Opinion
18-P-1295
01-08-2020
COMMONWEALTH v. Jaime Rosa QUINTANA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A jury convicted the defendant, Jaime Rosa Quintana, of trafficking in cocaine (200 grams or more) in violation of G. L. c. 94, § 32E (b ). On appeal, the defendant seeks the reversal of his conviction, claiming only that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence illegally seized from his vehicle. He asserts that the judge erroneously found justification for the search, and to the extent that she relied on the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement, we agree. However, we are "free to affirm a ruling on grounds different from those relied on by the motion judge if the correct or preferred basis for affirmance is supported by the record and the findings." Commonwealth v. Va Meng Joe, 425 Mass. 99, 102 (1997). Applying this rule and concluding that the investigative search was justified, we affirm.
Discussion. " ‘When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the [motion] judge's findings of fact ... absent clear error,’ but we independently determine ‘the correctness of the judge's application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.’ " Commonwealth v. Molina, 467 Mass. 65, 72 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199, 205 (2011). After an evidentiary hearing here, the motion judge found that the search was conducted in the course of a lawful inventory search. We disagree because the use of a canine unit to search the interior of a vehicle exceeds the scope of a proper inventory search. See Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 420 Mass. 542, 552-553 (1995). However, when police have a reasonable suspicion to believe a vehicle contains contraband, the use of a canine to search the car's interior is permissible. See Commonwealth v. Sinforoso, 434 Mass. 320, 323-324 (2001). Reasonable suspicion must be "based on specific and articulable facts and reasonable inferences therefrom, in light of the officer's experience." Commonwealth v. Wilson, 441 Mass. 390, 394 (2004). As such, "[s]eemingly innocent activities taken together can give rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a threshold inquiry." Commonwealth v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725, 729 (2000). Here, several factors combined to give rise to a reasonable suspicion for the presence of drugs inside the car's interior.
The defendant does not challenge the judge's finding that the police had reasonable grounds to impound the vehicle.
First, the United States postal authorities in Puerto Rico alerted a Massachusetts postal inspector to two suspicious packages. These packages -- one of which is the package at issue here -- came into a post office in Puerto Rico within minutes of each other, similar in size and bearing distinctive handwriting, even though they purported to be sent by different individuals from different addresses. Second, the package at issue here was addressed to a "Marla Reyes" at a Wrentham Street address in Dorchester, but no "Marla Reyes" could be found listed as residing at that address. Third, Wrentham Street is a high drug activity area and the defendant's actions in that area prior to the controlled delivery were consistent with someone involved in drug activity. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 427 Mass. 729, 733-734 (1998) (presence in a high crime area, when combined with other factors, can establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity). Fourth, after the defendant intercepted the regular mail carrier to no avail, he was seen driving off and then circling back to the same location to await the second postal carrier. Fifth, as he signed the delivery slip, the defendant appeared most anxious to take possession of the package. Sixth, suspicion continued to mount when the defendant provided a highly implausible explanation to the postal inspector posing as the second letter carrier for why he was taking delivery of the package. See Alvarado, 420 Mass. at 550-551.
Police observed the defendant on his cellular phone, pacing up and down Wrentham Street, as if actively looking and waiting for someone.
The defendant nervously denied sending the package to himself, claiming instead to have sent the package to his purported girlfriend -- "Marla Reyes." Yet, only days after his having supposedly mailed the package from overseas, the defendant was in Massachusetts intercepting its delivery to its alleged intended recipient.
Finally, suspicions were further raised when the defendant was seen immediately tearing into the package to confirm its contents, speeding away using counter-surveillance techniques to avoid possible tailing, and failing to comply with a lawful police order to stop. See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 473 Mass. 379, 386 (2015) (evasive driving can add to an officer's suspicion). In our view, together these observations gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the package contained contraband and amply justified the use of the canine unit to detect drugs within the car's interior where the package was seen stored. See Sinforoso, 434 Mass. at 323-324. Once the canine alerted to the presence of drugs, police then had probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including the package contained in the back seat. See Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. 891, 908 (1990) ("a lawful warrantless search of a motor vehicle, based on probable cause to search the vehicle, extends to all containers, open or closed, found within"). In sum, therefore, probable cause existed to search the car and the evidence found therein was properly admitted. There was no error in the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress.
Police lawfully stopped and arrested the defendant for various traffic violations and failing to stop for police. We see no merit to any claim that the stop and arrest were pretextual. See Commonwealth v. Buckley, 478 Mass. 861, 865-869 (2018).
The dog alerted to the package inside of the car for the presence of drugs. Police then removed the box from the car, opened it, and unpacked the contents, which included bubble-wrapped candles. As the police removed the contents of the box, the canine further alerted on the candles. Officers subsequently discovered a large amount of cocaine wrapped inside a candle. Officers next searched the rest of the car and found $8,603 in cash inside a backpack and a fanny pack, four cellular phones, and two tablets, which the officers knew from experience was Oxycodone.
--------
Judgment affirmed.