[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6077247,"mediaKeyId","2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479","parentId",2965045,"title","Appeals court weighs whether officer’s bag-search during traffic stop exceeded inventory limits","audioSeconds",1966,"startMs",3775000,"endMs",5741000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479&start=3775&end=5741","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479/thumbnail_3775000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6077247/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-weighs-whether-officers-bag-search-during-traffic-stop-exceeded-inventory-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6077247-d56376da708defce50b8c4d1ff74f995/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164617&Signature=dx3p-R~kgqAhAUATWGWmeNT6puoKv6Acmr5qKkPyHldgPZxiZb6VdO3enLfIo4ZwdP2XgDXucf9o9hmyR~vCX9rV6H1NPRmg1l5ZqswdneJzMQCZRyoWvyQ7VVS9v0jCSDEqEVK8EIFsrMsSmy3Ik45iITwNsrFyhPlQql9El7~xdlXr47P-7H-0kTOtb3b8UYx4zXix~nA37KnwzT0k5vg-1jdvlWdeFedAXVlepF7jYTIKdKTgwXRb3GQSDd5kRE8ZyTrd099t7FdO22H5JhuKh1OTj4qJFMkx8VOV~FKjI0acmGyl5HaFZs3dOjnhwJ9YYpvZZ-Noh9PK0IsFUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-11T21:17:20.08Z","article","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument over whether a search of a passenger’s fanny pack during a traffic stop was a permissible inventory search or an impermissible investigatory search. Defense counsel Kevin DeMello argued officers moved beyond a mechanical inventory when an officer asked “what’s in it?” and then opened the bag without giving the passenger a realistic chance to remove it from the vehicle.

DeMello described a pre-dawn stop at about 2 a.m. in which an officer, alone on the scene, pulled a vehicle with a headlight out, discovered mismatched plates and incomplete identification, and ordered both occupants from the car. The passenger said the fanny pack found on the passenger-side floor was his; the officer asked what was inside the bag and the passenger effectively permitted the officer to look inside. DeMello argued the question and the early line of questioning were investigatory in character—citing Torres and Ortiz analogies—and that the record supports suppression because the officer’s inquiry amounted to a search for evidence rather than the neutral inventory the department policy contemplates.

The Commonwealth’s attorney, Adam Zaunson, told the panel the officer was conducting an inventory of property to be impounded and that policy requires officers to open closed but unlocked containers and inventory their contents. Zaunson said asking “what’s in the bag?” is a reasonable safety question before an officer places a hand into an unlocked container, especially in a middle-of-the-night stop, and that the available body-camera video and the officer’s actions show the officer was performing a routine administrative inventory rather than an investigatory search.

The judges questioned whether the department’s written inventory policy in effect at the time required the officer to ask occupants whether they wanted to remove property or whether it placed the onus on the owner to request their property back, a distinction the parties said had changed between older and newer policy versions. The panel also explored whether a reasonable-officer safety concern at 2 a.m., with an officer temporarily alone and a vehicle to be towed, could justify asking about contents before handing the item back or completing an inventory.

After extensive questioning of both sides about whether the passenger had a realistic opportunity to keep the bag and whether the officer’s questions created an investigatory context, the panel submitted the matter. No decision was issued from the bench.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, April 11, 2025, Desmond, Sacks, Brennan, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","The Massachusetts Appeals Court considered whether a police officer’s search of a passenger’s fanny pack during a traffic stop was a permissible inventory search or an unlawful investigatory search.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6077252,"Appeals court hears challenge to protective sweep and later consent in Oliver suppression motion",2206,1497000,3703000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479&start=1497&end=3703","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479/thumbnail_1497000.jpg","/articles/6077252/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-protective-sweep-and-later-consent-in-Oliver-suppression-motion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6077252-f8c9cfb98e69c4c98e980cac6e67e501/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164617&Signature=kPBK4Vm9W6zw7VbBJALZzU0IeYWoYLFeoS4VRJPhUzOpZ8PQWRZBSOglIhyr9WR8CRRuLafmV5vIVZ8HlTL1jX6TLLZLbSSfChowH4fMgh1jKirZyPdaHaQMOLIC-6VsLBIIJ~Hp9qQw2NAVR7Wwu6LQex4ME3U1MDYVcyypH6OOdYEhmlk7krc71X-1s6kOxlY2m9yvgZJQmAeeWVgOBLxhb1bhs1sf7fd2PtX8KJYrDMoskhqME7HaKTIcODVYxB3IH6qZxYI8XgAFwv8mjf~OLvsS0lav1SZgSUMBxWQbYmixqe~RueAtZ8vkzOYL9Y0GBhUFPzvo7Lvu5thvPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Jason Oliver (24P0688) on whether a protective sweep and a later consent search were lawful. Defense counsel Amy Coddignone urged the panel to focus on what officers knew at the moment they conducted the sweep, saying the record lacked the “specific and articulable facts” required to justify a protective sweep when the defendant already was secured in handcuffs.

Coddignone told the court officers executed a fugitive warrant based on information from Rhode Island and encountered multiple people in the house; she said the only information linking the residence to firearms was an email from a neighboring law-enforcement agency and argued the state police needed to verify the underlying factual basis before relying on it. She said officers knocked at about 6 a.m.; after forced entry and what defense counsel described as one trip upstairs the officers located a firearm and thereafter sought the occupant’s consent to search. The consent form, Coddignone said, was signed at 7:45 a.m. after the occupant initially refused and after more than an hour during which the prosecution had completed its sweep.

Coddignone argued the protective sweep was unjustified because the officers lacked objective facts that anyone remaining in the house would pose a danger, and she told the panel that evidence discovered during an unlawful sweep should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. She also argued the later written consent was insufficiently attenuated from the sweep to cure the taint; she asked the court to consider the totality of circumstances, including the number of armed officers present, the presence of children, and the length of time occupants remained in the home.

The Commonwealth, through counsel Steven Nato, told the panel the sweep was justified. The Commonwealth said there was corroborating documentation from Rhode Island and a coordinated multi-jurisdictional investigation identifying several subjects and the defendant as a priority; the prosecution argued the out-of-state email and related records, buttressed by officers’ on-scene observations (no response to repeated knock-and-announces and movement inside), gave rise to reasonable concern for officer safety and justified a quick sweep for guns before officers left the premises.

The judges pressed both sides on precise timing and what the officers saw when they entered the house. They asked whether a single trip upstairs or multiple entries mattered, whether the directing officer needed to verify the source agency’s factual basis for saying guns were likely present, and whether a later consent given after an initial refusal was sufficiently attenuated from an alleged unlawful sweep. The defense emphasized Massachusetts precedent requiring examination of the directing officer’s actual knowledge; the Commonwealth cited federal and state precedents it said allow reasonable reliance on another agency’s bulletin or teletype when supported by corroborating records.

The court took the matter under submission after argument. Counsel and the panel repeatedly described the dispute as fact-intensive: resolving it will depend on which versions of the on-scene testimony the court credits and on how appellate precedent about cross-jurisdictional information and the collective-knowledge doctrine apply to these facts.","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Jason Oliver (24P0688) about whether a protective sweep and a later consent to search were lawful after officers executed a fugitive arrest warrant.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6077257,"Appeals court hears argument that prosecutor’s closing improperly vouched for witness in Collins case",1225,243000,1468000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479&start=243&end=1468","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2965045-0b41c90a1e5f86cb95e358568814f479/thumbnail_243000.jpg","/articles/6077257/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-argument-that-prosecutors-closing-improperly-vouched-for-witness-in-Collins-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6077257-73b91c205d791500fc25e859e6338597/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164617&Signature=is0aOFoEk5XS2Vd6~CsxMs9lbnDef4r9ZVBOB5m~XrNq2WcMfmRthYpKSLZsLhaucLXF92Da~9Wxxd9IKdm7d2enKMuIa0iSeyDSAdwvrHoW3awFp-QPtetCkbozbe6a1j6g8r6QVW0PsmciZxviGYFKnJ4-XdbFCoxRGyV6ofaP1bqlBK3PoAN~8QS8UUGollAHGb0ziwGbVGpUZqkhCajs55X76sjSaCbCFZ6mAu8uBHSxsGMq0G1PV37vJyyGbfQUi1cUZMV-WkaRlbrQn62XGa2dmLc~1JR1rTCdwiNvT0vsOFUgl9ujKbMMKgQvnmzZw0FWsiLPAyHza0fhxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Michael Collins (23P1028) over whether a prosecutor’s closing argument improperly vouched for a witness and prejudiced the defendant’s conviction. Defense attorney Robert O’Mara told the three-judge panel that the prosecutor’s remarks “greatly prejudiced the defendant” and that the trial judge refused a defense-requested curative instruction, leaving the error uncorrected.

The issue matters because Massachusetts case law uses a multi-factor test to assess closing-argument errors. O’Mara told the panel the relevant factors from Commonwealth v. Kozak include whether a timely objection was made (he said defense counsel did object), whether the prosecutor’s remarks went to the heart of the case (O’Mara said they did), whether a curative instruction was given (he said the trial judge declined the defense’s proposed instruction), and whether the error possibly affected the jury’s verdict (O’Mara said yes).

Justice Desmond and other justices pressed O’Mara on specifics. Justice Desmond asked whether the contested comment targeted “the credibility of the victim,” and O’Mara pointed to testimony from a co-defendant, Angela Davis, who had pending child-abuse charges and whose testimony the defense argued was confusing. O’Mara said the prosecutor’s remarks were intended to “divert the attention away from Angela Davis” by assuring the jury that Davis would face her own proceedings, a statement O’Mara characterized as vouching and as based on facts not in evidence.

The Commonwealth responded through its attorney, who argued the prosecutor’s remarks were a permissible response to defense counsel’s attack on the mother’s credibility. The Commonwealth’s lawyer told the panel the defense had suggested the mother had motive to lie to obtain a benefit in her own pending case and that the Commonwealth’s reply—that the mother might later assert a so-called battered-person defense in her own proceedings—was grounded in the trial record and appropriate rebuttal. The prosecutor’s counsel noted testimony that the witness had seven indictments pending and that portions of her testimony admitted to abusive conduct, grounding the Commonwealth’s attempt to explain the witness’s incentives.

Justices repeatedly queried the parties about what was and was not in the record. The court asked whether the prosecutor’s remarks recited facts outside the record or expressed personal opinion—a classic test for vouching—and whether the jury had evidentiary bases to conclude the witness would in fact be tried. O’Mara emphasized post-trial developments (pleas and probation for the co-defendant) to argue the prosecutor’s assurances were inaccurate and prejudicial; the Commonwealth countered that the jury only heard that the co-defendant faced indictments and that the prosecutor’s reply was limited to rebutting defense argument.

After questioning both sides, the court submitted the matter. The panel did not issue a ruling from the bench at argument; the case will be decided on the briefs and the record.

The argument focused narrowly on appellate standards for closing-argument errors, the availability and scope of curative instructions, and whether the remark at issue amounted to improper vouching rather than permissible rebuttal.","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Michael Collins (23P1028) over whether a prosecutor’s closing argument improperly vouched for a witness and prejudiced the defendant’s conviction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court weighs whether officer’s bag-search during traffic stop exceeded inventory limits

Appeals court hears challenge to protective sweep and later consent in Oliver suppression motion

Appeals court hears argument that prosecutor’s closing improperly vouched for witness in Collins case