Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Brian J. Anderson Cant ant Law Offices, P.C. 141 Tremont Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02111 (617) 227-8383 brian@contant-law.com BBO#: 670871
Whether the trial judge correctly suppressed the evidence where the trooper lacked permissible grounds to order Mr. Craan out of his vehicle and subsequently search it based only on: (1) the smell of unburned marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle and (2) the observation of a small quantity of marijuana inside the vehicle ...1 Whether the trooper lacked probable cause to believe that Mr. Craan was operating under the influence of marijuana where Mr. Craan exhibited no characteristics of impairment and there was no evidence of consumption in the vehicle 1
II.
III. Whether the trooper could search Mr. Craan's vehicle based on violation of federal law where there was no evidence of a federal investigation or prosecution and Article 14 provides heightened protections against unlawful search and seizure as compared to the Fourth Amendment 1 STATEMENT STATEMENT A. B. OF THE CASE OF THE FACTS Judge's Judge's Findings Rul ing of Fact 2
3
3 8 9 12
I.
The trial judge correctly suppressed the evidence because the trooper lacked permissible grounds to order Mr. Craan out of his vehicle and subsequently search it based only on: (1) the smell of unburned marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle and (2) the observation of a small quantity of marijuana inside the vehicle 12 A. B. Legal Standard The trooper did not possess a reasonable fear for his safety or that of others to justify the exit order and search The trooper did not have reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts to believe that Mr. Craan was engaged in criminal activity 12
15
C.
19
D.
The trooper did not have probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception because there was insufficient evidence that it contained a criminal amount of marijuana 22 The Article 14 protections pronounced in Cruz apply regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is burnt or unburned 27
E.
II.
The trooper did not have probable cause to believe that Mr. Craan was operating under the influence of marijuana because he exhibited no characteristics of impairment and there was no evidence of consumption in the vehicle 30
III. The trooper could not search Mr. Craan's vehicle based on violation of federal law because there was no evidence of a federal investigation or prosecution and Article 14 provides heightened
ii
and seizure 33 39 40
G.L. c. 90, ~ 24(1)(a)(1) G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32C (a) G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32L. G.L. c. 94C, ~ 34. G.L. c. 269, ~ 10 (h) (1) G.L. c. 276, ~ 2B.
Memorandum from Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing Medical Use of Marijuana, to United States Attorneys (Oct. 19, 2009) 50 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO MASS.R.APP.P. WITH RULES OF COURT Rule 16(k)
53
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979) 12 31 266 266 (1977) ....15,16 (1996) ...4 n.3 20
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Almeida, v. Alvarado, v. Bacon, 373 Mass. 423 Mass. 642
381 Mass.
(1980)
v. Bostock,
616
(1990)
Commonwealth (2012) Commonwealth (2012) Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth (2012)
v. Damon,
82 Mass.App.Ct.
v. Daniel,
81 Mass.App.Ct.
306 24,25
v. Fraser, v. Garden,
410 Mass.
541
(1991) ........ 16 (2008) ...... 27,28 658 334 (1999) ..15-16 (2007) ..4 n.3
v. Gonsalves, v. Isaiah
v. Johnson,
v. Lobo, 82 Mass.App.Ct.
60 (1982)
(1982)
14 23
318
Commonwealth Commonwealth (1992) Commonwealth (1991) Commonwealth (1992) Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth
v. O'Connor, v. Rivera,
420 Mass.
630
(1995)
31
v. Rivet,
31
v. Va Meng Joe, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 499 16 States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 13 13 (1997) (1983) (1977) 36 16 16,36 13 n.4,15
Katz v. United
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Maryland Michigan v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408
Pennsylvania
United States v. Lewis, 816 F. Supp. 789 (D. Ma ss. 1993) ..................................... Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560
(1971)
13 23
31,40-41
G.L. c. 94C, ~ 34. G.L. c. 269, ~ 10(h) (1) G.L. c. 276, ~ 2B. Mass. Const. U.S. Const. Pt. 1, art. XlV amend. IV
Memorandum from Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing Medical Use of Marijuana, to United States Attorneys (Oct. 19,2009) 37-38,50-52 State Police General Order TRF-15 13 n.4
Joseph A. Grasso, Jr. & Christine M. McEvoy, Suppression Matters Under Massachusetts Law, ~ 1-11 (2009-2010 ed.) 16-17,34-35
vi
STATEMENT
OF THE ISSUES
I.
Whether the trial judge correctly suppressed the evidence where the trooper lacked permissible
grounds to order Mr. Craan out of his vehicle and subsequently smell of search it based marijuana only on: (1) the from the
unburned
coming
marijuana
vehicle.
II.
Whether believe
the
trooper
lacked
probable
cause
to the
that Mr.
influence of marijuana where Mr. Craan exhibited no characteristics of impairment and there was no evidence of consumption in the vehicle.
III. Whether
the
trooper
could
search
Mr.
Craan's
vehicle based on violation of federal law where there was no evidence of a federal investigation or prosecution and Article 14 provides heightened protections against unlawful search and seizure
the
allowance of
Craan's
(hereinafter "Mr. Craan") motion to suppress evidence. On August 6, 2010, of a the complaint Boston issued Municipal in the
Dorchester
Division
Court
charging Mr. Craan with: 1) possession of ammunition without an FID card in violation of G.L. c. 269, ~
10 (h)(1); 2) possession of a class D substance with the intent to distribute in violation of G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32C(a), and; 3) possession of a class B substance in violation of G.L. c. 94C, ~ 34 (C.A. 1)1. On February 25, 2011, there was a hearing on Mr. Craan's Police Motion Trooper to Suppress. Irish Massachusetts (hereinafter State
Scott
"Trooper
Judge Rosalind
Record references are as follows: Commonwealth's Brief will be (C.B. [page]); Commonwealth's Appendix will be (C.A. [page]); Appellee's Addendum will be (A.A. [page]); and transcripts will be (Tr. [date]:[page])
2
On
May
12,
2011, of
Mr.
Craan
filed for
Motion
for
Reconsideration Motion to
Judge's and
Denial
Defendant's and/or
Suppress
in light which
Mass. by the
(2011),
decided
Supreme
Judicial case
directly
applicable
to Mr.
Craan's
(C.A. 5, 12, 13). On Craan's Judge wanted suppress remind May 19, 2011, for there was a hearing (C.A. Craan the 5) that motion in order on Mr. The she to to
prosecution to the
recording
of
hearing herself
before
a decision
November final
decision
allowing
Craan' s
motion
for reconsideration
and motion
to suppress 10) 2
on October
The docket notes that the Judge initially allowed Mr. Craan's motion to reconsider and suppress on September 7, 2011 (C.A. 6) (Tr. 9/7/11: 3), however, there was confusion as to whether the Judge made her decision after giving the prosecution an opportunity to present oral argument in opposition (Tr. 10/19/11:
3
The
2012.
Commonwealth filed
its
brief
on August
13,
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS A. Judge's On Trooper assigned Dorchester consisted June Scott to Findings
11,
of Fact3
2010,
Massachusetts "Trooper
State Irish")
Police was in
Irish
(hereinafter
on Gallivan
41)
Boulevard The
11-12,
roadblock in each
of
two
lanes,
with
three
troopers
8) . The Judge explained that she would listen to a recording of the hearing to determine when she made her final decision (Tr. 10/19/11: 8,9). Mr. Craan's trial court counsel obj ected to the judge's decision regarding the date the motion was actually allowed arguing that the prosecution's notice of appeal was not filed within the required time (Tr. 11/16/11: 10).
The judge made oral findings only and denied the Commonwealth's request for written finings (C.A. 4450) (R.A. 23-24). "Appellate courts may supplement a judge's findings of facts if the evidence is uncontroverted and undisputed and where the judge explicitly or implicitly credited the witness's testimony." Commonwealth v. Isaiah 1., 448 Mass. 334, 337 (2007); citing Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266, 268 n. 2 (1996). Further, '''motion judge's findings of fact are binding in the absence of clear error.'" Commonwealth v. Isaiah 1., 448 Mass. 334, 337 (2007); quoting, Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass.
403, 405 (1999). 4
1ane the
25).
Trooper Irish was fulfilling officer," his meaning that and he made
"screening vehicle
stopped
at
checkpoint
contact with the operator to determine if he/she was under the influence of alcohol (Tr. 2/25/11:
12, 41).
At around 1: 30 am, Mr. Craan approached the OUI roadblock driving a gray Mercedes
41) .
13,
Trooper
Irish
made
contact
Craan
through the open driver's side window and smelled a strong odor of unburned marijuana coming from within the vehicle (Tr. 2/25/11:
13, 25, 41).
Trooper Irish
then directed Mr. Craan to pull his vehicle into the screening
2/25/11:
area
13-14,
off
41).
to
the
side
of
the
road
(Tr.
Trooper Irish spoke with Mr. Craan again at the screening area and informed him that he could smell a strong order of marijuana in the vehicle (Tr. 2/25/11:
14, 41).
Trooper Irish then asked Mr. Craan if he had In the vehicle (Tr. 2/25/11:
15, 27,
any marijuana
41) .
Mr. Craan replied "yes" and stated that he and (Tr. 2/25/11:
did
not
smell
burnt
marijuana, 2/25/11:
but 16,
unburned Craan
marijuana
(Tr.
that he had some marijuana the small passenger plastic to Craan be did side bag
Trooper 17,
believed Mr.
bag from the passenger Trooper point Irish standing was able
outside
vehicle
side door so
Trooper
used
the area
generator-run (Tr.
lights 42).
2/25/11 :
29,
Trooper
it was
a sandwich
sized-baggie
"maybe
(Tr. weight
Irish
removed
Mr.
and frisk
the Tr. or
passenger 2/25/11:
from 17,
weapons
contraband
17, 42).
on
either
of
their
persons
(Tr.
2/25/11:
Irish
then
proceeded
to (Tr.
search 2/25/11:
the 17-
compartment
Craan
search
interior the
of
vehicle
Trooper marijuana, blue center grinding 2/25/11: could vehicle, There Irish 2/25/11:
found
containing three in used door claimed in (3) the for (Tr. he the 32).
pills
Ecstasy
device driver's
in
31-32, a
still so
smell he
checked
the
however,
Trooper (Tr.
0.38
ammunition
18-19,
32-33). passenger search Irish were at was asked the front of (Tr. the
the Trooper
2/25/11:
19-20).
marijuana, Ecstasy and ammunition once he was finished with the search
(Tr.
2/25/11:
20)
Mr.
Craan
acknowledged that he smoked marijuana, but that he did not know where the Ecstasy came from (Tr. 2/25/11: 2122, 43).
ammunition came from, but later acknowledged that he believed the ammunition belonged to a security guard friend to whom he had recently given a ride (Tr.
2/25/11: 20, 43) At the end of the interaction, Mr. Craan and the passenger were issued summonses for criminal offenses and sent on their way (Tr. 2/25/11: 23). B. The Judge's Ruling Mr. Craan incorporates by reference the judge's ruling as set forth in the Commonwealth's Brief
6 - 8) .
(C.B.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT I. Trooper Irish's search of exit Mr. order Craan provided The order and and by subsequent his the two vehicle Fourth factors and his
the and
only Mr.
Trooper
Craan
passenger out of the vehicle and subsequently search it were: 1) the smell of unburned marijuana allegedly emanating from the vehicle, and; 2) the sight of a
small baggie containing what Trooper Irish believed to be marijuana. Since the enactment of G.L. c. 94C, ~
32L and cases decided subsequently, these two factors alone did not provide Trooper Irish with probable
cause or reasonable suspicion that a criminal amount of marijuana was present in order to justify the exit order and search. permissible grounds Additionally, there were no other for the exit order and search
because there were no factors showing that Mr. Craan and/or his passenger were engaged in criminal activity or presented a danger to the troopers or others. See
pp. 12 -30.
II. believe
Trooper that
Irish Mr.
did Craan
not was
have
probable
to the Mr.
operating reasons. of
of marijuana no
for three
exhibited eyes,
characteristic speech).
impairment there
slurred
Second,
of consumption
admitted showing
to smoking that he
consumed
vehicle
what
meant. clear
as
is more although
consumption.
sobriety
checkpoint, field
Trooper tests a to
Irish to
merely
criminal operating
completely
unrelated
influence.
III. vehicle
Irish
could of
not
search law
Mr.
Craan's it to
violation
because courts
undermines
power
of this
10
its
enact amounts
laws of
with
regard
to
the
of
small
marijuana. protections
provides and as
search
to recently ~ 32L.
Fourth cases
Amendment
decided Trooper of
Second, direction
acting without
solely any
under federal
the
involvement, federal
and
there
that Third,
prosecution of Justice
was
issued
addressing
prosecutors individuals
resources state
compliance
11
ARGUMENT I. The trial judge correctly suppressed the evidence because the trooper lacked permissible grounds to order Mr. Craan out of his vehicle and subsequently search it based only on: (1) the smell of unburned marl]Uana coming from the interior of the vehicle and (2) the observation of a small quantity of marijuana inside the vehicle. A. Both Legal Standard the Fourth Amendment to the United (hereinafter and of Article Rights protect referred
14 of to
as
States "Fourth
the
Massachusetts to as
14")
searches
and seizures.
circumstances,
is not
warrant required under the Fourth Amendment." Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 758
(1979)
"Searches
judge
or
magistrate,
are
per
se
12
unreasonable to a few
under
the
Fourth well
Amendment
subj ect
only
specifically
exceptions./J Katz v. United (1967). government and seizure warrant Supp. "Where bears a warrant the burden
obtain~d,
of proving
that
falls within
/J
(D.
evidence of the
obtained
searches is, by
seizures same v.
in violation
Constitution in a state
that
authority, 367
court./J Mapp
Ohio,
(1961) . Assuming, stopped as part arguendo, that Mr. Craan was validly
of a sobriety
checkpoint4,
the proper
The stop of a motor vehicle at a fixed roadblock constitutes a warrantless seizure of that vehicle and driver without individualized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14. Commonwealth v. Murphy, 454 Mass. 318, 322 (2009); citations omitted. However, the Supreme Judicial Court has endorsed certain guidelines for sobriety checkpoint procedures so that they do not offend the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment and Article 14. See Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 82-83 (1985); State Police General Order TRF-15. A driver directed to the secondary screening area in a sobriety checkpoint has been stopped in accordance with principles set forth in Terry v. Ohio, under the familiar standard of "reasonable suspicion./J Commonwealth v. Murphy, 454 Mass. at 325. 13
analysis
is
the were
exit
order
and
valid
based
v. Johnson,
Rights order to
bases
for in a
exit
passenger
motor
vehicle
particularized activity;
(2 )
criminal danger to
of
the
police
or
'pragmatic
Mass.App.Ct.
v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459, 466 justifications exit his order applied to
of these the
issued
Mr.
Craan
searched after
obtained must be
this
suppressed. 60, 63
Loughlin, a result
385 Mass. of
unconstitutional "fruit
of
conduct poisonous
excluded doctrine) .
under
tree"
14
B.
The trooper did not possess a reasonable fear for his safety or that of others to justify the exit order and search. every circumstance Even that justifies search a stop also for weapons
Not justifies
a frisk.
a limited
intrusion v. v. Ohio,
Almeida,
Mass.
Terry-type
evidence
pursue
investigation
without
a suspect an
stopped a
upon
reasonable Terry
officer
conduct
limited
for weapons
only
reasonably is in
or that 392
danger.
U.S.
justified
if
position safety of
11
the
police
other
persons
was
danger.
15
v.
Cruz,
459
Mass
at
466,
quoting (1999). in a
658, 661
officer of
a weapon
463
U.S.
1032,
1051
(1983);
Almeida,
373 Mass.
in the
434 U.S. v.
the
Ct.
311,
informants'
that
violence/kinds Rivera,
33
day/location 129
[Commonwealth
v. Sumerlin, area)];
isolated or
outnumbered
[Commonwealth It should
33 Mass. factor
App. by
be noted to
one
rarely
sufficient
16
support M. Law,
a pat-frisk.
McEvoy, ~ 1-11
Suppression (2009-2010
citing
Commonwealth
Rivera,
33 Mass. App. Ct. at 314-315. of these the factors were Neither danger to present Mr. in this Craan nor Irish case his or
None to justify
search. any
presented
Trooper
Trooper Craan or
Trooper passenger
Irish had
facts
checkpoint
troopers lights
were
overhead
illuminate
(Tr. 2/25/11:
29, 42).
Craan
Trooper Irish did not testify as to the exact amount of troopers present, but did say there were six at the initial stop-point (Tr. 2/25/11: 25) and a second was present while he searched Mr. Craan's vehicle (Tr. 2/25/11: 17)] 17
and
his
were
not
belligerent In fact
or
unruly the
towards
troopers.
quite
opposite was true: Mr. Craan followed Trooper Irish's instructions and answered his questions about the
smell of marijuana
At no point
did Trooper Irish testify that he believed that he was in fear for his safety or that others were in danger. Additionally, although the Commonwealth does not explicitly advance the "safety" argument, they do
state in their brief that Trooper Irish was justified in searching not the vehicle his to ensure that Mr. and Craan ingest this the
would
operate
motor
vehicle
the stop a
However, interpreting
tremendous
holding of
and goes
on an unnecessary
tangent
regarding the dangers of operating under the influence that are not relevant to this case. The Commonwealth claims "Cruz also did not hold that an officer, smells of fresh, confronted with an automobile unburned marijuana, cannot that
search
that car to ensure that, should the driver be allowed to go on [his] way, he does not have additional
18
marijuana" Cruz.
(C.B. 22)
that the odor of burnt marijuana, without more, does not justify an exit order and subsequent search. Commonwealth
v.
See
808i
Lobo,
82
Mass.App.Ct.
at
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 450 Mass at 460. Here, Trooper Irish did not reasonably believe
that Mr. Craan or his passenger presented a danger to the troopers or others. ln There the was no vehicle not evidence or of
marijuana operation.
consumption Trooper
impaired administer
Irish did
even
field sobriety tests despite the stop occurring at a sobriety checkpoint. As such, the exit order and
search of the occupants and the vehicle were unlawful. Any evidence obtained as a result of this search must be suppressed as a matter of law. See Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402, 405-406 (1974)
C.
The trooper did not have reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts to believe that Mr. Craan was engaged in criminal activity.
An exit order is also justified if "the officers could have developed reasonable suspicion (based on
criminal
acti vi ty ...
/I
Commonwealth
v.
Cruz,
v. Bostock,
450 Mass.
is not enough
one./I Commonwealth
v. Silva,
"Simple good
enough./I Commonwealth
643 (1980) Further, suspicion suspicion is of the tied, "lesser by its standard very as of reasonable to the
definition, opposed v. to
merely 459
Commonwealth v.
Cruz,
Commonwealth people of
Silva,
366 Mass.
405.
"When
the
2 on the ounce or to
marijuana offense.
/I
civil
at 470. that of
more
marijuana,
20
This case falls directly in line with the holding in Cruz and those decided after the enactment of G.L.
c.
94C, 32L. 803
See
Commonwealth exit of
v.
Lobo, order
82
Mass.App.Ct. subsequent
and burnt
search
freshly
Valle,
80
Mass.App.Ct.
Decision; see A.A. 47] (smell of marijuana coming from vehicle search) . In this case, at the time Trooper Irish ordered Mr. Craan and his passenger out of the vehicle, there was no evidence that Mr. Craan possessed a criminal is not enough to warrant exit order and
amount marijuana or that he was engaged in any other criminal activity. sobriety Mr. Craan was stopped as part of a he did not commit a traffic
checkpoint;
violation or some other offense warranting the stop. There was no evidence of marijuana consumption in the vehicle or impaired operation by Mr. Craan. Irish did not sobriety tests. Trooper field
21
as opposed recent
and
subsequent emanating
based
marijuana
containing (Tr.
Trooper 17)
marijuana
2/25/11; as
"small"
(Tr 2/25/11;
to warrant simply, by
criminal
acti vi ty
or his passenger. D. The trooper did not have probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception because there was insufficient evidence that it contained a criminal amount of marijuana. is also not the the case where out to of "the the officers car for an the
ordered reasons,
defendant e.g. ,
the
warrant at 467,
requirement."
459 Mass.
22
citing (1990) .
v. the
Cast,
407
Mass.
891,
automobile
exception, is permitted
to
believe
that
vehicle of
contains
contraband
crime,
exigent
circumstances
needed
v. Hason, requires
387 Mass.
(1982) but a
("Probable something
more
suspicion to warrant
than
evidence
"[t]he
standard
used is
to the
search in
application Cruz,
for
warrant. Whiteley
401
U.s.
warrants [them]
magistrates cases'''.
'authorized
issue G.L.
c. 276,
23
noted
above, was
of a
one
ounce
or
less to
of a
from
criminal v. Cruz,
Commonweal th ~ 32L.
c. a
94C, search
pursuant must
vehicle cause to is
the a
police
probable of
that
criminal some
contraband
lesser
amount.H 311 at
Daniel,
306, Mass. to
police for
spend
time when
searches
contraband
criminality.H
Commonwealth
v. Cruz,
above
in
Cruz
and
other
cases
decided
the
enactment burnt
of G.L.
c. 94C, without
~ 32L, more,
freshly
provides that a
probable criminal
suspicion, present.H
Commonwealth Commonwealth
v. Lobo, v. Cruz,
24
Damon,
82 Mass.App.Ct. 1115
164;
Commonwealth
v.
Valle, 47].
80
Mass.App.Ct.
see A.A.
Contrast, 306(police defendant's In Daniel, marijuana, marijuana marijuana, criminality, defendant wi thout made using
had vehicle in
to
addition
smelling to
the
defendant's
baggies
were
suggesting the
broken
headlight;
directional;
abruptly police
of a one-lane rear-ended by
nearly
blocking
traffic;
furtive
gestures
passenger. Mr.
Id. at 308. Craan' s case more closely follows the facts Mr.
where
(Tr.
complied the
Trooper He
questions Irish's
throughout
followed
25
to
the
second
screening about
area
and
answered
Trooper 17).
Irish
2/25/11;
Trooper
himself He did In or
2/25/11:
29). driving
of impaired
search
the
emanating of a
small
baggie
Trooper
These with
probable they
cause not
execute
because a
did
indicate of
that
contained Craan
criminal
amount were
marijuana some
or that
engaged
26
other
criminal
activity.
See
Commonweal th
v.
Cruz,
459 Mass. E.
at 476. The Article 14 protections pronounced in Cruz apply regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is burnt or unburned. Commonwealth marijuana and v. Cruz, the court law announced our burnt probable criminal v.
changed
without even
longer
reasonable is
suspicion, present."
marijuana
Commonwealth
marijuana the
burnt
of
evaluating
validity the
Specifically,
that Cruz does not alter the court's v. Garden, of 451 Mass. unburned cause 43
Commonwealth officer's
(2008),
detection
marijuana to believe
probable marijuana
(C.B. 22)
However,
For purposes of clarity, the term "unburned" marijuana" shall be synonYmous with raw or fresh marijuana, or marijuana that has not been smoked
27
argument full
misses
the
mark
and
fails
to
consider
the
impact
of G.L. c; v.
Commonweal th
2008, before
the
enactment the
94C,
Garden
itself from
smell of
burnt occupants
marijuana of a the
clothing the
the
vehicle
permissible Garden, to
of at
valid 45.
Commonwealth v. repeatedly
43,
refers
the
smell
of
marijuana it as did
multiple or
without
designating
48-50.
"unburned" so in
rd. at
permissible the the
evaluating
scope
officer trunk of
extend
officer
expect
burnt
marijuana while
prior
with 94C,
scope 32L,
after
of
G.L.
addresses c. 94C,
validity The
of the
search
itself c.
32L.
enactment
G.L.
94C,
28
changed
the law
regard
to
marijuana, changing the status of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana from a crime to a civil
have
there
additional
indicating criminality or that a criminal amount of marijuana is present ln order to validate the exit
Mass.App.Ct. Mass.App.Ct.
803;
164;
Commonwealth
Damon,
Commonwealth v. Valle, 80 Mass .App.Ct. 1115 [Rule 1:28 Decision; see A.A. 47] In Commonwealth v. Valle, this Court did not
designate burnt versus unburned marijuana and instead stated: "[i]n the wake of Commonwealth v. Cruz, it is no longer enough a than an officer when smells marijuana with a To
coming
from
vehicle, of
even
coupled
defendant's
admission
smoking
marijuana.
justify the search of an automobile, the officers must have other evidence
of a
of
the
existence
criminal
contraband."
29
v.
Valle,
80 Mass.App.Ct.
1115,
[Rule
see A.A. 47] case, the only two factors causing out
to order Mr. Craan and his passenger and subsequently marijuana the sight search it were:
1) the the
unburned and;
2)
emanating of a
from
small
baggie
probable they
cause not
execute
warrantless a criminal
did
indicate
that
of marijuana
was present
were engaged
in other
See Commonwealth
II.
The trooper did not have probable cause to believe that Mr. Craan was operating under the influence of marijuana because he exhibited no characteristics of impairment and there was no evidence of consumption in the vehicle. The Commonwealth Mr. argues that Trooper Irish could
have under
arrested the
Craan of
a motor
vehicle
influence
thereby
justifying
30
the
subsequent for
search this
is
argument to cause
an arrest probable
there
379 U.S.
89,
91
operating
a motor of
influence
known to the
defendant
any place or
access,
the (3)
influence
depressants in section
as
G.L.
one of
90,
its
brief,
the
a litany there
of was
describing cause to
influence. 630
Commonwealth v. admitted
(1995) (defendant
31
had Mass.
red-glassy App.
Ct.
eyes) i
956
Commonwealth
v.
Roviaro, admitting
32 to
(1992) (defendant
drinking five or six beers immediately prior to motor vehicle App. accident) i
973
Commonwealth
of
v.
Rivet,
30
Mass.
Ct.
(1991)(smell
alcohol,
defendant eyes). In
all of these cases, there were multiple factors - red, glassy eyes, admission of consumption, odor of alcohol leading the officer to believe the driver was
operating under the influence. However, here, the record is completely void of evidence that Mr. Craan consumed marijuana in the
vehicle or operated under the influence of marijuana. Trooper Irish did not describe any physical
characteristics indicating that Mr. Craan was impaired (i.e. red, glassy eyes, slurred speech). There was no
testimony showing that Mr. Craan and/or his passenger had smoked in the vehicle. Although Mr. Craan
admitted to
Irish was
explicitly clear that he did not smell burnt marijuana which could indicate consumption in the vehicle 2/25/11:
13) .
He
(Tr.
reiterated
this
on
multiple
32
occasions
every opportunity to administer field sobriety tests or follow up on Mr. Craan's marijuana use and his
Ironically, the
Irish merely issued Mr. Craan a criminal summons for charges completely unrelated to operating under the
influence and sent him on his way (Tr. 2/25/11: 23) Quite simply, at the time of the incident, there was no evidence supporting the notion that Mr. Craan was operating his motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana.
III. The trooper could not search Mr. Craan's vehicle based on violation of federal law because there was no evidence of a federal investigation or prosecution and Article 14 provides heightened protections against unlawful search and seizure as compared to the Fourth Amendment. The Commonwealth argues that the search was
permissible under the automobile exception because Mr. Craan had marijuana in his vehicle in violation of
33
Cruz
decision
and
between
the
Fourth
Amendment
and Article
evaluated issuing a
warrant substantive
protection
defendants A.
Fourth
Jr.
Christine
Massachusetts Commonwealth
(1985) .
Upton
II
significant that
because
first
in addition which
the
Fourth
Amendment,
as part the
of Fourth Amendment
source
considered Joseph A.
in every
seizure."
M. McEvoy, ~ 1-11
Suppression
Matters "The
(2009-2010
ed.).
is prohibited
34
seized seized
under
federal
constitution state
standards,
illegally
under
standards
(to the
warrantless
automobile cause
is permitted that
to believe
on a public a crime, a
contains exigent
contraband circumstances
or
evidence make
of
obtaining
warrant Mass. at
Fourth G.L. c.
Amendment 94C[ ~
legalize amount
"[P] ossession
of marijuana is v.
any
illegal;
remains is
unlawful
possess,
marijuana "[i]t
considered for
is unreasonable
conducting
searches
for contraband
when no specific
criminality."
Id. at 477.
35
that an
justify
exit order
search.
Article unlawful
heightened seizure as
search
Fourth
Amendment. at 808i at
82 Mass.App.Ct.
434 U.S.
Mimms,
Amendment, of stopped v.
officers motor
may
issue as
vehicle
routine 414-415
Wilson,
519 U.S.
408,
to passengers) . Commonwealth's protections of a federal suggests argument that a trooper 14 under can the The acting
provided law
by Article is
violation Trooper
absurd. Irish,
that
of the state,
federal
at a sobriety was a
state
law
At no point in a federal
in this
case was
Trooper At no
Irish involved
drug investigation.
36
point
to search
lS
of federal
no
indication This
federal
prosecution
argument
completely
to enact Judicial
Supreme
to
interpret
its citizens. the laws inconsistency regarding etc.) between (i.e. law states medical making has not
marijuana and
decriminalization, of marijuana
federal
possession
illegal
Department W. Ogden
Attorney
Prosecutions
Memo") (A.A.
guidance approach
as to how
federal
prosecutors
advised in
investigations laws.
and
prosecutions prosecutions
states
with marijuana
Federal
are advised
Although Massachusetts "medical marijuana" category & 32L had been enacted.
37
to
focus
their and
attention not
on
trafficking on with
resources compliance
whose laws. no
state was
involvement voiced
in
this
case.
their
opinion
or less of c. 94C, ~
marijuana 32L.
and the State responded. Supreme the and Judicial of Court G.L. that
The
subsequently ~ a 32L on
impact
c. it provides unlawful
reiterated
against the
search
Fourth
Amendment. at 808.
now to
courts
interpret amounts
with
regard under
of small law
of marijuana
of a federal
violation.
38
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE! defendant/appellee! requests for the Anthony foregoing Craan! Court affirm reasons! the
of Judge Miller
his motion
to suppress.
~:i~
-----
BRIAN J. ANDERSON / 670871 Contant Law Offices! P.C. 141 Tremont Street! 4th Floor Boston! MA 02111 (617) 227-8383 brian@contant-law.com
39
ADDENDUM The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides: Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, ~ 24 (1)(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant
40
substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Massachusetts provides:
General
Laws
Chapter
94C,
32C (a)
(a) Any person who knowingly or intentionally manufactures, distributes, dispenses or cultivates, or possesses with intent to manufacture, distribute, dispense or cuItivate a controlled substance in Class D of section thirty-one shall be imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years or by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment. (b) Any person convicted of violating this section after one or more prior convictions of manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, cultivating or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, dispense or cultivate a controlled substance as defined by section thirty-one under this or any prior law of this jurisdiction or of any offense of any other jurisdiction, federal, state, or territorial, which is the same as or necessarily includes the elements of said offense shall be punished by a term of imprisonment in a jailor house of correction for not less than one nor more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Massachusetts provides:
General
Laws
Chapter
94C,
32L
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, possession of one ounce or less of marihuana
41
shall only be a civil offense, subj ecting an offender who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil penal ty of one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana, but not to any other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification. An offender under the age of eighteen shall be subject to the same forfei ture and civil penalty provisions, provided he or she completes a drug awareness program which meets the criteria set forth in Section 32M of this Chapter. The parents or legal guardian of any offender under the age of eighteen shall be notified in accordance with Section 32N of this Chapter of the offense and the availability of a drug awareness program and community service option. If an offender under the age of eighteen fails within one year of the offense to complete both a drug awareness program and the required community service, the civil penalty may be increased pursuant to Section 32N of this Chapter to one thousand dollars and the offender and his or her parents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay that amount. Except as specifically provided in "An Act Establishing A Sensible State Marihuana Policy," neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities or instrumentalities may impose any form of penal ty, sanction or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana. By way of illustration rather than limitation, possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall not provide a basis to deny an offender student financial aid, public housing or any form of public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, to deny the right to operate a motor vehicle or to disqualify an offender from serving as a foster parent or adoptive parent. Information concerning the offense of possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall not be deemed "criminal offender record information," "evaluative information," or "intelligence information" as those terms are defined in Section 167 of Chapter 6 of the General Laws and shall not be recorded in the Criminal Offender Record Information system.
42
As used herein, "possession of one ounce or less of marihuana" includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabol ites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to repeal or modify existing laws, ordinances or bylaws, regulations, personnel practices or policies concerning the operation of motor vehicles or other actions taken while under the influence of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol, laws concerning the unlawful possession of prescription forms of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol such as Marinol, possession of more than one ounce of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol, or selling, manufacturing or trafficking in marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a political subdivision of the Commonwealth from enacting ordinances or bylaws regulating or prohibiting the consumption of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol in public places and providing for additional penalties for the public use of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C, ~ 34 provides: No person knowingly or intentionally shall possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the provisions of this chapter. Except as provided in Section 32L of this Chapter or as hereinafter provided, any person who violates this section shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who violates this section by possessing heroin shall for the first offense be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or both, and for a
43
second or subsequent offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars and imprisonment in a jailor house of correction for not more than two and one-half years. Any person who violates this section by possession of more than one ounce of marihuana or a controlled substance in Class E of section thirty-one shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than six months or a fine of five hundred dollars, or both. Except for an offense involving a controlled substance in Class E of section thirty-one, whoever violates the provisions of this section after one or more convictions of a violation of this section or of a felony under any other provisions of this chapter, or of a corresponding provision of earlier law relating to the sale or manufacture of a narcotic drug as defined in said earlier law, shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or both. If any person who is charged with a violation of this section has not previously been convicted of a violation of any. provision of this chapter or other provision of prior law relative to narcotic drugs or harmful drugs as defined in said prior law, or of a felony under the laws of any state or of the United States relating to such drugs, has had his case continued without a finding to a certain date, or has been convicted and placed on probation, and if, during the period of said continuance or of said probation, such person does not violate any of the conditions of said continuance or said probation, then upon the expiration of such period the court may dismiss the proceedings against him, and may order sealed all official records relating to his arrest, indictment, conviction, probation, continuance or discharge pursuant to this section; provided, however, that departmental records which are not public records, maintained by police and other law enforcement agencies, shall not be sealed; and provided further, that such a record shall be maintained in a separate file by the department of probation solely for the
44
purpose of use by the courts in determining whether or not in subsequent proceedings such person qualifies under this section. The record maintained by the department of probation shall contain only identifying information concerning the person and a statement that he has had his record sealed pursuant to the provisions of this section. Any conviction, the record of which has been sealed under this section, shall not be deemed a conviction for purposes of any disqualification or for any other purpose. No person as to whom such sealing has been ordered shall be held thereafter under any provision of anY,law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge such arrest, indictment, conviction, dismissal, continuance, sealing, or any other related court proceeding, in response to any inquiry made of him for any purpose. Notwi thstanding any other penalty provision of this section, any person who is convicted for the first time under this section for the possession of marihuana or a controlled substance in Class E and who has not previously been convicted of any offense pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, or any provision of prior law relating to narcotic drugs or harmful drugs as defined in said prior law shall be placed on probation unless such person does not consent thereto, or unless the court files a written memorandum stating the reasons for not so doing. Upon successful completion of said probation, the case shall be dismissed and records shall be sealed. It shall be a prima facie defense to a charge of possession of marihuana under this section that the defendant is a patient certified to participate in a therapeutic research program described in chapter ninety- four D, and possessed the marihuana for personal use pursuant to such program.
45
Chapter
269,
10 (h)(1)
Whoever owns, possesses or transfers a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition without complying with the provisions of section 129C of chapter 140 shall be punished by imprisonment in a jailor house of correction for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $500. Whoever commits a second or subsequent violation of this paragraph shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. Any officer authorized to make arrests may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated this paragraph.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276, ~ 2B provides in pertinent part: A person seeking a search warrant shall appear personally before a court or justice authorized to issue search warrants in criminal cases and shall give an affidavit in substantially the form hereinafter prescribed. Such affidavit shall contain the facts, information, and circumstances upon which such person relies to establish sufficient grounds for the issuance of the warrant. The person issuing the warrant shall retain the affidavit and shall deliver it within three days after the issuance of the warrant to the court to which the warrant is returnable. Upon the return of said warrant, the affidavit shall be attached to it and shall be filed therewith, and it shall not be a public document until the warrant is returned.
46
1115 (2011)
Unpublished Disposition 80 Mass.App.Ct. 1115 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTE: THIS OPINION WILL NOT APPEAR IN A PRINTED VOLUME. THE DISPOSITION WILL APPEAR IN A REPORTER TABLE. NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts ofthe case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25,2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. Appeals Court of Massachusetts. COMMONWEALTH v. Francisco VALLE. NO.1O-P-1769. November
10, 2011.
Trooper Donah approached the car and asked the defendant for his license and registration. During the stop, Donah smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car and the odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath. In response to questions, the defendant admitted to both smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol earlier in the day. The trooper then ordered Valle from the car, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police cruiser. At this time, the defendant had not been formally arrested. Donah then searched the car for marijuana. He found three burnt cigarettes in the car's ashtray; they carried the aroma of marijuana. The cigarette remains had a total weight of less than one ounce. Donah continued his search of the car and located a loaded fireann under the front passenger seat of the car. A second trooper, Brian Clapprood, arrived and assisted with the search of the car. Donah then placed Valle under formal arrest and gave him his Miranda warnings. At the police station, Valle agreed to a breathalyzer test. It determined that he was operating under the influence of alcohol. As a result of the search and subsequent breath test, the Conml0nwealth obtained grand jury indictments for the offenses of (l) unlawful possession of a firearm, G.L. c. 269, S 10(a ); (2) unlawful possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card, in violation ofG.L. c. 269, S 10(h ); (3) unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, in violation G.L. c. 269, S 10(n ); and (4) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, in violation of G.L. c. 90, S
24(l)(a )(1).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 *1 The Commonwealth appeals from a Superior Court order, which allowed the defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from a search of the defendant's automobile. For the following reasons, we affirm. Background. On April 23, 2009, at about 11:45 P. M., State police Trooper Matthew Donah was working in downtown Springfield in a marked police cruiser. While stopped at a traffic light, Trooper Donah observed defendant Valle's car traveling toward the intersection at an excessive speed. The car made a tum past the trooper's stopped car at such a high rate of speed that it crossed the marked lines and the trooper thought the car might strike his cruiser or the median. Trooper Donah then followed Valle's car. As he did, Donah observed partially obstructed numbers on the car's rear license plate. He then pulled the car over.
Valle filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, which consisted of (1) the loaded firearm found underneath the passenger seat; and (2) any consequent evidence of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), including the breathalyzer test result at the station house. A Superior Court judge granted the motion in an order dated June 14,2010. On June 18,2010, the Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal of the order, and on June 28, 2010, submitted an application to a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for leave to appeal. The single justice allowed the application and referred the appeal to this court. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2) and (b) (1), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). *2 Discussion. The Commonwealth argues (1) that the smell of burnt marijuana furnished probable cause to justify a search of the car under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement,
1
'/,/,,:,;:.tlawNext
2013 Thomson
Reuters.
Works.
000047
1115 (2011)
to a lawful arrest, and (3) that the exit order, handcuffing, and placement in the police cruiser were lawful under either theory of the search. 1. The odor oj'marijuana and the automobile exception. The Commonwealth's claim that the search was valid based on the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from the car, as either evidence of a crime or contraband, was prepared and briefed prior to the decision in Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011). As the Commonwealth now appears to acknowledge, the reasoning of Cruz forecloses its first contention. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement pernlits a warrantless search of an automobile ifpolice have "probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle on a public way contains contraband or evidence of a crime, and exigent circumstances make obtaining a warrant impracticable." Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. 891, 901 (1990), citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925). In Commonwealth v. CrllZ, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the reduction of possession of one ounce or less of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil infraction prevents the smell of marijuana from qualifying as probable cause to justifY a warrantless search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 459 Mass. at 475-476. The court held that the police must instead have probable cause to believe that a criminal amount of contraband is present in the car, not merely some traces or remains of a substance. Jd. at 476. Here, the mere odor of burnt marijuana could not, and did not, support the belief that more than one ounce lay in the car. The court in Commonwealth v. Cruz also rejected the argument that "contraband" can have a noncriminal character and thereby independently justify a search. 459 Mass. at 474-477. The court instead required that contraband have a criminal character either by quality or quantity, in this case more than one ounce of marijuana, to satisfY the probable cause requirement of the automobile exception. Ibid. In the wake of Commonwealth v. Cruz, it is no longer enough that an officer smells marijuana coming from a vehicle, even when coupled with a defendant's admission of smoking marijuana. To justify the search of an automobile, the officers must have other evidence of criminal activity or of the existence of a criminal amount of contraband. 2. Search incident to a lawfitl arrest. The Commonwealth contends separately that the search of Valle's car proceeded as incident to a substantially contemporaneous lawful arrest.
2
However, the Commonwealth did not adequately raise the issue of search incident to arrest below and, therefore, has waived the issue on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Robie, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 494, 499 (2001) (because the issue of the exit order was not raised below and the defendant did not alert the motion judge to the argument, the waiver doctrine precludes him from doing so on appeal). See also Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 447 Mass. 631, 633-634 (2006). *3 Under Massachusetts standards, an argument must consist of a line of reasoning supported by reference to some authority. See 20ra v.. State Ethics Commn., 415 Mass. 640, 642 n. 3 (1993), and cases cited. In this instance, neither the defendant nor the Commonwealth filed a written memorandum with the motion judge so as to preserve this potentially significant question clearly for the study of that judge and for appellate review. The motion judge provided the attorneys with the interval of the week between the first and second days of the suppression hearing for the preparation of their arguments of law. On the second day of the suppression hearing, the prosecutor referred briefly to an independent source of probable cause for the search. However, she did not clearly characterize it as either a search incident to a lawful arrest or as a search within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement by reason of the defendant's probable operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When the judge asked the prosecutor for authority for the alternate basis of search of the car, she replied that Commonwealth v. Garden was supportive. Under Commonwealth v. Garden, 451 Mass. 43, 47-48 (2008), the odor of marijuana alone furnished police with probable cause to search an automobile without a warrant. The judge viewed Garden as inapplicable and apparently as repetitive of prior argument concerning the effect of St.2008, c. 387. In the absence of a written memorandum, of specific reference to the doctrine of search incident to a lawful arrest, of specific reference to the automobile exception, and of citation to appropriate precedents, the prosecutor did not provide the motion judge with adequate articulation of a separate basis for search of the car now characterized on appeal as a search incident to a lawful arrest. See Commonwealth v. Marchionda, 385 Mass. 238, 242 (1982) ("An issue not fairly raised before the trial judge will not be considered for the first time on appeal"). See also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 425 Mass. 633, 636-637 (1997). 3. The exit order. The Commonwealth challenges also the motion judge's fmding that the exit order was not justified. It
VVestlawNexx
.000048
Com. v. Valle, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 1115 (2011) 956 N.E.2d 1265 argues that the exit order was proper under either theory of the search discussed supra. A lawful exit order requires evidence showing either (I) that the officer had a reasonable reasonable suspicion belief that his safety or that of others was at stake; (2) that there was of criminal activity; or (3) that the exit valid search of the and the motion disposes of order served to facilitate an independently
arrest arose from the invalid search of the car. Consequently, blood alcohol measurement tree. also in the roots of the poisonous
car. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. at 466-467, cases cited. As to the first possible justification, during the traffic stop. Our foregoing the second and third justifications discussion
Parallel Citations
956 N.E.2d 1265 (Table), 2011 WL 5421108 (Mass.App.Ct.)
Footnotes As discussed in/i'a, the Commonwealth concedes that this issue became moot during the pendency of appeal as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011).
The Cruz decision was issued following the passage of "An Act establishing a sensible State marihuana policy," which reduced the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil infraction. This Act is codified at G.L. c. 94C, 32L-32N, and became effective on December 4,2008. See S1.2008, c. 387.
SS
"Given our conclusion that G.L. c. 94C, SS 32L-32N, has changed the status of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana from a crime to a civil violation, without at least some other additional fact to bolster a reasonable suspicion of actual criminal activity, the odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot reasonably provide suspicion of criminal activity to justifY an exit order." Commonwealth Cruz, 459 Mass. at 472. v.
End of Document
';,.',pstld\iiNext @ 2013
Thomson
Reuters.
Works.
OOOO~9
us. Department
of Justice
H+ishingJun
D.C.
2fl5:'/O
~.v:;,qy:----
FROM:
David W. Ogd(~ll)
Deputy Attorney General
SUBJEC'[':
Thismemoranclum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical usc ofnlm'ijuana. 'I'hese laws vary in their substantiv(~ provisions ane! in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdicTions within those States. Rather than developing diJTerem guidelines f()r every possible variant of state anc1local law, this menl0ranc1um provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal ClJforcelnent priorities. T'hc Departrncnr of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances thannarijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale ofrnarijuanu is a serious crime and provides a significant source ofrevenue to largc ..scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the inlportance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the l.Jnited Stmes rernains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cmtels.
/\d in all States. Congress hasdctennincd
The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecUloria.l resources. Tn general,Unitecl States Attorneys are vested with "plenary authority \-vith regard to federal criminal matters" within their districts, USAM9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are'"invested byslatute and delegation fi'om the Attorney Cj-cneralwith the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority," ld. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance, The prosecution of signincant traffickers ofiIlegal clmgs, including marijuana. and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's investigative and prosecutoria! resources shoulclhe directed towards these objectives. As a general matter. pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in vour States on
. _---_.-_ ... __ .'. ... ,41
000050
Memorandum for Selected United States Attol11eys Page 2 Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
individualswbose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient usc of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unla\\'fully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. -1'0 be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities. 'fypically, vv'hen any of the folIowing characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking acti vity of potential federal interest:
unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms; violence: . sales (0 minors; financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state 1m\', including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law; amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purpOlted compliance \vith state or local la\\'; illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or ties to other criminal enterprises .
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federalpropelty. Thisguidance regarding resource allocation does not "legalize" marijuana or provide a legal defense toa violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, orrights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one 01' all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide. to the exercise of investigative andprosecutorial discretion.
00005.1
Memorandum J{)J" Selected United States Attorneys Page 3 Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the produ cti 011or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves importantJederal interests. Your of1ices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent \vith the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and 10ca] law enforcement authorities, and the Princi pies of Federal. Prosecution.
cc: All United States Attorneys Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minne50ta Chair, Attol11ey General's Advisor)' Committee Michele M. Leonhart Acting Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
000052
I, Brian the
J.
Anderson, /
hereby
certify
of of
defendant
appellee
complied
court but
of briefs, Rule
MAss. R .App .P .
or memorandum record);
of decisions);
16(f)
(reproduction (length
rules,
regulations) ; Rule 18
16 (h)
MAss.R . App .P . 20
(appendix) ; appendices,
and and
(form of briefs,
Date:
3/7/13 BRIAN
000053