Commonwealth v. Abdallah

475 Mass. 47 (2016) · Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · July 28, 2016 · No. SJC-12001

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that police unlawfully seized and subsequently inventory-searched the defendant's backpack after arresting him on an outstanding larceny warrant. Because hotel personnel were available to safeguard the defendant's other belongings and no public-safety or theft concerns justified taking the bag to the police station, the seizure was unreasonable. The court affirmed the order suppressing the evidence found in the bag.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the Court
Duffly, J.; Gants, C.J.; Spina, J.; Cordy, J.; Botsford, J.; Lenk, J.; Hines, J.
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
July 28, 2016
Docket number
SJC-12001
Procedural posture
The Commonwealth brought an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order allowing the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. A single justice granted leave to prosecute the interlocutory appeal and reported the matter to the Appeals Court; the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the motion judge's legal conclusions de novo while accepting supported findings of fact and credibility determinations; it could affirm on any ground supported by the record and findings.
Precedential value
Published Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Commonwealth v. Jared Abdallah
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

search and seizuresuppression of evidencefourth amendmentcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether police reasonably seized and transported the defendant's backpack to the police station when they lacked probable cause to seize or search it and a practical alternative existed for leaving it in the custody of hotel personnel.
  2. Whether the subsequent search of the backpack pursuant to the police department's inventory-search policy was lawful.

Holdings

  1. The police unreasonably seized and transported the defendant's backpack because there were no public-safety or theft concerns requiring police custody, and the hotel provided a practical alternative for safeguarding the property.
  2. The search was unlawful because the backpack's unreasonable seizure tainted the subsequent inventory search, even though the department maintained a generally lawful written inventory policy.

Key quotations

An inventory search conducted by police officers pursuant to a police department's written policy is "justified to safeguard the defendant's property, protect the police against later claims of theft or lost property, and keep weapons and contraband from the prison population." (at 8)
An officer's curiosity about the contents of a bag carried by an individual who is being arrested does not, without more, provide a valid justification to seize that bag at the time of arrest. (at 12)

Factual background

Police arrested Abdallah outside his hotel room on an outstanding warrant for larceny of $250 or less after responding to a disturbance. He was carrying a small cloth backpack, which officers removed from his person, transported to the police station, and searched during booking under the department's inventory policy. The search revealed more than $7,000 in cash, cocaine, and approximately 500 Percocet pills. The officers had arranged for the hotel to safeguard Abdallah's other belongings, including a computer, video game system, and vehicle, but singled out the backpack for transport to the station.

Procedural history

The defendant was indicted in the Superior Court on drug-trafficking and related charges, among other offenses. After an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress items discovered in a backpack during a station-house inventory search. The Commonwealth appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the suppression order, although on grounds differing somewhat from those relied on by the motion judge.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…