Com. v. Morales

• Decision Date: 17 February 1976
• Citation: 4 Mass.App.Ct. 779,341 N.E.2d 693
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Antonio MORALES.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 693

341 N.E.2d 693

4 Mass.App.Ct. 779

COMMONWEALTH

v. Antonio MORALES.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Argued Oct. 17, 1975.

Decided Feb. 17, 1976.

Thomas F. Sullivan, Melrose, for defendant.

John C. Fisher, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Commonwealth.

Before ROSE, KEVILLE and GOODMAN, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin and sundry narcotics utensils (i.e., a hypodermic needle, a syringe, and bottle cap cooker) in a trial held in the Superior Court without a jury. He received a six-month suspensed sentence on the conviction for unlawful possession of the heroin and a one-month sentence on the other charges and brings this case before us on a bill of exceptions. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the heroin and the narcotics paraphernalia on the ground that the search and seizure which produced these items was unlawful. At the hearing on the motion to suppress there was evidence that a purse snatching on a street in Worcester was reported to the police department of that city and that a police officer was immediately dispatched to the scene where the victim told him that the alleged thief was a 'youth' and that he 'fled into a red car.' An eyewitness also advised the officer that the assailant was a thinly built 'Spanish' youth, five feet four inches tall, wearing a fatigue jacket and green knit hat and that he escaped in a red and black Firebird. This information was broadcast in a general police bulletin after it had been transcribed by the investigating officer on to a dispatch card and transmitted to police headquarters. Officer Donald V. Ramsdell, of the Worcester Police Department, testified at the suppression hearing that while on patrol in his cruiser he heard a substantially more specific broadcast regarding the incident (containing among other things, the license number, make, year, and color and the name of the driver of the vehicle--a person already known to the police) which he relied on shortly thereafter to stop and search a red, 1967, Pontiac Firebird in which the defendant was riding with others. Subsequently, he discovered the narcotics in question in the defendant's jacket, which was found in the car. The Commonwealth offered no evidence at the suppression hearing as to the source of the information which was heard by Ramsdell additional to and different from that on the dispatch card. Commonwealth v. Antobenedetto, --- Mass. ---, --- - ---, ^a 315 N.E.2d 530, 534, (1974) (citing Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 564--569, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971)) holds that to support a finding of probable cause in a warrantless search, 'evidence must be adduced demonstrating that the police officer responsible for issuing the radio communication had reliable information that a crime had occurred and that the instrumentalities or evidence of that crime would be found in the vehicle described in the broadcast.' See also Commonwealth v. Dupont, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, ^b 317 N.E.2d 83 (1974); citing Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 221, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538 (1968). While there was some dispute at the suppression hearing regarding what...