Commonwealth v. Vick
90 Mass. App. Ct. 622
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On May 9, 2007, Boston officers observed defendant Tyrone Vick in a parked car in an area known for drug activity; Officer Cazeau saw Vick with his pants down and penis exposed.
- Cazeau ordered the occupants not to move; Cianci (passenger) was arrested after a crack pipe was found; backup was summoned.
- During a pat-down of Vick, Officer Green felt a hard object in the cleft of Vick’s buttocks; Vick tensed, resisted, was handcuffed, and continued to struggle in the cruiser.
- At the station, Green obtained supervisory permission to conduct a strip search, offered Vick a chance to remove the object voluntarily, and when Vick refused, officers forcibly removed his pants; a plastic bag of crack cocaine protruding from the buttocks was pulled out without probing.
- Vick moved to suppress evidence from the stop, the scene search, and the station search; the motion judge denied suppression and Vick was convicted of possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the stop | Police had reasonable suspicion based on exposure and illegal parking | Stop unsupported because witness testimony conflicted materially | Stop valid: Cazeau's observation of indecent exposure (and parking violation) supplied reasonable suspicion |
| Search at the scene (pat-down) | Search was lawful incident to arrest for indecent exposure | Search exceeded scope or lacked justification | Search valid: probable cause to arrest existed; weapons search contemporaneous and lawful |
| Nature of station search: manual body cavity? | Officers performed a manual body cavity search requiring a warrant under Rodriques | Removal was not a manual body cavity search but a strip/visual search; no warrant required | Not a manual body cavity search; bag was in cleft and removed without probing, so Rodriques did not require a warrant |
| Reasonableness of force and policy compliance | Use of force (and Boston policy requiring warrant to apply force) made search unreasonable | High probable cause, private setting, minimal force, same‑gender officers, and resistance justified conduct | Search was reasonably conducted despite policy noncompliance; suppression not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (standard for investigative stops requiring reasonable suspicion)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (intrusive searches of the body generally require a warrant absent exigency)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (reasonableness of searches assessed by scope, manner, and place)
- Rodriques v. Furtado, 410 Mass. 878 (Mass. 1991) (manual body cavity searches require a judicial warrant in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Prophete, 443 Mass. 548 (Mass. 2005) (distinguishing strip/visual searches and requiring probable cause for intrusive searches)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403 (Mass. 1999) (definitions and limits of strip, visual, and manual body cavity searches)
- Commonwealth v. Morales, 462 Mass. 334 (Mass. 2012) (strip/visual search standards; manner and privacy considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395 (Mass. 2014) (standard of review for motion to suppress findings)