Commonwealth v. Daniel
985
N.E.2d 843 (Mass. 2013)
SJC-11214
The defendant, Clint Daniel, and his companion, Alyson
Tayetto were charged with multiple firearms offenses as a result of a
warrantless vehicle search. The
defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence that was granted by the trial
court. The Commonwealth requested and
was granted leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal to the Appeals
Court. The Appeals Court granted the
defendant’s request for further appellate review and reversed the judge’s
suppression of the evidence. The Supreme
Judicial Court reversed the Appeals Court’s decision.
At approximately 3:40 A.M., a Boston police officer was
patrolling the Dorchester area when he noticed the defendant’s SUV had a
nonfunctioning headlight. The officer
then witnessed the driver turn without using a directional signal. The officer turned his siren on and Tayetto abruptly
stopped the SUV in the middle of the left travel lane. The officer approached the passenger side of
the SUV where the officer saw Daniel rocking side to side. The officer noticed the smell of freshly
burnt marijuana and inquired about the smell.
The officer then asked the defendants if any marijuana was in the
car. Tayetto presented two small bags
from her clothes and the defendant emptied his pockets and placed the following
items on the dashboard: a passport, keys, and a folding knife. The defendant emptied his pockets without
request. Based on the smell of marijuana
and the defendant’s movements, he asked the defendants to step out the car. The officer searched them for drugs and
weapons but no contraband was found. The
officer then searched the SUV’s glove compartment and discovered a firearm.
The primary issue raised was whether the officer’s search
was permissible. The Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts evaluated four (4) sub-issues to determine whether the
evidence should be suppressed.
Probable Cause
The Commonwealth argued that the officer had probable
cause to search for additional contraband based on the driver’s discovery of
two small bags of marijuana. A small
amount of marijuana is a civil charge.
In order to conduct a warrantless search, there must be signs of
criminal contraband. “Absent articulable
facts supporting a belief that either occupant possessed a criminal amount of
marijuana, the search was not justified by the need to search for contraband.” Based on this ground, the officer lacked
probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle.
Officer’s Safety
An officer may conduct a search “proportional to the
degree of suspicion that prompted it” if a reasonable person would be warranted
in the belief his safety was in danger.The Commonwealth argued that the officer’s
safety was in danger due to the time of night, the number of occupants, the
defendant’s movements, the defendant emptying his pockets without request, and
a noncriminal amount of marijuana. The
Supreme Court held that since the officer allowed the driver to move the
vehicle without asking Daniel to exit and left the knife on the dashboard, his
actions failed to support a “heightened awareness of danger.” Where the officer had little information
to suggest the defendants were armed or dangerous, his extensive search was not
“proportional to the degree of suspicion that prompted it.” In
conclusion, concern for the officer’s safety did not support the search of the
vehicle for weapons.
Under the Influence
The Commonwealth argued this for the first time in front
of the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth
did not raise this argument in its opposition to the motion to suppress, or in
its motion for reconsideration, nor were any questions at the evidentiary
hearing specifically focused on that issue.This court reasoned that a driver may be
found to have been “under the influence” when her consumption “diminishe[s] [her]
ability to operate a motor vehicle safely." The Commonwealth elicited no testimony that
the driver showed any signs of impairment during their encounter. The officer failed to mention any physical or
mental acuity. In fact, the officer
asked her to move the vehicle after the opportunity of evaluating whether she
had a diminished capacity. In
conclusion, the search was not justified by concern that the driver was driving
under the influence of marijuana.
Public Safety
The Commonwealth argued that the officer was “duty-bound”
to conduct the search to ensure that the occupants would not smoke marijuana
while driving. This claim that the
driver had ingested marijuana before driving and while driving prior to the
officer’s stop was unsubstantiated and had not been raised before. This court declined to consider this
rationale because it was not supported by the findings of the motion judge.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the motion to
suppress evidence.
Written 7/15/2013
