Commonwealth v. Chown
459 Mass. 756 (2011)
Supreme Judicial Court
May 20, 2011
Drug Offense, Motion to Suppress Evidence, Constitutional Law
Defendant charged with drug offenses filed a motion to suppress evidence on the ground that his arrest and the subsequent search were unlawful. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion was granted. The Appeals Court reversed, further review was granted, and the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the motion.
Facts
On January 20, 2006, the defendant was driving home from his job as a bartender at a restaurant when he was stopped for speeding. As the officer approached the vehicle he noticed the rear window was broken and recognized the driver-defendant. The officer had eaten in the restaurant where the defendant worked several times, and had also responded to a call at the defendant’s house in 2005. When the officer asked for the defendant’s license, the defendant gave a valid Canadian license with a New Brunswick address. The officer knew the defendant previously had a Massachusetts license, and when he asked why he didn’t have one now, the defendant said he was planning to get one in the morning. The officer returned to his cruiser and ran a record check. The check confirmed that the defendant’s old Massachusetts license had expired and that the defendant had a history of motor vehicle violations dating back to 1989.
The officer arrested the defendant for operating a vehicle without a Massachusetts license. Because the rear window of the truck was damaged, the department’s written inventory policy required the officer to secure the vehicle and conduct a search. During the search the officer found a backpack containing drugs and two scales, along with credit cards, a check from the defendant’s account with a Massachusetts address, a piece of mail addressed to the defendant with the same Massachusetts address, and $6,355 in cash. The truck also had a “dump sticker” from 2002 on the window.
The defendant moved to suppress evidence discovered during the search of his vehicle on the ground that his arrest and the subsequent search were unlawful because he possessed a valid Canadian driver’s license, so he did not need a Massachusetts driver’s license when he was stopped. Defendant relied on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights for his claim. A Superior Court judge allowed the motion, and a divided panel of the Appeals Court reversed the order.
Issue 1: Did the officer have probable cause to make an arrest?
Operating a motor vehicle without a proper Massachusetts license is an arrestable offense, but G.L. c. 90, § 10 provides that “persons who are licensed in another state or country” and “nonresidents” do not need to have a Massachusetts driver’s license to drive legally in the Commonwealth for 30 calendar days. The SJC found that because the defendant provided the officer with a valid Canadian driver’s license he was claiming to be a resident of Canada. Even though the officer was familiar with the defendant and knew him to have lived and worked in Massachusetts for more than 30 days, the factors listed in G.L. c. 90, § 3 ½ (a) (whether a person is registered to vote in Massachusetts, receives public assistance, has homeowner’s liability insurance on property declared the principal residence, etc.) are the only ones that are determinative when deciding whether a person claiming to be a nonresident is in fact a resident of Massachusetts. Because the officer did not conduct an investigation to determine whether the defendant met any of the § 3 ½ (a) criteria, the defendant was still presumed to be driving legally as a nonresident, and there was no probable cause for arrest.
Order Allowing a Motion to Suppress Affirmed
Prepared by JC
