In Commonwealth v. Soriano-Lara (Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 19-P-1311, May 7, 2021), the defendant was stopped after failing to signal when moving to a left-turn only lane. The defendant produced a license and registration. A passenger explained that the car belonged to her mother. The defendant provided an address other than on the license (though nearby to the license address).
The trooper returned to the cruiser and confirmed that both the license and registration were valid and the car had not been reported stolen.
When the trooper returned to the car, he asked the driver where he was coming from and during the questioning noticed that the car’s center console appeared to have been manipulated. From his experience, the trooper knew that the center console is frequently used to conceal drugs and drug paraphernalia. The trooper asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle and asked him questions about his identity that the defendant could not answer. He put the defendant in the cruiser and the then discovered drugs in the console.
The issue before the court was whether the trooper was justified--after returning the to car--in inquiring about the defendant’s recent whereabouts. The court explained that while the trooper was justified in continuing inquiry into the defendant’s identity, he was not justified in inquiring into the defendant’s recent activities--because that questioning was not related to the defendant’s identity--and it was during that questioning that the defendant observed the questionable console. In particular, the court explained:
Citizens do not expect that police officers handling a routine traffic violation will engage, in the absence of justification, in stalling tactics, obfuscation, strained conversation, or unjustified exit orders, to prolong the seizure in the hope that, sooner or later, the stop might yield up some evidence of an arrestable crime.
In this instance, because the stop was unnecessarily prolonged and it was during the prolonged period that evidence was discovered, the evidence should be suppressed--that is--not used in prosecuting the defendant.
Interestingly, the court noted that had the trooper’s questioning been limited to the defendant’s identity and it was during that questioning that the manipulated console was discovered, perhaps the evidence would need not be suppressed.
