Commonwealth v. Helmes

• Decision Date: 24 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. Br-4048,Br-4048
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Helmes, 399 Mass. 298, 503 N.E.2d 1287 (Mass. 1987)
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Ronald R. Helme
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

399 Mass. 298

503 N.E.2d 1287

Commonwealth

v.Ronald R. Helme

No. Br-4048

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

December 2, 1986, Argued

February 24, 1987, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: Bristol.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 21, 1984.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by John D. Sheehan, J.

An application for an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Wilkins, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk and the appeal was reported by him.

DISPOSITION: Order allowing motion to suppress affirmed.

COUNSEL: Ronald A. Pina, District Attorney, & Dana A. Curhan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth, submitted a brief.

JUDGES: Hennessey, C.J., Wilkins, Abrams, Lynch, & O'Connor, JJ.

OPINION BY: HENNESSEY

OPINION

Two indictments charged the defendant with the unlawful possession of marihuana and hashish, class D controlled substances, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 34.A third indictment charged unlawful possession of cocaine, a class B controlled substance, with intent to distribute, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32A.The defendant filed a motion to suppress certain items seized from his automobile.This motion was allowed.The Commonwealth's application for interlocutory appeal under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (b)(2), 378 Mass. 882(1979), was allowed by a single justice of this court and referred for decision by the full bench.We affirm the judge's order to suppress the items seized.

The judge found the following facts.While on patrol about 12:30 A.M. on May 28, 1984, Officer Marc Allen Stevens noticed a white Cadillac in the rear of the parking lot of The Tavern pub in Taunton.Although there were other cars parked in the parking lot, and the bar's clientele were coming and going, Officer Stevens' attention was drawn to this automobile because its interior was illuminated by lighting from within the vehicle.As Officer Stevens approached the automobile, he turned on the high beams of the police cruiser.He noticed three persons inside the car.The defendant was in the driver's seat, Melinda Arruda was in the front passenger's seat, and a second male was in the rear seat.Officer Stevens pulled his cruiser up to the white Cadillac and parked it so as to block its exit.He then turned on the "alley light," which flooded the interior of the other vehicle with light.

Approaching the parked Cadillac, Officer Stevens asked the driver if everything was all right.The defendant responded that they were just leaving.With the aid of a flashlight, Officer Stevens observed a mirror with white powder on it sticking out from under the seat beneath the defendant's legs.He also observed an open packet containing a white powder on the front seat between the defendant and Arruda.Based upon his training and experience, Officer Stevens believed the white powder to be cocaine.At that point, he asked the defendant to step out of the automobile and conducted a "pat frisk."He found a package of razor blades, a plastic straw, and two additional packets similar to the one seen on the front seat.Officer Stevens then placed the defendant under arrest.

Turning his attention to Arruda, Officer Stevens noticed that she had taken a "baggy" containing a white substance and placed it between her legs.The officer told her to step out of the automobile.In getting out, Arruda grabbed the plastic bag and threw it toward the defendant.The bag landed on the driver's side of the automobile and was later retrieved.After a "pat frisk" during which no weapons or contraband was found, Arruda was placed under arrest.A search of the passenger in the rear seat disclosed no weapons or contraband.

A search of the passenger compartment of the car disclosed a brown paper bag on the floor near the front seat.In this bag was brown vegetable matter, a plastic film container with marihuana "roaches," rolling papers, plastic and metal sifters, and a scale.A further search of the area around the automobile revealed a match box containing a white substance.

The Commonwealth argues that the police conduct in this instance was proper as a lawful threshold inquiry under the principles set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968).We have determined that an "investigatory check of a parked vehicle . . . regardless of its limited purpose and brevity, is an intrusion on privacy rights."Commonwealth v. King, 389 Mass. 233, 241(1983), citingTerry v. Ohio, supra at 17.In this instance, Officer Stevens initiated the threshold inquiry when he parked the police cruiser so as to block the defendant's automobile and prevent it from leaving the parking lot.Consequently, we must determine whether the police conduct was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment"by balancing the need to search . . . against the invasion which the search . . . entails."Terry v. Ohio, supra at 21, quotingCamara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 536-537(1967).Commonwealth v. King, supra.Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402, 405(1974).Under the traditional Terry analysis, our inquiry is two-fold: first, whether the initiation of the investigation by the police was permissible under the circumstances, and, second, whether the scope of the search was justified under the circumstances.Commonwealth v. Cantalupo, 380 Mass. 173, 175(1980).Commonwealth v. Silva, supra.Because we conclude that the initiation of the investigation was impermissible, we need not address the latter question.

A police officer may initiate a threshold inquiry "where suspicious conduct gives the officer reason to suspect that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."Commonwealth v. Silva, supra at 405.Furthermore, the officer's actions must "be based on specific and articulable facts and the specific reasonable inferences which follow from such facts in light of the officer's experience.A mere 'hunch' is not enough. . . .The test is an objective one."Commonwealth v. Silva, supra at 406.Commonwealth v. King, supra at 243.Commonwealth v. Cantalupo, supra at 175-176.We conclude that the facts in this case do not support a threshold inquiry under the above standard.

The Commonwealth argues that, because the encounter took place at night in the parking lot of an establishment that serves liquor, which, according to Officer Stevens, is a common location for narcotics use, and because the defendant's automobile was parked with the engine running, the interior lights on, and the headlights off, the circumstances could reasonably be construed as suspicious.Furthermore, although the judge did not so find, the Commonwealth claims that...