed outside car; no reasonable belief car contained evidence | Not valid under Gant; suppression affirmed |
| Whether Hendricks and Cherry abandoned contraband | Commonwealth argues abandonment prevented privacy interest | No intent to permanently relinquish control; not abandoned | Not abandonment; evidence suppressed |
| Whether warrantless automobile search was justified by any other exception | Commonwealth contends alternative exceptions apply | No other exception applied; suppression affirmed | |
| Overall warrantless search legality | Warrantless search unlawful; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (limits on searches; reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Antobonedetto, 366 Mass. 51 (1974) (burden on Commonwealth to show warrant exception)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view requires incriminating character be immediately apparent)
- Commonwealth v. Balicki, 436 Mass. 1 (2002) (plain-view and inadvertence under art. 14)
- Commonwealth v. Stack, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 227 (2000) (plain-view discussion in Massachusetts)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits of search incident to arrest for vehicle)
- Commonwealth v. Brillante, 399 Mass. 152 (1987) (danger to officers not established when suspects at large)
- Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164 (1984) (abandonment depends on intent to relinquish control)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (abandonment in trash not privacy-protected)
- United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (1973) (abandonment and privacy interests from Fifth Circuit)