Commonwealth v. Messiah Franklin, May 17, 2010
456 Mass. 818
The Commonwealth appealed from the decision of the trial court to allow the defendant’s motion to suppress the introduction of a firearm into evidence. The Appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling, and the SJC affirmed the ruling of the Appeals court.
While patrolling an area of Boston in an unmarked police car, four officers noticed the defendant and one other person standing outside talking. The car approached the defendant and when it came to a stop the defendant immediately began running away from the car. Two of the four officers pursued the defendant down the street and noticed that as the defendant was running he was holding his hand to his waist, and based on their experience the officers suspected he had a gun. Eventually the defendant ran into a six foot tall fence at which point he tossed the gun over the fence and was then seized while attempting to climb over the fence. The gun was recovered from the other side and the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm without a firearm ID and carrying a firearm with ammunition.
456 Mass. 818
The Commonwealth appealed from the decision of the trial court to allow the defendant’s motion to suppress the introduction of a firearm into evidence. The Appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling, and the SJC affirmed the ruling of the Appeals court.
While patrolling an area of Boston in an unmarked police car, four officers noticed the defendant and one other person standing outside talking. The car approached the defendant and when it came to a stop the defendant immediately began running away from the car. Two of the four officers pursued the defendant down the street and noticed that as the defendant was running he was holding his hand to his waist, and based on their experience the officers suspected he had a gun. Eventually the defendant ran into a six foot tall fence at which point he tossed the gun over the fence and was then seized while attempting to climb over the fence. The gun was recovered from the other side and the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm without a firearm ID and carrying a firearm with ammunition.
The defendant’s motion to suppress was based on the fact that the gun was obtained through an illegal search and seizure by the officers. The defendant argued that he was seized when the police began chasing after him, and that prior to this point the police had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the defendant. The Commonwealth argued that seizure did not occur until he was physically grabbed while attempting to climb the fence. The trial court agreed with the defendant and stated that because there was no justification for the stop the motion to suppress was allowed. This decision was reversed by the Appeals court, and the SJC granted the defendant’s requested for further appellate review.
The SJC stated that a challenge to evidence based on it being the result of an illegal seizure need first show that there actually was a seizure, and then if seizure has occurred, at precisely what point in time it occurred. The court noted that Massachusetts has rejected the 4th Amendment analysis of the United States Supreme Court in California v. Hodari 499 U.S. 621, 624 (1991), as it relates to art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In Hodari the USSC found that a person who flees a lawful show of authority is “seized” only when the police actually detain the person. However, in Massachusetts a police pursuit of an individual that sufficiently indicates a person is not free to leave may be considered a seizure. The court went on to say that in Massachusetts the finding of whether a pursuit constituted a seizure requires a very fact specific analysis, however in this case because the police did not command the defendant to stop and that they did not block or impede the defendant’s path, this pursuit was not a seizure. The SJC found that seizure did not occur until the defendant was apprehended and that at that time the officers had a reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause that the crime of carrying an illegal firearm had been committed.
