Commonwealth v. Pachecco
464 Mass. 768
Procedural History
The District Court Department, Lynn
Division, Essex County, Stacey Fortes Whites, J., denied defendant’s pretrial
motion to suppress evidence obtained from a trunk of vehicle after traffic
stop. The District Court judge determined that after a trooper smelled freshly
burnt marijuana and was directed to a small bag of marijuana on the floor of
the vehicle, he had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed
and that evidence of that crime could be found in the trunk.
Defendant filed application for
leave to appeal pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a)(2). A single justice of
the Supreme Judicial Court, Gants, J., allowed the defendant’s application for this
interlocutory appeal. After granting direct appellate review, the Supreme
Judicial Court, Duffly, J., held that the trooper did not have probable cause
to believe that a criminal amount of contraband or evidence of a crime could be
found in the trunk, and therefore the order denying the motion to suppress must
be reversed.
Factual Summary
While the
trooper was patrolling the Heritage State Park in Lynn around 9:50 P.M., he
observed a single vehicle in the parking lot: the defendant’s car was parked in
a handicapped parking space without a handicapped placard or special
registration plate. When the trooper approached the driver’s side window, the
occupants lowered the windows on that side, and the trooper smelled the strong
odor of freshly burnt marijuana from inside. He asked the driver to produce a
license and registration, and informed the occupants that they were in the park
after hours in violation of Department of Conservation and Recreation
regulations. He asked the occupants if they had been smoking marijuana, and
heard several yeses from them.
Responding to the trooper’s
question whether there was still any marijuana in the vehicle, one occupant
admitted that there was still a small amount inside. The trooper ordered the
occupants to step out of the vehicle, one at a time, and conducted a search of
each for weapons and contraband. He found neither on any of the occupants.
During this search, a rear seat passenger informed the trooper that there was a
bag of marijuana on the floor mat behind the front passenger seat. Subsequently
the trooper found a clear plastic bag contained a partial ounce of what
appeared to be marijuana. He continued to search the interior of the vehicle
for contraband but found nothing. He then opened the trunk and found a black
backpack, which he opened and searched. The trooper recovered a semiautomatic
handgun inside the backpack. As the trooper inquired about the gun, the
defendant admitted that the gun was his. The trooper handcuffed each of the
occupants and read them the Miranda warnings. He asked the owner of the weapon
to produce FID card. The defendant repeated that the weapon was his, along with
the backpack and the marijuana, but he did not produce FID card.
The Supreme Judicial Court held
that the trooper did not have probable cause to believe that a criminal amount
of contraband or evidence of a crime could be found in the trunk because the
Court reasoned that an officer smelling freshly burnt marijuana inside a stopped
vehicle, and an occupant surrendering a noncriminal amount of marijuana, did
not support probable cause to search further. Without articulable facts to
support that any occupant of the vehicle possessed a criminal amount of
marijuana, the search was not justified by the need to search for contraband.
The Court also determined that the occupants’ sharing marijuana did not support
probable cause to believe that they were engaged in criminal distribution of
marijuana in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32C (a) because the social sharing of
marijuana does not constitute distribution in violation of that statute. As to
the defendant’s statements to police regarding ownership of the handgun and
other contraband, because the statements were made after they were found in the
trunk, the Court held that the statements were in response to, and a result of,
the illegal search.
Conclusion
Therefore, the motion to suppress,
as to both the weapon recovered from the trunk of the vehicle and the
defendant’s statements to police, should have been allowed.
Written 6/30/2013
