Commonwealth v. Villagran, 477 Mass. 711

Background

On March 25, 2015 a nonstudent (Jonathan Villagran) attempted to enter Milton High School shortly before dismissal; school staff detained him in a conference room after suspicious behavior and the smell of marijuana.
School officials called police; Sergeant Murphy arrived, observed marijuana odor and the defendant’s nervousness, requested his name, and conducted a patfrisk after asking him to stand.
Murphy recovered marijuana and a wad of cash from the defendant’s clothing; she then patted the exterior of his backpack, felt a hard object, opened the bag over the defendant’s objection, and found a loaded handgun and other items.
Villagran was charged with multiple firearms and drug offenses and disturbing a school; he moved to suppress statements and physical evidence seized during the frisk and bag search, which the trial judge denied.
The jury convicted; Villagran appealed the suppression ruling and challenged sufficiency of evidence for disturbing a school; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed de novo the legal issues and accepted factual findings absent clear error.
The court held the police frisk and backpack search were not supported by reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause (and no warrant exception applied), vacated the firearms and drug convictions, and vacated and remanded the disturbing-a-school conviction for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Villagran's Argument	Held
Was the patfrisk by a police officer justified under Terry reasonable suspicion?	Officer reasonably suspected criminality and dangerousness given attempted entry, school officials’ alarm, odor of marijuana, defendant’s nervousness.	No reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity or that defendant was armed/dangerous; school officials’ hunches were insufficient.	Frisk was unjustified: officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion of crime and that defendant was armed/dangerous.
Was the backpack search permissible (probable cause or exception to warrant requirement)?	Opening bag reasonable after feeling a hard object on exterior and concerns for safety.	No probable cause; the patfrisk that produced the felt hard object was unlawful, so the bag search was tainted and without an applicable exception (no lawful arrest).	Search invalid: no probable cause and no applicable warrant exception (search-incident-to-arrest inapplicable).
Does T.L.O.'s lesser school-search standard apply to police conducting searches in schools?	(Implicitly) school safety concerns justify relaxed scrutiny in school setting when students at risk.	Police searches in schools must follow traditional Fourth Amendment standards; T.L.O. applies to school officials acting alone.	T.L.O. does not apply to police acting in school; traditional Terry/probable cause framework controls.
Was the evidence sufficient to support disturbing a school conviction despite suppression error?	Lockdown and disruption were natural/probable consequences of bringing a loaded firearm onto campus; sufficient evidence.	Possession of a concealed firearm absent threatening conduct is insufficient to prove disturbance.	Evidence could have supported conviction, but because firearm evidence should have been suppressed, the conviction is vacated and remanded for retrial.

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing reasonable, articulable suspicion standard for frisks)
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (permitting a lesser reasonableness standard for searches by school officials)
Commonwealth v. Narcisse, 457 Mass. 1 (applying Terry standard in Massachusetts)
Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676 (probable cause and warrant requirements for police searches)
Commonwealth v. Bohmer, 374 Mass. 368 (defining elements of disturbance of a school)