Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Search And Seizure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel questions reach of search-incident-to-arrest rule in backpack search
Summary
Appeals court heard argument about whether troopers needed a warrant to search a backpack taken from an arrestee’s person and whether Massachusetts decisions (Commonwealth v. Soto and related cases) control over federal precedents such as Gant.
The appeals panel considered Commonwealth v. Fred Douglas Baskin, docket 23P764, and probed the limits of a search-incident-to-arrest when officers opened a backpack removed from an arrestee during a multi-officer arrest.
Attorney (identified in the record as) Merrill argued the state cases (including Commonwealth v. Soto and related SJC precedents) govern and permit officers, under particular safety and evidence-preservation circumstances, to open containers on or very near the person. Justice Blake noted she had authored a recent opinion (DeSoto in October 2024) and that the SJC had denied further review, meaning Massachusetts law governs unless the panel distinguishes the facts.
The court examined factual distinctions counsel urged: whether the backpack was “on the body” and within reach at the time of the search, whether the suspect was handcuffed or surrounded by officers, and whether there was probable cause to believe the backpack contained evidence related to the alleged offense (the prosecutor emphasized officers had information that the defendant was known to carry a knife and had taken the victim’s phone). Counsel for the Commonwealth (Emily Mello) argued the case law and the troopers’ inventory policy justified the search, and she maintained the items were durable (cell phone) and the search incident justification (officer safety and evidence preservation) applied.
The justices asked about the state police inventory policy, whether sealed or closed but unlocked containers require a warrant under the policy, and whether inventory procedures or removal to Danvers Police (and any inventory there) affected the warrant analysis. Counsel disputed whether the backpack was a closed container requiring a warrant under policy language, and whether the inventory exception was used as the operative justification or the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine.
After extended questioning on probable cause, the inventory rule, and whether different federal cases (Gant, Chimel, Belton) control, the panel took the case under advisement.
