Commonwealth v. Rodriguez

• Citation: 722 NE 2d 429,430 Mass. 577
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HECTOR RODRIGUEZ.
• Decision Date: 18 January 2000
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

430 Mass. 577

722 NE 2d 429

COMMONWEALTH v. HECTOR RODRIGUEZ.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

September 13, 1999.

January 18, 2000.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., ABRAMS, LYNCH, GREANEY, & IRELAND, JJ.

Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Geri Laventis for the defendant.

Carol A. Donovan, Committee for Public Counsel Services, & William C. Newman, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

ABRAMS, J.

The Commonwealth appeals from an order suppressing evidence obtained from a seizure of the defendant's motor vehicle at a drug interdiction roadblock. At issue is whether the same policy concerns that make sobriety checkpoints reasonable and therefore constitutional also exist with respect to drug interdiction roadblocks. A District Court judge concluded that, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the roadblock was unconstitutional. A single justice of this court allowed the Commonwealth's application for an interlocutory appeal. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). After the case was entered in the Appeals Court, we transferred it here on our own motion. We conclude that art. 14 prohibits roadblocks to search for contraband such as drugs. We therefore affirm the order of the District Court judge.

1. Facts. On the evening of November 21, 1997, State and local police established a temporary roadblock in Holyoke to detect and deter trafficking in illegal narcotics. The roadblock was set up in an area of the city that had a reputation as a high crime area. Official guidelines stated that the purposes of the roadblock were to confiscate illegal narcotics, to apprehend persons transporting illegal narcotics in motor vehicles, and to deter illegal narcotics trafficking. Fifty-eight vehicles were stopped at the roadblock. Approximately one of every four drivers was directed to the "pit" area for further questioning. The police made three arrests and issued two citations. The defendant, Hector Rodriguez, was the only person arrested for a narcotics offense.

After the defendant's vehicle, a Chevrolet Blazer, stopped at the roadblock, Officer Patrick Cadigan shone a flashlight through the window of the vehicle and observed an opened package of Philly Blunt cigars on the passenger seat. According to the Commonwealth, Cadigan knew from his training and experience that cigars are often used in smoking marijuana.

Cadigan told a second officer, Lieutenant Frederick Seklecki, what he had seen. Leaning his head through the window of the Blazer, Seklecki sniffed the interior. He smelled a "freshly smoked cigar type marijuana smell." Seklecki then sent the defendant to a "pit" area a short distance from the place of the stop. There, the police, after learning that the defendant's driver's license had been suspended, placed him under arrest for the traffic offense. Aided by a narcotics detection dog, the police searched the vehicle. They discovered two small ends of cigars containing marijuana. The defendant was charged with possessing a Class D substance and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license.

The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized during the roadblock. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress. The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal.

2. Constitutional principles. We begin with basic principles of search and seizure jurisprudence common to art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment. A seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment and art. 14 whenever a motor vehicle is stopped by an agent of government. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (1990); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 406 Mass. 343, 345 (1989). "Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a `seizure' of `persons'" under the Fourth Amendment. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 (1996). See Sitz, supra at 450-451; Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137, 139 (1983) (applying protections of Fourth Amendment and art. 14).

Generally, searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause. See Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; art. 14 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. Where obtaining a warrant is not practical, searches and seizures may be proper if probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51 (1970); United States v. Carroll, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925); Commonwealth v. Anderson, supra at 347; Commonwealth v. Antobenedetto, 366 Mass. 51, 54 (1974).

Federal courts have created limited exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that seizures be based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), the United States Supreme Court employed a balancing test to determine whether a particular seizure violates the Fourth Amendment. In Brown, the Supreme Court invalidated a criminal statute that required individuals to identify themselves to police when asked to do so. The Supreme Court weighed three factors in assessing the reasonableness of "seizures that are less intrusive than a traditional arrest": "[1] the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, [2] the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and [3] the severity of the interference with individual liberty." Id. at 50-51.

The Supreme Court has, on occasion, departed from this tripartite balancing test. In Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308 (1997), the Supreme Court invalidated a Georgia law requiring certain candidates for public office to be tested for certain drugs. Rather than use the Brown balancing test, the Supreme Court noted that "exceptions to the main rule [requiring individualized suspicion] are sometimes warranted based on `special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement'" (emphasis added). Id. at 313-314, quoting Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 619 (1989). These special needs typically involve an immediate or particularly serious risk to the public. "[W]here the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as `reasonable' — for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings.... But where ... public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged" (citations omitted).¹Id. at 323.

Thus, except for the limited number of public safety intrusions that can be justified under tests such as those set forth in Brown and Chandler, "law enforcement officers must possess at least articulable suspicion before stopping a vehicle."² United States v. Huguenin, 154 F.3d 547, 553 (6th Cir. 1998). In Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, supra,

the Supreme Court applied the Brown balancing test in a Fourth Amendment challenge to a roadblock set up to detect individuals operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Id. at 450-455. The Supreme Court concluded that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment because of the public interest in keeping drunk drivers off the roads. Id. at 455.

Although we have not applied exactly the same analysis as Federal courts, we have also allowed limited exceptions to the reasonable suspicion requirement where an intrusion is limited and serves a pressing public purpose.³ In Commonwealth v. Mc-Geoghegan, 389 Mass. 137, 143-145 (1983), we first indicated that sobriety checkpoints could be conducted in such a way as to comply with constitutional constraints under both the Federal and State constitutions. In Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 86 (1985), although we did not explicitly apply the Brown balancing test, we acknowledged that "there exists a strong public interest in reducing the `carnage caused by drunk drivers.' " Id., quoting South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 558 (1983). We noted that studies suggest that, "on any weekend night in Massachusetts, between five and ten per cent of all drivers on the road will be seriously impaired by alcohol." Id. at 87. We have continued to recognize the immediate and grave danger posed by drivers who operate under the influence of drugs or alcohol. See Commonwealth v. Shields, 402 Mass. 162, 167 & n.3 (1988). See also Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, supra at 451 ("No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it").

We have emphasized not only the unique nature of the problems caused by those who drive while under the influence, but also the narrowness of the exception to the warrant requirement that we carved out. In Commonwealth v. Anderson, supra at 347, we stated that the "exception from usual Fourth Amendment demands that has been made to accommodate fixed roadblocks for detection of illegal aliens ... and drunk drivers... is rather exceptional and very limited. This court has carved a `sui generis' exception for the enforcement of G. L. c. 90, § 24 ... on the grounds that a `reasonable' roadblock involves a `minimal' State intrusion upon the reduced privacy of drivers, one that is in any case outweighed by the strong public interest in reducing the carnage caused by drunk drivers" (emphasis added; citations omitted). The theme of our roadblock decisions is that the exception for operating while under the influence is very narrow. Because of the limited scope of those decisions, we rejected the "argument that the result we reached] opens the door for suspicionless searches and seizures in other contexts" and noted that "[p]olice will not be allowed, for example, to cordon...