March 10, 2011
Commonwealth v. Eddington
Docket No. 10716
Supreme Judicial Court
Constitutional Law, Search and Seizure, Motor Vehicle, Firearms
Facts: Police officers observed defendants leave a party in a high crime area, enter a car with bottles of beer, and drive away. The officers followed, pulled them over, and noticed open beer bottles when asking for license and registration. The defendant-driver stated that he had neither a license nor the car’s registration. After confirming that the defendant’s license had been suspended, the officers arrested the defendant-driver. Since it was 4:30 am, officers decided not to notify the car’s owner immediately and to impound the car since it was located in a high crime area and they feared it would be stolen or vandalized if left there. Officers ordered the defendant-passenger out of the car, performed an inventory search, found a loaded revolved under the front passenger seat, and arrested the defendant-passenger.
The trial judge concluded that the decision to impound the car was not justified and suppressed the firearm evidence. The Appeals Court reversed.
Issue 1: Is each defendant in a multiple defendant criminal case required to file a timely application for appellate review pursuant to Bradford v. Baystate Med. Ctr., 415 Mass. 202 (1993)?
Yes. A defendant may not rely on the timely filing of his co-defendant to preserve his issues on appeal.
Issue 2: Did the impoundment of the car meet the constitutional strictures required to make the impoundment proper?
Yes. The impoundment of a car for non-investigatory reasons is justified if supported by (1) public safety concerns or (2) danger of theft or vandalism of the vehicle if left unattended. These determinations are fact-based and judged on a reasonableness standard. This rule serve the interests of protecting the vehicle from harm, the police from false charges, and the public from dangerous items which might be in the vehicle
The requirements for a proper impoundment are satisfied where, as here, the police dictate the location of the stop, the owner is not present at the scene, and there is no one at the scene who is currently capable or known to be authorized to drive the vehicle. This is distinguishable from Comm. v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609 (2003), where the SJC held that the government cannot impound a car based on arrest of the owner where it is legally parked and there is no indication of a safety hazard or risk of theft or vandalism.
The requirements for a proper impoundment are satisfied where, as here, the police dictate the location of the stop, the owner is not present at the scene, and there is no one at the scene who is currently capable or known to be authorized to drive the vehicle. This is distinguishable from Comm. v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609 (2003), where the SJC held that the government cannot impound a car based on arrest of the owner where it is legally parked and there is no indication of a safety hazard or risk of theft or vandalism.
Additionally, officers have no constitutional duty to contact the owner before impounding the car, and their reasons for not doing so in this case were reasonable.
Concurrence:
The impoundment was reasonable in this case, but (1) police should have to follow standard written procedures as to whether to conduct an inventory search, and (2) this decision does not state that a vehicle may be reasonably impounded whenever its owner is not present at the scene.
--Prepared by RAA
