COMMONWEALTH v. SANTAMARIA (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The sole issue raised by the defendant in this appeal from his convictions of various drug-related offenses ² is his claim that the motion judge erred in her denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from him during a warrantless search. We discern no error of fact or law, and affirm.

The motion judge found, on evidence she found credible, that Boston Police Officer Santiago observed the defendant and a companion, Pablo Acosta, emerge from an MBTA train station and begin walking together. At some point while the two were walking together, Boston Police Officer Moore saw the defendant hand a small item to Acosta in a manner Moore believed (based on his training and experience) was consistent with a drug transaction. Moore radioed that information to Santiago, and Moore, Santiago, and a third officer approached the defendant and Acosta.³ As Santiago neared Acosta, Santiago observed that Acosta was holding a plastic baggie in his hand that contained a tan powder that Santiago immediately recognized to be drugs.⁴ At the same time, Moore approached the defendant, displayed his badge, administered Miranda warnings, asked the defendant a series of questions that elicited an admission that the defendant had drugs in his possession, and conducted a search of the defendant and the backpack he was carrying.⁵

When Santiago approached Acosta and observed that the plastic baggie in Acosta's hand contained drugs, Santiago's observation became part of the “collective knowledge” held by Moore as he approached the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Perez, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 271, 274 (2011). See also Commonwealth v. Lanoue, 356 Mass. 337, 340 (1969). The observation of a baggie containing drugs in Acosta's hands moments after the observation of a hand-to-hand transfer by the defendant to Acosta of a small item in a manner consistent with a drug transaction furnished probable cause to arrest both Acosta and the defendant. Moore's seizure of the defendant accordingly was supported by probable cause, and the motion judge correctly denied the defendant's motion to suppress. See Commonwealth v. Mora, 477 Mass. 399, 404 (2017) (warrant affidavit that described what appeared to be hand-to-hand drug transactions established probable cause that drug transactions occurred).

Judgments affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The defendant was convicted of (1) possession of a class B controlled substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 34; (2) possession with intent to distribute a class B controlled substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (a); and (3) possession of a class B controlled substance with intent to distribute within 300 feet of school property, G. L. c. 94C, § 32J.

3.   Moore approached the defendant, while Santiago and the third officer approached Acosta.

4.   Testing later confirmed that the substance was fentanyl.

5.   Our summary recitation of the facts salient to our analysis omits a variety of other facts the motion judge found to contribute to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.