 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Sauer10/24/2000
Middlesex.
December 15, 1999.
Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions. Practice, Criminal , Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement. Evidence, Admissions and confessions. Search and Seizure, Protective frisk, Threshold police inquiry. Controlled Substances.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department on July 1, 1996.
A motion to suppress evidence was heard by Jonathan Brant, J., and the case was tried before Mark S. Coven, J.
On evidence obtained in a routine traffic stop, the defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, operating with a suspended license, and possession of a class E substance with intent to distribute. A marked lane violation was placed on file. On appeal, the defendant claims the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress, and the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty. He also claims the trial judge should have held a voluntariness hearing. We affirm.
Facts.
We address the motion to suppress first, setting out the facts as the motion judge found them. See Commonwealth v. Yesilciman, 406 Mass. 736, 743 (1990).
Shortly after midnight on June 29, 1996, John Crowley and another Cambridge police officer were working undercover in the area of Windsor and Hampshire Streets in Cambridge. Crowley saw the defendant bring his car to a screeching stop near a bar called the Windsor Tap. The defendant ran across the street into the bar, returned a short time later, and drove off very quickly. Crowley followed the defendant in his unmarked police car. The defendant's driving was erratic; he repeatedly crossed the center line and swerved into oncoming traffic. Eventually Crowley stopped the defendant and asked to see his license and registration. Smelling an odor of alcoholic beverages on the defendant's breath, Crowley asked the defendant whether he had been drinking. The defendant responded that he had "had a few." Crowley noticed some strange behavior (not detailed at the motion to suppress hearing but described more fully at trial). Crowley "thought Defendant might have been under the influence of some type of narcotic drug." We infer from later events that the license the defendant produced was in the name of Walter G. Sauer.
Crowley asked the defendant to get out of the car. As he did so, the defendant kept his hands in his pockets. Crowley asked "What are you doing?" The " efendant replied by taking his hands out of his pockets and extending a closed fist toward . . . Crowley and stating, 'It's just sleeping pills.'" In response to Crowley's query as to what the defendant meant, the defendant opened his hand, revealing a fistful of pills which the defendant identified as "Soma." The officer then patted down the defendant and found additional pills. Crowley next asked the defendant whether he had a prescription for the pills. The defendant produced "two papers" with the name "William Lyons" on them. In response to Crowley's question about the identity of William Lyons, the defendant responded that he had obtained percocet under the name of William Lyons. Upon inquiry, the defendant said he had taken five percocets about an hour before. (From the trial transcript we learn that one of the documents was a prescription for five percocets. The defendant said he had taken all five a few hours before, so that there were none left at the time of the stop.) The defendant was then arrested.
Discussion.
1. Custodial interrogation.
On appeal, the defendant claims, as he ap
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|