Court Opinion

ID: 9376945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 15:04:46.906925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:10.555360
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

22-P-389                                               Appeals Court

                  COMMONWEALTH   vs.   EDDIE TORRES.

                            No. 22-P-389.

           Franklin.    November 7, 2022. – March 6, 2023.

             Present:   Massing, Singh, & Hershfang, JJ.

Controlled Substances. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Plain
     view, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Constitutional Law,
     Probable cause, Search and seizure. Practice, Criminal,
     Motion to suppress.

     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court
Department on December 20, 2019.

     A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Francis
E. Flannery, J.

     An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory
appeal was allowed by Delila Argaez Wendlandt, J., in the
Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal
was reported by her to the Appeals Court.

     Cynthia M. Von Flatern, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.
     Esther J. Horwich for the defendant.

    SINGH, J.     The question presented by this appeal is whether

a State trooper's plain view observation of a used "crack" pipe
                                                                    2

in a motor vehicle provides probable cause for a warrantless

search of the entire vehicle for contraband drugs.   Concluding

that it does, we reverse the order of the Superior Court judge

suppressing evidence of drugs found in a vehicle in which the

defendant was traveling as a back seat passenger.1

     Background.   "We present the facts as found by the motion

judge, supplemented by uncontroverted facts from the record that

have been 'explicitly or implicitly credited' by the motion

judge."2   Commonwealth v. Torres-Pagan, 484 Mass. 34, 35 (2020),

quoting Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429, 431

(2015).

     In the early morning hours of September 5, 2019,

Massachusetts State Police Troopers Michael Leslie and Benjamin

Poirier were traveling north on Interstate 91 near Bernardston

in a marked police cruiser.   At about 3:23 A.M., they observed a

sedan cross over the rumble strip near exit 50A (then known as

     1 The defendant is charged with trafficking in ten grams or
more of fentanyl, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (c 1/2); trafficking in
thirty-six grams or more, but less than one hundred grams, of
cocaine, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (b) (2); and conspiracy to violate
drug laws, G. L. c. 94C, § 40. Following an evidentiary
hearing, a Superior Court judge allowed the defendant's pretrial
motion to suppress the narcotics. A single justice of the
Supreme Judicial Court allowed the Commonwealth's application
for interlocutory appeal and referred the matter to this court.

     2 The judge explicitly found the testimony of both troopers,
who testified on behalf of the Commonwealth at the suppression
hearing, to be "entirely credible."
                                                                     3

exit 28A) into a prohibited travel area.   When they ran a check

of the vehicle's license plate number, the troopers learned that

the registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended Vermont

driver's license.   The troopers maneuvered their cruiser behind

the vehicle and activated the cruiser's blue lights to initiate

a traffic stop; the vehicle pulled over without incident.     As

they were coming to a stop in the breakdown lane, Trooper Leslie

observed the defendant, a back seat passenger, through the

vehicle's rear window:   the defendant sat up, as if he had just

been lying down, looked out the back window toward the cruiser,

and then ducked down again.   Trooper Leslie recognized him.

    Trooper Leslie approached the vehicle on the driver's side,

while Trooper Poirier approached on the passenger's side.     The

vehicle contained three occupants:   the driver, the front seat

passenger, and the defendant.   When he approached the vehicle,

Trooper Poirier observed that the defendant was not wearing a

seatbelt, prompting the trooper to ask the defendant for his

identification.   The defendant refused this request.

    Meanwhile, after identifying the driver as the registered

owner of the vehicle, Trooper Leslie ordered him out of the

vehicle to arrest him for driving with a suspended license.     As
                                                                   4

the driver stepped out, Trooper Leslie observed a "used crack

pipe" on the floor board near the driver's left leg.3

     Trooper Leslie proceeded to handcuff the driver and place

him in the back seat of a cruiser.    After providing the driver

with his Miranda rights, Trooper Leslie asked him for the

defendant's name.    The driver responded that the defendant's

name was "Troy."    Trooper Leslie had dealt with the defendant

before, and although he could not recall the defendant's name at

the time, he knew that the provided name was false.4    Trooper

Leslie next asked the driver if there was anything illegal or of

substantial value in the vehicle; the driver stated that there

were no drugs in the vehicle.

     Following Trooper Leslie's discovery of the used crack

pipe, the defendant and front seat passenger were removed from

the vehicle and detained so the vehicle could be searched.

     3 Trooper Leslie testified that the crack pipe was "a glass
hollow tube with burnt Brillo on the end, and [it was] charred
like a black char around the end." Based on his training and
experience, Trooper Leslie was familiar with the appearance of
crack pipes and knew how they were used. He also had previously
seized crack pipes and crack cocaine during his tenure in law
enforcement.

     4 The judge found that "by this point[, Trooper Leslie]
recalled the defendant from a prior drug arrest." The defendant
contends that the evidence was to the contrary, i.e., that
Trooper Leslie did not recall the context of his earlier
interaction with the defendant until after the defendant was
already detained. We need not decide whether the judge's
finding as to this point is clearly erroneous, because we do not
consider it in our calculus.
                                                                      5

During the search, the troopers discovered a large quantity of

heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl in the area where the defendant

had been sitting in the back seat.

    Discussion.   "In reviewing a decision on a motion to

suppress, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact

absent clear error but conduct an independent review of [his]

ultimate findings and conclusions of law" (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Rosario-Santiago, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 166, 171

(2019).   "The Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating

that the actions of the police officers were within

constitutional limits."   Commonwealth v. Meneus, 476 Mass. 231,

234 (2017).

    "Under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of

Rights, warrantless searches 'are per se unreasonable -- subject

only to a few specifically established and well-delineated

exceptions'" (citation omitted).     Commonwealth v. Dame, 473

Mass. 524, 536, cert. denied, 580 U.S. 857 (2016).     One of those

is the automobile exception.   Id.   "Due to the inherent mobility

of an automobile, and the owner's reduced expectation of privacy

when stopped on a public road, police are permitted to search a

vehicle based upon probable cause to believe that it contains

evidence of a crime."   Commonwealth v. Davis, 481 Mass. 210, 220

(2019).   The question we therefore consider here is "whether the
                                                                    6

police, prior to the commencement of [the] warrantless search,

had probable cause to believe that they would find the

instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime in

the vehicle" (citation omitted).   Id.

    "Probable cause exists when 'the facts and circumstances

within the officer's knowledge at the time of making the search

. . . were sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in

believing' that a location contained evidence or contraband"

(citation omitted).    Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 792

(2012).   "In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name

implies, we deal with probabilities.     These are not technical;

they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday

life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians,

act" (citation omitted).   Id. at 794.    The probable cause

inquiry is "not a high bar" (citation omitted), Commonwealth v.

Guastucci, 486 Mass. 22, 26 (2020), and "does not require a

showing that evidence more likely than not will be found"

(citation omitted), Commonwealth v. Diaz-Arias, 98 Mass. App.

Ct. 504, 508 (2020).

    The Commonwealth argues that the defendant's motion to

suppress should have been denied because Trooper Leslie's

observation of a used crack pipe on the floor board of the

vehicle established probable cause to search for further

evidence of a crime.   The defendant counters that both the
                                                                    7

seizure of the crack pipe and the subsequent warrantless search

of the vehicle were unlawful because possession of a crack pipe

is not illegal, and its presence did not justify a search for

contraband.   We address each issue in turn.

     1.   Seizure of the crack pipe.   "Under [the plain view]

doctrine, if police are lawfully in a position from which they

view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately

apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to

the object, they may seize it without a warrant."    Commonwealth

v. Perkins, 465 Mass. 600, 603-604 (2013), quoting Minnesota v.

Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993).    The plain view doctrine

applies under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights

where police come across the object inadvertently.    Perkins,

supra at 604.

     Here, Trooper Leslie inadvertently observed the crack pipe

in plain view as the driver stepped out of the vehicle following

a lawful exit order.   Based on his training and experience,

Trooper Leslie believed that the crack pipe, which was charred

and had burnt Brillo on the end, had been used.     While the

possession of drug paraphernalia such as a crack pipe is not, in

and of itself, a crime,5 see G. L. c. 94C, § 32I, a reasonable

     5 The parties do not dispute that a crack pipe fits within
the definition of "drug paraphernalia" under G. L. c. 94C, § 1.
                                                                    8

officer could infer that the used crack pipe was intended to be,

and had been, used to smoke crack cocaine,6 any amount of which

is illegal to possess.   See G. L. c. 94C, §§ 31, 34.   It was

apparent then that the pipe was an instrumentality of crime.

See Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676, 694 (2010) ("In the

case of contraband and fruits and instrumentalities of crime,

the nexus to criminal activity is obvious" [citation omitted]).

It follows, as found by the motion judge, that "there was

probable cause to associate [the pipe] with criminal activity"

and its seizure was justified.     See Commonwealth v. Garcia, 34

Mass. App. Ct. 645, 650 (1993) ("If there is some characteristic

of the particular baggie observed in plain view that indicates

that it is being used for an unlawful purpose, that fact alone

may be enough to justify seizure").

     2.   Search of the vehicle.   We next consider whether

Trooper Leslie's discovery of the used crack pipe on the

     6 On appeal, the defendant suggests that the crack pipe
could have been used to smoke legal substances. This argument
was not raised below, nor was there any evidence adduced at the
suppression hearing that the item seized had any lawful purpose.
Indeed, the judge made a finding, crediting the trooper's
testimony (based on his training and experience), that the
seized item was a used crack pipe. In any event, "[i]nnocent
explanations . . . do not vitiate the existence of probable
cause where there is a reasonable probability that criminal
activity is afoot." Commonwealth v. Wallace, 22 Mass. App. Ct.
247, 250 (1986). See Diaz-Arias, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 510
("While one might imagine an innocent explanation for the
observed behavior, one does not have to indulge the innocent
explanations in evaluating probable cause").
                                                                     9

floorboard in the driver's area furnished probable cause to

search the vehicle for additional evidence or contraband.

     An officer's mere observation of a benign object often

associated with drug use or distribution generally will not

supply probable cause to search.     See Garcia, 34 Mass. App. Ct.

at 650-652.   A crack pipe, however, falls squarely outside this

class of objects, as it is primarily used for an illegal

purpose:   smoking crack cocaine.7   This distinguishes it from

other items that have lawful applications but may also be -- or

used in close connection with -- contraband in other

circumstances.   Cf. Commonwealth v. Landry, 438 Mass. 206, 210-

211 (2002) (hypodermic needle); Commonwealth v. Couture, 407

Mass. 178, 180-181, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990) (handgun);

Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159, 163 (1983) (empty gun

holster and ammunition); Garcia, supra (glassine baggie).

     The defendant argues, as the motion judge found here, that

because there was no additional evidence suggesting that drugs

were in the vehicle, such as "some perceptible amount of crack

     7 We have recognized that "although something may, in fact,
be perfectly innocent or legal it may, depending on the
circumstances, still establish reasonable suspicion or probable
cause to believe that a crime has been, will be, or is being
committed." Commonwealth v. Locke, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 497, 505
n.11 (2016).
                                                                    10

cocaine"8 or signs of recent use, the presence of the used crack

pipe did not give rise to probable cause.   In support of this

claim, the defendant points us to decisions from Massachusetts

and other jurisdictions where at least one of these factors was

present.   But "[t]he issue is not the comparative strength of

the evidence [to other like cases], but whether the evidence

here was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause."

Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 576 (2002).     We conclude

that it was.

     Here, prior to the search of the vehicle, Trooper Leslie

and Trooper Poirier had probable cause to believe that a crime

had been committed (possession of crack cocaine) and that

evidence of that crime would be found in the vehicle.    The most

reasonable inference on this record is that the crack pipe had

been used to smoke crack cocaine.   The crack pipe's location in

the vehicle, on the floor board near the foot of the driver and

registered owner, also established a sufficient nexus between

     8 The judge determined that the evidence did not permit him
to make an inference that the crack pipe contained any
contraband drugs. Although there was no explicit testimony
concerning the presence or absence of drugs or drug residue on
the pipe, the judge credited the description of it as "used"
with "burnt Brillo" and "black char" at one end. Because our
analysis does not turn on it, we need not decide whether the
evidence permitted an inference that the used crack pipe
contained at least a trace amount of crack residue. See Black's
Law Dictionary 1503 (10th ed. 2014) ("residue" is "[s]omething
that is left over after a part is removed or disposed of").
                                                                 11

the vehicle and this suspected criminal activity.   See

Commonwealth v. Ierardi, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 297, 300 (1983)

("When the police discovered cartridges in the pocket of the

defendant's trousers, immediately after his removal from the car

which he owned and had been driving, they could reasonably

believe that a search of the car would reveal a gun").    Cf.

Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 420 Mass. 542, 555 (1995) (no nexus

between cocaine found on passenger's person and automobile

itself).   Given a used crack pipe's inherent connection to

criminal activity, Trooper Leslie's observation of the used

crack pipe in plain view on the floor of the vehicle raised a

fair probability that crack cocaine would be found therein.     Cf.

Toole, 389 Mass. at 163-164 (empty holster and ammunition did

not establish probable cause that illegal gun was in vehicle).

    We disagree with the motion judge's conclusion that an

officer's observation of certain drug paraphernalia, absent some

visible amount of contraband drugs or signs of recent

consumption, cannot supply probable cause to search a vehicle

for illegal drugs.   While at least one of these factors is often

present in cases like the one at bar, there is no per se rule

requiring such evidence under our jurisprudence on probable

cause.   Rather, our case law suggests that the absence of an

observable amount of contraband drugs is not determinative.     See

Gentile, 437 Mass. at 576 (defendant's admission to smoking
                                                                  12

marijuana previous day and statement that truck contained "pot

pipe" furnished probable cause to search truck for evidence of

marijuana possession).   Nor is the absence of evidence

indicating recent use, as demonstrated by our decision in

Commonwealth v. Dolby, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 545, 550-551 (2000).

    In Dolby, we held that an officer's plain view observation

of a "bong" containing marijuana residue, within a motor

vehicle, established probable cause to search the vehicle for

additional contraband.   Dolby, 50 Mass. App. Ct. at 550-551.

There was no indication in that case that the bong was recently

used.   The only material distinguishing factor between the facts

in Dolby and the instant case is the observable drug residue

within the paraphernalia.   See id. at 546-547.   In assessing

whether there is a reasonable belief that a vehicle contains

evidence of a crime, the inference to be drawn from the presence

of a crack pipe containing visible crack residue is essentially

the same as a crack pipe without such residue that shows other

clear signs of prior use.   See id. at 550 (noting significance

of residue in chamber as "indicating prior use").

    Moreover, to require particular evidence to be present to

establish probable cause in these circumstances would ignore the

fact that "no two cases are precisely alike," see Commonwealth

v. Rivera, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 44 (1989), and that probable

cause "is 'a fluid concept' that is 'not readily, or even
                                                                     13

usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules,'"9 District of

Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586 (2018), quoting Illinois

v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983).   Indeed, the "'ultimate

touchstone' of both the Fourth Amendment [to the United States

Constitution] and art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of

Rights] is reasonableness" (citation omitted).     Commonwealth v.

Overmyer, 469 Mass. 16, 20 (2014).    While "[i]t is unreasonable

for the police to spend time conducting warrantless searches for

contraband when no specific facts suggest criminality," that is

not what took place here (citation omitted).     Id.   Rather, the

discovery of the used crack pipe in the vehicle was evidence

that a crime had likely occurred.10

     Applying the reasonable inferences drawn from Trooper

Leslie's plain view observation of a used crack pipe to the

flexible, commonsense probable cause standard, we conclude that

a reasonable officer would be warranted in believing that

contraband would be found inside the vehicle.    Because the

     9 The Supreme Judicial Court has resisted the imposition of
a categorical rule stating that one piece of evidence is
essential to a finding of probable cause in a particular
context. See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703, 710-711
(1998).

     10Further specific   facts suggesting criminality include the
defendant popping up in   the back seat to look at the police and
then ducking back down,   the defendant refusing to provide
identification, and the   driver giving a false name for the
defendant.
                                                              14

warrantless search of the vehicle was supported by probable

cause, the defendant's motion to suppress should have been

denied.

                                   Order allowing motion to
                                     suppress reversed.