Commonwealth v. Fisher

• Decision Date: 22 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–P–837.,13–P–837.
• Citation: 13 N.E.3d 629,86 Mass. App. Ct. 48
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Cyrus S. FISHER.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

86 Mass.App.Ct. 48

13 N.E.3d 629

COMMONWEALTH

v.Cyrus S. FISHER.

No. 13–P–837.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

Argued May 9, 2014.

Decided July 22, 2014.

Michael J. Russo, III, Assistant District Attorney(Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.

Leah R. Kunkel, Northampton, for the defendant.

Present: COHEN, SIKORA, & AGNES, JJ.

Opinion

AGNES, J.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of a District Court judge allowing the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.SeeMass.R.Crim.P. 15, as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501(1996).The judge found, on the basis of the undisputed evidence, that the police were lawfully engaged in a community caretaking function when they responded to a report

that a person in a car may be either having a seizure or suffering from a drug overdose.What followed, as the facts below indicate, was the discovery of evidence indicating that the person in the vehicle, later identified as the defendant, Cyrus S. Fisher, possessed cocaine, a Class B controlled substance, and additional contraband.For the reasons that follow, we conclude the judge erred in finding that the officer exceeded the scope of his authority when, during a well-being check, he ordered the defendant to step out of his motor vehicle.Accordingly, we reverse the order allowing the defendant's motion to suppress.

Background.The essential facts are not in dispute.The only witness to testify at the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress was Northampton police Officer Brendan McKinney.He was the second police officer to arrive at the scene, a gasoline station and convenience store located on King Street.It was approximately 1:25 A.M. on November 24, 2012, when he arrived and found Officer McGrath already on scene.A third police cruiser and the fire department soon arrived.Officer McKinney observed Officer McGrath engaged in conversation with the defendant, who was seated in a vehicle with the driver's side door open.¹The defendant was asked if he had consumed any drugs or alcohol that evening and if he needed medical attention.He answered both questions in the negative, but his speech was slurred, his eyes were half-closed, and he was nodding his head up and down.There was no odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the defendant or the vehicle.The defendant was wearing baggy pants with a cargo pocket that was partly open and visible from outside the vehicle.What occurred at this point according to the judge's succinct findings of fact is the following:

“[W]hen McKinney shined his flashlight on the pants, he saw a baggie sticking out of the pocket.He also saw what looked like a white powder in the baggie.He asked the defendant what it was, and asked him to take it out of his pocket.The defendant did, but he couldn't see immediately what it was because of the way the defendant held it in his hand.McGrath asked the defendant to exit the car, he was searched and found to be in possession of crack cocaine.During an inventory of the car, located on the driver, seat [sic ] was an envelope containing baggies with what was believed to be [phencyclidine (PCP), a Class B controlled substance].The defendant was placed under arrest.”

Standard of review.In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.SeeCommonwealth v. Isaiah I.,450 Mass. 818, 821, 882 N.E.2d 328(2008).We give substantial deference to the judge's ultimate findings and rulings.SeeCommonwealth v. Eckert,431 Mass. 591, 593, 728 N.E.2d 312(2000).However, we independently review the correctness of the judge's application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.SeeCommonwealth v. Kaupp,453 Mass. 102, 105, 899 N.E.2d 809(2009).

The defendant maintains that the judge determined the credibility and weight of Officer McKinney's testimony and found that McKinney did not know what was in the baggie until after the defendant was removed from his car and searched.It is settled that the credibility of the witnesses and weight to be given their testimony are matters reserved exclusively for the judge.Commonwealth v. Yesilciman,406 Mass. 736, 743, 550 N.E.2d 378(1990).When, as in this case, the evidence consists exclusively of the oral testimony of a witness, the judge's subsidiary findings are accepted on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.Commonwealth v. Jones,375 Mass. 349, 353–354, 377 N.E.2d 903(1978).

The judge found that Officer McKinney “saw what looked like a white powder in the baggie.”In the absence of any further finding with respect to the credibility of the witness, a finding that the officer observed what appeared to be white powder in a plastic baggie, as distinct from a finding that the officer observed white powder in a plastic baggie, is not constitutionally significant.²SeeCommonwealth v. Whitehead,85 Mass.App.Ct. 134, 138, 6 N.E.3d 557(2014)

(reasonable suspicion turns on probabilities, not hard certainties).See alsoCommonwealth v. Spagnolo,17 Mass.App.Ct. 516, 522 n. 7, 523 n. 9, 459 N.E.2d 1256(1984)(on motion to suppress, judge's task is to determine whether underlying basis for officer's action was sufficient; officer used word “guess” to describe reasonable and possible inference);Commonwealth v. Rosado,84 Mass.App.Ct. 208, 214 n. 7, 995 N.E.2d 95(2013)(we do not read finding of fact stating that officer was not certain about observation, without more, as determination that testimony lacked credibility).

Discussion.The community caretaking doctrine is applicable principally to a range of police activities involving motor vehicles, seeCommonwealth v. Duncan,467 Mass. 746, 750 n. 3, 7 N.E.3d 469(2014), in which there are objective facts indicating that a person may be need of medical assistance or some other circumstance exists apart from the investigation of criminal activity that supports police intervention to protect an individual or the public.SeeCommonwealth v. Murdough,428 Mass. 760, 762–764, 704 N.E.2d 1184(1999).The existence of objective grounds supporting police intervention for legitimate, noninvestigatory reasons excuses the need for a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion.SeeCommonwealth v. McDevitt,57 Mass.App.Ct. 733, 736, 786 N.E.2d 404(2003).³

The law does not demand that an alert police officer must suppress his or her training and investigatory experience in carrying out the myriad of community caretaking functions society expects police officers to undertake for its protection.Seeid. at 736–737, 786 N.E.2d 404.So long as the officer's conduct at the outset and throughout the course of exercising a community caretaking function is justified by the doctrine, the law does not attach significance to the officer's subjective motives.See

Commonwealth v. Murdough,428 Mass. at 762, 704 N.E.2d 1184, quoting fromCommonwealth v. Murdough,44 Mass.App.Ct. 736, 740, 694 N.E.2d 15(1998)(“an officer's motive [does not] invalidate[ ] objectively justifiable behavior”).

In performing a community caretaking function, a police officer's decision to detain a motorist for a brief period of time or to take other reasonable steps that intrude on a motorist's liberty in an effort to confirm whether emergency medical assistance is required or to determine the nature of the individual's apparent illness or impairment is not invalid because the acts taken by the officer also serve to uncover evidence of criminal activity.Thus, it has been noted that “[c]ommunity care-taking functions sometimes blend almost imperceptibly into the investigation of criminal activity.”Grasso & McEvoy, Suppression Matters Under Massachusetts Law§ 4–2[f][1], at 4–32 (2013–2014 ed.).

In the present case, the judge correctly ruled that Officer McGrath and Officer McKinney acted reasonably in questioning the defendant to determine whether he needed medical assistance.The police officers faced a situation in which the operator of a motor vehicle was impaired (slurred speech, eyes closing, head nodding).While alcohol intoxication was certainly a possibility, the absence of the tell-tale odor of an alcoholic beverage made it reasonable for the officers to explore other causes.Officer McKinney would have been derelict in his duty as a police officer if he did not take reasonable steps to determine the cause and extent of the defendant's impairment.SeeIrwin v. Ware,392 Mass. 745, 762, 467 N.E.2d 1292(1984).

The judge ruled that the observation of the plastic baggie in the defendant's open pocket and the presence of what appeared to be white powder did not contribute in a meaningful way to the officer's suspicion because “[a] mere hunch is not enough to justify an exit order.”Although this is a correct statement of the law, it does not accurately fit the facts found by the judge.“Where police officers have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person in a vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, they may stop that vehicle, issue an exit order, and conduct a threshold inquiry.Though the officers were admittedly uncertain that a specific crime...