Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Search And Seizure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs whether keys and glovebox search exceeded police authority in Blanchette case
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Blanchette, defense counsel argued officers lacked lawful basis to seize keys and use them to open a locked compartment, and that inventory and search procedures were not properly documented; the court also questioned speedy-trial delay and pretrial incarceration prejudice. The panel reserved decision after argument.
Attorney Susan Annis argued the warrantless seizures and subsequent use of keys to open a locked compartment were disproportionate to the BOLO justification and not supported by a written inventory policy covering searches of a person. "The keys were taken from his person, not in the vehicle," Annis said, arguing the motor-vehicle inventory policy introduced at trial did not authorise opening containers when the key was seized from the person and no person-inventory policy was offered.
The panel explored whether the seizure could be justified as a search incident to arrest limited to weapons, or as a valid inventory search. The justices asked whether keys found on a person can be treated as "available" to open an attached container under the inventory policy and whether later retrieval at booking and return to the scene would preserve an inventory chain. Commonwealth counsel Charlie Marshall said the judge relied on officer safety and the motor-vehicle inventory rule allowing opening a locked glovebox when a key is available; he argued visual surveillance and record evidence supported the stop and the inventory search.
Annis also pressed a speedy-trial argument tied to delays of approximately 386 days and prejudice from pretrial incarceration; the panel examined the Barker v. Wingo factors and whether automatic prejudice flowed from prolonged custody. Marshall and Commonwealth counsel said delays involved prosecutorial and defendant actions and that the record did not show the kind of prejudice warranting dismissal.
After questioning on evidentiary and procedural points, the panel submitted the case and reserved ruling.
