43 N.E.3d 327
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Police stopped a van after a theft victim used a cellphone GPS tracker and gave the vehicle plate; officer learned the van’s registration had been revoked.
- Officer performed a felony-style stop, ordered driver (Ubilez) out with gun drawn; Ubilez complied, was handcuffed and Mirandized.
- Officer observed purses in plain view; search of the van (prior to formal warrant) uncovered purses, multiple cellphones, laptops, tools used to break car windows, and credit cards in victims’ names.
- Van was towed and inventoried pursuant to the Burlington Police Department motor vehicle inventory policy.
- Ubilez was charged with multiple offenses; convicted of two counts of receiving stolen property (>$250) and one count of receiving a stolen credit card; motor-vehicle charge was nolle prosequi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ubilez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless vehicle search was saved by the inevitable discovery doctrine | Inventory of an impounded unregistered vehicle was certain as a practical matter; inventory policy would have produced the items | Search was not inevitable; officer’s conduct (excessive force) tainted discovery | Inevitable discovery applies; evidence admissible |
| Whether arrest/search could be justified as incident to arrest for operating with revoked registration (G. L. c. 90, § 23) | Officer had probable cause to stop and arrest for revoked registration, permitting search incident to arrest | Operating with revoked registration is not an arrestable offense absent statutory authorization or misdemeanor breach-of-peace exception; here neither applied | No statutory authority to arrest for § 23; arrest not justified as search-incident to arrest on these facts |
| Whether excessive force by officer defeats inevitable discovery | Commonwealth: no bad faith or attempt to circumvent warrant requirement; discovery would have occurred via impound/inventory | Force was excessive and coercive, so discovery is tainted and inevitable-discovery doctrine should not apply | Excessive force, even if accepted, did not show bad faith sufficient to defeat inevitable discovery here |
| Sufficiency of evidence for receiving stolen property convictions | Evidence (GPS tracking, eyewitness discarding bag, items in plain view and inventory) supports possession and knowledge of stolen goods | Evidence insufficient to tie Ubilez to possession/knowledge | Evidence was sufficient; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 406 Mass. 112 (discusses two-step inevitable discovery analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Perrot, 407 Mass. 539 (application of O'Connor inevitability framework)
- Commonwealth v. Daley, 423 Mass. 747 (unregistered vehicles must be impounded)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits searches incident to vehicle arrests to circumstances where arrestee can access vehicle or vehicle contains evidence of offense)
- Commonwealth v. Perkins, 465 Mass. 600 (no reasonable basis to search vehicle for evidence of motor-vehicle licensing offenses)