Commonwealth v. Crowley-Chester (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-041-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12128 COMMONWEALTH vs. ATREYO CROWLEY-CHESTER. March 9, 2017. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Impoundment of vehicle. The defendant, Atreyo Crowley-Chester, was charged in a complaint with carrying a firearm without a license, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), and possession of a firearm or ammunition without a firearm identification card, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h). The charges stem from the recovery of a loaded firearm from a motor vehicle after police officers impounded and conducted an inventory search of the vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, which a judge in the District Court allowed after an evidentiary hearing. A single justice of this court granted the Commonwealth leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and the Appeals Court reversed. See Commonwealth v. Crowley–Chester, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 804 (2015). The case is now before this court on further appellate review.[1] Because we conclude that the motion judge properly allowed the motion to suppress, we affirm. Background. At approximately 3 A.M. on March 15, 2011, Springfield police Officers Matthew Longo and Jose Canini were on routine patrol on Williams Street when they observed a Honda Accord automobile parked on the street in front of a vacant lot and across the street from a church. The vehicle’s engine was running, and its lights were off.[2] Using the police cruiser’s spotlight, Officer Longo observed two individuals seated in the front of the vehicle, both of whom appeared to be making furtive type movements. The defendant was the front seat passenger. The officers approached the vehicle and, after observing an unknown object in the defendant’s hand and a knife in the center console, ordered the driver out of the vehicle. When the driver got out of the vehicle, a white rock-like substance fell to the ground. Officer Longo recognized the object to be consistent with “crack” cocaine, and the driver was placed under arrest. At this point, the defendant was also ordered out of the vehicle. After the defendant got out of the vehicle, Officer Longo retrieved and secured the knife.[3] The driver then asked that the defendant, who was not yet under arrest and who was free to leave the scene, be allowed to drive the vehicle. Officer Longo determined, however, that the defendant did not […]
Categories: News Tags: 1004117, Commonwealth, CrowleyChester, Lawyers, Weekly
Commonwealth v. Crowley-Chester (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-001-15)
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 13-P-773 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. ATREYO CROWLEY-CHESTER. No. 13-P-773. Hampden. September 8, 2014. – January 5, 2015. Present: Berry, Kafker, & Hanlon, JJ. Firearms. Evidence, Firearm. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Search and Seizure, Inventory, Impoundment of vehicle. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Impoundment order. Due Process of Law, Seizure of motor vehicle. Complaint received and sworn to in the Springfield Division of the District Court Department on March 15, 2011. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Robert A. Gordon, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Margot Botsford, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the case was reported by her to the Appeals Court. Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Patrick A. Michaud for the defendant. BERRY, J. The defendant was charged with carrying a firearm without a license, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(a), and possession of a firearm or ammunition without a firearm identification (FID) card, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(h). After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge allowed the defendant’s motion to suppress the loaded firearm recovered by police during an inventory search following the impoundment of the Honda automobile in which the defendant had been a passenger.[1] Suppression was based on the judge’s finding that the impoundment and inventory of the Honda were not necessary. However, the governing standard is not one of necessity; rather the standard is whether the police actions in impounding and conducting an inventory search of a motor vehicle are reasonably undertaken based on the specific facts and circumstances presented. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the impoundment, towing, and inventory of the automobile were reasonable, constitutionally appropriate, and compliant with the written police impoundment policy. Accordingly, we reverse the order allowing the motion to suppress. 1. Background. We summarize the findings of the motion judge, supplemented with undisputed facts adduced at the suppression hearing. Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., 448 Mass. 334, 337 (2007), S.C., 450 Mass. 818 (2008). On March 15, 2011, Springfield police Officers Longo and Canini were on routine patrol on William Street in Springfield. At approximately 3:00 A.M., the officers observed a dark-colored Honda automobile legally parked next to a vacant lot with […]
Categories: News Tags: 1100115, Commonwealth, CrowleyChester, Lawyers, Weekly