MA: Seizing a bag during arrest at a hotel out of mere curiosity unreasonable

Defendant was arrested at a hotel, and his stuff was arranged to be left with the hotel until he could get it, except for a bag that the police were curious about. “As part of the booking process, LaPlante opened the bag and removed its contents, which included several rolls of cash amounting to over $7,000, small plastic bags containing cocaine, and approximately 500 Percocet pills.” Mere curiosity about the bag isn’t a reason to seize it without more. Commonwealth v. Abdullah, 2016 Mass. LEXIS 584 (July 28, 2016):

The Commonwealth points out that the defendant did not ask the officers to leave his bag with the hotel clerk. That fact alone is not dispositive, however, where the officers took affirmative steps to arrange for the hotel to secure the defendant’s other possessions.⁸ In the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that it was unreasonable to seize the bag. Thus, any subsequent search, even pursuant to a generally lawful inventory search policy, was tainted by the unlawful seizure. See Commonwealth v. Blevines, 438 Mass. 604, 610-611, 782 N.E.2d 491 (2003).

8. We observe also that LaPlante stated that he did not leave the bag with the rest of the defendant’s property at the hotel in part because he had “no idea what was in it.” 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.