Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Search And Seizure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears dispute over whether troopers conducted a proper inventory search
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Burgos the panel considered whether state troopers complied with State Police inventory policy when they searched a duffel bag in a stopped vehicle and whether that failure required suppression of evidence.
Attorney Haley Jacobson, representing Giovanni Burgos, told the panel that Massachusetts State Police policy requires a documented inventory of a towed vehicle and its contents and that the record shows no itemized list or testimony that troopers inventoried the interior, glove compartment and trunk.
"There is zero evidence that the troopers itemized the contents of the vehicle or noted its condition," Jacobson said, arguing the Commonwealth had not met its burden to show the inventory was conducted for a legitimate inventory purpose rather than as a pretext for investigation.
The Commonwealth, through Elizabeth Simonian, responded that the motion judge credited the troopers' testimony and that case law (including Torres) recognizes that post-search documentation errors do not necessarily require suppression. Simonian said the troopers testified they conducted an inventory and that impoundment was reasonably necessary under Olivera and related decisions.
The panel asked detailed questions about whether the record contains testimony that the officers searched beyond a nylon bag on the passenger seat, whether unlocked containers were opened consistent with policy, and whether the troopers informed the defendant about towing options under agency policy. Jacobson emphasized that the record shows only a bag search and no written inventory; Simonian said the motion judge’s credibility findings support affirmation and that policy-required towing and inventory procedures applied.
The justices pressed both sides on whether additional factual findings or a remand were necessary or whether the Appeals Court could resolve the legal question de novo on the existing record. No ruling was announced from the bench.
