Commonwealth v. Daniel (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-058-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC‑11214 COMMONWEALTH vs. CLINT DANIEL (and a companion case[1]). Suffolk. December 6, 2012. ‑ April 5, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Firearms. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Search and Seizure, Threshold police inquiry, Motor vehicle, Probable cause, Protective sweep. Evidence, Firearm. Motor Vehicle, Firearms, Operating under the influence. Complaints received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on December 18, 2009. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Tracy‑Lee Lyons, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Timothy J. Brown, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Zachary M. Hillman, Assistant District Attorney (Benjamin R. Megrian, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. The defendants, Clint Daniel and Alyson Tayetto, were stopped by a Boston police officer for a motor vehicle infraction in the early morning hours of December 13, 2009. The interior of the vehicle smelled of burnt marijuana, and in response to a question from the officer, Tayetto, the driver, produced two small bags containing the substance. The officer searched the vehicle and found a handgun and ammunition in the glove box. Daniel and Tayetto were subsequently charged with several firearms offenses. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the vehicle. A Boston Municipal Court judge allowed the motions, and a single justice of this court allowed the Commonwealth’s motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal in the Appeals Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). The Appeals Court reversed the Boston Municipal Court judge’s order that the evidence be suppressed, Commonwealth v. Daniel, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 306, 313-316 (2012), and we granted Daniel’s application for further appellate review. The Commonwealth argues that the motions to suppress should not have been allowed. The Commonwealth contends that the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband, and thus permissibly ordered both occupants from the vehicle, and also that the circumstances would have caused a reasonable officer to fear for his safety, thus permitting him to search the vehicle for weapons. In addition, the Commonwealth makes two […]