Commonwealth v. Steven M. Lahey (October 12th, 2011)
Docket No. 10-P-568
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Facts: The police officer from Norton was in Attleboro escorting an ambulance. On his way back, while still in Attleboro, he noticed the defendant speeding and passing cars in a no-passing zone. The defendant’s car drove into oncoming traffic in front of the police cruiser, forcing the police officer to drive off the road in order to avoid a collision. The officer let his dispatcher know to notify Attleboro police and pursued the suspect. After a chase he finally pulled him over. The Attleboro police arrived right after and proceeded to do the investigation that led to the charges. The judge rules that the stop had been made to prevent a fatal accident.
Issue #1: Was the admission of the evidence valid since the stop lacked jurisdictional authority?
Yes. Police officers are not allowed to act outside of their jurisdiction, unless they are specifically authorized by statute, or in the performance of a valid citizen arrest at common law. Here, the judge found that these exceptions did not qualify, but the inevitable discovery exception does. The facts indicate that there was a practical certainty that the defendant would be discovered by Attleboro police. He was swerving onto on-coming traffic and passing cars in a no-pass zone. The Norton police officer pulled him over a quarter to a half mile after initially spotting the driver, and the Attleboro police arrived only 30 seconds after the officer took the defendant’s keys and driver’s license. The Attleboro officers also testified that they reach the scene within a minute of hearing the dispatch. The judge also accepted that the officer was acting in good faith, and his goal was not to arrest the defendant and gather evidence, but to remove him from the highway and prevent an accident.
Issue #2: Was the motion to suppress based on newly discovered evidence introduced too late?
Yes. The tape that the defense wants to bring in was easily discoverable in the original motion, but the defense did not present the motion until 8 months after the judge initially ruled on the original motion to suppress the evidence, and only 5 weeks before trial began. Even though the renewal motion was very late, the court still looked at the contents of the tape and the ambiguities that it offers do not show clear evidence that would affect the judge’s decision. The information on the tape does indicate however that the Attleboro police would be more likely to discover the vehicle based on the officer’s descriptions.
Conclusion: Appeals court agrees with the motion judge. The test for the inevitable discovery exception is one of practical certainty, not absolute certainty, and it is fulfilled here. And as for the tape, it would actually strengthen the prosecution’s case and substantial justice did not require the allowance of the motion to renew based on the new evidence.
Prepared by KP
