Commonwealth v. Antwan Lawson
79 Mass. App. Ct. 322
Appeals Court
April 25, 2011
Criminal, Evidence, Motion to Suppress, Vehicle, Standing, Trespasser
A jury convicted the defendant of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, the possession with intent to distribute near a school, and the use of a motor vehicle without authority. The defendant appealed these convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence taken from a search of his person and the vehicle. The Appeals Court affirmed the verdict.
Facts
At 9:30 P.M., two Boston Police Officers on patrol in their squad car drove down Dorchester Avenue in Dorchester and saw the defendant in the driver’s seat of a Dodge Charger sitting in a crosswalk. The defendant stopped the car in the crosswalk with its lights on and its motor running. The officer approached the defendant, who immediately became very visibly nervous and stalled in giving the officers his driver’s license. The defendant gave the officers a rental car agreement that only authorized a woman to drive the vehicle, which he was not. While attempting to obtain the defendant’s license, the officers also noted that the car “reeked” of air freshener, that there were six air fresheners hung throughout the vehicle, and that there was a large amount of cash wrapped up with credit cards and other I.D.’s sitting on the center console. The defendant finally gave the officers his driver’s license, which revealed that he had been driving with a revoked license.
The officers arrested the defendant due to driving with a revoked license. Due to their experience, the officers called for assistance from a drug-sniffing canine that found marijuana inside the interior lining of the roof.
Issue: Did the trial judge err in not suppressing the evidence?
The Appeals Court first noted that while the defendant had automatic standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search, he had no expectation of privacy. The defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the vehicle because he was not authorized to operate it, thus, he acted as a trespasser; a trespasser cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy. While this would normally end the analysis, the Appeals Court also noted that the Commonwealth did not make this argument at trial so therefore, it could not make this argument on appeal as it attempted. As to the merits of the search, the Appeals Court found that there was sufficient probable cause established by the totality of the circumstances.
Judgment Affirmed
Prepared by AAO
