Commonwealth v. Norman Degray, June 25, 2010
Seizure, Probable Cause
The issue is whether police officers may reasonably search the trunk of an automobile where there was an odor of burnt marijuana in the vehicle, where the driver of the automobile admitted that he and the vehicle’s other occupants had been smoking marijuana in the automobile, and where two marijuana cigarettes as well as marijuana remnants were found in the passenger compartment. The Commonwealth had appealed from a Superior Court judge’s allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the trunk. The Appeals Court reversed.
Officer Rudinski spotted an automobile with inoperable rear lights and pulled it over. Three individuals were in the car. Rudinski smelled burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle. The driver admitted that he and his passengers had been smoking marijuana in the vehicle. Two other officers arrived. They searched the three individuals, finding no contraband. The officers found two marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray and marijuana on the rear passenger’ lap.
Testimony differed as to whether the officers could see directly into the trunk though the opening in the rear seat. The judge found that there was a plastic shield between the back seat and the trunk. A search of the trunk revealed a clear container containing marijuana, eight bags of cocaine, and ecstasy pills in a soup can.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in the trunk, which the judge granted because he found that the Commonwealth did not demonstrate probable cause to search the trunk. The judge relied on Commonwealth v. Garden, 451 Mass. 43 (2008) and held that the smell of burnt marijuana in the vehicle “does not support an inference that the occupants were transporting marijuana in the trunk. This is especially so in light of my findings that there was no clear opening from the backseat area to the trunk.”
Officers in Garden searched the trunk of the vehicle after smelling burnt marijuana on the clothing of the defendant, but not finding any contraband on any of the individuals in the car or in the passenger compartment. The Garden court held that the search of the trunk exceed the permissible scope of the search because the officer could not reasonably have believed that the source of the smell of burnt marijuana would be found in the trunk.
The Appeals Court distinguished this case from Garden. Here, the officers discovered contraband during the search of the passenger compartment. The Garden court had acknowledged that the discovery of contraband, even a small amount suggesting personal use, would extend the permissible scope of the search and give probable cause to search for additional controlled substances in the vicinity. Garden, supra at 53.
The discovery of contraband in the vehicle, as well as the driver’s admission to smoking marijuana in the vehicle, supported a connection between the contraband and the vehicle. The Appeals Court held that the scope of the search extending to the trunk was justified by the circumstances, and reversed the order allowing the motion to suppress.
- Prepared by AYK
