Search And Seizure – Vehicle Stop – Exit Order – Inventory Search

Listen to this article

Where two defendants were convicted on charges of gun and ammunition possession based on evidence obtained as a result of a police stop of a vehicle the defendants were occupying, the convictions should be affirmed because the police were justified in ordering the defendants out of the car and in conducting an inventory search of the car’s trunk.

Valid Police Conduct

“Once again, we consider the constitutional limits on police when they order a driver or passenger of a motor vehicle, stopped for a motor vehicle violation, to exit the vehicle. … We also consider whether a subsequent inventory search of the vehicle was permissible.

“On the basis of the case law as developed, we are constrained to decide that the police in this case had a sufficient basis to order both defendants from the vehicle when they did and that the subsequent inventory search of the trunk of the vehicle was within permissible constitutional limits. The defendant [Martel] Horton, who was the driver of the vehicle, and the defendant [Fedly] Jean-Charles, a passenger seated behind Horton in the rear of the vehicle, were both convicted at a jury trial in the Superior Court on gun and ammunition possession charges. …

“The crucial fact, as the motion judge found, is that Jean-Charles reached down below his leg and kicked at something. Reaching under one’s leg and kicking at something on the floor are movements that Massachusetts courts have said could be viewed as efforts to retrieve or conceal an object, which contributes to a reasonable apprehension of danger. …

“Other factors, which on their own would not justify an exit order, contribute to a determination that the exit order was justified. The stop took place in the middle of the night in a high crime area. This fact ‘does not allow the police, without more, to order a [person] out of a vehicle or to conduct a patfrisk,’ but ‘[t]he character of the neighborhood as a high-crime area is a relevant factor in determining whether there is reasonable suspicion of a threat to the officer’s safety.’ … In addition, Jean-Charles looked rapidly side to side at the officers. That he looked at the officers does not by itself justify an exit order, … but when viewed together with his hand movements, might have reasonably have contributed to an apprehension that he was hiding or retrieving something. Since we determine the exit order was justified by factors that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of danger, the .25 caliber gun discovered when officers looked into the car after Jean-Charles’s removal was properly admitted into evidence. …

“At the motion hearing, [Officer Edward] Gately testified on direct and cross-examination that he intended to tow the car all along, as is standard practice for cars without valid plates. The Commonwealth adduced similar testimony from another officer that it is standard practice to tow such vehicles. It is apparent from the motion judge’s findings that he found the officers’ testimony credible. This evidence allows us to conclude that the impoundment was contemplated from the beginning of the stop, and not simply a pretext to conduct further investigation of the car.”

The full text of this decision can be found on Lawyers Weekly’s website, malwdev.wpengine.com.

Commonwealth v. Horton (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-087-05) (12 pages) (Greenberg, J.) (Appeals Court) Motion to suppress evidence heard by Spurlock, J.; cases tried before Rouse, J., in Superior Court. David H. Mirsky for Martel Horton; Richard N. Foley for Fedly Jean-Charles; Hallie White Speight and Joseph M. Ditkoff for the commonwealth (Docket No. 03-P-1544) (May 20, 2005).