94 N.E.3d 869
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Police investigating a suspected heroin distributor "Johnny" conducted controlled buys; an informant and a cooperating runner identified Jorge Polanco as "Johnny."
- On May 2013, the runner went to 48 Rogers Street; police converged when they observed a hand-to-hand sale in the driveway.
- Officers spotted Polanco inside an open garage; he fled through the garage and yard; officers chased and arrested him near a neighbor's shed. Two bags containing 19.06 grams of heroin were recovered near the shed; Polanco had a cell phone and over $1,100.
- Polanco was arraigned in Lowell District Court on May 8, 2013; the District Court dismissed charges for failure to prosecute after ~2 months.
- More than a year later (August 7, 2014) a Middlesex grand jury indicted Polanco; he was arraigned in Superior Court August 13, 2014, moved to dismiss under Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b) and moved to suppress; both motions denied and he was convicted by a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time in District Court counts toward Rule 36(b) 12-month clock | Commonwealth: Rule 36(b) clock begins on return day in court where case awaits trial (Superior Court arraignment) | Polanco: Clock should start at District Court arraignment (May 8, 2013), so Rule 36(b) time expired | Held: Rule 36(b) excludes time while case was pending in District Court; clock starts at Superior Court arraignment (Aug 13, 2014) |
| Validity of warrantless entry/search into garage (exigent circumstances) | Commonwealth: Officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances once Polanco fled toward garage area; entry was necessary to prevent flight/destruction of evidence | Polanco: Entry unlawful; police created exigency by their approach and could have obtained a warrant | Held: Entry justified — probable cause existed and rapidly unfolding flight created unforeseeable exigency; not a manufactured exigency here |
| Whether doctrine of manufactured exigency bars entry | Commonwealth: Officers did not foresee or create the exigency; they were confronting people in driveway and only discovered Polanco inside garage when he fled | Polanco: Police foreseeably could have obtained a warrant and thus created exigency | Held: Molina/Forde manufactured-exigency standard not met; police had justifiable excuse for not obtaining a warrant under the facts |
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking (constructive possession) | Commonwealth: Drugs found where defendant fled; informant/runner ID’d him as distributor; large cash and role as distributor support constructive possession | Polanco: No direct proof he possessed or threw the heroin | Held: Evidence sufficient — presence, flight toward stash area, cash, and other inculpatory evidence support constructive possession and trafficking conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Denehy, 466 Mass. 723 (addresses Rule 36(b) tolling and relation to court dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 464 Mass. 706 (constitutional speedy trial: start date at District Court complaint)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 470 Mass. 740 (standard of review for suppression and exigent-circumstances analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Molina, 439 Mass. 206 (manufactured exigency doctrine and limits on warrantless entries)
- Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798 (foreseeability/manufactured exigency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 469 Mass. 516 (Rule 36(b) time computed from Superior Court arraignment post-District Court proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Lauria, 411 Mass. 63 (Rule 36 as docket-management tool)