Search and seizure – Automobile exception – Firearm

Listen to this article

Where a Superior Court judge suppressed a firearm found in a defendant’s vehicle, that order must be reversed because the search was justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

“… On September 23, 2020, at around 3:45 P.M., Springfield police officers were dispatched to 15 Austin Street for reports a person there had been shot. After arriving at the scene, officers saw the defendant lying outside of the open front driver’s-side door of a blue four-door Acura sedan in the parking lot of George’s Auto Body. There were several men standing in the lot near the Acura and one man reaching inside the vehicle to retrieve a cell phone when police first approached the defendant. The autobody shop was open to the public and located on a busy city street. The defendant told officers that he had been shot ‘down the street’ and that he did not know who did it. He appeared to have a gunshot wound to his upper left thigh and was visibly bleeding. Witnesses told officers that the defendant drove into the parking lot and said that he had been shot. Police saw blood on the driver’s seat of the Acura. While the defendant was being medically treated on the ground next to the Acura, an officer searched the vehicle and found a firearm under the front passenger seat inside a clear plastic bag. The engine of the vehicle was still running until police turned it off during their search. …

“… The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits officers to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile parked in a public place and apparently capable of being moved where there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. … The existence of probable cause depends on whether the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge at the time of the search or seizure were sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that evidence of a crime would be found within the vehicle. …

“Here, the defendant does not dispute that the autobody business’s parking lot was open to the public or that the defendant’s vehicle was capable of being moved. We therefore move to the question whether there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that evidence would be found in the Acura.

“The defendant was actively bleeding when police first encountered him, and he told officers he had been shot ‘down the street.’ Thus, it was reasonable for them to conclude that the defendant had been shot recently and nearby to the autobody shop and parking lot. There was probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred, whether the defendant’s gunshot wound was the result of another person shooting him (assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, G.L.c. 265, §15A) or was self-inflicted (discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building, G.L.c. 269, §12E). Witnesses reported that the defendant drove into the parking lot before falling out of his car, and the Acura’s engine was still running until an officer reached in to turn it off after retrieving the firearm. Moreover, police saw blood on the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Based on this evidence, we conclude that there was ample basis to support probable cause to believe that evidence of the crime resulting in the defendant being shot would be found inside the vehicle.”

Commonwealth v. Melendez (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-088-24) (5 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-449) (Aug. 9, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.