Commonwealth v. White
12 N.E.3d 348
Mass.2014Background
- On April 13, 2007, Cambridge police stopped a vehicle whose registered owner (White) had outstanding arrest warrants: one for a G. L. c. 209A protective-order violation and one for a prior drug offense.
- Officer Bikofsky ordered White out, handcuffed and arrested him on the warrants, and conducted a pat frisk during which he found a labeled prescription pill container and a black opaque "One Touch" container containing pills.
- Bikofsky opened the "One Touch" container after shaking it and, later at the station, used an Internet medical site to identify the pills as ten-milligram methadone; White lacked a valid prescription and was charged with unlawful possession.
- Officer Hussey retrieved vehicle keys to secure the car and observed on the front passenger seat an unlabeled pill container with pills identical to those in the "One Touch" container.
- The District Court denied White’s suppression motion; White was convicted on stipulated facts. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and reversed, holding the searches and seizures exceeded lawful exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opening the "One Touch" container during search incident to arrest was lawful | Bikofsky: search incident to arrest permits examining objects found during patfrisk | White: search incident to arrest limited to weapons or evidence of the crime of arrest under G. L. c. 276, § 1 | Not lawful — search incident to arrest limited to weapons; opening for investigative ID exceeded scope |
| Whether using the pills for investigative identification at the station was permissible under inventory exception | Commonwealth: inventory authority allowed examination and comparison (including Internet) | White: inventory must be noninvestigatory; using pills to investigate transformed inventory into search | Not lawful — investigative comparison exceeded noninvestigatory inventory scope; warrant required |
| Whether Hussey-lawful vehicle entry and plain-view observation justified seizure of unlabeled container | Commonwealth: lawful entry to secure vehicle; plain view permitted seizure because pills plausibly related to outstanding drug warrant | White: plain-view seizure invalid because incriminating nature not immediately apparent and arrest was on past warrants | Not lawful — plain-view fails because incriminating character not immediately apparent and items not plausibly related to prior warrants |
| Whether evidence seized should be suppressed and conviction upheld | Commonwealth: exceptions justified seizure and post-arrest identification supports conviction | White: seizures violated G. L. c. 276, § 1 and art. 14/plain-view, requiring suppression | Held for White — suppression required; conviction vacated; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to arrest generally permits examination of items found on arrestee)
- Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159 (Legislative amendment limits searches incident to arrest under G. L. c. 276, § 1)
- Commonwealth v. Blevines, 438 Mass. 604 (search incident to arrest limited to weapons or evidence of the crime of arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537 (inventory searches lawful if noninvestigatory; investigative use of seized items invalidates exception)
- Commonwealth v. Clermy, 421 Mass. 325 (when arrest is on an old warrant, search incident to arrest limited to weapons)
- Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, 457 Mass. 300 (plain-view seizure requirements under Fourth Amendment and art. 14)