Com. v. Robbins
Decision Date | 03 April 1990 |
Citation | 407 Mass. 147,552 N.E.2d 77 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Bobby N. ROBBINS (and seven companion cases 1 ). |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Brett J. Vottero, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.
William R. Hill, Jr., Committee for Public Counsel Services, for defendants.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
A grand jury in Hampden County indicted the defendants, Bobby N. Robbins and Jimmy L. Crapps, for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to possess cocaine, and possession of cocaine. Prior to trial, each defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by the police from a silver Cadillac automobile in the early morning hours of August 24, 1987. After a hearing, a judge in the Superior Court allowed the defendants' motions to suppress. A single justice of this court allowed the Commonwealth's application for leave to take an interlocutory appeal and reported the appeal to this court. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(b)(2), 378 Mass. 882, 884 (1979). We reverse the order suppressing the evidence and remand these cases to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
After hearing, the judge found the following facts. At approximately 1:30 A.M. on August 24, 1987, while on routine patrol in central Massachusetts, State Trooper Leonard P. Sansoucy, an experienced drug officer, saw a silver Cadillac automobile with a nonoperational headlight. The trooper turned on his flashing overhead lights; the Cadillac stopped in the breakdown lane. Sansoucy approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked the driver for his license and the registration.
Robbins, the driver, said he did not have a license, and never had one. He removed the registration from the glove compartment. It revealed that the Cadillac automobile was registered to Crapps, the passenger. Crapps produced a valid license. Robbins told the trooper he was driving because Crapps felt too ill to drive.
The trooper returned to his car for a records check. The check revealed that there were no outstanding warrants for Crapps and that the registration was correct. The trooper also learned that there was an outstanding warrant for Robbins and that his license had been suspended. Sansoucy called for assistance and within a few minutes Trooper Theodore B. Condon arrived.
The two troopers then approached the Cadillac automobile, each on a different side of the automobile. Sansoucy went to the driver's side and ordered Robbins to get out of the automobile. After a "patdown," Robbins was arrested for operating after suspension of his license and on the outstanding warrant. Robbins was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of Sansoucy's cruiser. Sansoucy gave Robbins the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and satisfied himself that Robbins understood the warnings. 2 Robbins then told Sansoucy that he and Crapps drove to New Jersey to see Crapps's ill brother. However, Robbins could not give Crapps's brother's name or the name of the New Jersey town where Crapps's brother lived.
Sansoucy determined that Crapps could leave and returned to the passenger side of the automobile, where Condon was standing to see whether Crapps was well enough to drive. At the vehicle, Condon told Sansoucy that he had seen a brown-handled object 3 wedged into a crack in the cushion of the front seat in the area between the passenger seat where Crapps was sitting and the driver's seat. Condon thought the brown-handled object was a weapon.
The troopers ordered Crapps out of the Cadillac. Crapps cooperated; he got out and went to the rear of the automobile. Sansoucy then went to the driver's side of the automobile with a lit flashlight. He opened the door of the automobile to check on the brown-handled object. On opening the door, Sansoucy saw a glass tube protruding from under the driver's seat. He removed the glass tube from the automobile. The glass tube was white at the top and blackened toward the bottom and had a wire mesh attached to the top. Sansoucy knew from his experience as a drug officer that the glass tube was a "crack" cooker. 4 As Sansoucy removed the glass tube, he saw and also removed a single-edged razor blade from under the driver's seat. Sansoucy continued to investigate the brown-handled object wedged in the front seat and removed it. The object was a nine-inch serrated knife with a brown handle. At that point, Crapps also was arrested.
The troopers made a brief inventory search according to State police policy and made arrangements to have the Cadillac towed. Condon went to the passenger side of the front seat and found another "crack" cooker. The troopers then recited the Miranda warnings to Crapps. See note 2, supra. Crapps told the officers that he went to New Jersey to visit his sick brother. He also could not tell the officers his brother's name or the name of the town in New Jersey where his brother lived.
After the troopers took Crapps and Robbins to the station, Sansoucy applied for a warrant to search the automobile. Based on what they already had found, the officers obtained a search warrant. In the course of executing the warrant, the officers found sixty-eight glassine packets containing heroin.
The judge ruled that "[t]he existence of a weapon near Crapps could have constituted a danger, but that danger ceased when Crapps got out of the vehicle and went to its rear...." He concluded that it was not illegal to have a bread knife in the automobile and noted that "[n]o threat was ever made." Crapps, like Robbins, was "cooperative" and "[b]oth ... were removed from the knife where a danger might have existed." 5 The judge concluded that Sansoucy's action in opening the door of the vehicle which produced the first "crack" cooker was unjustified and that the items found thereafter were all based on the unjustified opening of the vehicle door. He ordered all the evidence found in the automobile suppressed. The Commonwealth appealed. We reverse.
The Commonwealth does not contend that the original stop permitted a search for the purpose of seizing "fruits, instrumentalities, contraband and or other evidence of the crime for which an arrest [had] been made." G.L. c. 276, § 1 (1988 ed.). The Commonwealth also does not contest the principle that, because the initial search was made without a warrant, it has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the search. Commonwealth v. Sumerlin, 393 Mass. 127, 128-129 n. 1, 469 N.E.2d 826 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1193, 105 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed.2d 975 (1985); Commonwealth v. Antobenedetto, 366 Mass. 51, 57, 315 N.E.2d 530 (1974). Rather, the Commonwealth argues that the initial search was a reasonably necessary lawful protective search. We agree.
"Our appellate function requires that we make our own independent determination on the correctness of the judge's 'application of constitutional principles to the facts as found....' " Commonwealth v. Haas, 373 Mass. 545, 550, 369 N.E.2d 692 (1977), quoting Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1242, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), quoting the separate opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 507, 73 S.Ct. 397, 446, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Moses
... ... Fitzgibbons, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 301, 306, 502 N.E.2d 142 (1986), citing United States v. Harley, 682 F.2d 398 (2d Cir.1982). In a justified stop, officers may take reasonable precautions for their own safety, including "ordering occupants out of a car for questioning." Commonwealth v. Robbins, 407 Mass. 147, 151-152, 552 N.E.2d 77 (1990), quoting Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 376 Mass. 502, 505, 381 N.E.2d 141 (1978), citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, 333, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Police officers are "not required to gamble with their personal safety." Id. 407 ... ...
-
Com. v. Joe
...to learn whether ... [Joe was] armed." Commonwealth v. Silva, supra at 408, 318 N.E.2d 895. See also Commonwealth v. Robbins, 407 Mass. 147, 149, 152, 552 N.E.2d 77 (1990) (protective search for weapons that was limited to suspicious object seen in crack in front seat was In this situation,......
-
Com. v. Gonsalves
...drivers out of their vehicles. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 376 Mass. 502, 505, 381 N.E.2d 141 (1978); Commonwealth v. Robbins, 407 Mass. 147, 151, 552 N.E.2d 77 (1990); Commonwealth v. Moses, 408 Mass. 136, 142, 557 N.E.2d 14 (1990); Commonwealth v. Lantigua, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 526, 52......
-
Com. v. Torres
...on the correctness of the judge's application of constitutional principles to the facts as found." Commonwealth v. Robbins, 407 Mass. 147, 151, 552 N.E.2d 77 (1990) (internal citations and quotations omitted). On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient information to justif......