Commonwealth v. Valle

• Citation: 84 Mass.App.Ct. 1126,999 N.E.2d 503 (Table)
• Decision Date: 23 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 10–P–1152.,10–P–1152.
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Alex VALLE.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

84 Mass.App.Ct. 1126
999 N.E.2d 503 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH
v.
Alex VALLE.

No. 10–P–1152.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

December 23, 2013.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Alex Valle, was convicted of various offenses arising out of the discovery of a firearm during an inventory search of an automobile. He appeals from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In his direct appeal, the defendant contends that his motion to suppress should have been allowed because the firearm was found and subsequently seized during an invalid inventory search; the trial judge erred in not permitting trial counsel to suggest in his closing argument that the defendant falsely confessed to ownership of the gun because of his gang-related obligations; and his convictions for possession of a loaded firearm and possession of ammunition are duplicative. With regard to his new trial motion, the defendant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to submit a memorandum or legal authority in support of his suppression motion that claimed the inventory search was invalid and for failing to move to supress the firearm on the theory that the motor vehicle stop was the result of racial profiling. He also argues that the judge abused his discretion by concluding that the evidence he provided fell short of what was needed to show that the State police trooper who stopped the car acted with the intent to discriminate. He further argues that the judge should have granted his request for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

1. Motion to suppress. We summarize the facts as found by the motion judge after an evidentiary hearing. At approximately 5:00 P. M., on January 24, 2009, State police Trooper Evan Breeding was parked at an intersection near Interstate Highway 291 in Springfield observing traffic when he conducted a “spot inquiry” of the status of the registration of a green Toyota Camry.¹ The inquiry disclosed that the vehicle's registration had been suspended; as a result, Breeding stopped the car. Thereafter, Breeding learned that neither the driver of the automobile nor the defendant, who was a passenger, had a valid license to operate a motor vehicle. Breeding called for assistance and upon the arrival of another trooper, the driver was arrested. Because the car was unregistered and therefore could not be driven, the troopers made arrangements to have the car towed.

Breeding testified, and the judge found, that State police procedures require that an inventory search be conducted before a vehicle is towed. In this case, the inventory search was conducted pursuant to a written inventory policy, a copy of which was introduced as an exhibit at the motion hearing. During the course of the inventory search, Breeding picked up a jacket from the back seat of the car and discovered it was much heavier on one side. He then felt the outside of the jacket and recognized the shape of a gun. Breeding looked inside the pocket of the jacket and retrieved a loaded .22 caliber firearm.²

On the basis of these facts, the motion judge concluded that the discovery of the firearm was made in the course of a valid inventory search. We agree.

An inventory search of an automobile that is about to be towed and impounded is constitutional as it is done “for the purpose of protecting the car or its contents, for the purpose of protecting the police against unfounded charges of misappropriation of such property, for the purpose of protecting the public against the possibility that the car might contain weapons or other dangerous instrumentalities which might fall into the hands of vandals, or for a combination of such reasons.”Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 510 (1982). Such searches are permissible under both the Federal and State Constitutions if they are done in accordance with standard, written police procedures. Commonwealth v. Allen, 76...