Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed convictions arising from the warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle, including firearm and ammunition offenses. The court upheld the search under the automobile and plain-view exceptions and rejected the defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to the Commonwealth’s firearm licensing scheme. It vacated the ammunition conviction as duplicative of the loaded-firearm conviction and affirmed the remaining convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless search of the defendant's SUV and seizure of the firearm and ammunition violated the Fourth Amendment or article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- Whether convictions for unlawful possession of ammunition and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm were duplicative and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- Whether Massachusetts's firearm licensing scheme violated the defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
- Whether the defendant could raise for the first time on appeal a challenge to the statutory allocation of the burden of proving licensure and the presumption that possession was unlawful.
Holdings
- The search was lawful under the automobile exception because, before the search began, police had probable cause to believe that the defendant had been operating under the influence of alcohol and that evidence of that offense could be found in the vehicle.
- The seizure of the loaded revolver was lawful because the officer was lawfully inside the vehicle, the weapon's incriminating character was immediately apparent, and the discovery was inadvertent.
- The convictions for unlawful possession of ammunition and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm were duplicative because all of the ammunition-possession elements were encompassed by the loaded-firearm conviction, and the separate punishment violated double jeopardy.
- The defendant's challenge to Massachusetts's firearm licensing scheme failed because the Second Amendment does not by itself invalidate licensing requirements, and the defendant did not establish a legally cognizable as-applied challenge.
- The court declined to consider the defendant's separate challenge to the burden of proof and presumption under G. L. c. 278, § 7, because the issue was not properly before the court and had not been raised in the Appeals Court briefing.
Key quotations
“When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the judge's findings of fact and will not disturb them absent clear error.” (48)
“Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the search of a motor vehicle is reasonable and permissible where probable cause exists to support the search.” (49)
“We conclude that the defendant's convictions of unlawful possession of ammunition and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm are duplicative, and his separate sentences for each crime violated the double jeopardy clause because he was punished twice for possession of the same ammunition.” (54)
“the requirement of licensing before one may possess a firearm or ammunition does not by itself render the licensing statute unconstitutional on its face.” (58)
Factual background
Police observed Johnson drive an SUV through a red light, fail to stop when pursued with blue lights, and leave the vehicle after parking. When officers approached him, he smelled strongly of alcohol, slurred his speech, appeared unsteady, gave false identifying information, and had a suspended license; officers also saw a partially empty bottle of cognac in the SUV. After Johnson gave officers his keys and consent-like permission to search, an officer opened the driver's-side door and saw a loaded revolver in an open map pocket. The vehicle also contained marijuana, although Johnson was not charged with an offense relating to it.
Procedural history
The defendant was indicted on firearm, ammunition, resisting-arrest, assault-and-battery, motor-vehicle, and armed-career-criminal charges. The Superior Court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. A jury convicted him of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, resisting arrest, and operating with a suspended license; it acquitted him of assault and battery on a police officer. In a subsequent bench trial, he was convicted of being an armed career criminal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the remaining convictions but vacated the ammunition conviction and sentence and ordered the indictment dismissed.
Remand instructions
None. The judgment on the unlawful-possession-of-ammunition indictment was vacated, the verdict was set aside, and that indictment was ordered dismissed; all remaining judgments were affirmed.