Commonwealth v. Young, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 548

At ~10:00 p.m. police responded to a shot spotter activation at 65 Winthrop St in Dorchester; no shots found.
At ~10:25 p.m. a blue Cadillac was signaled to stop; the driver, Dobson, eyed the other occupants; a glassine baggie protruded from Dobson’s pocket containing four pills identified as Ecstasy.
Dobson was arrested; the defendant (a front-seat passenger) remained in the vehicle; the officers ordered the defendant to exit.
The defendant tensed up and hesitated as he exited; he stood partly outside the vehicle with hands inside; he failed to immediately comply with officer commands.
During a patfrisk of the defendant, he stated that he had a gun in his waistband, and the gun was recovered from his waistband.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence and statements; the motion judge denied suppression; the Commonwealth’s theory was that the exit order and ensuing patfrisk were lawful as part of a vehicle search incident to arrest and a safety frisk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the exit order and search were lawful given the Dobson arrest	Defendant; no independent basis to order exit or search	Dobson’s arrest did not justify searching the vehicle or passengers	Yes; lawful as part of vehicle search incident to arrest and safety concerns
Whether the patfrisk of the defendant was justified	Police actions after exit order posed danger; patfrisk proper	No basis for frisk beyond exit order	Yes; justified by reasonable apprehension of danger from defendant's conduct
Whether the vehicle search incident to arrest was permissible	Authorized to prevent destruction of evidence; passenger compartment included	Dobson’s arrest did not justify search of vehicle as to passengers	Yes; search permissible under Chimel/Thorton framework and related authorities

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (a passenger may challenge stop of a vehicle)
Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009) (vehicle stop justified by stop of vehicle; passenger may challenge exit order)
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest limited by Chimel and reachability; rationale for search when arrestee unsecured)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (baseline for search-incident-to-arrest authorities)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 410 Mass. 737 (1991) (scope of search incident to arrest in Massachusetts)
Commonwealth v. Ciaramitaro, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 638 (2001) (plain-view discovery can change the encounter’s nature; informs stop/search decisions)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 449 Mass. 476 (2007) (passengers’ rights in stopped motor vehicles; exit orders considerations)
Commonwealth v. Correia, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 174 (2006) (vehicle search to facilitate narcotics search; exit order to passenger relevant)
Commonwealth v. Madera, 402 Mass. 156 (1988) (searches tied to probability and participation in crime; bag searches permissible under certain theories)
Commonwealth v. Garden, 451 Mass. 43 (2008) (passenger compartment searches within automobile-exception rationale)