12 N.E.3d 1048
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Police responded to a 911 report that Jaemill Horton had pulled a gun and threatened someone; caller identified vehicle registration and that Horton had a pending court matter.
- Officers broadcast a lookout for a black Infiniti connected to the report.
- Officer Minnock spotted the vehicle ~1 hour later, observed furtive movements, and conducted a traffic stop.
- Horton and passenger Robert Rutledge exited and fled; a third occupant, Christopher Dozier, remained and was detained.
- Officers searched the vehicle for weapons, opened a backpack found on the rear seat, and seized a firearm and items identifying Rutledge.
- Defendants moved to suppress the firearm as the backpack search was warrantless; the judge granted the motions, concluding a preliminary patfrisk of the backpack was required and was not done.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers were required to perform a preliminary Terry patfrisk of the backpack before opening it | Commonwealth: patfrisk unnecessary because opening was needed to resolve safety concerns | Defendants: Terry requires a limited patfrisk of containers when it can reveal presence of a weapon; no patfrisk was done | Court: A preliminary patfrisk was required where it could have revealed whether a weapon was present; suppression affirmed |
| Whether observable features of the backpack made a patfrisk futile (i.e., opening was minimally necessary) | Commonwealth: backpack likely contained heavy/hard objects so patfrisk would be pointless | Defendants: no testimony showed weight, hardness, or other features making patfrisk inadequate | Court: No evidence that patfrisk would have been futile; officers did not testify to such features |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified bypassing a patfrisk | Commonwealth: rapidly evolving danger justified immediate opening | Defendants: no rapidly deteriorating situation; officers had opportunity to patfrisk | Court: No exigency shown; circumstances did not deprive officers of chance to patfrisk |
| Whether search could be upheld based on probable cause to arrest Horton (argument raised for first time on appeal) | Commonwealth (on appeal): officers had probable cause to arrest Horton, permitting search incident to arrest | Defendants: suppression proper; argument not raised below | Court: Did not consider this new argument because it was not raised in the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 440 Mass. 62 (2003) (explains Terry-container limits and when patfrisk is required)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642 (2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 461 Mass. 616 (2012) (patfrisk and officer testimony that backpack felt heavy/contained gun barrel justified search)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 419 (2013) (rapidly deteriorating situation can justify bypassing patfrisk)
- Commonwealth v. Flemming, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 632 (2010) (no patfrisk required when defendant cooperative and posed no threat)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehead, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 134 (2014) (officer patfrisked backpack after observing indicia of weapon before searching)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 124 (procedure precludes raising new suppression arguments on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 447 Mass. 631 (2006) (issues not raised below are ordinarily not considered on appeal)