MA: Fresh report of rape in Jeep made search incident valid

Defendant’s Jeep was searched in 2006 after a fresh complaint of rape with a gun and handcuffs led to his stop. Defendant was handcuffed and placed in a police car and the Jeep was searched for the gun; it wasn’t found, but handcuffs were. The defendant argued that his handcuffing and being placed in the police car made the search incident invalid. The court decides that the search incident was valid because the car was linked to the crime. Alternatively, a warrant was issued for the car, and inevitable discovery would have applied. Commonwealth v. Starkweather, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 791, 950 N.E.2d 461 (2011)*:

In this case, the defendant’s arrest was precisely for the crime that was the predicate for the search. … The defendant was arrested for having committed a felony sexual assault offense, which the arresting officers, acting with probable cause, could reasonably believe occurred that same evening. Based on the radio dispatches, the officers could reasonably believe that the suspect might be armed, and that the Jeep where the rape took place and the truck — to which the defendant appeared to be moving things — probably would harbor evidence relevant to the crime.

[So, doesn’t this precisely state the factors that make the automobile exception apply? The police had information from the victim of the rape in the Jeep, so it could be seized and searched under that exception. Why didn’t the court go there? Am I missing something? The search incident doctrine is limited to the suspect’s reaching ability, and the automobile exception is not. Massachusetts practitioners can just ignore this case as “right result, wrong reason.”]

Defendant was in a low-speed chase from the police, and he tossed 82g of crack from the car as he was driving before he stopped. He was not seized when he tossed the crack. United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.