Commonwealth v. Sanders, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 660

On July 5, 2013, Officer Paul Holey (20-year veteran narcotics investigator) observed a green SUV parked in an area known for "car meet" street‑level drug sales; the vehicle's sole occupant had just used a cell phone.
Officer Holey saw defendant Emery Sanders approach the passenger window, reach into the vehicle with a "passing motion," withdraw his hand quickly, and walk away; Holey recognized Sanders from prior arrests for cocaine distribution.
Money (three $50 bills, later $801 total) was visible in Sanders's pocket; Holey called him over, removed the bills, conducted a patfrisk, found a large folding knife (illegal under local ordinance), and arrested him; Sanders then told officers he had drugs in his shoe.
Station search revealed three twists of crack cocaine and one twist of heroin on July 5; on July 12, following arrest on a probation warrant, officers recovered additional twists of cocaine. State lab chemists confirmed the substances.
Sanders moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure/search, arguing the officer lacked probable cause because no exchange or furtive movement was observed; he also raised ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal for failing to cross‑examine a chemist about weight discrepancies.
The motion judge denied suppression; the Appeals Court affirmed, holding the officer had probable cause and rejecting the ineffective assistance claim on the record presented.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Sanders's Argument	Held
Whether officer had probable cause to arrest/search without seeing an object exchanged	Officer Holey’s observation—known drug area, a vehicle matching a "car meet," defendant reached into car making a passing motion, defendant known as prior drug arrestee, visible cash—permitted a reasonable inference an exchange occurred	No probable cause because officer did not observe an actual exchange or furtive hand‑to‑hand movements; only two Santaliz factors present	Held: Probable cause existed. Combined factual context plus officer's experience and defendant’s prior arrests allowed an inference of an exchange consistent with Stewart and Santaliz factors
Whether evidence seized July 12 is fruit of unlawful July 5 arrest/search	July 5 arrest was supported by probable cause, so subsequent arrest/search and evidence were not fruit of poisonous tree	Evidence from July 12 should be suppressed if July 5 seizure was unlawful	Held: July 5 seizure lawful; July 12 evidence not fruit of poisonous tree
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not cross‑examining chemist about weight discrepancy	No prejudice shown; factual basis disputed and claim not properly developed on direct appeal	Counsel was ineffective for failing to highlight alleged discrepancy between narcotics weight and packaging weight	Held: Claim not resolved on direct appeal; record does not show undisputed basis for ineffective assistance, so no relief granted

Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause assessed by practical, everyday considerations)
Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238 (1992) (nonexclusive factors for probable cause in street‑level drug transactions)
Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703 (1998) (seeing an exchange is significant but not required; prior arrests bolster inference)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 469 Mass. 257 (2014) (officer’s observations must support inference that parties exchanged an object)
Commonwealth v. Ilya I., 470 Mass. 625 (2015) (application of Stewart principles)
Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (2009) (addressing legality of patfrisk under officer safety, not probable cause to arrest)
Commonwealth v. Coronel, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 906 (2007) (probable cause where brief vehicle interaction plus defendant’s drug history supported inference of an exchange)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 376 Mass. 349 (1978) (probable cause need not rely on evidence admissible on guilt issue)
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 448 (2015) (applying Santaliz factors)