Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Commonwealth v. Keene

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

March 28, 2016

Commonwealth
v.
Antoine Keene

          Order allowing motion to suppress affirmed.

          Teresa K. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

         Rebecca Kiley for the defendant.

          OPINION

          This case began when two men, one of whom is the defendant, ran out of a nightclub [47 N.E.3d 692] in Stoughton at 12:52 a.m. on April 21, 2013. When stopped by Stoughton police Officer Mark Baldner, they said that they were leaving the club because there was a fight inside, which was true. The officer told them that they could leave, and saw them get into a Nissan Altima motor vehicle, the license plate number of which he wrote down. He did not see them again.

         Approximately ten minutes later there was a shooting outside the nightclub. The officer told Stoughton police dispatch to issue a " be on the lookout" (BOLO) bulletin for the Altima, requesting that it be " stop[ped] and h[e]ld."

         Although the defendant and his companion had left the scene before the shooting occurred, the Boston police department issued a broadcast for units to be on the lookout for a Nissan Altima with the license plate number provided by Officer Baldner, which was described as " coming back to 130 Cummings Highway, [Boston] containing two occupants" and " last seen heading north-

Page 903

bound on route 138." The broadcast directed units to " stop and hold for the Stoughton [police department] regarding a shooting" and, for reasons that are unexplained in the record, added that the occupants " should be considered armed and dangerous."

         Boston police officers saw the Altima on Radcliffe Street in the Mattapan section of Boston. They stopped the car and approached it with guns drawn, ordering its occupants to keep their hands up and make no sudden movements. The officers secured the defendant, who had been driving, and put him in a police car with his hands cuffed behind his back.

         Police searched the car for a gun without success. An officer from the K9 unit then conducted a more thorough search, during which he lifted the armrest of the driver's side door, which seemed to be loose and not sealed as designed. He saw a cloth bag and the baseplate of firearm magazine. He then closed the armrest and put his K9 partner inside the car, and the dog alerted to the driver's side door armrest. Two firearms were recovered.

         A Suffolk County grand jury returned indictments against the defendant, and the defendant filed a motion to suppress. A judge of the Superior Court allowed that motion, and the Commonwealth filed this interlocutory appeal.

         The Commonwealth does not contend that the Stoughton police had a reasonable basis based upon articulable facts to believe that the defendant or his companion had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), let alone to believe that they were armed and dangerous, see Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326-327, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009). They left the scene of the shooting ten minutes before the shooting took place, and there is no evidence in the record that they had anything to do with the shooting or that they were seen with any firearms at the nightclub. The Commonwealth argues only that the evidence should not have been suppressed because the Boston police officers were acting reasonably in response to a BOLO radio report that described the defendant and his companion as " considered armed and dangerous."

         The Commonwealth misperceives the nature of the constitutional inquiry. Of course the Boston police officers on the scene responded appropriately to the BOLO. Indeed, we may assume that their response was reasonable given the incorrect information they had been given.

         But the question whether there was a constitutional violation, and whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the suppression of the evidence seized, requires an [47 N.E.3d 693] examination not only of the actions of the Boston police but of the Stoughton police as well, and not only of the police officers, but also of the police dispatchers. In United Statesv.Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985), the United States Supreme Court addressed the question whether an officer of a police department may make a Terry stop[1] in reliance on a " wanted flier" issued by a neighboring police department indicating that the defendant was suspected of robbery. The Court upheld such a stop provided, among other things, that " the police who issued the flier or bulletin possessed a reasonable suspicion justifying a stop." Id. at 233. " Of course, this requirement is equally applicable where information ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.