 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Com. v. Davis12/16/1996
Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Interlocutory appeal. Constitutional Law, Search and Seizure. Search and Seizure, Threshold police inquiry, Protective frisk.
FLANNERY, J. The defendant was charged with possession of marihuana in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 34; possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, in violation of c. 269, § 10(h); possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, in violation of c. 140, § 129C; possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number while in the attempted commission of a felony, in violation of c. 269, § 11B; and speeding, a civil infraction, under c. 90, § 17. The Commonwealth later brought an additional charge against the defendant for possession of a firearm in a vehicle without a license, in violation of c. 269, § 10(a).
A District Court Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress from evidence a plastic baggie containing a leafy substance alleged to be marihuana, an item alleged to be a .22 caliber Jennings automatic firearm, and items alleged to be ammunition. Thereafter, the Judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress and issued written findings of fact and rulings of law in support of his decision. The Commonwealth brings this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 15, 378 Mass. 882 (1979), and G. L. c. 278, § 28E. See Commonwealth v. Bouvier, 399 Mass. 1002, 1003, 504 N.E.2d 355 (1987). We affirm.
The relevant facts found by the Judge are as follows. On March 23, 1994, at approximately 9:20 P.M., State Trooper Pamela Larose stopped the defendant on Route 391 in Chicopee. The defendant allegedly had been tailgating the trooper's cruiser when she suddenly took an exit ramp and then reappeared from an entrance ramp back onto the road. When Larose put on her blue lights, the defendant immediately pulled over. When Larose asked the defendant why she had been travelling so close to the trooper's cruiser, the defendant denied knowing that she was tailgating the cruiser. Larose verified that the defendant's license and registration were in order and then gave her a verbal warning.
As the trooper returned to her cruiser after this encounter, she noticed that the defendant drove away at an excessive rate of speed. Larose pursued the defendant onto Interstate 91 and clocked her going eighty-five miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour speed zone. She activated her lights again, and the defendant stopped immediately. As Larose approached the defendant's vehicle, she noticed that the defendant was hitting the steering wheel and moving about in the seat in an agitated manner. When Larose asked the defendant why she was speeding, the defendant replied that she was trying to get home. At this time the trooper noticed that the defendant's eyes appeared glassy and bloodshot. Larose asked the defendant to perform four field sobriety tests, which she completed successfully. The trooper did not contemplate arresting the defendant for driving under the influence or for any other crime.
Larose then asked the defendant if she had any sharp objects on her. When the defendant responded in the negative, Larose decided to pat frisk the defendant because she felt concern for her own safety on account of the defendant's jittery behavior. As Larose began a pat frisk of the defendant, the defendant removed a bag from her coat pocket and stated: "That's my pot." The trooper arrested the defendant and proceeded to perform an inventory search of the defendant's car, whereupon Larose discovered a firearm and ammunition.
In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the motion Judge's subsidiary findings unless there is clear
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|